Preview
Electronically
hiuwwt (wt! cl ETAl-‘om-a. County dhn Mlle
0" 7/17/2019
m_hLHgnrgllggllflgm—
CHRIS BAKER, State Bar No. 181557
cbaker@bakerlp.com
DEBORAH SCHWARTZ, State Bar No. 208934
dschwartz@bakerlp.com
BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C.
1 California Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 941 11
Telephone: (415) 433—1064
Fax: (415) 366-2525
\OOONONUI-P
Attorneys for Aggrieved & Injured Party
PAOLA CORREA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
12
RACHEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of Case No. 17CIV01736
California and aggrieved employees,
13
DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN
14 . .
SUPPORT OF CORREA’S MOTION TO
Plamtlff, VACATE JUDGMENT, FOR A NEW
15 VS. SETTLEMENT HEARING TRIAL, AND
OTHER MATTERS
16
ADECCO USA, 1NC., and DOES 1—50, OLUME 1 0F 3 Exhibits 1-8
17 inclusive,
Defendants- Assigned for all purposes to
18
Hon. Marie Weiner
19
DATE: TBD
20
TIME: TBD
DEPT.: 2
21
Complaint Filed: April 18, 20 1 7
Trial Date: Vacated
22
23
I, Chris Baker, state as follows:
24
1. I am counsel for Paola Correa, John Doe, and David Gudeman. I have personal
25
knowledge 0f these facts.
26
2. On December 20, 2016, my firm filed the original complaint in Doe v. Google. A
27
copy of this complaint isattached to this declaration as Exhibit 1. The Complaint was the first of
28
its kind to challenge employer—mandated confidentiality requirements under PAGA. Adecco’s
_ 1 _
DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, ETC. (V01. 1)
counsel would describe the complaint as “cutting edge” to this Court during the first demurrer
hearing on the Moniz complaint in September 2017. (See September 6, 2017 Transcript of Hearing
at 624-15). The Doe original complaint did not allege claims under Labor Code §§ 96(k) or 98.6.
#1.»
3. The Doe complaint was reported widely in the press. See, e.g.,E.g., Reed
Albergotti, EMPLOYEE LAWSUIT ACCUSES GOOGLE OF ‘SPYING PROGRAM’ (Dec. 20,
2016, The Information) (at https://Www.theinformation.com/articles/employee-lawsuit-accuses—
google-of—spying-program); Melanie Ehrenkranz, THE 10 MOST DAMNING ALLEGATIONS
FROM THE NEW GOOGLE LAWSUIT (Dec.
KOOOQO
21, 2016, Mic) (at
https ://mic.com/articles/ 1 6301 1/ newgoogle—lawsuit- 1 0-damning-allegations#.GmNMj MIZ6);
10 Reuters, GOOGLE SUED AND ACCUSED BY EMPLOYEE OF BEING TOO
11 CONFIDENTIAL (Dec. 21 2016, Fortune) (at http://f0rtune.com/2016/12/21/g00gle-
12 employeelawsuitfl. I read these articles and many others about the complaint at the time they
13 were published.
14 4. On January 3,2017, Irequested Correa’s personnel and payroll records from
15 Adecco in accordance With the California Labor Code. On February 2, 2017, Ireceived the
16 records. Among other things, these records included a copy of the Associate NDA and
17 Commitment Sheet signed by Correa, as well as the Employee Handbook applicable to Correa’s
18 employment. I also received Correa’s wage statements, which I reviewed. According to these
19 wage statements, Correa worked 49 pay periods between February 1, 2016 and December 18,
20 20 1 6.
21 5. On February 14, 2017, Correa filed a PAGA notice alleging confidentiality claims
22 against Adecco on behalf of all of Adecco’s employees based on its Associate NDA, Commitment
23 Sheet, and Employee Handbook. Thirty-seven days later,the Doe plaintiffs filed a Second
24 Amended Complaint adding Correa as a Plaintiff and Adecco as a Defendant. The administrative
25 exhaustion requirement for claims brought under Labor Code § 232(a) and (b) and 232.5(a) and (b)
26 is 33 days. Labor Code § 2699.3(c)(2)(A). This complaint also alleged claims under Labor Code
27 §§ 96(k) and 98.6. The Doe Plaintiffs would subsequently amend the complaint three more times
28 as additional exhaustion periods expired and in response to the Doe court’s demurrer rulings. As
-2-
DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, ETC. (V01. 1)
relevant here, a copy 0f the Fourth Amended Complaint in Doe is included in the Request for
Judicial Notice filed in support 0f Adecco’s November 17, 2017 Renewed Demurrer.
6. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 2 isthe Adecco Group’s 201 8 Annual
Report. I downloaded a copy 0f this report from Adecco’s website 0n June 21, 2019. According
t0 its annual report, Adecco “is the leader in the world 0f HR Solutions.” It isthe largest staffing
firm in the world (with 5% market share) and it employs, at any one time, 700,000 associates who
work at more than 100,000 clients. Adecco describes its competitive strengths as including
“knowledge 0f complex labour regulations” and the “ability t0 manage large contingent
workforces.” In 2018, Adecco claimed revenue in excess 0f twenty-three billion euros and gross
10 profits in excess 0f more than four billion euros.
11 7. According t0 Google and Adecco, Adecco is Google’s largest provider 0f
12 temporary labor. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 3 is the declaration 0f a Google senior
13 contracts manager stating this fact. This declaration was filed in support 0f Google’s and
14 Adecco’s motion t0 seal their Temporary Staffing Services Agreement (TSSA) in the Doe case.
15 The motion t0 seal was denied. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 4 is a copy 0f the operative
16 TSSA between Google and Adecco. Ireceived this document from Adecco during discovery in the
17 Doe case.
18 8. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 5 is a copy 0f Google’s Data Classification
19 Guidelines. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 6 is a copy 0f Google’s Employee
20 Communication Policy. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 7 isa copy 0f Google’s
21 Communication and Disclosure Policy. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 8 is a copy 0f
22 Google’s internal and confidential code 0f conduct. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 9 are
23 the relevant excerpts 0f Google’s “You Said What?” Training Program. These policies and training
24 programs were produced by Google in discovery in the Doe case. According t0 the deposition
25 testimony 0f Google witnesses, these policies and training programs were all in effect throughout
26 Correa’s employment at Google.
27 9. The Google Temp Non-Disclosure Agreement “NDA” contains the adult content
28 release that was also at issue in Doe. According t0 Adecco’s discovery responses in the Doe case,
-3-
DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, ETC. (V01. 1)
2,256 Adecco Associates were required t0 sign the Google Temp NDA (with the adult content
release) between February 16, 2016 and March 16, 2017. These Adecco Associates, all 0f whom
were subject t0 Google’s and Adecco’s confidentiality requirements, worked a total 0f 87,845 pay
periods between February 16, 2017 and March 16, 2017. A copy 0f Adecco’s discovery responses
in the Doe case setting forth this information isattached as Exhibit 10.
10. The “stacked” value 0f the PAGA claims as t0 Adecco arising from Correa’s
employment at Google is at least $58,900. I calculate this amount as follows: Labor Code §§ 98.6
and 1102.5 each provides for a $10,000 civil penalty for every Violation. Labor Code §§
98.6(b)(3), 1102.5(f). I assume for purposes 0f this calculation that the employer is only liable for
10 one Violation per employee for a Violation 0f Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5. Thus, $20,000 per
11 employee.
12 11. In addition, the civil penalty under PAGA for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 96(k),
13 232, 232.5, 1197.5, and 432.5 are $100 for the first Violation and $200 for each subsequent
14 Violation, per employee/per pay period. I assume here, based 0n a ruling by the Doe court, that the
15 penalty under Labor Code § 432.5 is only $100 per employee because the employee only signs the
16 Associate NDA once. Penalties under Labor Code §§ 96(k), 232, 232.5 and 1197.5, 0n the other
17 hand, are 0n a per-pay-period/per-employee basis. Stacking these penalties results in, at a
18 minimum, an additional $38,900 in penalties arising from Correa’s employment alone, for a total
19 0f $59,900. Correa’s share 0f these civil penalties is thus at least $14,725.
20 12. Performing the same calculation across all 0f Adecco’s Google-based Associates
21 between February 16, 2016 and March 16, 2017, the “stacked” value 0f the PAGA claims against
22 Adecco is,at a minimum, $1 14,719,200, with each Associate’s 25% share being, 0n average, a
23 minimum 0f at least $12,712.
24 13. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 11 is a joint case management conference
25 statement filed by the parties in Moniz 0n January 10, 20 1 8. In this statement, Moniz represented
26 t0 the Court that at the September 22, 2017 mediation, “Defendant did not engage with Plaintiff
27 concerning this case during the mediation, and n0 settlement discussions took place.” Adecco
28 informed the Court that “the parties engaged in a confidential mediation . .. regarding the
-4-
DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, ETC. (V01. 1)
termination 0f Plaintiff‘s employment with Adecco. The parties did not reach a resolution with
{\J respect t0 Plaintiffs PAGA complaint.” Neither party informed the Court that there was an
DJ individual settlement agreement placing restrictions 0n Moniz’s ability t0 act as a PAGA
representative in this case.
14. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 12 isa March 5, 201 8 letter from Adecco’s
counsel t0 Moniz‘s counsel meeting and conferring 0n the “scope issue.” I received this letter
from Adecco following the April 3, 2018 mediation between Correa and Adecco as part 0f the
meet and confer process. Page 8 0f this letter states: “As counsel is aware, Moniz is barred from
amending her Complaint and/or PAGA notice in this action due t0 the confidential
settlement agreement between Moniz, Adecco, and Google.”
15. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 13 is Moniz’s March 29, 2018 ex parte
application t0 intervene in the mediation between Adecco and Correa. Attached t0 this declaration
as Exhibit 14 is M0niz”s memorandum Ofpoints and authorities in support 0f this ex parte
application.
16. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 15 are excerpts from the Moniz’s deposition
transcript. In addition, Adecco represented t0 the Doe court in filings concerning itspetition
coordination that Moniz worked 0n site at Google.
17. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 16 isa true and correct copy Ofthe Labor
Commissioner’s June 16, 2017 Amicus Brief filed in the case 0f Price v. Uber Technologies, Case
N0. BCSSS45 12. L05 Angeles Superior Court. My office obtained this brief from the Los Angeles
Superior Court’s on-line docket.
I declare under penalty ofperjury, under the laws Ofthe State 0f California, that the
foregoing istrue and correct. Executed this 215‘ day of June, 2019, in San Francisco, California.
Chris Baker
_ 5 _
DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, ETC. (Vol. 1)
Exhibit 1
CHRIS BAKER, State Bar No. 181557
ENDORSED .,
.
claake.r(&2laaker'm.com
N DEBORAH SCHWARTZ,
dschwartzKfibakeripnem
State Bar No. 208934 SW
UperiorCOurto
{San Franfimle
cisoa
BAKER CURTIS 8L SCHWARTZ, P.c. r!
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
DH: 2 0 £075
x
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-1064 BYCLERK, OF THE" CQUQT"
Fax: (415) 520-0446
~
ihdlx- .
.410
v
______
éputy Clérk
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KOOOQQUIbUJ
JOHN DOE
BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 JOHN DOE, on behalf ofthe State of California Case ngfifi“ 53% ‘
I
and aggrieved employees
12
_ ,
COMPLAINT PURSUANT T0 THE
13 Plamtlff, PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT
VS'
14 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
15
GOOGLE, INC. and ROES 1 through 10
16 Defendant.
17
18 INTRODUCTION
19 1. Google’s motto “don’t be evil.” Google’s illegal confidentiality agreements,
V
is
20
policies, and practices fail this test.
21
2. As a condition of employment, Defendant Google, Inc. requires all of its
22
employees, including supervisors and managers (collectively “Googlers” ,
tocomply with illegal
23
confidentiality agreements, policies, guidelines, and practices. These illegal policies and
24
agreements restn'ct the Googlers’ right to speak, right to work, and right to whistle-blow. The
25
policies prohibit Googlers fiom speaking plainly —~ even internally — about illegal conduct 6r
26
dangerous product defects, because such statements might one day be subject to discovery in
27
litigation or sought by the government. The policies prohibit Googlers fiom telling a potential
28
PAGA COMPLAINT
CHRIS BAKER, State Bar N0. 181557
cbaker@bakerlp.com
DEBORAH SCHWARTZ, State Bar N0. 208934
dschwartz@bakerlp£om
BAKER CURTIS 8L SCHWARTZ, P.C.
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (41 5) 433- 1 064
Fax: (415) 520-0446
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOHN DOE
BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 JOHN DOE, 0n behalf 0f the State of California Case N0.
and aggrieved employees
12
_ _
COMPLAINT PURSUANT T0 THE
13 Plamtlff, PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT
VS'
14 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
15
GOOGLE, INC. and ROES 1 through 10
16 Defendant.
17
18 INTRODUCTION
19 1. Google’s motto is“don’t be evil.” Google’s illegal confidentiality agreements,
20
policies, and practices fail this test.
21
2. As a condition 0f employment, Defendant Google, Inc. requires all0f its
22
employees, including supervisors and managers (collectively “Googlers”), to comply with illegal
23
confidentiality agreements, policies, guidelines, and practices. These illegal policies and
24
agreements restrict the Googlers’ right to speak, right to work, and right to Whistle—blow. The
25
policies prohibit Googlers from speaking plainly — even internally — about illegal conduct or
26
dangerous product defects, because such statements might one day be subj ect t0 discovery in
27
litigation 0r sought by the government. The policies prohibit Googlers from telling a potential
28
PAGA COMPLAINT
employer how much money they make, 0r what work they performed, when searching for a
different job. The policies prohibit Googlers from using or disclosing all 0f the skills, knowledge,
acquaintances, and overall experience at Google When working for a new employer. The policies
prohibit Googlers from speaking to the government, attorneys, 0r the press about wrongdoing at
Google. The policies even prohibit Googlers from speaking t0 their spouse or friends about
whether they think their boss could d0 a better job.
3. Google’s unlawful confidentiality policies are contrary to the California Labor
Code, contrary t0 public policy, and contrary to the interests of the State of California. The
unnecessary and inappropriate breadth 0f the policies are intended to control Google’s former and
10
current employees, limit competition, infringe on constitutional rights, and prevent the disclosure
11
and reporting of misconduct. The policies are wrong and illegal.
12
4. This case does not concern Google’s trade secrets, consumer privacy, 0r
13
information that should not be disclosed under the law (such as material non-public information
14
15 under the securities laws). This case instead concerns Google’s use 0f confidentiality and other
16 policies for illegal and improper purposes. Google defines essentially everything as “confidential
17 information.” However, a publicly-traded company with Google’s reach, power, and close ties to
18 the federal government cannot be permitted t0 declare to itsworkforce that evegything it does and
19 evegthing that happens — from the location 0f a water cooler to serious Violations 0f the law — is
20 “confidential” upon pain of termination and the threat of ruinous litigation.
21
PARTIES
22
5. John Doe is currently employed by Google, Inc. as a Product Manager, Which
23
Google describes and contends is a supervisory 0r managerial position. He resides in San
24
Francisco, California. He is an aggrieved employee under the Private Attorneys General Act
25
(“PAGA”).
26
6. Plaintiff brings this suit as a “Doe” because Brian Katz, Google’s Director of
27
Global Investigations, Intelligence & Protective Services, falsely informed approximately 65,000
28
Googlers that Plaintiff was terminated for “leaking” certain information to the press. In fact,
_2 _
PAGA COMPLAINT
Plaintiff did not leak the identified information to the press and Katz knew he did not. Rather,
Katz and Google used Plaintiff as a very public scapegoat t0 ensure that other Googlers continued
t0 comply With Google’s unlawful confidentiality policies.
7. While Google did not identify Plaintiff as the leaker by name, a number 0f
Googlers concluded that Doe and the employee identified as the leaker were one and the same.
Plaintiff should not be required t0 self—publish his name, further damaging his reputation among
those Googlers who d0 not yet know it,as well as in the technology industry as a whole (Who
might also believe Katz’s lies), inorder to bring this claim 0n behalf 0f the State and other
aggrieved employees.
10
8. Google employs, at any one time, approximately 65,000 Googlers. On
11
information and belief, there are thousands more eX-Googlers Who continue t0 be subject to
12
Google’s unlawful Confidentiality Agreement and policies. Each Googler is paid at least twice a
13
month, amounting t0, 0n information belief, more than 1,560,000 pay periods per year. Current
14
and former Googlers are aggrieved employees under the Private Attorneys General Act.
15
9. Defendant Google, Inc. is a publicly-traded corporation headquartered in Silicon
16
Valley. It has offices in San Francisco. Google’s illegal Confidentiality Agreement, policies, and
17
practices are created in, distributed from, and enforced through persons working in California.
18
10. Google ispolitically powerful — particularly on the national level. According t0 a
19
20 recent newspaper article, “[Google] executives enj oyed lavish parties and regular contact With the
21 highest—ranking people in the executive branch. Personnel seemingly moved from one entity to
22 the other and back 0n a regular basis. More than 250 individuals have left the government for
23 Google 0r Vice versa during [President] Obama’s tenure. This kind of integration With one
24 company and the executive branch isextraordinary.”
25 11. The California and United States Constitutions provide for, among other things,
26
freedom of speech and freedom 0f the press. The press is the “Fourth Estate,” responsible for
27
policing both the government and the powerful. T0 accomplish its purpose, the press must have
28
access t0 information. Without the pressure and attention that only the press can generate,
-3-
PAGA COMPLAINT
governments — and particularly political appointees — may decline t0 act when doing s0 would
disappoint or upset an important benefactor like Google.
12. Sunlight remains the best disinfectant. Google must letthe sun shine in.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL VIOLATIONS
Google’s Agreement and Policies Are Illegal
13. The use 0f illegal confidentiality agreements and policies t0 muzzle employees is
illegal under both federal and state law.
14. First, it isan unlawful business practice in California to require employees to sign,
as a condition 0f employment, a Confidentiality Agreement 0r policy that restrains trade.
10
California Business & Professions Code § 17200. Google’s “Confidentiality Agreement”
11
unlawfully restrains trade, because itprevents Googlers from effectively seeking new work. If
12
they do find new work, the Confidentiality Agreement and policies prohibits eX-Googlers from
13
using or disclosing information that isnot confidential as a matter of law. Among other things,
14
the Confidentiality Agreement and policies prohibits Googlers from using all 0f the skills,
15
knowledge, acquaintances, and the overall experience they obtained at Google in their new
16
employment.
17
15. Second, California Labor Code § 96(k) expressly permits employees t0 engage in
18
lawful conduct during n0n—w0rk hours away from their employer’s premises. This lawful
19
conduct includes the exercise of constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and freedom t0
20
work. California Labor Code § 98.6(b) prohibits an employer from threatening to discharge
21
employees Who exercise their constitutional rights and/or engages in lawful conduct during non-
22
work hours.
23
16. Google threatens t0 discharge Googlers Who exercise their constitutional rights by
24
providing information t0 the press or otherwise exercising their freedom of speech rights under the
25
California and United States Constitutions. Google also threatens t0 discharge Googlers Who
26
disclose “confidential information” to prospective employers in furtherance of their right t0
27
economic liberty under the California and United States Constitutions. This is a Violation 0f Labor
28
Code § 98.6(b).
_4 _
PAGA COMPLAINT
17. Third, in any contract or agreement that governs the use 0f trade secrets 0r
confidential information, an employer must give employees notice that:
a. An individual shall not be held criminally 0r civilly liable under
any Federal or State trade secret law for disclosure 0f a trade secret
that is made in confidence t0 a Federal, State, 0r local government
official .. .0r to an attorney .. .for the purpose of reporting 0r
investigating a suspected Violation of the law. And
b. The use and disclosure of a trade secret t0 an attorney as it relates
an anti-retaliation lawsuit is permitted. The trade secret may also
be filed with a court in certain circumstances.
Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act § 7(b).
18. Google does not include the required notices in itsConfidentiality Agreement with
m
10 employees. Instead, it informs Googlers that they cannot disclose “confidential information” t0
11 — even t0 an attorney 0r the government. This is a Violation of the Federal Defend Trade
12 Secrets and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Cal. Business & Professions Code § 17200 et
13 seq.
14 19. Fourth, Rule 21F-17 0f the Securities and Exchange Commission provides that “no
15 person may take any action t0 impede an individual from communicating directly with the
16 Commission staff about a possible securities law Violation, including enforcing or threatening t0
17 enforce a confidentiality agreement .. ..With respect t0 such communications.” Google’s
18 “Confidentiality Agreement” and policies unlawfully prohibit Googlers from reporting possible
19 securities law Violations to the SEC. This violates SEC Rule 21F-17 and California’s Unfair
20 Competition Law. Cal. Business & Professions Code 17200 et seq.
§
21 20. Fifth, it isagainst public policy t0 prohibit current or former employees from
22 providing evidence and information t0 an attorney representing shareholders about potential
23 Violations under the securities laws. Google’s “Confidentiality Agreement” and confidentiality
24 policies d0 just that. This violates California’s Unfair Competition Law. Business & Professions
25 Code 17200 et seq.
§
26 Labor Code from requiring,
21. Sixth, California §§ 232(3) and (b) prohibits employers
27 as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing the amount 0f his or her
28
_ 5 _
PAGA COMPLAINT
wages. Google’s confidentiality policies prohibit Googlers from disclosing the amount of their
wages. This is a Violation of Labor Code §§ 232(a) and (b).
22. Seventh, California Labor Code § 1197.50)(1) states that “an employer shall not
prohibit an employee from disclosing the employee’s own wages, discussing the wages of others,
inquiring about another’s wages, or aiding 0r encouraging any other employee to exercise his 0r
her rights under this section.” Google’s confidentiality policies prohibit Googlers from engaging in
any 0f these acts. This is a Violation 0f Labor Code § 1197.5(j).
23. Eighth, California Labor Code § 232.5(a) and (b) prohibits employers from
requiring, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing information
10 about the employer’s working conditions. Google, through its unlawful confidentiality policies,
11 prohibit employees from disclosing this information. This is a Violation 0f Labor Code 232.5.
§
12 24. Ninth, California Labor Code 1102.5(a) states that an employer “shall not make,
§
13 adopt, 0r enforce any rule, regulation 0r policy preventing an employee from disclosing
14 information to a government 0r law enforcement agency .. .if the employee has reasonable cause
15 t0 believe that the information discloses a Violation [of the 1aw].” Google’s practice 0f requiring
16 employees t0 sign its illegal “Confidentiality Agreement” violates this provision. Google’s
17 unlawful confidentiality policies also prohibit disclosure 0f information to the government 0r a law
18 enforcement agency of potential Violations of the law. The Agreement and policies thus Violate
19 Labor Code 1102.5(a).
§
20 25. Tenth, California Labor Code 1102.5(a) also states that an employer shall not
§
21 make, adopt, 0r enforce any policy that prevents an employee from disclosing information to a
22 person With authority over the employee, 0r t0 an employee Who has the authority t0 investigate,
23 discover, 0r correct the Violation of law, if the employee has reasonable cause t0 believe that the
24 information discloses a Violation of the law. Google’s unlawful policies restrict employees from
25 reporting Violations of the law internally. Googlers are prohibited from communicating to other
26 Googlers that a Google product may dangerous or that Google’s conduct is illegal. This is another
27 Violation 0f Labor Code 1102.5(a).
§
28
_ 6 _
PAGA COMPLAINT
26. Eleventh, California Labor Code § 432.5 prohibits an employer from requiring an
employee to agree in writing t0 any term or condition which the employer knows is prohibited by
law. Google knows that its Confidentiality Agreement and confidentiality policies Violate the law
for each and every reason stated above. Accordingly, Google is also in Violation of Labor Code §
432.5.
FACTS
Google’s Confidentiality Agreement
27. On July 14, 2014, Google offered Plaintiff a job. In his offer letter, Google stated:
“as an employee 0f Google, it is likely that you will become knowledgeable about confidential,
10
trade secret, and/or proprietary information related to the operations, products, and services 0f
11
Google and its clients. T0 protect the interests 0f both Google and its clients, all employees are
12
required t0 read and sign the enclosed At-Will Employment, Confidential Information, and
13
Invention Assignment and Arbitration Agreement as a condition 0f employment With Google.”
14
(“The Confidentiality Agreement”).
15
28. Like all Googlers, Plaintiff signed the Confidentiality Agreement. The Agreement
16
defines “confidential information” t0 mean, “Without limitation, any information in any form that
17
relates to Google 0r Google’s business that is not generally known,” including “employee data.”
18
(Emphasis added).
19
20 29. The Agreement further requires Googlers, both during and after their employment,
21 t0 “hold in strictest confidence and take allreasonable pre
Preview
Electronically hiuwwt (wt! cl ETAl-‘om-a. County dhn Mlle 0" 7/17/2019 m_hLHgnrgllggllflgm— CHRIS BAKER, State Bar No. 181557 cbaker@bakerlp.com DEBORAH SCHWARTZ, State Bar No. 208934 dschwartz@bakerlp.com BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1 California Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Telephone: (415) 433—1064 Fax: (415) 366-2525 \OOONONUI-P Attorneys for Aggrieved & Injured Party PAOLA CORREA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 12 RACHEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of Case No. 17CIV01736 California and aggrieved employees, 13 DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN 14 . . SUPPORT OF CORREA’S MOTION TO Plamtlff, VACATE JUDGMENT, FOR A NEW 15 VS. SETTLEMENT HEARING TRIAL, AND OTHER MATTERS 16 ADECCO USA, 1NC., and DOES 1—50, OLUME 1 0F 3 Exhibits 1-8 17 inclusive, Defendants- Assigned for all purposes to 18 Hon. Marie Weiner 19 DATE: TBD 20 TIME: TBD DEPT.: 2 21 Complaint Filed: April 18, 20 1 7 Trial Date: Vacated 22 23 I, Chris Baker, state as follows: 24 1. I am counsel for Paola Correa, John Doe, and David Gudeman. I have personal 25 knowledge 0f these facts. 26 2. On December 20, 2016, my firm filed the original complaint in Doe v. Google. A 27 copy of this complaint isattached to this declaration as Exhibit 1. The Complaint was the first of 28 its kind to challenge employer—mandated confidentiality requirements under PAGA. Adecco’s _ 1 _ DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, ETC. (V01. 1) counsel would describe the complaint as “cutting edge” to this Court during the first demurrer hearing on the Moniz complaint in September 2017. (See September 6, 2017 Transcript of Hearing at 624-15). The Doe original complaint did not allege claims under Labor Code §§ 96(k) or 98.6. #1.» 3. The Doe complaint was reported widely in the press. See, e.g.,E.g., Reed Albergotti, EMPLOYEE LAWSUIT ACCUSES GOOGLE OF ‘SPYING PROGRAM’ (Dec. 20, 2016, The Information) (at https://Www.theinformation.com/articles/employee-lawsuit-accuses— google-of—spying-program); Melanie Ehrenkranz, THE 10 MOST DAMNING ALLEGATIONS FROM THE NEW GOOGLE LAWSUIT (Dec. KOOOQO 21, 2016, Mic) (at https ://mic.com/articles/ 1 6301 1/ newgoogle—lawsuit- 1 0-damning-allegations#.GmNMj MIZ6); 10 Reuters, GOOGLE SUED AND ACCUSED BY EMPLOYEE OF BEING TOO 11 CONFIDENTIAL (Dec. 21 2016, Fortune) (at http://f0rtune.com/2016/12/21/g00gle- 12 employeelawsuitfl. I read these articles and many others about the complaint at the time they 13 were published. 14 4. On January 3,2017, Irequested Correa’s personnel and payroll records from 15 Adecco in accordance With the California Labor Code. On February 2, 2017, Ireceived the 16 records. Among other things, these records included a copy of the Associate NDA and 17 Commitment Sheet signed by Correa, as well as the Employee Handbook applicable to Correa’s 18 employment. I also received Correa’s wage statements, which I reviewed. According to these 19 wage statements, Correa worked 49 pay periods between February 1, 2016 and December 18, 20 20 1 6. 21 5. On February 14, 2017, Correa filed a PAGA notice alleging confidentiality claims 22 against Adecco on behalf of all of Adecco’s employees based on its Associate NDA, Commitment 23 Sheet, and Employee Handbook. Thirty-seven days later,the Doe plaintiffs filed a Second 24 Amended Complaint adding Correa as a Plaintiff and Adecco as a Defendant. The administrative 25 exhaustion requirement for claims brought under Labor Code § 232(a) and (b) and 232.5(a) and (b) 26 is 33 days. Labor Code § 2699.3(c)(2)(A). This complaint also alleged claims under Labor Code 27 §§ 96(k) and 98.6. The Doe Plaintiffs would subsequently amend the complaint three more times 28 as additional exhaustion periods expired and in response to the Doe court’s demurrer rulings. As -2- DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, ETC. (V01. 1) relevant here, a copy 0f the Fourth Amended Complaint in Doe is included in the Request for Judicial Notice filed in support 0f Adecco’s November 17, 2017 Renewed Demurrer. 6. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 2 isthe Adecco Group’s 201 8 Annual Report. I downloaded a copy 0f this report from Adecco’s website 0n June 21, 2019. According t0 its annual report, Adecco “is the leader in the world 0f HR Solutions.” It isthe largest staffing firm in the world (with 5% market share) and it employs, at any one time, 700,000 associates who work at more than 100,000 clients. Adecco describes its competitive strengths as including “knowledge 0f complex labour regulations” and the “ability t0 manage large contingent workforces.” In 2018, Adecco claimed revenue in excess 0f twenty-three billion euros and gross 10 profits in excess 0f more than four billion euros. 11 7. According t0 Google and Adecco, Adecco is Google’s largest provider 0f 12 temporary labor. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 3 is the declaration 0f a Google senior 13 contracts manager stating this fact. This declaration was filed in support 0f Google’s and 14 Adecco’s motion t0 seal their Temporary Staffing Services Agreement (TSSA) in the Doe case. 15 The motion t0 seal was denied. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 4 is a copy 0f the operative 16 TSSA between Google and Adecco. Ireceived this document from Adecco during discovery in the 17 Doe case. 18 8. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 5 is a copy 0f Google’s Data Classification 19 Guidelines. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 6 is a copy 0f Google’s Employee 20 Communication Policy. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 7 isa copy 0f Google’s 21 Communication and Disclosure Policy. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 8 is a copy 0f 22 Google’s internal and confidential code 0f conduct. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 9 are 23 the relevant excerpts 0f Google’s “You Said What?” Training Program. These policies and training 24 programs were produced by Google in discovery in the Doe case. According t0 the deposition 25 testimony 0f Google witnesses, these policies and training programs were all in effect throughout 26 Correa’s employment at Google. 27 9. The Google Temp Non-Disclosure Agreement “NDA” contains the adult content 28 release that was also at issue in Doe. According t0 Adecco’s discovery responses in the Doe case, -3- DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, ETC. (V01. 1) 2,256 Adecco Associates were required t0 sign the Google Temp NDA (with the adult content release) between February 16, 2016 and March 16, 2017. These Adecco Associates, all 0f whom were subject t0 Google’s and Adecco’s confidentiality requirements, worked a total 0f 87,845 pay periods between February 16, 2017 and March 16, 2017. A copy 0f Adecco’s discovery responses in the Doe case setting forth this information isattached as Exhibit 10. 10. The “stacked” value 0f the PAGA claims as t0 Adecco arising from Correa’s employment at Google is at least $58,900. I calculate this amount as follows: Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5 each provides for a $10,000 civil penalty for every Violation. Labor Code §§ 98.6(b)(3), 1102.5(f). I assume for purposes 0f this calculation that the employer is only liable for 10 one Violation per employee for a Violation 0f Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5. Thus, $20,000 per 11 employee. 12 11. In addition, the civil penalty under PAGA for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 96(k), 13 232, 232.5, 1197.5, and 432.5 are $100 for the first Violation and $200 for each subsequent 14 Violation, per employee/per pay period. I assume here, based 0n a ruling by the Doe court, that the 15 penalty under Labor Code § 432.5 is only $100 per employee because the employee only signs the 16 Associate NDA once. Penalties under Labor Code §§ 96(k), 232, 232.5 and 1197.5, 0n the other 17 hand, are 0n a per-pay-period/per-employee basis. Stacking these penalties results in, at a 18 minimum, an additional $38,900 in penalties arising from Correa’s employment alone, for a total 19 0f $59,900. Correa’s share 0f these civil penalties is thus at least $14,725. 20 12. Performing the same calculation across all 0f Adecco’s Google-based Associates 21 between February 16, 2016 and March 16, 2017, the “stacked” value 0f the PAGA claims against 22 Adecco is,at a minimum, $1 14,719,200, with each Associate’s 25% share being, 0n average, a 23 minimum 0f at least $12,712. 24 13. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 11 is a joint case management conference 25 statement filed by the parties in Moniz 0n January 10, 20 1 8. In this statement, Moniz represented 26 t0 the Court that at the September 22, 2017 mediation, “Defendant did not engage with Plaintiff 27 concerning this case during the mediation, and n0 settlement discussions took place.” Adecco 28 informed the Court that “the parties engaged in a confidential mediation . .. regarding the -4- DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, ETC. (V01. 1) termination 0f Plaintiff‘s employment with Adecco. The parties did not reach a resolution with {\J respect t0 Plaintiffs PAGA complaint.” Neither party informed the Court that there was an DJ individual settlement agreement placing restrictions 0n Moniz’s ability t0 act as a PAGA representative in this case. 14. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 12 isa March 5, 201 8 letter from Adecco’s counsel t0 Moniz‘s counsel meeting and conferring 0n the “scope issue.” I received this letter from Adecco following the April 3, 2018 mediation between Correa and Adecco as part 0f the meet and confer process. Page 8 0f this letter states: “As counsel is aware, Moniz is barred from amending her Complaint and/or PAGA notice in this action due t0 the confidential settlement agreement between Moniz, Adecco, and Google.” 15. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 13 is Moniz’s March 29, 2018 ex parte application t0 intervene in the mediation between Adecco and Correa. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 14 is M0niz”s memorandum Ofpoints and authorities in support 0f this ex parte application. 16. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 15 are excerpts from the Moniz’s deposition transcript. In addition, Adecco represented t0 the Doe court in filings concerning itspetition coordination that Moniz worked 0n site at Google. 17. Attached t0 this declaration as Exhibit 16 isa true and correct copy Ofthe Labor Commissioner’s June 16, 2017 Amicus Brief filed in the case 0f Price v. Uber Technologies, Case N0. BCSSS45 12. L05 Angeles Superior Court. My office obtained this brief from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s on-line docket. I declare under penalty ofperjury, under the laws Ofthe State 0f California, that the foregoing istrue and correct. Executed this 215‘ day of June, 2019, in San Francisco, California. Chris Baker _ 5 _ DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, ETC. (Vol. 1) Exhibit 1 CHRIS BAKER, State Bar No. 181557 ENDORSED ., . claake.r(&2laaker'm.com N DEBORAH SCHWARTZ, dschwartzKfibakeripnem State Bar No. 208934 SW UperiorCOurto {San Franfimle cisoa BAKER CURTIS 8L SCHWARTZ, P.c. r! 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520 DH: 2 0 £075 x San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1064 BYCLERK, OF THE" CQUQT" Fax: (415) 520-0446 ~ ihdlx- . .410 v ______ éputy Clérk Attorneys for Plaintiff KOOOQQUIbUJ JOHN DOE BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 JOHN DOE, on behalf ofthe State of California Case ngfifi“ 53% ‘ I and aggrieved employees 12 _ , COMPLAINT PURSUANT T0 THE 13 Plamtlff, PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT VS' 14 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 15 GOOGLE, INC. and ROES 1 through 10 16 Defendant. 17 18 INTRODUCTION 19 1. Google’s motto “don’t be evil.” Google’s illegal confidentiality agreements, V is 20 policies, and practices fail this test. 21 2. As a condition of employment, Defendant Google, Inc. requires all of its 22 employees, including supervisors and managers (collectively “Googlers” , tocomply with illegal 23 confidentiality agreements, policies, guidelines, and practices. These illegal policies and 24 agreements restn'ct the Googlers’ right to speak, right to work, and right to whistle-blow. The 25 policies prohibit Googlers fiom speaking plainly —~ even internally — about illegal conduct 6r 26 dangerous product defects, because such statements might one day be subject to discovery in 27 litigation or sought by the government. The policies prohibit Googlers fiom telling a potential 28 PAGA COMPLAINT CHRIS BAKER, State Bar N0. 181557 cbaker@bakerlp.com DEBORAH SCHWARTZ, State Bar N0. 208934 dschwartz@bakerlp£om BAKER CURTIS 8L SCHWARTZ, P.C. 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (41 5) 433- 1 064 Fax: (415) 520-0446 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN DOE BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 JOHN DOE, 0n behalf 0f the State of California Case N0. and aggrieved employees 12 _ _ COMPLAINT PURSUANT T0 THE 13 Plamtlff, PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT VS' 14 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 15 GOOGLE, INC. and ROES 1 through 10 16 Defendant. 17 18 INTRODUCTION 19 1. Google’s motto is“don’t be evil.” Google’s illegal confidentiality agreements, 20 policies, and practices fail this test. 21 2. As a condition 0f employment, Defendant Google, Inc. requires all0f its 22 employees, including supervisors and managers (collectively “Googlers”), to comply with illegal 23 confidentiality agreements, policies, guidelines, and practices. These illegal policies and 24 agreements restrict the Googlers’ right to speak, right to work, and right to Whistle—blow. The 25 policies prohibit Googlers from speaking plainly — even internally — about illegal conduct or 26 dangerous product defects, because such statements might one day be subj ect t0 discovery in 27 litigation 0r sought by the government. The policies prohibit Googlers from telling a potential 28 PAGA COMPLAINT employer how much money they make, 0r what work they performed, when searching for a different job. The policies prohibit Googlers from using or disclosing all 0f the skills, knowledge, acquaintances, and overall experience at Google When working for a new employer. The policies prohibit Googlers from speaking to the government, attorneys, 0r the press about wrongdoing at Google. The policies even prohibit Googlers from speaking t0 their spouse or friends about whether they think their boss could d0 a better job. 3. Google’s unlawful confidentiality policies are contrary to the California Labor Code, contrary t0 public policy, and contrary to the interests of the State of California. The unnecessary and inappropriate breadth 0f the policies are intended to control Google’s former and 10 current employees, limit competition, infringe on constitutional rights, and prevent the disclosure 11 and reporting of misconduct. The policies are wrong and illegal. 12 4. This case does not concern Google’s trade secrets, consumer privacy, 0r 13 information that should not be disclosed under the law (such as material non-public information 14 15 under the securities laws). This case instead concerns Google’s use 0f confidentiality and other 16 policies for illegal and improper purposes. Google defines essentially everything as “confidential 17 information.” However, a publicly-traded company with Google’s reach, power, and close ties to 18 the federal government cannot be permitted t0 declare to itsworkforce that evegything it does and 19 evegthing that happens — from the location 0f a water cooler to serious Violations 0f the law — is 20 “confidential” upon pain of termination and the threat of ruinous litigation. 21 PARTIES 22 5. John Doe is currently employed by Google, Inc. as a Product Manager, Which 23 Google describes and contends is a supervisory 0r managerial position. He resides in San 24 Francisco, California. He is an aggrieved employee under the Private Attorneys General Act 25 (“PAGA”). 26 6. Plaintiff brings this suit as a “Doe” because Brian Katz, Google’s Director of 27 Global Investigations, Intelligence & Protective Services, falsely informed approximately 65,000 28 Googlers that Plaintiff was terminated for “leaking” certain information to the press. In fact, _2 _ PAGA COMPLAINT Plaintiff did not leak the identified information to the press and Katz knew he did not. Rather, Katz and Google used Plaintiff as a very public scapegoat t0 ensure that other Googlers continued t0 comply With Google’s unlawful confidentiality policies. 7. While Google did not identify Plaintiff as the leaker by name, a number 0f Googlers concluded that Doe and the employee identified as the leaker were one and the same. Plaintiff should not be required t0 self—publish his name, further damaging his reputation among those Googlers who d0 not yet know it,as well as in the technology industry as a whole (Who might also believe Katz’s lies), inorder to bring this claim 0n behalf 0f the State and other aggrieved employees. 10 8. Google employs, at any one time, approximately 65,000 Googlers. On 11 information and belief, there are thousands more eX-Googlers Who continue t0 be subject to 12 Google’s unlawful Confidentiality Agreement and policies. Each Googler is paid at least twice a 13 month, amounting t0, 0n information belief, more than 1,560,000 pay periods per year. Current 14 and former Googlers are aggrieved employees under the Private Attorneys General Act. 15 9. Defendant Google, Inc. is a publicly-traded corporation headquartered in Silicon 16 Valley. It has offices in San Francisco. Google’s illegal Confidentiality Agreement, policies, and 17 practices are created in, distributed from, and enforced through persons working in California. 18 10. Google ispolitically powerful — particularly on the national level. According t0 a 19 20 recent newspaper article, “[Google] executives enj oyed lavish parties and regular contact With the 21 highest—ranking people in the executive branch. Personnel seemingly moved from one entity to 22 the other and back 0n a regular basis. More than 250 individuals have left the government for 23 Google 0r Vice versa during [President] Obama’s tenure. This kind of integration With one 24 company and the executive branch isextraordinary.” 25 11. The California and United States Constitutions provide for, among other things, 26 freedom of speech and freedom 0f the press. The press is the “Fourth Estate,” responsible for 27 policing both the government and the powerful. T0 accomplish its purpose, the press must have 28 access t0 information. Without the pressure and attention that only the press can generate, -3- PAGA COMPLAINT governments — and particularly political appointees — may decline t0 act when doing s0 would disappoint or upset an important benefactor like Google. 12. Sunlight remains the best disinfectant. Google must letthe sun shine in. SUMMARY OF LEGAL VIOLATIONS Google’s Agreement and Policies Are Illegal 13. The use 0f illegal confidentiality agreements and policies t0 muzzle employees is illegal under both federal and state law. 14. First, it isan unlawful business practice in California to require employees to sign, as a condition 0f employment, a Confidentiality Agreement 0r policy that restrains trade. 10 California Business & Professions Code § 17200. Google’s “Confidentiality Agreement” 11 unlawfully restrains trade, because itprevents Googlers from effectively seeking new work. If 12 they do find new work, the Confidentiality Agreement and policies prohibits eX-Googlers from 13 using or disclosing information that isnot confidential as a matter of law. Among other things, 14 the Confidentiality Agreement and policies prohibits Googlers from using all 0f the skills, 15 knowledge, acquaintances, and the overall experience they obtained at Google in their new 16 employment. 17 15. Second, California Labor Code § 96(k) expressly permits employees t0 engage in 18 lawful conduct during n0n—w0rk hours away from their employer’s premises. This lawful 19 conduct includes the exercise of constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and freedom t0 20 work. California Labor Code § 98.6(b) prohibits an employer from threatening to discharge 21 employees Who exercise their constitutional rights and/or engages in lawful conduct during non- 22 work hours. 23 16. Google threatens t0 discharge Googlers Who exercise their constitutional rights by 24 providing information t0 the press or otherwise exercising their freedom of speech rights under the 25 California and United States Constitutions. Google also threatens t0 discharge Googlers Who 26 disclose “confidential information” to prospective employers in furtherance of their right t0 27 economic liberty under the California and United States Constitutions. This is a Violation 0f Labor 28 Code § 98.6(b). _4 _ PAGA COMPLAINT 17. Third, in any contract or agreement that governs the use 0f trade secrets 0r confidential information, an employer must give employees notice that: a. An individual shall not be held criminally 0r civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for disclosure 0f a trade secret that is made in confidence t0 a Federal, State, 0r local government official .. .0r to an attorney .. .for the purpose of reporting 0r investigating a suspected Violation of the law. And b. The use and disclosure of a trade secret t0 an attorney as it relates an anti-retaliation lawsuit is permitted. The trade secret may also be filed with a court in certain circumstances. Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act § 7(b). 18. Google does not include the required notices in itsConfidentiality Agreement with m 10 employees. Instead, it informs Googlers that they cannot disclose “confidential information” t0 11 — even t0 an attorney 0r the government. This is a Violation of the Federal Defend Trade 12 Secrets and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Cal. Business & Professions Code § 17200 et 13 seq. 14 19. Fourth, Rule 21F-17 0f the Securities and Exchange Commission provides that “no 15 person may take any action t0 impede an individual from communicating directly with the 16 Commission staff about a possible securities law Violation, including enforcing or threatening t0 17 enforce a confidentiality agreement .. ..With respect t0 such communications.” Google’s 18 “Confidentiality Agreement” and policies unlawfully prohibit Googlers from reporting possible 19 securities law Violations to the SEC. This violates SEC Rule 21F-17 and California’s Unfair 20 Competition Law. Cal. Business & Professions Code 17200 et seq. § 21 20. Fifth, it isagainst public policy t0 prohibit current or former employees from 22 providing evidence and information t0 an attorney representing shareholders about potential 23 Violations under the securities laws. Google’s “Confidentiality Agreement” and confidentiality 24 policies d0 just that. This violates California’s Unfair Competition Law. Business & Professions 25 Code 17200 et seq. § 26 Labor Code from requiring, 21. Sixth, California §§ 232(3) and (b) prohibits employers 27 as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing the amount 0f his or her 28 _ 5 _ PAGA COMPLAINT wages. Google’s confidentiality policies prohibit Googlers from disclosing the amount of their wages. This is a Violation of Labor Code §§ 232(a) and (b). 22. Seventh, California Labor Code § 1197.50)(1) states that “an employer shall not prohibit an employee from disclosing the employee’s own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another’s wages, or aiding 0r encouraging any other employee to exercise his 0r her rights under this section.” Google’s confidentiality policies prohibit Googlers from engaging in any 0f these acts. This is a Violation 0f Labor Code § 1197.5(j). 23. Eighth, California Labor Code § 232.5(a) and (b) prohibits employers from requiring, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing information 10 about the employer’s working conditions. Google, through its unlawful confidentiality policies, 11 prohibit employees from disclosing this information. This is a Violation 0f Labor Code 232.5. § 12 24. Ninth, California Labor Code 1102.5(a) states that an employer “shall not make, § 13 adopt, 0r enforce any rule, regulation 0r policy preventing an employee from disclosing 14 information to a government 0r law enforcement agency .. .if the employee has reasonable cause 15 t0 believe that the information discloses a Violation [of the 1aw].” Google’s practice 0f requiring 16 employees t0 sign its illegal “Confidentiality Agreement” violates this provision. Google’s 17 unlawful confidentiality policies also prohibit disclosure 0f information to the government 0r a law 18 enforcement agency of potential Violations of the law. The Agreement and policies thus Violate 19 Labor Code 1102.5(a). § 20 25. Tenth, California Labor Code 1102.5(a) also states that an employer shall not § 21 make, adopt, 0r enforce any policy that prevents an employee from disclosing information to a 22 person With authority over the employee, 0r t0 an employee Who has the authority t0 investigate, 23 discover, 0r correct the Violation of law, if the employee has reasonable cause t0 believe that the 24 information discloses a Violation of the law. Google’s unlawful policies restrict employees from 25 reporting Violations of the law internally. Googlers are prohibited from communicating to other 26 Googlers that a Google product may dangerous or that Google’s conduct is illegal. This is another 27 Violation 0f Labor Code 1102.5(a). § 28 _ 6 _ PAGA COMPLAINT 26. Eleventh, California Labor Code § 432.5 prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to agree in writing t0 any term or condition which the employer knows is prohibited by law. Google knows that its Confidentiality Agreement and confidentiality policies Violate the law for each and every reason stated above. Accordingly, Google is also in Violation of Labor Code § 432.5. FACTS Google’s Confidentiality Agreement 27. On July 14, 2014, Google offered Plaintiff a job. In his offer letter, Google stated: “as an employee 0f Google, it is likely that you will become knowledgeable about confidential, 10 trade secret, and/or proprietary information related to the operations, products, and services 0f 11 Google and its clients. T0 protect the interests 0f both Google and its clients, all employees are 12 required t0 read and sign the enclosed At-Will Employment, Confidential Information, and 13 Invention Assignment and Arbitration Agreement as a condition 0f employment With Google.” 14 (“The Confidentiality Agreement”). 15 28. Like all Googlers, Plaintiff signed the Confidentiality Agreement. The Agreement 16 defines “confidential information” t0 mean, “Without limitation, any information in any form that 17 relates to Google 0r Google’s business that is not generally known,” including “employee data.” 18 (Emphasis added). 19 20 29. The Agreement further requires Googlers, both during and after their employment, 21 t0 “hold in strictest confidence and take allreasonable pre