John K. Rubiner - State Bar No. 155208 j kr@birdmarella.co~n Jeremy D. Matz - State Bar No. 199401 j dm@birdmarella.coin BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C. 1875 Century Park East. 23rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90067-256 1 Telephone: (3 10) 20 1-2 100 Facsimile: (3 10) 20 1-2 110 Attorneys for Plaintiff Petra Starke SUPERIOR COURT O F THE STATE O F CALIFORNIA FOR T H E COUNTY O F LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT PETRA STARKE, an individual, Plaintiff, VS. BIKRAM YOGA COLLEGE OF INDIA, LP, a California limited partnership; BIKRAM CHOUDHURY YOGA, INC., a California Corporation; BIKRAM, INC., a California Corporation; BIKRAM CHOUDHURY and RAJASHREE CHOUDHURY, in their capacities as trustees of the CHOUDHURY FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 28, 1995; BIKRAM CHOUDHURY, an individual; and DOES 1-25, 1 1 iidge C. Karlan S~/Z~(O& CASENO. Complaint for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $512940, et seq.; (3) Retaliation in Employment Under Cal. Gov't Code $5 12940, et seq.; (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment; (5) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (6) Violation of Cal. Labor Code $ 970; (7) Nonpayment of Wages; (8) Waiting Time Penalties; and (9) Accounting Demand for J u r y Trial Defendants. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE / ) - /c n . s y ~ n / ~b.c$77ki i r - \. Date 3 173736 1 Complaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $#12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $ $ 12940. et seq., etc. Plaintiff Petra Starke ("Plaintiff') alleges as follows: I INTRODUCTION I. Plaintiff is an accoinplished and successful lawyer who, in March 2013, was hired to be the President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of defendant Bikraln Yoga College of India, LP ("Yoga College"). One of Plaintiffs priinary jobs as President and CEO was to assist Yoga College's sole owner and founder, defendant Bikraln Choudhury ("Choudhury"), in navigating the avalanche of sexual harassment and sexual assault lawsuits tiled against him. But Choudhury's harass~nentand vindictiveness know no bounds. In January 20 15, he trained his sights on Plaintiff after she internally reported, within the company, even more acts of apparent sexual misconduct by Choudhury during a business trip to New York and Atlantic City. 2. In January 20 15, Yoga College and Choudhury intentionally stopped paying Plaintiff her salary - thereby breaching a written contract that Yoga College had with Plaintiff and constructively discharging her. 3. Yoga College, Choudhury, and the other Defendants wrongfully fired and retaliated against Plaintiff because she reported Choudhury's unlawful sexual rnisconduct during the business trip. As a result of Defendants' discriminatory and unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered extensive financial and emotional hardship. I1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they all reside in California or were organized under California laws and do business in California. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure 8 395 because Plaintiff suffered injury in this county and Defendants maintain .heir offices in this county. 1 Complaint for (1) Breach o f Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 3s 12940, et seq., etc. I11 THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff was previously a resident of Washington. D.C. Since March 20 13. 'laintiff has been a resident of Los Angeles County. 6. On information and belief, defendant Bikraln Yoga College of India, LP "Yoga College") is, and at all relevant times was, a limited liability partnership organized ~ n d e the r laws of the state of California with its principal place of business in Los Angeles. 7. On information and belief, defendant Bikram Choudhury Yoga, Inc. ("Yoga nc.") is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation organized under the laws of the state ~fCalifornia, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles. 8. 111 relevant On inforlnation and belief, defendant Bikram, Inc. ("Bikram Inc.") is, and at tiines was, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of California. with its principal place of business in Los Angeles. 9. Defendants Yoga College, Yoga Inc., and Bikrain Inc. are collectively eeferred to in this Complaint as "the Entity Defendants". 10. On information and belief, defendant Choudhury is, and at all relevant times was, an individual and resident of Beverly Hills, California. On information and belief, he s 7 1 years old. Choudhury is, and at all relevant times was, a trustee of the Choudhury :amily Trust Dated June 28, 1995 ("Family Trust"). Choudhury is sued herein in his ndividual capacity and in his capacity as a trustee of the Falnily Trust. 1 1. On information and belief, defendant Rajashree Choudhury ("Ra.jashree") is, ~ n dat all relevant times was, an individual and resident of Beverly Hills. California. bjashree is, and at all relevant times was, Choudhury's wife, a Yoga College executive, ~ n da trustee of the Family Trust. Rajashree is sued herein in her capacity as a trustee of he Family Trust. 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the Falnily 'rust is the beneficial owner of the assets of the Entity Defendants, Choudhury, and tajashree. Further, on information and belief, Choudhury and Rajashree amended and 2 Complaint for ( I ) Breach o f Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc. restated the Family Trust on or about April 13, 2010. 13. Defendant Choudhury, defendant Rajashree, and the Entity Defendants are collectively referred to in this Complaint as "the Defendants". 14. On infonnation and belief, Yoga College and Choudhury are, and at all relevant times were, an "employer" within the meaning of California Government Code Stj 12926(d), 12940(a), and 12940(i)(4)(a). 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times, there existed and still exists a unity of interest and ownership between and among the Defendants. This unity is such that any individuality and separateness between and among the Defendants ceased to exist before the times relevant to this Complaint, and each Defendant was and is the alter ego of every other Defendant. Plaintiff is informed and believes that (a) Choudhury, Rajashree, and/or the Family Trust withdrew funds from the Entity Defendants' bank accounts for personal use; (b) Choudhury and/or Rajashree withdrew funds from the Fainily Trust's bank accounts for personal use; and (c) the Defendants failed to observe the proper corporate formalities. including but not limited to holding annual meetings and maintaining separate financial books and accounts. 16. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Choudhury coinpletely controlled, dominated, managed, operated, and intermingled the assets of each of the Entity Defendants and of the Family Trust, including by placing various assets of the Entity Defendants and of the Fainily Trust into the names of other cntities or himself in order to avoid the payment of obligations to creditors of the Entity Defendants, the Fainily Trust, Choudhury, and each of them. Adherence to the fiction of separate existence of the Entity Defendants, the Fainily Trust, and Choudhury from one mother would permit an abuse of corporate privileges, sanction fraud, pro~noteinjustice, 2nd permit Defendants to benefit from the wronghl acts and o~nissionsalleged in this Zomplaint. 17. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants Does 1 hrough 25, inclusive, and therefore sues them by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will J Complaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $S 12940. et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc. amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they are ascertained. 18. On information and belief, each of the fictitiously-naned Defendants is negligently, contractually, and/or otherwise responsible in some inanner for the acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint, and Plaintiffs damages as alleged were proximately caused by those acts or omissions. 19. On information and belief, at all relevant times each and every Defendant was the agent. employee, andlor alter ego of every other Defendant, and in doing the things alleged, each acted within the course and scope of such agency and employment, and with the consent, provision, and authorization of each of the remaining Defendants. All actions of each Defendant herein alleged were ratitied and approved by every other Defendant. IV FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Bikram Yoga and Yoga College 20. Bikraln Yoga is a system of yoga that Choudhury claims to have created from various traditional yoga techniques. A Bikrain Yoga class runs for ninety minutes and consists of the same series of twenty-six postures, including two breathing exercises. Bikra~nYoga is practiced in a room heated to 10.5' F with approxilnately 40% humidity. 2 1. Yoga College is not an academic institution. Instead, it is the business name for the Bikram Yoga studios owned by Choudhury in the United States and around the world, as well as for the entity that runs the "teacher training courses," which are courses to train Bikrarn Yoga instructors. The Entity Defendants rely on Choudhury's charisma to market the teacher training courses and franchise agreements for the Bikrain Yoga studios. 22. Over the last several years, Yoga College, other Entity Defendants, and Choudhury individually have been sued by several female Bikram Yoga practitioners, students, instructors, and teacher trainees who were allegedly sexually harassed and/or sexually assaulted by Choudhury. These lawsuits have caused the Defendants' public image and reputation to deteriorate progressively and significantly. The lawsuits include: Sarah Bazlghn v. Bikram Choudhury, et al. (LASC BC502424), Jane Doe 1 v. Bikram 4 Complaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc. Choudhury, et al. (LASC BC508288), Larissa Anderson v. Bikraln Choudhzlry, et al. (LASC BC5 17883), Jane Doe 2 v. Bikram Choudhury, et al. (LASC BC508089). Minakshi Jufa-Bodden v. Bikram Choudhury, et al. (LASC BC5 1204 I), Ja17e Doe 3 v. Bikraln Chozr~il.2zlry,et al. (BC5288 13). and Jill Lawler v. Bikram Clzozldhury, et al. (BC572579). B. Petra Starke 23. Plaintiff is originally froin Czechoslovakia and was educated in Europe and the United States. She has a juris doctor and advanced law degree from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. and a business degree from the Prague School of Economics. 24. Following law school, Plaintiff worked as an associate at a prestigious Washington law firin and, later, within the United States Government in the Office of White House Counsel and as General Counsel for the President's Council of Economic Advisors. C. Yoga College's Recruitment of Plaintiff by False Statements and Promises 25. Plaintiff began practicing Bikrain Yoga while working in Washington and, through her involveinent as a practitioner, came to ineet Choudhury. In 20 13, when Plaintiff began considering a job change, Choudhury, on behalf of hiinself and each of the Entity Defendants, urged her to move to California to become President and CEO of Yoga College. Choudhury falsely promised Plaintiff that, if she were to move across the country for the position, she would have the authority that a President and CEO ordinarily has. Choudhury also told Plaintiff that (a) he wanted her to obtain outside investors for his :ompanies; (b) the books and records of the Entity Defendants followed standard xcounting practices; and (c) the books and records were in a good condition that would :nable Plaintiff to recruit investors. 26. In fact, Choudhury lied to Plaintiff. Instead of giving her the authority he xoinised, Choudhury refused to grant Plaintiff full access to the Entity Defendants' books ind records and kept her out of all important financial decision-making. Moreover, as 31aintiffonly learned afier taking the job, the books and records of the Entity Defendants 5 Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S S 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc. were a shambles. There were no meaninghl accounting controls, and the Entity Defendants generated, but did not properly account for, enormous cash revenues. Furthermore, Plaintiff learned that Choudhury iinproperly caused and used the Entity Defendants and the Family Trust to pay for Inany of Choudhury's personal expenses. such as for the Inany luxury autoinobiles that he collected. D. Plaintiffs Employment Agreement 27. On May 2, 2013, Plaintiff and Yoga College entered into an Executive Elnploylnent Agreeinent (the "Agreement"), which was effective as of March 15, 20 13. A true and correct copy of the Agreeinent is attached as Exhibit A. The Agreement gave Plaintiff an initial term of elnploylnent of three years, through March 15, 20 16. 28. Under paragraph 2.4(a) of the Agreeinent, Plaintiff was to be paid an annual base salary of $200,000. This paragraph also mandated a $50,000 salary increase each time Yoga College achieved one of the goals specified in the paragraph. Yoga College achieved three of those goals, but Yoga College never gave Plaintiff the corresponding mandatory salary increases, which should have totaled $1 50,000. Consequently, Plaintiff's current salary should be $350,000, and Yoga College owes her the unpaid salary increases as set forth in the Agreement. 29. Under paragraph 2.4(c) of the Agreeinent, in addition to her annual base salary, Plaintiffwas entitled to "an annual cash payment equal to ten percent (10%) of the increase, if any, in the Company's gross revenue for a calendar year over the amount of the prior year's gross revenue . . . ." These amounts should have been paid in 2014 (for the 20 13 increase) and by March 1, 20 15 (for the 20 14 increase). The payments were not made, and Yoga College still owes them to Plaintiff: 30. Under paragraph 2.4(k) of the Agreement, Plaintiff was entitled to four weeks of paid vacation annually. 3 1. Under paragraph 3.1(b) of the Agreement, if Yoga College terminated Plaintiffs e~nployinentother than for "Just Cause" (as defined in the Agreement), Yoga College was obligated to pay Plaintiff her base salary (including the mandatory increases 6 ,, Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environnient Under Cal. Gov't Code $9 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc. set forth in paragraph 2.4(a)) and any perforinance bonus that she would have earned from the date of termination through March 15, 2016. Additionally, after terminating Plaintiffs einploylnent other than for "Just Cause," Yoga College was obligated to inaintain all of Plaintiffs health, dental. disability, and other benefits in force through March 15. 201 6. E. Choudhury's Direct Harassment of Plaintiff 32. Froin the beginning of Plaintiffs employment, Choudhury engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct on numerous occasions, which created a hostile work environment. 33, During business meetings with Plaintiff and others in Choudhury's office, Choudhury had female einployees massage hiin and brush his hair. 34. As Plaintiff learned, Choudhury also had feinale employees come to his home to massage hiin and stay up late with hiin to watch Bollywood movies. 35. Plaintiff attempted to stop this behavior and informed the einployees that Choudhury's conduct in the workplace and at home was improper. Plaintiff also regularly advised Choudhury to stop his inappropriate conduct. Plaintiff also told the einployees that they were not required to massage Choudhury as part of their job. Subsequently, Ra-jashreetold Plaintiff that Choudhury was angry with Plaintiff because Plaintiff "took away his girls.'' 36. Choudhury required Plaintiff to come to his home and hotel roolns for business meetings. During these meetings, Choudhury demanded that Plaintiff sit on his bed with hiin. Choudhury's inappropriate behavior made Plaintiff very uncoinfortable. 37. Choudhury regularly coln~nentedto Plaintiff about her personal appearance. Plaintiff found these colninents inappropriate in a business setting and told Choudhury to stop making them. 38. Choudhury regularly made improper and hostile co~llinentsto Plaintiff. For example, and without limitation, Choudhury once returned from a trip and told Plaintiff that he had bought her inany mini-skirts. Choudhury asked Plaintiff to come to his home to try on the mini-skirts and presumably inodel them for his entertainment. Plaintiff 7 Cotnplaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 12940, et seq., etc. resisted and told Choudhury that this conduct was improper. Choudhury also engaged in racist tirades in Plaintiffs presence about "you fuclting white trash," and made colnlnents about how races should not mix "because you should not mix oil with water." Plaintiff found these co~nlnentshurtful and disrespectful because, as Choudhury knew, she has a mixed-race marriage. F. Plaintiffs Participation in the Fair Employment and Housing Act Process 39. From virtually her first day on the job, Plaintiffwas inanaging the crisis that arose from the nu~lleroussexual harassment and sexual assault lawsuits that were filed against Choudhury and the Entity Defendants. 40. Given the nature of the allegations against Choudhury and the Entity Defendants in those lawsuits, Plaintiff urged Choudhury to be careful about his interactions with younger women. 41. Against Plaintiffs advice, Choudhury chose to bring a 23-year old female yoga instructor on a business trip with him to New York and Atlantic City in January 2015. Plaintiffwas also on the business trip. 42. During a limousine ride Goln New York to Atlantic City, Plaintiff witnessed Choudhury pressuring the instructor to massage him. Plaintiff also witnessed the instructor's head in Choudhury's lap, with a ski jacket on top of her head, in what appeared to be an act of oral sex. Upon arrival in Atlantic City, Plaintiff tried to ensure that the instructor would have her own hotel room, separate from Choudhury, but Choudhury overrode Plaintiff and had the instructor stay in his suite. Choudhury also successfully pressured the instructor to join him for a couples massage in his suite, over the instructor's wishes and Plaintiffs objection. 43. Plaintiff was shocked by Choudhury's mistreatment of the instructor in the lilnousine and at the hotel, and was concerned that his inisconduct could be construed as sexual harassment and sexual assault - especially given the nature of the allegations in the pending lawsuits. During the business trip, the instructor told Plaintiff that she was not cornfortable with Choudhury's behavior, and Plaintiff confronted Choudhury directly 8 Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; ( 2 ) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 33 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S S 12940, et seq., etc. about it. But rather than show appreciation for Plaintiff's good faith efforts to protect him from yet another lawsuit, Choudhury instead got angry with Plaintiff and rejected her efforts. 44. TJpon returning to Los Angeles, Plaintiff told Rajashree about Choudhury's inisconduct on the business trip. Plaintiff also told two other Yoga College employees. 45. After verbally informing Rajashree and the other Yoga College e~nployees about Choudhury's misconduct, Plaintiff also prepared a detailed ~nemorandumof the to Rajashree and events during the business trip. She provided a copy of the ine~norandu~n to one of the other employees. G. Defendants' Retaliatory Firing of Plaintiff 46. Immediately after Plaintiff made her complaint about Choudhury's ~nisconductduring the business trip, Defendants retaliated by stopping payment of her salary and constructively tiring her. Defendants terminated Plaintiff's e~nployinent without "Just Cause'' as defined in the Agreement. Defendants have yet to pay Plaintiff any of the monies she is owed under the Agreement. 47. Plaintiff has incurred substantial psychological and physical injuries as a result of the discrimination and harassment she has suffered. Her sy~nptoinsinclude depression, anxiety, emotional distress, physical sickness, and other psychological and physical symptoms. Plaintiff is expected to continue to incur substantial expenses addressing these in-juries with professionals. 48. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred substantial damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning capacity, pain and suffering, and past and future medical expenses. 49. Before filing this Complaint, Plaintiff filed a timely coinplaint with the California Department of Fair Einployrnent and Housing alleging that Defendants violated the Fair Elnployment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), California Government Code 55 12900, et seq. Plaintiff received a right to sue letter against Defendants from the California Department of Fair Einployrnent and Housing. 9 Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $ 5 12940, et seq., etc. II CAUSES OF ACTION (All Causes of Action are Alleged Against All Defendants) 4. First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract 50. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 :hrough 49 of this Complaint. 5 1. On or about May 2, 2013, but effective March 15, 2013, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into the Agreement, whereby Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff for ~ e employment r as the President and CEO of Yoga College. A true and correct copy of .he Agreement is attached as Exhibit A. 52. Plaintiff has performed all of her obligations under the Agreement, except .hose which she was prevented or excused from performing. 53. Defendants have breached the Agreement in numerous ways, including but lot limited to: (a) Failing and refusing to increase Plaintiff's salary as required by 'aragraph 2.4(a) of the Agreement, despite Yoga College's achievement of three goals that riggered the mandatory salary increases; (b) Failing and refusing to make the annual cash payments required under )aragraph 2.4(c), despite increases in Yoga College's annual gross revenue; (c) Failing and refusing to give Plaintiff the four weeks of paid annual lacation required under paragraph 2.4(k), or to pay the monetary value of that vacation iine; and (d) Failing and refusing to pay Plaintif'f'her base salary (including :ontractually-required increases) and any performance bonus that she would have earned, 1s well as to maintain all of Plaintiff's health, dental, disability, and other benefits in force, i-oin the date of termination through March 15, 20 16, as required under paragraph 3.1(b) lecause Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment without "Just Cause" as defined in he Agreement. 10 Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $S 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 12940, et seq., etc. 54. Plaintiff has suffered damages legally caused by Defendants' breaches of the Agreement in an amount to be proven at trial. B. Second Cause of Action: Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $5 12940, el seq. 55. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 54 of this Complaint. 56. Plaintiff is a protected employee under FEHA, codified in California Government Code Section 12900, et seq. 57. Defendants are covered e~nployersunder FEHA, etnploying more than five persons, as required by California Government Code 58. 5 12926(d). As detailed above, Defendants created a sexually harassing hostile work environment for Plaintiff by committing, without limitation, the following acts: (a) Having female employees lnassage Choudhury and brush his hair during business meetings in Plaintiffs presence; (b) Demanding that Plaintiff sit on Choudhury's bed with him during business meetings at his home and hotel rooms; (c) Regularly commenting on Plaintiff's physical appearance throughout the entirety of Plaintiffs employment; (d) Buying mini-skirts for Plaintiff and insisting that Plaintiff come to Choudhury's home to try them on and presumably model them for Choudhury; (e) Demanding that a young fernale yoga instructor massage Choudhury, 2nd apparently perform oral sex on him, in a limousine and in Plaintiff's presence during a 3usiness trip; (f) Demanding that the young female yoga instructor stay in Choudhury's lotel suite during the business trip, over Plaintiffs objection; and (g) Pressuring the young female yoga instructor to participate in a couples nassage with Choudhury in his hotel suite during the business trip, over the instructor's aishes and Plaintiffs objection. 11 Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc. 59. As Choudhury effectively owned and/or controlled the other Defendants, each Defendant had knowledge of Choudhury's conduct and failed to stop it. 60. Plaintiff specifically informed Rajashree - an executive of Defendants - of Choudhury 's improper sexual misconduct. 6 1. Despite having knowledge of Choudhury's misconduct, each Defendant failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to stop the harassment. Moreover, before the harassment happened, Defendants took no steps to protect employees, including Plaintiffi; or to prevent such harassment from occurring or continuing. 62. Due to the aforementioned acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has directly and proxiinately suffered actual da~nagespursuant to California Civil Code 3 3333, including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future earning capacity, medical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future, attorneys' fees and costs, and other pecuniary losses not presently ascertained, for which Plaintiffwill seek leave of Court to ainend when ascertained. 63. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and o~nissionsof Defendants, and zach of them, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe elnotional and mental distress, physical sickness and injury, and has incurred medical and professionals' bills for the treatment of these injuries. 64. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 65. The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were willful, nalicious, intentional, oppressive, and despicable and were done in willful and conscious jisregard of the rights and welfare of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive ind exemplary dainages in an amount to be determined at the tiine of trial. 66. As a result of Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to qeasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in California Government Code $ 12965(b). 12 Con~plaintfor ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S S 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc. C. Third Cause Of Action: Retaliation in Employment Under California Government Code $5 12940, et seq. 67. Plaintif'f'repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 of this Complaint. 68. From the time of the coininencement of her einployinent through January 201 5, Plaintiff was an einployee of Defendants. 69. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by (a) confronting Choudhury about his mistreatinent of the young female yoga instructor during the business trip, and when Choudhury got angry with Plaintiff for raising the issue, thereafter (b) informing Rajashree and other Yoga College employees about it, and (c) preparing and submitting a lnernoranduin describing her concerns to Rajashree and to another Yoga College einployee. 70. In retaliation against Plaintiff because she exercised her rights and obligations and engaged in protected activity, Defendants intentionally and immediately stopped paying her salary, and thereby constructively discharged her. 7 1. The acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, violated California Government Code 55 12940, et seq. These statutes imposed a duty upon Defendants, and each of them, not to retaliate against people, such as Plaintiff, who raise potential violations of the anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws in the workplace setting. These statutes were intended to prevent the type of injury and dainages that Defendants inflicted on Plaintiff. Plaintiff was, at all times mentioned herein, a inernber of the class of people intended to be protected by these statutes. At all relevant tiines herein. Plaintiff was an employee who participated in the anti-discrimination and anti-harassment process ~ n dwas therefore entitled to the protections of California Government Code $9 12940, et Teq. 72. Due to the aforementioned acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of .hein, Plaintiff has directly and proximately suffered actual damages pursuant to California 2ivil Code 5 3333, including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future earning 13 Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $ 5 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S$ 12940, et seq., etc. capacity. nledical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future, attorneys' fees and costs. and other pecuniary losses not presently ascertained, for which Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend when ascertained. 73. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and oinissions of Defendants. and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe elnotional and mental distress, physical sickness and injury, and has incurred medical and professionals' bills for the treatment of these injuries. 74. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 75. The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive, and despicable and were done in willful and conscious disregard of the rights and welfare of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive and exe~nplarydamages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 76. As a result of Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in California Government Code $ 12965(b). D. Fourth Cause Of Action: Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment 77. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Complaint. 78. Plaintiff is a protected employee under FEHA, codified in California Government Code Section 12900, et seq. 79. Defendants are covered e~nployersunder FEHA, e~nployingmore than five persons, as required by California Government Code 80. 12926(d). Defendants owed Plaintiffa duty to prevent the discrimination and harassment that Plaintiff suffered as alleged herein. 8 1. Through the actions of their officers and e~nployeesin retaliating against because she raised Choudhury's violations of Plaintiff and terminating her e~nploy~nent FEHA, based on his mistreatment of the felnale yoga instructor during the business trip, 14 Complaint for (1) Breach o f Conrract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S S 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $ 4 12940. et seq., etc. Defendants have ratified and participated in the improper termination of Plaintiffs employment. 82. The conduct of Defendants, as alleged herein, in permitting and ratifying their employees' discriininatory conduct against Plaintiff; constitutes a failure to prevent discriinination and harassment within the meaning of FEHA, codified in California Government Code 85 12940 and 12960. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount of compensatory damages to be proven at trial, but which exceeds this Court's jurisdictional minirnuin, including in-jury to her professional standing and reputation and her future earning capacity. 83. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to prevent discriinination and harassment, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer elnotional distress, which Defendants knew Plaintiff would suffer after being terminated. 84. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to prevent discriinination and harassment, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because Defendants' conduct described herein was outrageous and was corninitted with oppression, fraud, and malice, and because Defendants knew Plaintiffs supervisors were unfit to be put in a position of authority over wornen. 85. As a direct and proxiinate result of Defendants' intentional discrimination and harassment, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code 86. 5 12965(b). As a direct and proxiinate result of Defendants' intentional discriinination and harassment, Plaintiff is entitled to recover any consequential damages she has suffered. E. Fifth Cause Of Action: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 87. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 86 of this Complaint. 88. Article I, Section 8 of the California Constitution reflects a fundainental public policy of the State of California against gender discriinination, harassment, and 1 < 1J Complaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 12940. et seq., etc. retaliation in employment. 89. Similarly, FEHA reflects a fundamental public policy protecting elnployees from retaliation for making a FEHA colnplaint about a superior. 90. FEHA also reflects a fundamental public policy protecting einployees against an employer's failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in the workplace. 9 1. Defendants' treatment of Plaintiff and termination of Plaintiffs elnploylnent constitutes violations of these public policies. 92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of these public policies, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions, including harassment and termination from her position as Yoga College's President and CEO. 93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of these public policies. Plaintiff has been damaged in amounts to be proven at trial, but which exceed this Court's jurisdictional minimum, including in-jury to her professional standing and reputation and her future earning capacity. 94. Defendants, and each of them, have committed the acts alleged herein willfully, maliciously, and oppressively, and with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff. Defendants further acted with an improper and intentional motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants and each of thein in an amount according to proof. F. Sixth Cause Of Action: Violation of California Labor Code 5 970 95. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 of this Complaint. 96. Prior to March 20 13 (and specifically since the summer of 20 12), by means of oral coinmunications, defendant Choudhury, speaking on his own behalf and on behalf 3f the Entity Defendants, told Plaintiff that, if she were to move across the country, she would be given the position of President and CEO of Yoga College and would have the luthority that that position ordinarily has. Choudhury also told Plaintiff that (a) he wanted 16 Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 5s 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code Stj 12940, et seq., etc. her to obtain outside investors for his companies; (b) the books and records of the Entity Defendants followed standard accounting practices; and (c) the books and records were in a good condition that would enable Plaintiff to recruit investors. 97. Defendants knew that these representations were false in that: (a) Choudhury had no intention of allowing Plaintiff to act as President and CEO and never gave Plaintiff sufficient access to financial documents or other materials or resources necessary for her to carry out her duties in that position, including obtaining outside investors; (b) the books and records of the Entity Defendants were a shambles; and (c) Defendants had no intention to correct the books or records so that Plaintiff could attempt to obtain investors. 98. In reliance upon Defendants' representations, and not knowing that they were false, Plaintiff changed her place of residence by moving from Washington, D.C. to Southern California for the purpose of working for Defendants as President and CEO. 99. Over the course of her employinent with Defendants, Plaintiff learned that Defendants' representations were false. Plaintiff learned that the Entity Defendants' financial statements were unaudited, in disarray, and did not follow generally accepted accounting practices. Moreover, Plaintiff learned that Defendants had no intention of allowing her to act as the President and CEO, as they failed and refused to allow Plaintiff sufficient access to financial documentation. Finally, in January 20 15, Defendants constructively discharged Plaintiff by stopping payment of her salary. 100. As a proximate result of these false representations, Plaintiff was influenced and persuaded to move from Washington, D.C. to Southern California. Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount to be proved at trial. 10 1. Defendants, and each of them, have coinlnitted the acts alleged herein willfully, maliciously, and oppressively, and with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff. Defendants further acted with an improper and intentional motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. As a result of Defendants' ;onduct, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants 3nd each of them in an amount according to proof. 17 Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $ 5 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc. 102. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 972, Plaintiff is entitled to double damages for Defendants' misconduct. G. Seventh Cause Of Action: Nonpayment of Wages 103. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 102 of this Complaint. 104. Effective in or about January 201 5, Defendants constructively terminated Plaintiff's employment. 105. As of January 2 1, 20 15, at the tiine that Defendants constructively terminated Plaintiffs employment, Plaintiff had last been paid accrued wages on January 5,2015, and was owed wages for her work through January 21, 201 5, as well as a cash payinent pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 106. In addition, as of January 2 1, 201 5, Plaintiff had accrued 40 days of paid time off pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Consequently, Plaintiff was owed money for the accrued paid tiine off. 107. At the time of termination, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any of the amounts due as set forth above. Defendants' failure to pay the full amount due Plaintiff upon her termination violates the provisions of California Labor Code 5 20 1. Defendants awe the final payments plus accrued paid tiine off and have failed and refused, and ;ontinue to fail and refuse, to pay the amounts due to Plaintiff. 108. Pursuant to California Labor Code 5 21 8.5, Plaintiffrequests that the court lward her reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by her in this action. 109. Pursuant to California Labor Code 5 21 8.6, Plaintiff requests that the court rward Plaintiff interest on all due and unpaid wages, at the legal rate specified by Zalifornia Civil Code H. 5 3289(b), accruing froin the date the wages were due and payable. Eighth Cause Of Action: Waiting Time Penalties 110. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 hrough 109 of this complaint. 11 1. Defendants' failure to pay wages as alleged above was willful in that 18 Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code ss12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 9s 12940, et seq., etc. Defendants knew the money was due to Plaintiff but refused to inake payment in order to punish her for participating in the FEHA process. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to penalties under California Labor Code 5 203, which provides that an employee's wages shall continue as a penalty until paid or for a period of up to 30 days froin the tiine they were due, whichever period is shorter. 112. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the sums owed at the time of her termination and for inore than 30 days thereafter. Therefore. pursuant to California Labor Code $ 203, Plaintiff is entitled to 30 times her daily rate of pay. I. Ninth Cause of Action: Accounting 1 13. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 1 12 of this Complaint. 1 14. Under paragraph 2.4(c) of the Agreement, in addition to her annual base salary, Plaintiff was entitled to "an annual cash payment equal to ten percent ( 1 0%) of the increase, if any, in the Company's gross revenue for a calendar year over the amount of the prior year's gross revenue . .. . ?. 1 15 . Defendants have not paid Plaintiff anything pursuant to paragraph 2.4(c) of the Agreement. 1 16. The amount of money due to Plaintiff under the Agreement is not fully known to Plaintiff and cannot be ascertained without an accounting of Defendants' revenues for the years 20 12 to the present. 1 17. Plaintiff hereby demands that Defendants account for the aforementioned revenues and pay the alnount found due to Plaintiff. Defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to render an accounting to or pay Plaintiff. 118. By reason of the above, Plaintiff is entitled to an accounting as between Defendants and Plaintiff, and for payment over to Plaintiff of the alnount found due from Defendants as a result of the accounting, with interest thereon froin and after the date due. 19 Coinplaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $5 12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 12940, et seq., etc. I11 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them. as follows: 1. For general damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, according to proof; .3 For medical and professionals' expenses and related items and expenses, according to proof; 3. For loss of earnings, according to proof'; 4. For punitive and exelnplary damages, according to proot 5. For penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 6. That Plaintiffs darnages be doubled as provided by California Labor Code 7. That the Court (a) order Defendants to give a cornplete accounting of 5 203; 972; Defendants' total revenues in the years 20 12 to the present, and (b) determine the amount, if any. that Defendants actually owe Plaintiff pursuant to the ternls of the Agreement; 8. For attorneys' fees pursuant to applicable statutes; 9. For all other damages and/or civil penalties allowed by law; 10. For costs of suit; and 1 1. For such other further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: August 18,20 15 John K. Rubiner Jeremy D. Matz Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C. n' I ,'L/ BY' , 1/j// /x:/I/l/~.L! 1 ,/ f ' v ' John K. Rubiner Attorneys for Plaintiff Petra Starke I i 20 Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; ( 2 ) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $$12940, et seql.; (3) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $5 12940, et seq., etc. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all causes of action that may be tried by a jury. DATED: August 1 8 , 2 0 15 John K. Rubiner Jeremy D. Matz Bird, Marella, Boxer. Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow P.C. ? By: ' Attorneys for Plaintiff Petra Starke 21 Colnplaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $S 12940, et seql.; ( 3 ) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S S 12940, et seq., etc.