Preview
GOMEZ LAW GROUP
Alvin M. Gomez, Esq., State Bar No. 137818
Boris Smyslov, Esq., State Bar No. 297252
Frank Zeccola, Esq., State Bar No. 308875
GOMEZ LAW GROUP
2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7
Carlsbad, California 92008
Telephone: (858) 552-0000
Facsimile: (760) 542-7761
Email: amglawyers@yahoo.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jakhongir Baykhurazov
SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
JAKHONGIR BAYKHURAZOV, Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
(1) Violation of Government Code §§
12940 et seq. (Discrimination and
Harassment);
(2) Violation of Government Code §§
12940 et seq.; Tameny. v. Atlantic
FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS, INC., a Richfield Company (Failure to
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 een : Discrimination and
h i arassment);
through 30, inclusive, (3) Violation of Labor Code §§ 98.6, 232,
Defendant: 232.5, 1102.5; Tameny v. Atlantic
erendants. Richfield Company (Unlawful
Retaliation in Violation of Public
Policy);
(4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress;
(5) Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy (Tameny v. Atlantic
Richfield Company);
(6) Retaliation in Violation of
Government Code §§ 12650 et seq.
(Whistleblower Protection);
(7) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code
§ 028 (Whistleblower Protection);
an
(8) Failure to Engage in Interactive
Process (Gov't. Code § 12940 et seq.).
Plaintiff,
DEMAND EXCEEDS $75,000
UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESow OPN DH fF Ww
GOMEZ LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Plaintiff JAKHONGIR BAYKHURAZOV (“Plaintiff”), by and through his
undersigned attorneys, hereby files this Complaint against Defendants
FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS, INC and DOES 1 through 30 (Jointly referred to as
“Defendants”), and hereby alleges against each Defendant as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the entire action by virtue of the fact that this is a
civil action wherein the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs,
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Court.
2. The acts and omissions complained of in this action took place in the State of
California, and Defendant FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, has Headquarters in Campbell, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, on information and belief.
3. Venue is proper because the acts and/or omissions complained of took place, in
whole or in part, within the venue of this Court, and/or one or more Defendant
resides and does business within the venue of this court.
4. Venue is further proper because court of competent jurisdiction in Santa Clara
County was chosen as exclusive venue for all disputes between the parties related
to Employee Proprietary Information, Confidentiality, Assignment of Inventions
and Non-Interference Agreement, including Plaintiff's employment and
termination, pursuant to the paragraph 20 thereof.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
5. This is a Complaint against each Defendant for discrimination, harassment,
retaliation, wrongful termination, and related claims on behalf of Mr. Baykhurazov
as against all Defendants.
6. As more fully set forth herein, Defendants intentionally discriminated against,
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
10.
harassed, retaliated against, and wrongfully terminated Plaintiff.
PARTIES
Plaintiff JAKHONGIR BAYKHURAZOV is and was, at all relevant times, a citizen
of the State of California. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants.
Defendant FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS, INC. is a Delaware corporation, which
at all times relevant during the liability period, maintained Headquarters in
Campbell, California, in the County of Santa Clara.
Plaintiff is currently ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual,
corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the Defendants sued herein under the
fictitious names DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, and therefore sue such Defendants
by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege true
names and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants when their true names
and capacities have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is legally responsible
in some manner for the events and occurrences alleged herein, and for the
damages suffered by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that all Defendants,
including the fictitious DOE Defendants, were at all relevant times acting as actual
agents, conspirators, ostensible agents, partners and/or joint venturers and/or
employees of all other Defendants, and that all acts alleged herein occurred within
the course and scope of said agency, employment, partnership, and joint venture,
conspiracy or enterprise, and with the express and/or implied permission,
knowledge, consent, authorization and ratification of their co-Defendants;
however, each of the allegations are deemed “alternative” theories whenever no
doing so would result in a contradiction with other allegations.
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and
are subject to suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) in that
Defendants regularly employ five or more persons. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of
discrimination, failure to investigate discrimination and retaliation against
Defendants with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
(“DFEH”). On February 9, 2020, Plaintiff received a notice of the right to sue from
the DFEH pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b). Plaintiff filed
this action within one year of the date of his DFEH right-to-sue letter; therefore,
administrative remedies have been properly exhausted.
Plaintiff has satisfied all other private, administrative and judicial prerequisites to
the institution of this action. The California Workers’ Compensation Act does not
preempt this action because Defendants’ unlawful practices, as alleged herein, are
not risks or conditions of employment. Plaintiff is not required to satisfy any
further private, administrative, or judicial prerequisites to the institution of this
action, insofar as such prerequisites pertain to any of the remaining causes of
action in this complaint.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
Defendants operate an internet company that publishes websites primarily dealing
in adult entertainment, online dating, and social networking services.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Project manager for over a year.
Plaintiff is Asian/Soviet Union decent, national origin from Uzbekistan, a former
Soviet Union member.
Plaintiff was harassed and discriminated on account of his race and medical
disability.
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
17. At all times during his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff performed his job
duties satisfactorily, but was constantly overloaded with projects. Plaintiffs
supervisor, Nadia Lan, treated him disparately based his race and ethnicity by
consistently assigning him approximately twice the number of projects as other
employees at his level, and demanded a higher standard from him in comparison
to other employees who were not of Asian/Soviet decent.
18. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff asked Ms. Lan to reduce his workload on par
with other workers, but to no avail.
19. Nadia Lan, Plaintiffs manager, exhibited bias, prejudice and disparate treatment
towards Plaintiff and other Russian-speaking people of Soviet Union origin. Ms.
Lan complained about prior project manager Tatiana (also of Soviet decent),
calling her incompetent, even though her work was well-organized and well done.
20.Ms. Lan never mentioned anything negative about other, non-Russian speaking
project managers who were not of Soviet Union origin. She singled out Russian-
speaking, Soviet Union origin people, such as Plaintiff and his predecessor, to
harass them and accuse them of performing poorly, even though they performed
well.
21. Furthermore, Plaintiff was harassed and degraded in front of his co-workers,
including harassment, degradation and disparate treatment related to work tasks
which were not even assigned to him at the time.
22. After months of being harassed, pressured and suffering disparate treatment by his
superior, Plaintiff started experiencing severe health and medical issues that he
did not have before. These problems included sudden panic attacks, fear, and
extreme anxiety which Plaintiff never previously experienced.
23. Plaintiff made a complaint to human resources regarding Defendants’ treatment of
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
Co ON DH ff WwW
him, but, as a result, human resources reduced Plaintiffs salary and provided him
a written warning.
24. Plaintiff tried to complain to the CEO, vice president and other superiors, but to no
avail. Particularly, when, on June 4, 2018, Plaintiff attempted to set a meeting to
discuss the unfair treatment and salary reduction with the CEO, the latter
responded, “Sorry, I’m not getting involved on this one.”
25.It is believed that Caucasian American employees of Defendants did not receive
any reduction in salary even when they received written warnings and their
managers insisted on such a measure; meanwhile Plaintiff was treated disparately
by Defendant due to his race, ethnic and origin.
26.It is further believed that Defendants have a pattern and practice of favoring
Caucasian Americans over other races by not reducing their salaries as a discipline
even though they commit serious mistakes and treating others such as Plaintiff
disparately.
27. Plaintiff was singled out on account of his race as Asian/Soviet originating from
the Soviet Union to be punished in a form of reduction of salary, which Caucasian
American employees did not experience.
28.The conduct and behaviors of discrimination and harassment by Defendants
against Plaintiff resulted in Plaintiff developing severe health problems.
29.Furthermore, in 2018, Plaintiff became aware of illegal and or criminal activities
performed by his employer. In particular, on or about April 25, 2018, Plaintiff
learned that Defendants’ CEO, Jonathan B. Buckheit, had lied under oath during
testimony in front of the SEC and FTC.
30.Namely, Defendant’s CEO lied to the SEC and FTC about the payment of ransom
money to hackers who stole the data of about 400 million users of Defendants.
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
0 ON DON Fw
Furthermore, Buckheit lied about numerous “sham” entities which funneled funds
to Defendants, so that Defendants would save more money at the expense of the
government by hiding their true income from taxes and receiving more beneficial
tax returns.
31. On or about April 25, 2018, Plaintiff learned from another employee about the
illegal activities of Defendants and notified his superiors about it.
32.In February 2019, Plaintiff's health condition worsened, which required him to
visit a doctor instead of coming to work. Plaintiff duly notified Defendant about his
health-related absence.
33.Even though Plaintiff notified his employer about this visit to a doctor for a
medical condition, Defendants treated it as an unexcused absence.
34.On or about February 11, 2019, Plaintiff notified Defendants that he planned to
make a complaint to the government about the illegal activities of Defendants
which Plaintiff discovered.
35-On or about February 13, 2019, Plaintiff was terminated from his employment by
Defendants on account of his race, medical disability (resulting from Defendant's
incessant discrimination and harassment), and for planning to “whistle blow” and
disclose Defendants’ illegal activities to the government.
36.As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, including the
discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff as described herein, Plaintiff has
suffered and will continue to suffer pain and extreme and severe mental anguish
and emotional distress. Plaintiff has further suffered loss of earnings and other
employment benefits. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory
damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
(California Gov't Code §§12940 et seq.; Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company)
37. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of
paragraphs 1 through 36, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth
herein.
38.At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were employers within the meaning of
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12940 et
seq.) (*FEHA”) and Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of FEHA. This
cause of action is brought pursuant to FEHA, and the corresponding regulations
promulgated by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and
is subject to suit under FEHA in that Defendants regularly employed five or more
persons.
39.Under FEHA and the common law of the State of California, there is a
fundamental and well-established public policy against discrimination,
harassment or retaliation based on the fact that the employee has a protected
characteristic. It is an unlawful employment practice to take any adverse
employment action motivated by the fact that an employee has a protected
characteristic. This public policy is embodied in the Constitution of the State of
California and California Statutory law, including but not limited to Government
Code section 12940. Jurisdiction is invoked in this court pursuant to FEHA and
the public policy and common law of the State of California, pursuant to Tameny
v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980) and Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d
65(1990).
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
40.An “employer” includes “any person regularly employing one or more persons or
regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant
to a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or
indirectly, the state, or any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities.”
Gov't Code § 12940(j)(4).
41. With respect to discrimination, California Government Code section 12940(a)
provides that it is an unlawful employment practice:
For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin,
ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic
information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression,
age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of any person, to refuse
to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training
program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from
employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to
discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment.
42.With respect to harassment, California Government Code section 12940(j)(1)
provides:
For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship
training program or any training program leading to employment, or any other
person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry,
physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information,
marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual
orientation, or military and veteran status, to harass an employee, an applicant,
an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a
contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or
volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an
employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or
its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails
to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be
responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of
employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing
services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, where the employer, or its
agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to
take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving
the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employer's control and any other
legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of
those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable
steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall
not be necessary in order to establish harassment.
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
This is a claim for relief arising from Defendants’ causing, and its failure to
prevent, discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff.
43.As alleged above, Plaintiff was entitled to protection under FEHA because Plaintiff
was an employee of Defendants who has a protected characteristic.
44.As such, Plaintiff was entitled to FEHA’s protection pursuant to California
Government Code sections 12940 et seq.
45. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was an employee who has a protected
characteristic.
46.Pursuant to California Government Code section 12940(a), Defendants were
prohibited from taking any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that
an employee has a protected characteristic.
47. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was qualified for the position he held and
was performing competently in the position. Furthermore, Plaintiff was willing
and able to perform the duties and essential functions of his position with or
without a reasonable accommodation.
48.Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing actions against Plaintiff, as alleged
above, including verbal abuse in front of his peers, piling twice the normal
workload on him and his termination of employment constituted unlawful
discrimination in employment on account of the fact that Plaintiff was an
employee that has a protected characteristic, in violation of California Government
Code section 12940.
49.Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’
conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by the fact that Plaintiff
has a protected characteristic.
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
50. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all Defendants,
51.
52.
53-
54.
including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, aided, abetted,
incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged
in this Cause of Action.
As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, including the
discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff as described herein, Plaintiff has
suffered and will continue to suffer pain and extreme and severe mental anguish
and emotional distress. Plaintiff has further suffered loss of earnings and other
employment benefits. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory
damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
By discriminating against and harassing Plaintiff in violation of Government Code
section 12940, Defendants acted willfully, oppressively, maliciously and with
conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and with the intent to annoy, harass or
injure Plaintiff, in violation of California Civil Code section 3294, such that
Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of punitive damages in an amount according to
proof at trial.
Upon information and belief, one or more of Defendants’ managing agents
committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. As such, punitive
damages are warranted against Defendants.
Plaintiff seeks his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government
Code section 12965(b).
///
///
///
IL
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO PREVENT AND INVESTIGATE
DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
(Gov't. Code § 12940 et seq.; Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company)
55- Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the
preceding paragraphs 1 through 54, with the same force and effect as though fully
set forth herein.
56. Under California law, there is a fundamental and well-established public policy
against taking any adverse employment action motivated by the fact that an
employee has a protected characteristic.
57-Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), it is an unlawful
employment practice to take any adverse employment action motivated by the fact
that an employee has a protected characteristic. Said public policy is embodied in
the Constitution of the State of California and California Statutory law, including
but not limited to Gov't. Code § 12940. Jurisdiction is invoked in this court
pursuant to FEHA and the public policy and common law of the State of California,
pursuant to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980) and
Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65 (1990).
58.As alleged above, Plaintiff was entitled to protection under FEHA based on the fact
that Plaintiff is an employee who has a protected characteristic.
59.As such, Plaintiff was entitled to FEHA’s protection pursuant to California
Government Code section 12940 et seq.
60. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was an employee who has a protected
characteristic.
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
61. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were employers within the meaning of
FEHA and Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of FEHA. This cause of
action is brought pursuant to FEHA, and the corresponding regulations
promulgated by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and
is subject to suit under FEHA in that Defendants regularly employed five or more
persons.
62.Under FEHA, including California Government Code section 12940(k), and the
common law of the State of California, Defendants owe to Plaintiff a duty to take
all reasonable steps necessary to investigate or prevent harassment and
discrimination.
63.California Government Code section 12940(j)(1) provides that it is an unlawful
employment practice:
For an employer, ... or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color,
national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical
condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity,
gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, to
harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person
providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an
applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services
pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall
be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have
known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective
action. An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with
respect to sexual harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or
volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the
workplace, where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should
have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate
corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the
extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility that the
employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be
considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment
from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to
establish harassment.
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
64. Plaintiff complained about the harassment and discrimination to one of Plaintiff's
managers. Nonetheless, Defendants did not investigate Plaintiff's complaints or
take action to stop the harassment and discrimination.
65. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff's complaints, Defendants failed to take
immediate and appropriate corrective action to prevent discrimination, retaliation,
and harassment. Defendants similarly failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent
discrimination from occurring. To the contrary, Defendants retaliated against
Plaintiff for making complaints.
66. Defendants knew or should have known about the discrimination and harassment
against Plaintiff. Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective
action to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. Defendants
similarly failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination from
occurring.
67.On information and belief, Defendants do not provide adequate anti-
discrimination training to their workforce, which results in unlawful
discrimination, unlawful harassment, unlawful retaliation and related violations
against Plaintiff.
68.Because of Defendants’ failure to prevent and investigate harassment and
discrimination, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions, including
termination of employment.
69.Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a direct and
proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional wrongful
conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount
subject to proof, but which are in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this
Court, and which include, but are not limited to, mental distress, anguish,
14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
indignation, humiliation, depression, anxiety, fear, loss of sleep, loss of appetite,
and body-aches. Plaintiff has also suffered from a loss of earnings, other
employment benefits and job opportunities, accrued but unpaid salary bonuses
and benefits (including pre-judgment interest thereon), back pay, severance pay,
and other monetary damages. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
70. Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code
section 12965(b).
71. Defendants’ acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in
conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Upon information and belief, one or more
of Defendants’ managing agents committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful
conduct. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
(Lab. Code 8§ 98.6, 230, 232, 232.5, 1102.5; Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company)
72. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the
preceding paragraphs 1 through 71, with the same force and effect as though fully
set forth herein.
73. Jurisdiction is invoked in this court pursuant to the public policy and common law
of the State of California, pursuant to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27
Cal. 3d 167 (1980).
74. Under California law, there is a fundamental and well-established public policy
against discrimination, harassment or retaliation based on the fact that the
employee has a protected characteristic or engaged in a protected activity. Said
public policy is embodied in the Constitution of the State of California and sections
15
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
75:
76.
77.
of the Labor Code. Adverse employment actions taken by an employer motivated
by the fact that an employee has a protected characteristic are contrary to said
public policy and are thus actionable under the common law of this state.
California Labor Code section 232.5 provides, “No employer may do any of the
following: (a) Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain
from disclosing information about the employer’s working conditions. (b) Require
an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny the
employee the right to disclose information about the employer’s working
conditions. (c) Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an
employee who discloses information about the employer’s working conditions. (d)
This section is not intended to permit an employee to disclose proprietary
information, trade secret information, or information that is otherwise subject to a
legal privilege without the consent of his or her employer.”
California Labor Code section 1104 provides, “In all prosecutions under this
chapter [i.e. Labor Code §§ 1100-1106], the employer is responsible for the acts of
his managers, officers, agents, and employees.”
Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of public policy because Plaintiff
complained about discrimination and harassment based upon Plaintiff's race by
issuing him a written warning and reducing his salary.
78.Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment in violation of public policy.
Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because Plaintiff has a protected
characteristic and/or engaged in protected activity.
79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’
conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by Plaintiff's race and
16
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESZz
S
5
<
z
°
=
z
°
°
=
3
a
5
a
=
z
G
Zz
3
2
>
°
a
°
z
=<
-_
N
a
=
°
°
Co Onn DH f& WwW
national origin, and opposition to and/or reporting of the actual and/or perceived
violations described herein.
80.Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all Defendants,
including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, aided, abetted,
incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged
in this Cause of Action.
81.The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was
executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for
Plaintiff's rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring
Plaintiff.
82.As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered
substantial losses incurred in seeking substitute employment and in earnings,
bonuses, deferred compensation, stock options, and other employment benefits;
and has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress in an amount
according to proof at the time of trial.
83.Defendants, through their officers, managing agents, and/or their supervisors,
authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein
above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an
amount according to proof at the time of trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs,
pursuant to statute.
///
///
///
///
17
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(California Common Law)
84.Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the
preceding paragraphs 1 through 83, with the same force and effect as though fully
set forth herein.
85.The conduct complained of hereinabove was outside the conduct expected to exist
in the workplace, was intentional and done for the purpose of causing Plaintiffs to
suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress.
Defendants’ conduct was done with the knowledge that Plaintiff's emotional and
physical distress would thereby increase, and was done with a wanton and reckless
disregard of the consequences to Plaintiff.
86.As a proximate result of Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress as
hereinabove alleged, Plaintiff has been harmed in that Plaintiff has suffered
humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been
injured in mind and health. As a result of said distress and consequent harm,
Plaintiff has suffered such damages in an amount in accordance with proof at time
of trial.
87. Defendants, and each of them, engaging in the conduct as hereinabove alleged,
acted oppressively and with reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights and safety, and
thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.
88.Defendants, and each of them, authorized, ratified, knew of the wrongful conduct
complained of herein, but failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective
action to remedy the situation and thereby acted oppressively and with reckless
18
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
f N
89.
90.
91.
92.
//
disregard of Plaintiffs rights and safety, and thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award
of punitive damages.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that the fictitious
Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, aided, abetted, incited,
compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged in this
Cause of Action.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff sustained
damages, including but not limited to, loss of earnings and earning potential,
opportunities and other benefits of employment and employment opportunities
and harm to his reputation, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, and
other emotional distress and/or medical and related expenses in an amount to be
established at trial. As a result of this wrongful conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to
attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
Moreover, in that, at all times referenced herein, Defendants intended to cause or
acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing injury to Plaintiff and,
because said Defendants were guilty of oppressive, fraudulent, and/or malicious
conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary or punitive damages in an
amount adequate to deter such conduct in the future, in addition to attorneys’ fees
and costs.
Defendants’ acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in
conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Upon information and belief, one or more
of Defendants’ managing agents committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful
conduct. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants.
/
///
19
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
(Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company)
93.Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the
preceding paragraphs 1 through 92, with the same force and effect as though fully
set forth herein.
94. Jurisdiction is invoked in this court pursuant to the public policy and common law
of the State of California, pursuant to Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 27
Cal. 3d 167 (1980).
95. Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment based upon Plaintiff having a
protected characteristic and/or engaging in a protected activity, as alleged herein.
96. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’
conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by Plaintiff having a
protected characteristic and/or engaging in a protected activity, as alleged herein.
97. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all Defendants,
including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, aided, abetted,
incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged
in this Cause of Action.
98.The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was
executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for
Plaintiffs rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring
Plaintiff.
99.As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered
substantial losses incurred in seeking substitute employment and in earnings,
bonuses, deferred compensation, stock options, and other employment benefits;
20
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
and has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress in an amount
according to proof at the time of trial.
100. Defendants, through their officers, managing agents, and/or their supervisors,
authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein
above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an
amount according to proof at the time of trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs,
pursuant to statute.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
LAWS
(Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12650 et seq.)
101. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the
preceding paragraphs 1 through 100, with the same force and effect as though fully
set forth herein.
102. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants defrauded
the government of money, property, and/or services by submitting false or
fraudulent reports to SEC and FTC and then, false or fraudulent tax returns for
payment or approval.
103. Plaintiff discovered that Defendants submitted false or fraudulent reports and
confronted one of his managers, stating that Plaintiff was aware of Defendants’
illegal activities and is willing to report them to the government.
104. On or about February 11, 2019, Plaintiff told one of his managers that it is his
intent to report Defendants’ unlawful activities to the government authorities.
105. Approximately two days after Plaintiff made these statements to one of his
managers, Plaintiff was discharged.
21
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
106. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’
conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by Plaintiff engaging in a
protected activity, as alleged herein.
107. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all
Defendants, including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive,
aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of
the acts alleged in this Cause of Action.
108. The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was
executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for
Plaintiffs rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring
Plaintiff.
109. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered
substantial losses incurred in seeking substitute employment and in earnings,
bonuses, deferred compensation, stock options, and other employment benefits;
and has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress in an amount
according to proof at the time of trial. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor
in causing Plaintiffs harm.
110. Defendants, through their officers, managing agents, and/or their supervisors,
authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein
above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an
amount according to proof at the time of trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs,
pursuant to statute.
///
///
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
LAWS
(Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5)
iu. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the
preceding paragraphs 1 through 110, with the same force and effect as though fully
set forth herein.
112. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants defrauded
the government of money, property, or services by submitting false or fraudulent
reports to SEC and FTC and then, false or fraudulent tax returns for payment or
approval.
113. _ Plaintiff further is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants were
involved in money laundering, tax evasion, and sex trafficking, among other illegal
activities.
114. Plaintiff disclosed his concerns to Defendants’ employees who had authority
over Plaintiff and persons who had authority to investigate, discover, or correct
legal violations and/or noncompliance by Defendants.
115. Defendants believed that Plaintiff might disclose their illegal activity to
government agencies and/or law enforcement.
116. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that the information he disclosed
shows violation of The Victims of Violence and Trafficking Prevention Act, 26 USC
7201 et seq., and 18 USC 1621, among other federal and state laws and regulations.
117. Just about two days after Plaintiff disclosed his intent to notify government
authorities about Defendants’ illegal activity, Plaintiff was discharged.
23
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GRO
118. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants’
conduct, as described herein, was substantially motivated by Plaintiff engaging in a
protected activity, as alleged herein.
119. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that all
Defendants, including the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive,
aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of
the acts alleged in this Cause of Action.
120. The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was
executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for
Plaintiffs rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring
Plaintiff.
121. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered
substantial losses incurred in seeking substitute employment and in earnings,
bonuses, deferred compensation, stock options, and other employment benefits;
and has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress in an amount
according to proof at the time of trial. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor
in causing Plaintiff's harm.
122. Defendants, through their officers, managing agents, and/or their supervisors,
authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein
above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an
amount according to proof at the time of trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs,
pursuant to statute.
///
///
24
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN INTERACTIVE PROCESS
(Gov't. Code §§ 12940 et seq.)
123. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the
preceding paragraphs 1 through 122, with the same force and effect as though fully
set forth herein.
124. Government Code section 12940(n) provides that it is unlawful for an employer
to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee to
determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any.
125. Plaintiff was entitled to Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)’s
protection pursuant to California Government Code sections 12940 et seq. because
Plaintiff has a disability.
126. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff had a disability.
127. Defendants failed to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with
Plaintiff to determine effective reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff's
disability, if any.
128. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged above, Plaintiff suffered
injuries and damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
129. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff was caused to
suffer, and continues to suffer, damages in an amount subject to proof, but which
are in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and which include, but
are not limited to, humiliation, anxiety, severe emotional distress, worry, fear,
accrued but unpaid salary bonuses and benefits (including pre-judgment interest
thereon), front pay, back pay, severance pay, and the like.
25
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GROUP
PORATION
Co On DH ff &~
130. _ By failing to engage in the interactive process in violation of Government Code
section 12940(n), Defendants acted willfully, oppressively, maliciously and with
conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, and with the intent to annoy, harass or
injure Plaintiff, in violation of California Civil Code section 3294, such that
Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of punitive damages in an amount according to
proof at trial.
131. Defendants’ acts alleged herein are malicious, oppressive, despicable, and in
conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Upon information and belief, one or more
of Defendants’ managing agents committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful
conduct. As such, punitive damages are warranted against Defendants.
132. Plaintiff seeks his attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government
Code section 12965(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, prays for judgment against
Defendants as follows:
1. For penalties pursuant to all provisions of the Government Code and Labor
Code referenced herein which provide for penalties as a result of the conduct
alleged herein;
2. For costs of suit incurred herein and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the statutes
cited herein;
3. For compensatory damages;
4. Compensation for all wages lost due to the actions of Defendants;
5. For general damages in amounts according to proof and in no event in an
amount less than the jurisdictional limit of this court;
6. For special damages according to proof;
26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGOMEZ LAW GRouP
7. Double amount of back pay (Cal. Gov't Code §12653(b))
8. For punitive damages where allowed by law;
9. For injunctive relief;
10. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and
11. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DATED: June 8, 2020 GO OUP
By:
ALVIN M. GOMEZ, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
DATED: June 8, 2020 Tl GROUP
UA)
IN M. GOMEZ, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
27
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES