WINIFRED KAO (SBN241473) ENDOaseg an ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE hn??swwr 6? ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 55 Columbus Avenue gm 0 1 INS San Francisco, CA 94111 Goua Telephone: (415) 896-1701 HE Facsimile: (415) 896-1702 Email: HINA SHAH (SBN179002) STEPHEN A. ROSENBAUM (SBN 98634) EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS CLINIC GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 536 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-6649 Facsimile: (415) 896-2430 Emails: hshah@ggu.edu srosenbaum@ggu.edu Attorneys for Plainti?? SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION) . JULIETA DELA CRUZ YANG, Case NoFAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE V- (2) UNPAID (3) MEAL BREAK (4) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OF LABOR (5) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUS. PROF. CODE 17200, et seq.; (6) SEXUAL HARASSMENT 1N EMPLOYMENT (7) TO PREVENT (8) SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN HOUSING (CAL. GOV. CODE 12955; 12955.7) (9) CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER CAL. PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT (CAL. LABOR CODE 2698, et seq.); (10) CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CAMERON an individual; VARSHA RAO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. Plaintiff JULIETA DELA CRUZ YANG hereby complains and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1.. Plaintiff Julieta Dela cruz Yang brings this action against Defendants Cameron and Varsha Rao (collectively, ?Defendants?) for wage and hour violations and for sexual harassment in employment and housing. From approximately July 2013 to April 2015, Defendants maintained workplace practices, policies, and procedures that violated the wage and hour laws of the State of California and the County of San Francisco including but not limited to Labor Code 202, 203, 226.7, 512, 1174, 1194, 1194.2 and 2698 et seq., Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, ?11150 (hereinafter ?Wage Order California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. and San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12R. These violations deprived Plaintiff of wages for all hours worked, the California and San Francisco statutory minimum wage, overtime pay, meal periods, accurate payroll records, the timely payment of wages at discharge, and Labor Code Private Attorney General Act civil penalties for Labor Code and Wage Order violations. Plaintiff also brings this case against Defendants for creating and maintaining a sexually hostile work and home environment, in violation of California Government Code 129400), 12955 and 12955.7 and for failing to prevent harassment in violation of California Government Code ?12940(j) and 12955(g). As a result of the intolerable working conditions, Plaintiff Yang was constructively discharged from her employment on April 15, 2015, in violation of public policy. 2. Plaintiff, an individual, is a resident of the County of San Francisco, State of California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from 2008 to June 2013 as a live-in domestic worker in Singapore. From approximately July 2013 until April 2015, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco as a live-in domestic worker. 3. Defendant Cameron an individual, is a resident of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, and is the Head of Corporate Development at Uber. Defendant Poetzcher is, and at all times relevant herein, was manied to 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Defendant Rao and has two children with Defendant Rao under the age of 18. During the relevant time period, Defendant was an employer of Plaintiff within the meaning of California Government Code ?12940(j) and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 15- 2001. During the relevant time period, Defendant was an owner of housing accommodations within the meaning of California Government Code ?12927. 4. Defendant Varsha Rao an individual, is a resident of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California and is Head of Global Operations for Airbnb. Defendant Rao is, and at all times relevant herein, was married to Defendant Poetzcher and has two children with Defendant under the age of 18. During the relevant time period, Defendant Rao was an employer of Plaintiff within the meaning of California Government Code 129400) and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 15-2001. During the relevant time period, Defendant Rao was an owner of housing accommodations within the meaning of California Government Code ?12927. 5. The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by ?ctitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ?474. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that each of the fictitiously-named Defendants is responsible in the manner set forth herein, or in some other manner for the occurrences alleged herein and that the damages as alleged herein were proximately caused by their conduct. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges thereon, that each of the ?ctitiously named Defendants is a California resident. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of each of the ?ctitiously?named Defendants when they have been ascertained. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants, acting as an agent, servant, employee or representative of, co-conspirator with, or working in concert with each other, intended to and did participate in the events, acts, omissions, practices and courses of conduct alleged herein, and was a proximate cause of damage and injury thereby 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES to Plaintiff as alleged herein. Plaintiff alleges that to the extent that certain acts and omissions were perpetrated by a certain Defendant, the remaining Defendants con?rmed and rati?ed said acts and omissions. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Plaintiff brings this Complaint for violations of California statutes and common law. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because the unlawful acts and practices alleged herein were committed by Defendants within the City and County of San Francisco and the amount of damages sought exceeds the minimumjurisdiction of the Court 8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure ?395 because Defendants reside in the City and County of San Francisco and the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the City and County of San Francisco. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 9. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff ?led with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing timely charges of sexual harassment and failure to prevent harassment against Defendants. The DFEH issued immediate right-to-sue letters on these charges on September 23, 2015. 10. In March 2008, Plaintiff Yang began working for Defendants in Singapore as a live-in domestic worker. In July 2013, Defendants relocated to the United States. Defendants promised to triple Plaintiff Yang?s pay if she worked for them in the United States. 1 1. In July 2013, Plaintiff Yang came to the United States to work for Defendants as a live-in domestic worker. On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff Yang was forced to quit her employment because of intolerable working conditions and moved out of Defendants? home. 12. Throughout her employment, Defendants directly controlled the wages, hours and working conditions of Plaintiff Yang. Defendant supervised Plaintiff Yang?s daily activities. 4 -. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES A. Wage and Hour Violations?-United States 13. In the United States, Plaintiff Yang was paid a ?xed weekly rate of $450, regardless of how many hours she worked. She was provided a cell phone that she was required to have with her at all times. 14. Plaintiff Yang worked more than nine hours per day, six consecutive days in a week. 15. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked. 16. Plaintiff Yang spent more than twenty percent of her total weekly work time on general housekeeping, grocery shopping, cooking, and running errands for Defendants and their children. 17. Defendants routinely employed Plaintiff Yang for a work period of more than ?ve hours a day without a thirty-minute meal period where she was relieved of all duties. 18. Defendants routinely employed Plaintiff Yang for a work period of more than ten hours a day without a second thirty-minute meal period where she was relieved of all duties. l9. Defendants failed to keep accurate time records showing when Plaintiff Yang began and ended each work period, when she took meal breaks, the total hours she worked each day and each pay period, the total wages she was paid, and the applicable pay rate. 20. Plaintiff Yang complained to Defendants about the long hours she worked. In response, in approximately April 2014, Defendants required Plaintiff Yang to sign an employment contract, which stated that Plaintiff Yang would be paid $12.50 an hour and work 30 hours per week, Monday to Saturday. 21. In approximately August 2014, Defendants required Plaintiff Yang to sign another employment contract, which stated that Plaintiff Yang would be paid $12.50 an hour and work 35 hours per week. In addition, the contract stated, ?The Employee will receive all legally required meal and rest breaks.? 22. Despite the employment contracts she signed in March and August 2014, Plaintiff Yang was required to work more than 9 hours a day, six consecutive days per week, and 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES was not given legally mandated meal breaks. She continued to receive $450 a week, regardless of the hours she worked. 23. From July 2013 to July 2014, Defendants required Plaintiff Yang to sign a Cash Receipts Log, which showed payments of $450 a week. 24. During the course of her employment, Defendants provided Plaintiff Yang with computer generated weekly timesheets to sign, which showed the total hours she worked each day, pay rate, gross pay and deductions. These timesheets did not accurately re?ect the actual hours Plaintiff Yang worked or the amount she was paid weekly. Each week, Plaintiff Yang had to sign the weekly timesheet in order to receive her pay. Plaintiff Yang complained to Defendant that the timesheets were not accurate. Defendant told her that regardless of what the contract stated, he would pay her $450 a week. 25. In August 2014, Defendants required Plaintiff Yang to ?ll out a daily timesheet and certi?cation, which listed the scheduled shi? as ?ve hours per day. Plaintiff Yang tried to complete her assigned tasks within the time listed in the scheduled shi?. However, Defendant would require her to come back from break early or work outside of the ?ve hour shift. She found it impossible to get all of the work done within the allotted scheduled shift. In September 2014, Plaintiff Yang complained to Defendant that she could not complete her tasks within the scheduled shift hours. Defendants stopped using the daily timesheets and certi?cations. B. Sexual Harassment Allegations 26. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff Yang was required to reside in Defendants? home. Defendants? home was Plaintiff? 5 primary and only residence during her employment with them. In the United States, Plaintiffs bedroom was located on the second floor, adjacent to Defendants? bedroom. i. Singapore 27. Defendant Rao travelled frequently for work and was often away from home several times a month. When Defendant Rao was not home, Defendant sexually 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES harassed Plaintiff and another co-worker because of their sex. The harassment included, but was not limited to, nudity, comments of a sexual nature, unwanted sexual advances, and unwanted touching. 28. During Plaintiffs first night of work in Singapore, while Defendant Rao and the children were out, Defendant walked into the kitchen naked and watched Plaintiff cook. 29. On several other occasions when Defendant Rao and the children were out, Defendant approached Plaintiff Yang while naked and asked her to put lotion on his back. Initially, Plaintiff Yang complied with Defendant Poetzcher?s requests. Later, she told him that she did not feel comfortable applying the lotion. Defendant Poetzcher told Plaintiff Yang not to tell Defendant Rao about the incidents. 30. While his family was out, Defendant frequently walked around the house naked when he knew that Plaintiff Yang or her co-worker were within his vicinity. Plaintiffs co-worker was once summoned by Defendant to bring food to his of?ce. When she went to the office, she found him naked and masturbating. 31. Defendant made uninvited sexual comments and sexual innuendos to Plaintiff Yang. For example, he told Plaintiff Yang, ?Come watch the kids. I want to fuck Varsha.? 32. On one occasion, Defendant propositioned Plaintiff Yang to perform ?handwork.? When Plaintiff Yang said she did not understand his request, he feigned surprise that she did not understand the term. He then asked whether she wanted to earn extra money doing ?massage.? Plaintiff Yang said no. 33. Defendant touched Plaintiff Yang in an unwanted manner. On one occasion, he purposefully bumped into her and rubbed his groin against her. On another occasion, Defendant pretended to accidentally brush against Plaintiffs breasts and thighs while they were together in the car. 34. Plaintiff Yang told Defendant on several occasions that his behavior 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NNI?ll?II?I?lt?do?l?It?lt?IO?I was inappropriate. He told her not to tell Defendant Rao because she would get angry. 35. Once when Defendant Rao questioned the need to employ Yang?s co-worker, Plaintiff Yang told Defendant Rao that she did not feel comfortable being alone with Defendant because he acted inappropriately when Rao was away. Defendant Rao said she would talk to Defendant Soon thereafter, Defendant apologized to Plaintiff Yang for his behavior. 36. Despite the apology, Defendant harassing conduct did not stop. He continued walking around naked and making sexual comments and sexual innuendos towards Plaintiff. ii. United States 37. After moving to the United States in July 2013, Defendant continued to subject Plaintiff Yang to ongoing sexual harassment. Defendant Rao regularly travelled for work two to three times per month for a period of three days to several weeks. When Defendant Rao and the children were not home, Defendant subjected Plaintiff to sexually harassing conduct such as nudity, inappropriate sexual comments and sexual innuendos. 38. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff Yang had no family or friends in the United States when she moved to the United States to work for them. 39. Shortly after coming with the family to the United States, and while Defendant Rao and the children were away, Defendant asked Plaintiff Yang to massage his legs using a rolling pin. She did so. Soon thereafter, Defendant apologized noting that he was not supposed to act in such a way in the United States. He then told Plaintiff Yang to not tell Defendant Rao about the incident. 40. On one occasion, again while Defendant Rao was away, Defendant went into Plaintiff Yang?s bedroom and sat on her bed. He spent more than thirty minutes in her bedroom asking her about her ?rst boy?'iend, her husband, and when she had sex for the ?rst time. He asked her whether she was lonely and whether she needed somebody. Plaintiff Yang told the questions were unwelcome and made her uncomfortable. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Defendant often exposed himself to Plaintiff Yang when they were alone in the house together. For example, he would often leave his bedroom door open and undress when he heard Plaintiff Yang coming up the stairs. When Plaintiff Yang was cleaning the master bathroom, he would disrobe in the bedroom, forcing Plaintiff Yang to see him naked while she was working or when she tried to leave the room. He would also leave the bathroom door open when he was using the toilet. Plaintiff Yang started to avoid going upstairs when she knew Defendant was there. Defendant did not leave the bedroom or bathroom doors open when naked if Defendant Rao or his children were home. 42. Approximately two to three times a month, when Plaintiff Yang and Defendant were alone in the house, Defendant would tell Plaintiff Yang to stay upstairs. A short time later, he would call Plaintiff Yang to the home of?ce to see him. While in a t-shirt and boxers, he would look Plaintiff Yang in the eyes, hand her lotion and instruct her to take the lotion back to the upstairs bathroom. Plaintiff Yang believed that Defendant used the lotion to masturbate. She was uncomfortable during these encounters. Once a week, Plaintiff Yang would also discover a cup of oil in the sink to clean. Plaintiff Yang believed that Defendant used the oil to masturbate. 43. On a few occasions, Defendant knocked on the bathroom door while Plaintiff Yang was showering. He would not step knocking until she answered; then he would ask that she make food for him. On at least one occasion, Defendant asked Plaintiff Yang whether she was masturbating in the shower. Plaintiff Yang felt uncomfortable and vulnerable on these occasions. She would quickly get out of the shower, dress and run downstairs to comply with Defendant directives. 44. Plaintiff Yang felt disrespected by Defendant She believed that Defendant was trying to pressure her to have a sexual relationship with him. She felt uncomfortable when alone with Defendant She often prayed that these incidents would not escalate to physical touching. When she was alone with Defendant she was vigilant and altered her routine so as to avoid interacting with him or seeing him naked. 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 45. Despite telling Defendant that his behavior towards her was unwelcome, he continued to sexually harass her. The sexual harassment altered and unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff?s employment and housing arrangement. 46. Plaintiff Yang asked on many occasions to talk to Defendant Rao about her concerns. Defendant Rao told Plaintiff Yang that she did not have time to talk and that whatever Yang needed would have to be handled by Defendant 47. On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff Yang quit her employment. She felt that her working conditions were intolerable and the Defendants were unresponsive to her complaints and requests to meet. She complained about the wage and hour violations and made explicit to Defendant that his sexually harassing behavior towards her was unwelcome. After repeated attempts to raise the issue with Defendant Rao, Plaintiff believed that she had no option but to resign. She provided two weeks? notice. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Minimum Wage Under State Law For All Hours Worked Against All Defendants (Violation of Cal. Lab. Code 1194, 1194.2, Wage Order 15-2001; Minimum Wage Order) 48. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 47. 49. California Labor Code ?1 197 and Wage Order 15-2001 require employers to pay at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked. 50. The Minimum Wage Order requires all employers to pay a minimum of at least $8.00 an hour per hour for all hours worked beginning January 1, 2008, and $9.00 per hour for all hours worked beginning July 1, 2014. 51. Labor Code 1194 entitles an employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys? fees, and costs of suit. 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 52. Labor Code 1194.2 entitles an employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. 53. At all relevant times, Plaintiff performed work for which the Defendants failed to compensate her at the required minimum wage rate in violation of Labor Code 1194, 1 194.2, the Minimum Wage Order, and Wage Order 15-2001. 54. As a result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff has been deprived of minimum wage in an amount to be determined at trial, and is entitled to recovery of the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys? fees, and costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code 1194, liquidated damages, and interest thereon pursuant to Labor Code 1194.2. '9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay San Francisco Minimum Wage For All Hours Worked Against All Defendants (San Francisco Admin. Code 12R.4 and 12R.7) 55. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 54. 56. The San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance (SFMWO), codi?ed in Chapter 12R of the San Francisco Administrative Code, requires employers to pay the San Francisco minimum wage to employees for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the city. 57. The SF MWO de?nes ?employee? as any person entitled to payment under the California minimum wage law who works at least two hours per week within the geographic boundaries of the city. 58. The SFMWO defines ?employer? as any person as de?ned in Section 18 of the California Labor Code, including corporate of?cers or executives, who directly or indirectly or through an agent of any other person, including through the services of a temporary services or 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES staf?ng agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any employee. 59. The San Francisco Minimum wage is set at $10.74 per hour for all hours worked beginning January 1, 2014, $11.05 per hour for all hours worked beginning January 1, 2015, and $12.25 per hour for all hours worked beginning May 1, 2015. 60. Chapter 12R.7, subdivision and of the San Francisco Administrative Code entitles an employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage in the City to recover in a civil action any back wages unlawfully withheld, payment of additional sums as penalty in the amount of $50 to the employee for each day that the violation occurred, plus interest, and reasonable attorneys? fees and costs. 61. At all relevant times, Plaintiff performed more than two hours of work per week within the boundaries of the City of San Francisco for which the Defendants failed to compensate her at the required San Francisco minimum wage rate in violation of Chapter 12R of the San Francisco Administrative Code 62. As a result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff has been deprived of the San Francisco minimum wage in an amount to be determined at trial, and is entitled to recovery of the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage, including interest thereon, penalty in the amount of $50 for each day the violation occurred and reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of suit pursuant to Chapter 12R.7 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure To Pay For All Hours Worked Against All Defendants (Cal. Lab. Code 223, 1194; Wage Orders 15-2001) 63. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 62. 64. Section of Wage Order 15-2001 de?nes ?[h]ours worked? as ?the time 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is su??ered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.? 65. California law requires payment of all wages due, whether established by contract or by law, for ?all hours worked? and to pay the statutory or contracted wage rate. Wage Order 15-2001, Cal. labor Code ?223. 66. At all times relevant, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked. 67. At all times relevant, Defendants failed to pay the agreed-upon contract rate for all hours worked to Plaintiff. 68. By their failure to pay Plaintiff for all the time she worked, Defendants have violated the provisions of the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code sections that require proper compensation for all hours worked. 1 69. As a result of Defendants? unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been deprived of wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and is entitled to recovery of such amounts, plus interest thereon, attorneys? fees, costs, and penalties. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure To Pay Overtime Earned For Hours Worked Against All Defendants (Violation of Wage Order 15-2001; Cal. Labor Code 1194) 70. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 69. 71. At all relevant times, Wage Order 15-2001 applied to the employment of Plaintiff by Defendants. 72. Wage Order 15-2001 and Labor Code ?l451(d) de?nes ?personal attendants? as any person employed by a private householder or by any third party employer recognized in the health care industry to work in a private household, to supervise, feed, or dress a child or person who by reason of advanced age, physical disability, or mental de?ciency needs supervision. The 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES status of "personal attendant" shall apply when ?no signi?cant amount of work other than the foregoing is required.? If more than twenty percent of the worker?s time in a week is spent on work other than enumerated in the de?nition, the worker is not a personal attendant. Cal. Labor Code ?1451(d); Cardenas v. Mission Industries (2nd Dist. 1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 952, 958-959. 73. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was not a personal attendant within the meaning of Wage Order 15-2001 and Labor Code 1451(d). 74. Section of Wage Order 15-2001 require employers to pay live-in employees one-and-one-half times the regular hour rate for all hours worked in excess of nine hours in a day. 75. Section of Wage Order 15-2001 requires employers to pay live-in employees one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for all hours worked up to an including nine (9) hours for work in excess of ?ve workdays in a workweek. Time worked in excess of nine (9) hours on the sixth (6th) and seventh (7th) workdays shall be compensated at double the employee's regular rate of pay. 76. Labor Code 1194 entitles an employee receiving less than the legal overtime compensation to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of the overtime, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys? fees, and costs of suit. 77. At all relevant times, Defendants have failed to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff as alleged above in violation of Section 3 (A) and (B) of Wage Order 15-2001. 78. As a result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff has been deprived of overtime compensation in an amount to be determined at trial, and is entitled to recovery of such amounts, including interest thereon, reasonable attomey?s fees, and costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code 1 194. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as Set forth below. 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure To Provide Meal Breaks Against All Defendants (Violation of Cal. Labor Code 226.7, 512; IWC Wage Order 15-2001) 79. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 78. 80. California Labor Code 226.7 and 512(a), and Wage Order 15-2001, ?ll require that all employees who work in excess of ?ve hours must be provided at least a half-hour uninterrupted meal break in which they are relieved of all duty. Employers must provide a second meal period of no fewer than 30 minutes for all workdays on which an employee works more than 10 hours. 81. Labor Code 226.7, 512 and Wage Order 15-2001, 11 provide that employees shall receive a premium of one hour pay for each day worked in which they miss a meal period. 82. Defendants required Plaintiff to work for more than ?ve hours each workday without providing a 30 minute off-duty meal break. Defendants required Plaintiff to work more than ten hours each workday without providing a second 30 minute off-duty meal break. 83. Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff premium pay for missed meal periods. 84. By their failure to provide required off-duty meal periods, and their failure to pay premium pay, Defendants violated the provisions of the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code sections. 85. As a result of Defendants? unlawful acts, Plaintiff has been deprived of wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and is entitled to recover such amounts, plus interest thereon, attorneys? fees, costs, and penalties. 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure To Keep Accurate Payroll Records Against All Defendants (Cal. Labor Code 1174 1174.5) 86. Plaintiff realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 85. 87. In relevant part, Labor Code 1174(d) requires every person who employs labor in this state to keep payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid to employees. Labor Code 1174.5 subjects any person who employs labor in this state who willfully fails to maintain the accurate and complete records of subdivision of 1174 to a civil penalty of ?ve hundred dollars 88. Defendants have violated Labor Code 1174(d) by willfully failing to keep required payroll records showing the actual hours worked each day by Plaintiff. . 89. As a result of Defendants? failure to maintain accurate payroll records, Plaintiff has suffered actual economic harm as she has been precluded from accurately monitoring the number of hours worked and thus prevented from seeking all wages owed, including minimum wage for all hours worked and earned overtime pay. 90. Plaintiff is entitled to recover a civil penalty of $500 for Defendants? violation of Labor Code 1174.5 and request further relief as described below. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure To Keep Accurate Payroll Records Against All Defendants (IWC Wage Order 15-2001) 91. Plaintiff realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 90. 92. Section of Wage Order 15-2001 requires employers to keep accurate records for each employee in regards to total wages paid each payroll period, total hours worked in the payroll period and applicable rates of pay, as well as time records showing when employees begin and end each work period, including meal periods, split shift intervals, and total daily hours. l6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 93. Defendants have violated Wage Order 15-2001, by failing to keep required payroll records showing the actual hours Plaintiff worked each day. 94. As a result of Defendants? failure to maintain accurate payroll records, Plaintiff has suffered actual economic harm as she been precluded from accurately monitoring the number of hours worked and thus prevented from seeking all wages owed, including minimum wage for all hours worked and earned overtime pay. EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION Waiting Time Penalties Against All Defendants (Cal. Lab. Code 202 203) 95. Plaintiff realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 94. 96. Labor Code ?202 require employers to pay employees all wages due immediately at the time of resignation made with at least 72 hours? notice and, within 72 hours of resignation made without 72 hours? notice. 97. Labor Code 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay compensation upon discharge, as required by ?202, then the employer is liable for waiting time penalties in the form of continued compensation of up to 30 work days. 98. Plaintiff provided at least 72 hours? notice of her resignation. Defendants failed to pay all earned wages to Plaintiff on her last day of work, in violation of Labor Code 202 and 203. Defendants? conduct in this regard has been willful. 99. As a consequence of Defendants? willful failure to pay wages due to Plaintiff following separation from employment as required by Labor Code 202, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants an additional sum as a penalty, pursuant to Labor Code 203, equal to thirty (30) days wages plus interest, in amounts according to proof at trial. l7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Unfair Competition Law Against All Defendants (Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17200, et seq.) 100. Plaintiff realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 99. 101. Through Defendants? acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants committed unlaw?il acts that violated the Business and Professions Code section 17200. 102. Defendants? unlawful acts include violating Labor Code sections and Wage Order 15-2001 as alleged in the ?rst through eighth causes of action. 103. Defendants? violation of these statutes and regulations independently and separately constitute an unlawful business practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code 17200. 104. As a result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiff has lost money or property and suffered injury in fact. Defendants continue to hold unpaid wages legally belonging to Plaintiff. 105. Plaintiff is entitled to restitution in the amounts unlawfully withheld by Defendants, with interest, injunctive relief, as well as an award of attorneys? fees and costs. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Sexual Harassment ln Employment Against All Defendants (Cal. Gov. Code 12940, et seq.) 106. Plaintiff realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 105. 107. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee covered by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act California Government Code 129400), which prohibits harassment on the basis of sex and gender. 108. At all relevant times, Defendants were employers covered by the California air Employment and Housing Act California Government Code which prohibits harassment on the basis of gender. Defendant was a supervisor within the meaning of California Government Code ?12926(t). 18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 109. The above-described actions of Defendant Cameron constitute sexual harassment in violation of the FEHA, in that Plaintiff was subjected to conduct that was severe, persistent and/or pervasive based on her sex and gender, creating a sexually hostile work environment, which interfered with her work performance, denied her privileges, and adversely affected the terms and conditions of her job. 110. The harassing conduct to which Plaintiff was subjected to was so severe, widespread, and/or persistent that a reasonable female in Plaintiff?s circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. 111. Plaintiff considered the work environment to be hostile and/or abusive. 112. Defendant Rao is strictly liable for the hostile work environment created by Defendant as a joint employer and supervisor. Even once on notice, Defendant Rao failed to take appropriate action against Defendant thus ratifying his conduct. 113. Defendants? violations of the FEHA caused Plaintiff to suffer harm. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? discriminatory actions, Plaintiff suffered economic losses or earnings, incurred expenses, and endured pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and discomfort, and shame, all to Plaintiff?s damages in an amount to be determined in trial. 114. As a result of the Defendants? unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, attorneys? fees, and costs pursuant to Government Code section 12965. 115. The Defendants did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof. Wherefore, Plaintiff request relief as set forth below. 19 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure To Prevent Discrimination and Harassment Against All Defendants (Cal. Gov. Code 129400)) 116. Plaintiff realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 1 15. 117. Plaintiff at all times was an employee covered by the FEHA, California Government Code 129400), which requires employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. 118. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring. Specifically, Defendants had no policies, procedures, and practices to prevent, monitor and remediate sexual harassment. 119. Defendant Rao failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, even after she was put on notice that Defendant was sexually harassing Plaintiff. 120. Defendants? violations of the EHA caused Plaintiff to suffer harm as set forth above. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? discriminatory actions, Plaintiff suffered economic losses or earnings, incurred expenses, and endured pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and discomfort, and shame, all to Plaintiffs damages in an amount to be determined in trial. 121. As a result of the Defendants? unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, attorneys? fees, and costs pursuant to Government Code section 12965. 122. Defendants did the acts alleged herein maliciously, ?'audulently, and oppressively, and/or with the wrong?Jl intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from the Defendants in an amount according to proof. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below. 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES g?gt?n??wNHoomqamaumuo TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Sexual Harassment In Housing Against Defendant (Cal. Gov. Code ?12955) 123. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 122. 124. California Government Code ?12955 prohibits an owner of any housing accommodation to harass any person based on sex. 125. California Government Code ?12927(d) de?nes ?housing accommodation? as a building, structure, or portion thereof that is occupied as a residence by one or more families. 126. California Government Code ?12927(e) de?nes ?owner? to include lessee, sublessee or any person having any legal or equitable right of ownership or possession, or the right to rent or lease. 127. At all times relevant, Defendants were owners of housing accommodation, pursuant to California Government Code ?12927. 128. At all times relevant, Plaintiff Yang was required to reside in Defendants? residence. 129. Defendant subjected Plaintiff Yang to unwelcome sexual harassment that was suf?ciently severe and pervasive, while she was residing in Defendants? residence, in violation of California Government Code 12955. 130. Defendant violations of the EHA caused Plaintiff to suffer harm as set forth above. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant wrongful conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual out-of pocket damages and pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, shame, embarrassment, and injury to reputation, and is therefore entitled to damages in an amount to be shown according to proof. 131. As a result of the Defendant?s unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, emotional distress damages, and attorneys? fees, and costs, in an amount to be shown 21 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES according to proof. 132. Defendant did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an imprOper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Coercion, Intimidation, Threats 0r Interference With Rights Against All Defendants (Cal. Gov. Code ?12955.7) 133. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 132. 134. California Government Code ?12955.7 prohibits coercion, intimidation, threats or interference with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or protected by California Government Code ?12955. 135. Defendants subjected Plaintiff Yang to a coercive and intimidating environment, which interfered with Plaintiff Yang?s right to use and enjoy her tenancy in Defendants? residence. 136. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? wrongful conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual out-of pocket damages and pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, shame, embarrassment, and injury to reputation, and is therefore entitled to damages in an amount to be shown according to proof. 137. As a result of the Defendants? unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, emotional distress damages, and attorneys? fees, and costs, in an amount to be shown according to proof. 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 138. Defendants did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, in an amount according to proof. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Aiding And Abetting Against Defendant Rao (Cal. Gov. Code ?12955(g)) 139. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 138. 140. California Government Code ?12955(g) prohibits any person from aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling or coercing or attempting to do so the doing of any of the acts or practices declared unlawful under California Government Code ?12955. 141. Defendant Rao knew or should have known that Defendant was engaging in conduct that constituted a breach of duty under California Government Code ?12955. 142. Defendant Rao aided and abetted Defendant by failing to prevent conduct that violated California Government Code ?12955, which was within her normal business duty to prevent. 143. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant Rao?s wrongful conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual out-of pocket damages and pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, shame, embarrassment, and injury to reputation, and is therefore entitled to damages in an amount to be shown according to proof. 144. As a result of the Defendant Rao?s unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, emotional distress damages, and attorneys? fees, and costs, in an amount to be shown according to proof. 145. Defendant did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, 23 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and/or with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant Rao, in an amount according to proof. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Private Attorney General Act Against All Defendants (Cal. Labor Code ??2698 et seq.) 146. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 145. 147. Plaintiff seeks recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 Labor Code 2698, et seq. 148. PAGA permits an ?aggrieved employee? to recover penalties on behalf of herself as a result of an employer?s violations of the Labor Code, including but not limited to violations alleged herein, including Labor Code 202, 203, 512, 1174, 1194 and Wage Order 15-2001. 149. PAGA ?rrther provides for enforcement of the penalty provisions of Labor Code ?558. Section 558 authorizes recovery of civil penalties against the employer and persons who acted on behalf of the employer or who have caused the employer to violate 512, and/or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any Wage Order. 150. Plaintiff is an aggrieved employee because she was employed by the Defendants and the alleged violations were committed against her. 151. Plaintiff complied with the PAGA notice provision set forth in Labor Code by providing a certi?ed letter dated October 7, 2015, to the Labor Workforce DeveIOpment Agency and the employer of the speci?c provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violations. When exhaustion is complete, Plaintiff will amend to so indicate. 24 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 152. Plaintiff requests civil penalties against Defendants for their violations of the Labor Code, as provided under Labor Code 558 and 2699(f), plus attorneys? fees and costs, in amounts to be proved at trial. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Constructive Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy Against All Defendants 153. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 152. 154. By and through the course of conduct herein described, Defendants committed wage and hour violations and subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment in employment and housing in violation of the laws of the State of California and the County of San Francisco including but not limited to Labor Code 202, 203, 512, 1194, 1194.2, 2698 et seq., Wage Order 15-2001, San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12R, California Government Code ??12940, 12955, and 12955.7 and California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. 155. It is the fundamental public policy of the State of California that workers shall be i paid for all hours worked at the minimum wage and entitled to overtime at the applicable rate. Furthermore, it is the ?mdamental public policy of the State of California that workers shall live and work, free from harassment because of sex. 156. By and through the course of conduct herein described, Defendants violated numerous statutory protections entitled to Plaintiff and created working conditions so intolerable that any reasonable person in Plaintiff?s position would have felt compelled to resign under the circumstances. 157. Plaintiff repeatedly complained or attempted to complain about her working conditions to Defendants. Plaintiff was compelled to resign after she had attempted on numerous occasions to rectify her working conditions. It became apparent that Defendants did not intend to correct the working conditions that Plaintiff was forced to endure. 25 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 158. Defendants? actions under these circumstances constitute a constructive wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. 159. Defendants? actions caused Plaintiff to suffer harm as set forth above. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Defendants? actions, Plaintiff suffered losses of earnings and job bene?ts, incurred expenses, and endured emotional distress and mental anguish, all to Plaintiff?s damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 160. As a result of the Defendant?s unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to back pay, front pay and/or lost future earnings, interest, compensatory damages according to proof, attomey?s fees and costs, and for any other relief that the Court considers proper. 161. Defendants did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JULIETA DELA CRUZ YANG prays for judgment and the following speci?c relief against each defendant as follows: A. An award of damages or restitution in the amount of unpaid wages, overtime, minimum wage and meal period compensation, subject to proof at trial; B. For back pay plus prejudgment interest, according to proof, for all wages wrongfully denied as a result of Defendants? unlawful conduct; C. For front pay and/or lost future earnings, according to proof, for the period from the date of judgment to the date on which Plaintiff is restored to the position she would occupy had she not been the subject of unlawful discrimination as set forth herein; 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Dated: October 7, 2015 . For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof, including but not limited to lost earnings and other employee bene?ts, costs of seeking other employment, and damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish; . For all statutory penalties and liquidated damages to which Plaintiff is entitled under the California Labor Code and Wage Order 15-2001; . For civil penalties allowed under Labor Code 558 and 2699; . An award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants for their unlawful conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct; . For attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to applicable statutes or law; For prejudgment interest and post judgment interest as allowed by law; and . An award of such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. Respectfully submitted, By: HINA SHAH STEPHEN A. ROSENBAUM EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS CLINIC, GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW WINIFRED KAO ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE ASIAN LAW CAUCUS Attorneys for Plaintiff JULIETA DELA CRUZ YANG 27 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a jury trial for each cause of action. Dated: October 7, 2015 Respectfully submittng I. By: Cf~ I 5 -4 STEPHEN A. ROSENBAUM EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS CLINIC GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW WINIFRED KAO ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - ASIAN LAW CAUCUS Attorneys for Plaintiff JULIETA DELA CRUZ YANG 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES