JENNIFER 8. SCHWARTZ. MENAKA N. FERNANDO. 1Q. (SBN 135932) (Q. (SBN 271380) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP ess Embarcadero Center ° (LED One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Peancibe: San Francisco, CA 94111 Sty Sees Coat Telephone: (415) 638-8800 MAY 22 2018 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 CLERK OF THe E-mail: [email protected] court E-mail: [email protected] @7__KALENE APOLONO Da Attorneys for Plaintiff Ingrid Avendaito SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION INGRID AVENDANO, | Case No. CG0-18-566677 | COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintift, 1. DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON SEX AND/OR vy RACE/ETHNICITY - DISPARATE TREATMENT (CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 12940 er seg.) UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and [2+ DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON SEX AND/OR DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, GOV. CODE §§ 12940 er seq.) - 3. SEXUAL HARASSMENT - HOSTILE WORK Defendant ENVIRONMENT (CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 12940 et seq.) 4, FAILURE TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS, TO PREVENT OR CORRECT DISCRIMINATION (CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 12940 et seq.) 5, DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON DISABILITY (CAL. GOV. CODE §§12940 et seq.) 6. RETALIATION FOR OPPOSING UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES (CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 12940 et. seq.) 7. RETALIATION FOR TAKING JOB-PROTECTED MEDICAL LEAVE (CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 12945.2) 8, RETALIATION FOR DISCLOSURE OF UNLAWFUL ACTS (CAL. LAB. CODE § 1102.5) 9, FAILURE TO PROVIDE EQUAL PAY BASED UPON SEX AND/OR RACE/ETHNICITY (CAL. LAB. CODE § 1197.5) 10, WRONGFUL TERMINATION (CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE) IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY 11. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ‘Complaint for Damages RACE/ETHNICITY ~ DISPARATE IMPACT (CAL.Seow naan eun iat 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. 13. UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et. seq.) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ‘Complaint for DamagesBeer awe on ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Thisis a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Ingrid Avendafio (“Plaintiff” or “Avendafio”), a Latina female software engineer, against her former employer Defendant Uber ‘Technologies, Inc., (*Defendant”, “the Company”, or “Uber”). Over her entire tenure at Uber, Avendaiio saw and experienced a male-dominated work culture, permeated with degrading, marginalizing, discriminatory, and sexually harassing conduet towards women. This culture was ‘perpetuated and condoned by numerous managers, including high level company leaders, When Avendaiio began working for Uber as a software engineer in February 2014, she was passionate about Uber’s product and mission and hoped to build a long and successful career at the Company. Throughout her employment, however, she was repeatedly faced with discriminatory treatment and sexually explicit conduct specifically directed at female employees. When she witnessed such injustices within the company, Avendaiio often advocated for herself and others out of a steadfast commitment to the betterment of the company with the hope that she could be a vehicle for change. Avendaito became a leader within Uber’s female engineer (“LadyEng”) community and served in a mentorship role for several other female engineers. But each time Avendatio raised concerns regarding unlawful conduct, she was met with Uber’s entrenched disregard for the rights of its women employees and a refusal to take effective steps to prevent harassment. Worse, she suffered blatant retaliation, including denial of promotions and raises, unwarranted negative performance reviews, and placement on an oppressively demanding on-call schedule that had detrimental effects on her health. She was also threatened with termination. Uber’s failure to take effective remedial measures forced her to resign. Ultimately, Avendaiio’s battle to make Uber a safe and just place to work for herself and other female employees came at a great cost to her ~ both in terms of Avendafio’s career and her physical and mental health, 2. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) based on Defendant’s discrimination of her based on her sex, race/ethnicity, and disability Plaintiff also alleges claims of sexual harassment (hostile work environment), failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, retaliation for opposing unlawful employment practices 1 ‘Complaint for Damagespursuant to FEHA, California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) and retaliation for disclosure of unlawful acts pursuant to California Labor Code section 1102.5, failure to pay equal wages in violation of the Califomia Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), unlawful business practices under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, wrongful termination (constructive discharge) in violation of public policy, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. PARTIES 3, Plaintiff Avendaio is an individual and at all times relevant to this litigation was a resident of the County of San Francisco, California. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Avendafio was an employee within the meaning of California Government Code §§ 12940 ef. seg. 4, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware with its corporate headquarters in the City and County of San Francisco, California. Upon information and belief, Uber’s California headquarters maintains control, oversight, and direction over the operation of its facilities, including its employment practices. At all times relevant herein, Uber was Plaintiff's employer within the meaning of all applicable statutes. 5. On May 15, 2018, Uber publicly announced a decision not to enforce mandatory arbitration against employees, among others, who alleged claims for sexual harassment or sexual assault." 6. Plaintiff's ignorant of the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued here under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Doe Defendants ‘was responsible in some manner for the occurrences and injuries alleged in this Complaint. 7. Plainti informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants ‘was at all times relevant herein the agent, servant, employee, and/or representative of the other ' See Uber Newsroom, htt 18, 2018). (www uber.com/newsroonv/turning-th lights-on/ (last visited May 2 ‘Complaint for DamagesRow Sowa au aT 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants and was acting, at least in part, within the course and scope of such relationship and that each and every Defendant herein is jointly and severally responsible and liable to Plaintiff for the damages hereinafter alleged. EXHAU! ON OF REMEDIES 8. On February 27, 2018, Avendaiio filed a timely charge of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender, race/ethnicity, and disability, subjected to a hostile work environment, retaliated against based on protected activity pursuant to FEHA and CFRA, and wrongfully terminated (constructively discharged) in violation of public policy. On the same day, the DFEH issued Plaintiff a Right-to-Sue notice to bring a civil action against Defendant based on the charges described herein. Uber has been served with the Right to Sue Notice by certified mail as required by law. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. In February 2014, Avendafio was hired as a Software Engineer at Uber on the ‘Company’s Stareraft team. Her compensation included a base salary of $100,000 and an equity grant of 30,000 incentive stock options (“ISO°s”), Avendaiio’s position was later classified a Software Engineer I. Asa Software Engineer and Software Engineer I, Avendaiio was respon for “backend” software architecture and development, system outage mitigation, and improving, the performance of Uber’s ride hailing technology. Throughout her tenure, Avendafio also worked ‘on the Application Program Interface (“API”), Realtime, Site Engineering Reliability (“SRE”), Infra, and People Engineering teams. Over the course of her tenure, she had ten different managers. Uber Subjected Avendafio to a Hostile Work Environment 10, Avendafio performed well in the first nine months of her employment 11, Inor around early October 2014, Avendaio attended a recruiting event at the University of California, Berkeley with several Uber employees, including a male software engineer who had been tasked with recruiting responsibilities. In the course of his duties at the 3 ‘Complaint for DamagesSc wm ra auton event, the male coworker repeatedly made unwelcome, demeaning comments about women in front of Avendaio, Uber employees, other software engineers, and students. For example, this coworker repeatedly said that he believed that “Uber is the type of company where women can sleep their way to the top.” He also noted that a female software engineer at the event wore a ring on her finger and said, “What’s up with women getting married so early now?” Avendaiio was offended by these inappropriate remarks. 12, Within days of the recruiting event, Avendafo reported the male coworker’s comments to a senior human resources (“HR”) official at Uber. Avendatio also reported the comments to two of her managers. A senior HR representative responded that he would look into Avendaiio’s concerns, but dismissively stated that this was only Avendafio’s coworker’ “first offense.” Avendafio is informed and believes that Uber failed to investigate Avendafio’s complaint and/or impose any effective disciplinary or other remedial measures until the male coworker engaged in further acts of illegal conduct months later. 13, On October 26, 2014, apparently to motivate Uber employees to hit certain goals and be rewarded with a company trip to Las Vegas, former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick (“Kalanick”) sent an email to all to Uber employees, including Avendafio, in which he forwarded another company-wide email he had sent in 2013 before a company trip to Miami. The email contained the subject line, “URGENT, URGENT — READ THIS NOW OR ELSE!!!!!” In the email, Kalanick set out “rules” for the trip by making light of drug use, excessive drinking, and sexual activity. For example, the email stated: ‘Do not have sex with another employee UNLESS a) you have asked that person for that privilege and they have responded with an emphatic “YES! I will have sex with you” AND b) the two (or more) of you do not work in the same chain of command. Yes, that means that Travis will be celibate on this trip. #CEOLife #FML 14, Avendafto was shocked in reading Kalanick’s overtly offensive email that encouraged sexual activity between employees and could not fathom how the CEO of a company could justify such a communication. Kalanick’s email effectively signaled the company’s 4 ‘Complaint for Damageswv BoD Sowa au indifference to sexually explicit language and set the tone for the culture of harassment that Avendaiio would continue to experience throughout her tenure. 15, Avendafio continued to be subjected to sexually harassing conduct, In March 2015, Avendafio learned from another female software engineer, that during an Uber “workeation” in the Dominican Republie in January 2015, the same male coworker that made sex-based offensive remarks to Avendafio at the Berkeley recruiting event began spreading a false and offensive rumor about Avendafio in the workplace. Specifically, this male engineer repeatedly expressed that “the only reason Ingrid had a job at Uber was because she had slept with someone at the company.” 16, Avendatio is informed and believes that this coworker made this defamatory, harassing, and demeaning comment to at least four different teams of software engineers, including managers. Humiliated by his actions and worried that his statements would impact her career, Avendaito immediately reported the conduct to the same HR representative to whom she had complained previously and an engineering director at Uber. Both senior officials apologized to Avendaiio for the fact that Uber had failed to take any remedial measures after her first complaint five months earlier and finally conducted an investigation, which Avendaio is informed and bel ves led to the male coworker’s termination. 17, The stain of the malicious rumor followed Avendaiio and interfered substantially with her work environment. For months after lodging her second complaint against this male coworker, Avendaito was isolated and ignored by many male Uber managers and other employees who had worked with him. For example, Avendafio worked closely. the male coworker’s former teammates on a user search project and poured countless hours into the assignment as the project’s only backend developer on the search project team, However, when the team presented the project to the entire company, Avendaiio’s name was conspicuously left out of the credits. Avendaiio is informed and believes that this blatant failure to recognize her hard work on the project was retaliatory but her manager at the time did nothing to remedy the omission. 18. Asa result of the harassment she experienced and Uber’s failure to address her concerns with effective remedial measures, Avendafio began to suffer from frequent panic attacks 5 ‘Complaint for Damageswe wn Scxew ra ul 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 4 26 27 28 at work, which recurred for approximately the following year and required medical treatment. She had difficulty getting the attacks under control in the workplace, and on occasion, Avendafio’s panic attacks were so severe that she vomited at work. 19, Avendatio continued to be subjected to other sexually harassing behavior throughout her employment, which included but was not limited to the following: ‘© Inor around October 2015, during the Company’s Las Vegas retreat, a male senior software engineer inappropriately touched Avendafio on her upper thigh w! intoxicated. Avendaiio is informed and believed that another coworker who witnessed the incident reported it to Thuan Pham (“Pham”), Uber’s Chief Technology Officer (“CTO”), who failed to take any corrective measures. On multiple occasions, the same male senior software engineer made other repeated inappropriate sexual advances including telling Avendafio she was “so cute” and that he wanted to “take [her] home.” * A number of male software engineers made repeated comments about Avendaio’s appearance, including telling her that she had a “a big ass.” ‘+ Male employees repeatedly discussed other female employees in a demeaning fashion including objectifying their bodies and/or discussing whom they wanted to “fuck.” Uber managers were privy to, and/or aware of, these conversations, ‘* On multiple occasions between May and December 2015, an Uber engineering manager made inappropriate comments about women on an internal channel of the Company’s instant messenger system called “Lunchington’s.” This manager apparently felt free to do so because the messages were automatically deleted after sixty lines of text were added. Avendafio is informed and believes that this manager used Lunchington’s to organize a work outing to a strip club on at least one occasion. Avendafio is further informed and believes that another female employee made a written complaint reporting this manager’s sexist comments but Uber failed to take any immediate disciplinary measures against the manager and his sexually harassing conduct continued unabated. + The same manager often made sexually harassing comments directly in front of Avendaiio and other women, including frequently discussing sexual encounters and boasting about his “open relationship” with his significant other, which he said enabled him to have relationships with other women, On one occasion, when Avendaflo was out to lunch with coworkers and this manager, he openly bragged about sleeping with underage girls. * Other male employees also used the instant messaging system to make inappropriate comments and share sexually explicit content. On at least one occasion, Avendafio saw a YouTube video that appeared to feature a topless woman 6 ‘Complaint for DamagesSow aan ron ll 13 14 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 being shared on the chat system, which automatically deleted messages after 60 lines of text, When inappropriate messages were shared, it was a common pra for other male employees to rapidly type lines of text in order to have the conversation thread reach 60 lines so that the offensive message would be deleted quickly, * An Uber engineering director also repeatedly made demeaning remarks about women directly in front of Avendaiio and other female employees, including on one occasion, telling Avendafio that he liked to “pick up women” using Uber rides. Indeed, it was well known within the Company that this director liked to make sexual advances towards female employees, and that prior to Avendaiio joining the Company, Avendafio is informed and believes that he had said to a fernale employee that “[she] was so hot [he] wanted to rape {her].” On information and belief, rather than disciplining him, Pham, and another senior engineering officials took this employee under their wings and helped advance his career within the ‘company. 20, Sexually harassing behavior was often intensified with employee aleohol consumption, an activity encouraged by the Company at work and during work functions, Uber promoted a culture of drinking with multi le beer taps at various locations in the workplace, a “Bey” bar — which featured a life-size cutout of singer Beyoncé Knowles dressed skimpily — and numerous social events that involved excessive drinking ~ so excessive that employees not infrequently blacked out from drinking. Avendaiio is informed and believes that at least one female software engineer made written complaints about her male manager and coworkers’ excessive use of alcohol at offsite events that made female employees feel unsafe in the workplace, but Uber failed to take this complaint seriously. Uber Discriminated Against Avendaiio on the Basis of Her Gender and/or Race/Ethni and Retaliated Against Her for Reporting Unlawful Conduct 21, Avendafio is informed and believes that throughout her employment, Uber maintained a discriminatory work environment in which female software engineers and/or non white engineers received less compensation, including salary, stock grants and/or other benefits for performing the same or substantially similar work as their male and/or white counterparts. Avendaiio is also informed and believes that female software engineers and/or non-white engineers were given fewer promotional opportunities at Uber, and that women were not hired or promoted at the same rate as male and/or white engineers. 1 ‘Complaint for DamagesScwaaueon 22, When Avendaiio began her employment at Uber in February 2014, she estimates that Uber’s engineering department was comprised of approximately 20 percent of female engineers. At the time of separation, Avendafto believes that number has was reduced to approximately 7 percent. 23, When Avendajio began her employment at Uber in February 2014, Avendaiio earned a starting salary of $100,000 and received a stock grant of 30,000 ISO"s. On information and belief, this starting compensation package was significantly less than packages received by male and/or white coworkers with similar experience that were hired around the same time period to perform the same or substantially similar work, When Avendaiio learmed that these coworkers were offered better compensation, she attempted to negotiate a better package for herself, Uber immediately threatened to rescind Avendafio’s offer. 24, Throughout her employment, Avendafio referred both men and women to Uber to fill software engineering positions that opened up at the company. Avendaiio is informed and believes that on several occasions, job offers were made to female engineers but thereafter rescinded because these women countered offers with requests for improved compensation packages. Avendajio is not aware of any male applicants whose job offers were rescinded for seeking better employment packages. 25, _Avendaiio raised the aforementioned discriminatory hiring practices with HR, and other senior officials, but Uber’s managers failed to take any corrective measures. 26. Rather, in November 2014, Pham emailed the engineering department to explicitly advise all engineering employees that they should not discuss their compensation with Uber applicants, 27. Avendaiio also complained about the Company's pervasive failure to promote deserving female software engineers. From October to December 2014, Avendafio and her team worked tirelessly in the “NYE (New Year's Eve) War Room” to ensure that Uber’s software system ran smoothly and effectively during the company’s busiest ride service day of the year. Despite the team’s indisputable successes and the praise it received by senior management, none of 8 ‘Complaint for Damagesee i 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the female employees on the team (many of whom had been at the Company for well over a year or longer) were promoted. Yet, a male engineer on the team who had been at the Company only for four months — far less time than his female counterparts — received a promotion. 28, Inor around January 2015, Avendafio reported this situation to her then manager, and told him that she believed he was “being sexist” in his promotional decisions. Her manager dismissed Avendajio’s concerns and took no further action. 29, Shortly thereafter, in direct retaliation for Avendaiio’s complaint of gender bias, Avendaiio received a low performance rating and minimal raise increasing her base salary from $100,000 to $103,500 per year, an amount that Avendaiio is informed and believes was substantially lower than her male and/or white counterparts. 30. In or around March 2015, Avendafio began reporting to a new manager. This ‘manager told Avendafo that she could expect to be promoted from Software Engineer I 19 Software Engineer IJ in the short term, 31, However, in or around July 2015, again in retaliation for making protected complaints, Uber denied Avendaiio the promotion. Avendaio’s manager advised her that her former manager — the same manager that Avendaiio had confronted for “being sexist” — had “recalibrated” her review precisely so that she would receive a lower total performance score and effectively be precluded from receiving a promotion. 32, In September 2015, Pham again emailed the engineering department directing them to refrain from talking about compensation with Uber applicants. ‘The directive came soon after many female engineers had discussed their compensation and promotion decisions on the ““LadyEng” channel of Uber’s internal messaging program. In response to Pham’s email, Avendaiio replied: 1 feel not being transparent hurts women, minorities and/or those not well connected with friends at the company to get an idea of what are normal/reasonable expectations . .. It can be very daughting (sic) to grow up your whole life hearing that women only make ~70% of what men make, and then join the workforce not knowing whether or not that is true — well that can be frustrating, but that is our reality. 9 Complaint for DamagesSom aan een a ll 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 33. Shortly thereafter, Avendafio’s then-manager announced to her and her team: “We've been told from upper management that you guys can’t talk about comp. It's unprofessional.” 34, Uber’s policy of prohibiting employees from disc sing their compensation with other employees and job applicants served to perpetuate systemic pay disparity based on gender and/or race/ethnicity throughout Avendafio’s tenure. 35. In October 2015, concemed by the alarming number of reports of female Uber passengers being sexually assaulted by Uber drivers, Avendafio emailed senior managers to advocate for more safety functions on the Uber app including a panic button, 36. Rather than taking Avendaiio’s concerns seriously, Uber continued to retaliate against Avendaiio for repeatedly raising these and other complaints of unlawful conduct against ‘women employees and riders. By approximately November 2015, Avendafio had still not been promoted, whereas many of her male colleagues who had started with Uber at the same level and even after she had started, had been promoted once or even multiple times (¢.g., to senior software engineer or supervisory roles). 37. Notwithstanding these facts, Avendafo regularly worked consecutive 15+ hour days and served as an on-call engineer, which required her to be on call 24 hours a day for a period of three consecutive months at the end of 2015, during which time she received thousands of telephone pages regarding issues with the Uber systems. Avendafio is informed and believes that she was placed on this oppressively demanding on-call schedule in direct retaliation for raising her repeated protestations of unlawful conduct. Indeed, Avendaito was not aware of any other engineering employee who was placed on-call for three consecutive months. 38. On December 31, 2015, Avendatio and her team performed exceptionally to ensure another successful New Years Eve for the Company. 39. Immediately thereafer, Avendafio checked herself into the hospital to be treated for exhaustion, burnout, depression, and anxiety caused in large part by the ongoing discriminatory conduct to which she was being subjected at Uber. Avendaiio immediately notified her manager 10 ‘Complaint for DamagesSex rvaauw eon i 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 of her medical condition and hospitalization. Despite explicit notice of her serious health condition, Avendaiio was paged a total of approximately 142 times about technical problems with the Uber app while she was hospitalized. 40. Inor around January 2016, Avendaio explicitly complained to Pham and other senior managers that Uber’s culture was so “toxic” that several employees were suicidal. Again, Uber paid virtually no attention to Avendaiio’s concerns. 41, Inor around February or March 2016, afier two years with the Company, Avendatio was finally promoted to a Software Engineering II position with a salary of $120,000. Avendaito is informed and believes that she was promoted at a much slower pace and for less compensation than her male and/or white counterparts. Indeed, Avendano is informed and believes that most, if not all, of the male and/or white engineers that joined the Company at or around the same time she did had been promoted to at least senior engineer positions at the time of her separation (in June of 2017). 42, Avendatio’s experiences prompted her to take on a role as mentor and advocate for n the LadyEng community and generally for other female software engineers at Uber. 43, While Uber often required diverse employees including Avendaio to lead and participate in time-consuming recruiting and hiring events, Avendano is informed and believes that the Company simultaneously failed to consider these additional forced responsibilities in the performance review process and effectively punished female and/or non-white engineers for taking time away from their regular duties. Avendaiio is informed and believes these practices enhanced pay and promotional disparities between female and/or non-white engineers in comparison to their male and/or white counterparts. Uber Further Retaliated Against Avendaiio For Escalating Her Concerns About Unlawful Conduet, Including Uber’s Response to Susan Fowler’s Sexual Harassment Complaint, and/or for Taking Protected Medical Leave, 44, In or around March 2016, Avendaiio learned that her coworker, Susan Fowler, had complained to Uber HR that her manager had made sexual advances towards her and that the Company had responded by transferring Fowler to another team. Avendaiio also leamed from a u ‘Complaint for Damages‘mutual friend of Fowler's manager (who did not work for Uber) that Fowler’s manager had made disparaging remarks about Fowler (both internally and to third parties), conveying the impression that Fowler was somehow oversensitive for complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace. Frustrated by Fowler’s manager's conduct and Uber’s response to Fowler’s complaint, ‘Avendaito raised her concerns with her newest manager. 45. On or about March 17, 2016, Avendaiio’s manager immediately emailed HR a screenshot of a chat conversation he had with Fowler regarding other female employees raising sexual harassment concerns about Fowler’s manager, and copied Fowler, Avendaiio and another Uber manager. 46. Avendafio responded to the thread by complaining about the sexual harassing behavior she herself had experienced, specifying the reasons she believed Uber mishandled the situation with Fowler and copying Uber’ then-director of engineering, the former head of SRE, and another senior manager. 47. The SRE head immediately dismissed Avendaio’s written complaint, responding that Uber had taken appropriate corrective measures even though, at the time, no diseiplinary action of any import had been taken, Avendaiio understands that Uber’s decisions regarding discipline of Fowler’s manager were based on the company’s false determination that the incident with Fowler was his “first offense.” 48. Avendafio next escalated this issue to Pham through his assistant. Avendatio emphasized that she was concerned about being retaliated against for elevating her concerns. 49. On the same day, Avendafio emailed her concerns to HR again and advised HR that Uber’s mishandling of Fowler’s complaint created a hostile work environment. 50, Shortly thereafter, Uber’s then-director of engineering scheduled a meeting with Avendaiio and another manager. During the meeting, this senior manager reprimanded Avendaiio for escalating her concerns to Pham and purportedly “throwing [senior officials] under the bus.” He further advised Avendaiio that she allegedly had failed to follow Uber’s policies and procedures. Avendajio’s already high level of stress over the series of discriminatory and 12 Complaint for Damages13 incidents during her tenure was heii htened as she was now being punished for raising protected hostile work environment complai 51. Inoraround April 2016, because she felt threatened, intimidated, and retaliated against and thus extremely concerned about additional adverse employment action Uber might take against her, Avendafio’s em nal state began worsening. She began suffering mental and physical symptoms of extreme anxiety. From on or about April 14, 2016 through on or about July 11, 2016, she took job-protected medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and CFRA. On or about July 11, 2016, Avendafio retuned from medical leave and for approximately one month, worked on a part-time schedule as a reasonable accommodation for her disability 52. Inor around July or August 2016, only a few weeks after returning from protected medical leave, Avendafio received a low performance rating on her mid-year performance review for purported low productivity. Her manager claimed, among other things, that she was not performing up to Uber’s standard to “make magic” (a wholly invalid performance metric). 53. _Avendafio protested this retaliatory performance review to her new manager. Avendaiio’s manager then advised her that the rating was given at the direction of the former head of SRE who explicitly requested that an initially higher rating be reviewed and “recalibrated” or lowered. 54, On February 19, 2017, Avendaio leamed of Fowler’s blog post describing her experiences at Uber. 55. Avendafio became aware that certain commentators both inside and outside Uber viewed Fowler’s experience as exceptional. 56. Knowing otherwise, in order to dispel views of this sort and to prompt Uber to take some effective corrective measures, Avendaiio sent an email titled “Sexism I have experienced at Uber” to Kalanick, Liane Hornsey, Uber’s chief HR officer, and Arianna Huffington, an Uber board member, among others, describing in detail many instances of discriminatory, harassing and retaliatory conduct she suffered throughout her employment. 13 Complaint for Damages57. Avendaiio also forwarded the same email to some LadyEng team leads. In response, Avendaiio received several supportive emails — in particular from female engineers ~ expressing appreciation for raising these pervasive issues. 58. For several days, no senior officers from Uber responded to Avendaiio’s complaint forcing her to follow up specifying, among other things, that she was retaliated against for escalating Fowler’s complaint to Pham. 59, While Horsey was a direct recipient of Avendafio’s lengthy harassment complaint, publicly, she made light of the complaints. Indeed, public statements demonstrate that Hornsey saw the barrage of HR complaints by Uber employees prompted by Fowler’s blog as a considerable burden for her and the Company: ‘The Susan Fowler blog was very difficult for this company. We did 200 listening sessions. I made it very clear that every single email from every single employee would be answered by me in 48 hours. Believe you me, I sat up until 4 a.m. every bloody morning answering thousands of bloody emails? 60. On February 27, 2017, Avendatio’s HR representative notified Avendafio via text that upon conducting a salary and bonus audit for apparent gender and diversity bias she had discovered that Avendafio had an “abnormally low” base salary and that the Company would purportedly begin to take steps to remedy that, Avendaio is informed and believes that this “abnormally low” salary stemmed not only from discriminatory pay practices based on her gender and/or race/ethnicity but also from years of retaliation for Avendafio’s repeated protestations of Uber's unlawful conduct. 61. Because of the role she had taken in opposing discrimination and harassment at Uber, Avendaiio was bombarded with communications from current and former colleagues, friends and acquaintances, and the media. This situation aggravated Avendatio’s health, which was * Yoree Koh and Greg Bensinger, Can This Executive Make Uber a Place Women Want to Work? ‘The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 9, 2017, available at ntips://www.ws).com/amp/articles/can-this- executive-make-uber-a-place-women-want-to-work-1507539602?ma=prod/accounts-wsj (last visited May 18, 2018). 14 Complaint for DamagesScwma au eon already compromised by stress related to job demands, opposing Uber’s illegal conduct, and surgery she had undergone in or around February of 2017. 62. In April 2017, Avendaiio took job-protected medical leave under FMLA/CFRA. Uber Continued to Fail to Take Effective Remedial Measures and Constructively. Discharged Avendaio, 63. Inlate April 2017, Avendaiio’s health continued to worsen as a result of Uber’s discriminatory treatment of her, including threats of termination. She was hospitalized for approximately three weeks and thereafter attended an intensive out-patient treatment program. 64, Investigations undertaken by two law firms of Uber’s culture and workplace (including one by the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP) reportedly identified 215 complaints of workplace violations, with 47 related to sexual harassment and 54 involving some form of discrimination, while the others pertained to “bullying, retaliation, physical security and other nonsexual forms of harassment.” ’ The investigations reportedly resulted in the termination of 20 employees, including senior executives. 65. Upon information and belief, several employees ~ including managers and HR representatives who engaged in and/or sanctioned sexually harassing, discriminatory and/or (ory conduct against Avendafio ~ remained employed at the company. 66. After the release of a report prepared by Covington & Burling, several members of Uber’s leadership team, including the CTO and chief HR officer, minimized the harassment and discrimination claims raised by Fowler, Avendaio and others, leading Avendaito to conclude that Uber, under its then leadership, would continue the longstanding pattern she had witnessed of refusing to address unlawful conduct, Because Uber’s failure to take effective remedial measures health, on June 28, 2017, threatened Avendafio’s already compromised emotional and physi Avendafio resigned from her job. > See Mike Isaac, Uber Fires 20 Amid Investigation Into Workplace Culture, N.Y. Times (June 6, 2017), available at https://www.nytimes.conv2017/06/06/echnology/uber-fired.himl?_r=0 (last visited May 18, 2018), 15 ‘Complaint for DamagesSowa auton 67. Uber knowingly created intolerable working conditions such that a reasonable ‘woman in Avendaito’s position would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign. 68. Uber’s unlawful conduct was engaged in and/or ratified by managing agents of the company, whom Avendaiio placed her justified and good faith trust. Uber acted in a deliberate, malicious, cold, callous, deceptive, oppressive and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Avendafio and/or with callous disregard for Avendafio’s rights to be free from discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the workplace. 69, Uber’s outrageous conduct towards Avendafio in maintaining a workplace permeated with intolerable working conditions has irreparably disrupted Avendaiio’s life and career. AS a result of Uber’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has and continues to suffer significant emotional distress and physical sickness. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Discrimination Based upon Sex and/or Race/Ethnicity — Disparate Treatment (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, et. seq.) (Against All Defendants) 70, Plaimiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 71. Atall times relevant herein, Plaintiff was a Latina female employee protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of her gender and/or race/ethnicity. 72, — tis an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee, including discriminating against her in the terms and conditions of her employment, based on her gender and/or race/ethnicity. 73, Plaintiff was discriminated against in the terms and conditions of her employment, as outlined above, on the basis of her gender and/or race/ethnicity in violation of FEHA. 74, Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff because of her gender and/or race/ethnicity with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment, including but not limited to failing to provide equal compensation and benefits as male and/or white 16 Complaint for DamagesCea aAH eww 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 coworkers; refusing to promote; and constructively discharging from employment; and otherwise changing the terms and conditions of her employment in violation of FEHA 75, Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic compensatory damages for which Defendant is liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering, and the loss of past and future salary, wages, benefits, or other privileges and conditions of employment in an amount to be proven at arbitration, 76, Asaresult of Defendant's unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs, 77. Defendant committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. ‘The unlawful conduct alleged above was engaged in and/or ratified by the officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing agents of Defendant and each of them, who were acting at all times relevant to this Complaint within the scope and course of their employment, Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, Defendant is liable for punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIO Discrimination Based upon Sex and/or Race/Ethnicity — Disparate Impact (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, et. seq.) (Against All Defendants) 78. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding, paragraphs. 79, Atall times relevant herein, Plaintiff was a female employee protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of her gender and/or race/ethnicity. 80. Atall times relevant herein, Defendant had a practice of providing compensation (including base salary, bonuses, stock grants) and other employment benefits, measuring. performance and promoting employees that had a disproportionate adverse effect on female employees and/or non-white employees, including Plaintiff. 7 Complaint for DamagesCen aw sewn 81. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional injuries, resulting in damages in an amount to be proven at trial 82, Defendant's unlawful actions were intentional, willful, malicious, and/or done with reckless disregard to Plaintiff's right to be free from discrimination based on gender and/or race/ethnicity. 83, __Plaintiff'is entitled to her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Sexual Harassment — Hostile Work Environment (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, ef. seq.) (Against All Defendants) 84. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 85. Atall times relevant herein, Plaintifif was a female employee protected from harassment in employment on the basis of her gender. 86, Atall times relevant herein, Defendant participated in the harassment of Plaintiff by its harassing, discriminatory and retaliatory behavior toward Plaintiff as alleged herein and/or substantially assisted, encouraged and condoned the continued harassment toward Plaintiff creating a hostile work environment, and sanctioned and ratified the unlawful harassing conduct. 87, Defendant subjected Plaintiff to severe and/or pervasive harassment of a sexual ‘manner that a reasonable woman in Plaintiff's position would have found the environment to be hostile and abusive. The behavior was unwanted, without Plaintiff's consent, objected to, and. offensive to Plaintiff. 88, Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic compensatory damages for which Defendant is liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering, and the loss of past and future salary, wages, benefits, or other privileges and conditions of employment in an amount to be proven at arbitration. 18, ‘Complaint for DamagesSee aan pon i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 89. Asaresult of Defendant's unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 90. Defendant committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. The unlawful conduct alleged above was engaged in and/or ratified by the officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing agents of Defendant and each of them, who were acting at all times relevant to this Complaint within the scope and course of their employment. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, Defendant is liable for punitive damages. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, et. seq.) (Against All Defendants) 91, Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 92, Atall relevant times mentioned herein, California Government Code §§ 12940 et. seg. was in full force and effect and binding upon Defendant and their employees. Section 12940(k) provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination . .. from occurring.” 93. Through its acts and omissions, Defendant failed in their affirmative duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender, race/ethnicity, and/or disability and harassment based on gender from occurring in violation of California Government Code § 12940(k). 94, Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic compensatory damages for which Defendant is liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering, the loss of past and future salary, wages, benefits, and other privileges and conditions of employment in an amount to be proven at arbitration. 19 Complaint for DamagesSecwnr aw ron y 95. Asaresult of Defendant's unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 96. Defendant committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof, ‘The unlawful conduct alleged above was engaged in and/or ratified by the officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing agents of Defendant and cach of them, who were acting at all times relevant to this Complaint within the scope and course of their employment, Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, Defendant is liable for punitive damages. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Discrimination Based upon Disabi (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, et. seq.) (Against All Defendants) 97. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 98. Atall times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of her disability. 99. It isan unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee, including discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment, based on her disability 100, Plaintiff is informed and be! ves and thereon alleges at she was discriminated against in the terms and conditions of her employment, as outlined above, on the basis of her disability in violation of FEHA. 101. Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff because of her disability with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment, including but not limited to failing to provide equal compensation and benefits as male coworkers; refusing to promote; and constructively discharging from employment; and otherwise changing the terms and conditions of her employment in violation of FEHA. 20 ‘Complaint for DamageswR ew Sox rad ll 13 14 15 102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic compensatory damages for which Defendant is liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering, and the loss of past and future salary, wages, benefits, or other privileges and conditions of employment in an amount to be proven at arbitration. 103, Asa result of Defendant's unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs 104, Defendant committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from in an amount according to proof. The unlawful conduct alleged above was engaged in and/or ratified by the officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing agents of Defendant and each of them, who were aeting at all times relevant to this Complaint within the scope and course of their employment. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, Defendant is liable for punitive damages. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, et. seq.) (Against All Defendants) 10S. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 106. Atall times alleged herein, California Goverment Code § 12940(h) was in full effect and binding on all Defendants. 107. Pursuant to California Government Code § 12940(h), Plaintifi'had a legal right to protest harassment and/or discrimination in the workplace, without retaliation from Defendant. 108. Asa result of Plaintiff's protest and opposition to the unlawful conduct of employees of Defendant, Plaintiff was retaliated against by Defendant. 21 ‘Complaint for Damages109. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic compensatory damages for which Defendant is liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering, and the loss of past and future salary, wages, benefits, or other privileges and conditions of employment in an amount to be proven at arbitration. 110. Asa result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 111, Defendant committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively in conscious distegard for Plaintiff's rights, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof, The unlawful conduet alleged above was engaged in and/or ratified by the officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing agents of Defendant and each of them, who were acting at all times relevant to this Complaint within the scope and course of their employment. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, Defendant is liable for punitive damages. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation in Violation of CFRA (Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.2) (Against All Defendants) 112. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 113, Atall times alleged herein, California Government Code § 12945.2 was in full effect and binding on all Defendants. 114, Pursuant to California Government Code § 12945.2, Plaintiff had a legal right to take job-protected medical leave, without retaliation from Defendant. 115. Asa result of Plaintifi's taking job-protected medical leave, Plaintiff was retaliated against by Defendant, 22 Complaint for DamagesScena aueon il 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 116. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduet, PlaintifY suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic compensatory damages for which Defendant is liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering, and the loss of past and future salary, wages, benefits, or other privileges and conditions of employment in an amount to be proven at arbitration. 117, Asa result of Defendant's unlawful acts, Plaintiff'is entitled to compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 118. Defendant committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. The unlawful conduct alleged above was engaged in and/or ratified by the officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing agents of Defendant and each of them, who were acting at all times relevant to this Complaint within the scope and course of their employment. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, Defendant is liable for punitive damages. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION tion for Disclosure of Unlawful Acts (Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5) (Against All Defendants) Ret 119, Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 120. Atall times alleged herein, California Labor Code § 1102.5 was in full effect and binding on all Defendants. 121, Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1102.5, Plaintiff had a legal right to be disclose unlawful acts to those with authority to investigate, discover or correct such violations without retaliation from Defendant. 23 ‘Complaint for DamagesSow wane oun i 13 14 15 16 17 18, 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 122, Plaimtiff reported and disclosed unlawful acts prohibited FEHA, CFRA, the Labor Code, and the Business & Professions Code, among other laws, to managers and superiors employed by Defendant, 123, Asa result of Plaintiff's reporting and disclosure of unlawful acts, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff, 124, Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic compensatory damages for which Defendants are liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering, and the loss of past and future salary, wages, benefits, or other privileges and conditions of employment in an amount to be proven at arbitration 125, Asa result of Defendant's unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 126. Defendant committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and PlaintifVis entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. The unlawful conduct alleged above was engaged in and/or ratified by the officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing agents of Defendant and each of them, who were acting at all times relevant to this Complaint within the scope and course of their employment. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, Defendant is liable for punitive damages NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Provide Equal Pay in Violation of the EPA (Cal, Lab. Code § 1197.5) (Against All Defendants) 127, Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs 128, Atall times alleged herein, California Labor Code § 1197.5 was in full effect and binding on all Defendants. 24 ‘Complaint for Damages,il 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 2 28 129, Pursuant to Califomnia Labor Code § 1197.5, Plaintiff had a legal right to be compensated equally as her similarly situated male and/or white coworkers for performing substantially similar work, with the same or substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions. 130. Defendant violated the provisions of Califor Labor Code § 1197.5 when Defendant failed provide equal compensation to Plaintiff as her similarly situated male and/or white coworkers for performing substantially si ilar work, with the same or substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions. 131. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic compensatory damages for which Defendant is liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering, and the loss of past and future salary, wages, benefits, or other privileges and conditions of employment in an amount to be proven at arbitration. 132, Asa result of Defendant's unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, equitable relief, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, 133, Defendant committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. The unlawful conduct alleged above was engaged in and/or ratified by the officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing agents of Defendant and each of them, who were acting at all times relevant to this Complaint within the scope and course of their employment. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, Defendants are liable for punitive damages. ‘TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Termination (Constructive Discharge) in Violation of Public Policy (Against All Defendants) 134, Plain incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 25 ‘Complaint for DamagesCera an ron 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 135, Atall times alleged herein, Plaintiff was subjected to working conditions that violated public policy, including but not limited to violations of her rights under the FEHA, CFRA, EPA, Labor Code section 1102.5, and Business and Professions Code section 17200, among other statutory and constitutional rights, 136, Atall times alleged herein, Defendant intentionally created or knowingly permitted these working conditions. 137. These working conditions, as set forth herein, were so intolerable that a reasonable person in Plaintiff's position would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign. 138. Plaintiff resigned her employment because of the working conditions described herein. 139. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic compensatory damages for which Defendant is liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering, and the loss of past and future salary, wages, benefits, or other privileges and conditions of employment in an amount to be proven at arbitration, 140, Asa result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 141, Defendant committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively in conscious disregard for Plaintif?’s rights, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. The unlawful conduct alleged above was engaged in and/or ratified by the officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing agents of Defendant and each of them, who were acting at all times relevant to this Complaint within the scope and course of their employment, Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, Defendant is liable for punitive damages. 26 ‘Complaint for DamagesSee wu awn eon i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants) 142, Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 143, The conduct complained of above was outside the conduct expected to exist in the workplace, was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress. Defendant, and each of their conduct, in confirming and ratifying the complained of conduct, was done with the knowledge that Plaintifi’s emotional and physical distress would thereby inerease, and was done with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to Claimant. 144, Asa proximate result of Defendant’s conduct and by their intentional inflietion of emotional distress as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been harmed in that Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical sickness, 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 arbitration. 145, Defendant, and each of them, engaging in the conduct as alleged herein, acted fraudulently, maliciously, oppressively and with reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights and safety, and thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages, Defendant, 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 fraudulently, maliciously, oppressively and with reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights and safety, and thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants) 146. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 27 ‘Complaint for DamageswR we Seer )a 147, In the alternative, if said conduct of Defendant, and each of them, and of their agents and employees was not intentional, it was negligent and Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general damages for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 ef seq. (Against All Defendants) 148. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, her allegations from each of the preceding paragraphs. 149. Defendant's policies and/or practices of discriminating against and paying Plaintiff and other female engineers and non-white engineers less than male and/or white engineers for substantially similar work performed and of discriminating against female engineers and non-white engineers in compensation and the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment on the basis of their sex and race or ethnicity constitute business practices because Uber’s acts and omissions as alleged herein have been done repeatedly over a significant period of time, and in a systematic manner, to the detriment of Plaintiff. 150. Defendant's acts and omissions, as alleged herein, violate the FEHA, Government Code § 12940 et, seg. and California Equal Pay Act, as amended, Labor Code § 1197 .5 et seq. and therefore constitute unlawful business practices prohibited by Business & Professions Code § 17200 er seq. 151, Defendant’s acts and omissions, as alleged herein, constitute unfair business practices prohibited by Business & Professions Code § 17200 ef seg. Defendant's business practices of discriminating against Plaintiff and other women engineers and non-white engineers caused harm to Plaintiff that outweighs any reason Defendant may have had for doing so. Defendant’s business practices as alleged herein are also immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and offensive to the established public policies of ensuring women and non-white ‘employees are paid equally to male and/or white individuals for performing substantially similar 28 ‘Complaint for DamagesScoce wa auwewn il 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 work, as reflected in the FEHA and California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Labor Code § 1197 .5 et seq Asa result of its unlawful and/or unfair busing s practices during the course of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant reaped unfair and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff. Accordingly, Uber should be disgorged of illegal profits, and Plaintiff is entitled to restitution with interest of such ill-gotten profits in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, 152, Defendant's unlawful and/or unfair business practices entitle Plaintiff to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and other equitable relief available under law. PRAYER FOR RELIER WHEREFORE, Claimant, on behalf of all aggrieved employees, prays for relief as follows: (a) For compensatory damages including lost wages, earnings, equity, employee benefits, liquidated damages, and all other sums of money, together with interest on these amounts at prevailing rates and according to proof, (6) For general, special, and incidental damages and amounts for emotional and physical distress according to proof, (c) For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial sufficient to punish, penalize and/or deter Defendant; (d) For prejudgment interest and interest on the sum of damages awarded to the maximum extent permitted by law; (©) Anorder that Uber immediately refrain from spoliation, destruction, anor significant alteration of evidence in the subject litigation and/or to restore any such evidence already so spoiled, destroyed and/or altered; (f) An order restoring Plaintiff to her rightful position at Uber (ie., reinstatement) with appropriate seniority and compensation; (g) A preliminary and permanent injunction against Uber, officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in policies, patterns, and/or practices that discriminated against Plaintiff and other employees based on gender and/or race/ethnicity; 29 ‘Complaint for Damages(h) @ () Ww (m) @) An order that Uber institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs, that provide equal employment opportunities for all employees regardless of gender and/or race or ethnicity, and that it eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices; An order requiring Uber to develop and institute accurate and validated standards for evaluating performance, determining pay, and making promotion decisions; An order to ensure that Uber complies with the injunction provisions of any decree that the Court orders; An order retaining jurisdiction over this action to ensure that Uber complies with such a decree; Restitution of all monies due to Plaintiff, as well as disgorgement of Uber’s profits from its unlawful and/or unfair business practices; For reasonable attomeys’ fees and costs of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 30 Complaint for DamagesDated: May 21, 2018 Respeetfiilly stibmit JENNIFER S. SCHWARTZ MENAKA N. FERNANDO OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP ‘One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Ingrid Avendatio Dated: May 21, 2018 ? JENNIFER S. SCHWARTZ MENAKA N. FERNANDO OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jschwartz@outtengolden,com E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Ingrid Avendafio 31 Complaint for Damages