JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850) EVE CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709) PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081) P. CASEY PITTS (SBN 262463) CONNIE K. CHAN (SBN 284230) Altshuler Berzon LLP FILED SAN MATEO COUNTY 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 421—7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E—mail: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com pthoreen@altshulerberzon.com cpitts@a1tshu1berzon.com cchan@altshu1erberzon.com ,02669 11 'MGN JOHN MULLAN (SBN 221149) CHAYA MANDELBAUM (SBN 239084) ERIN PULASKI (SBN 270998) Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434—9800 F acsimile: (415) 434—05 13 Email: jtm@rezlaw.c0m cmm@rezlaw.com emp@rezlaw.com e“ (180 not“? \ at“! \\\\\l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ BY FAX Attorneys for Plaintiffs RONG JEWETT, SOPHY WANG, and XIAN MURRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO RONG J EWETT, SOPHY WANG, and XIAN MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No.: 17—CIV-02669 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 1. v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Defendant. Violation of California Equal Pay Act, as amended (Labor Code §§1197.5, 1194.5) 2. Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees (Labor Code §§201203, 1 194.5) 3. Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.) Declaratory Judgment (C.C.P. §1060 et seq.) 5"? Penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code §§2698— 2699.5) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Rong J ewett, Sophy Wang, and Xian Murray (collectively “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are informed and believe, and thereon allege, as follows: INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class 1. defined as all women employed by Defendant Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle” or “Defendant”) in California at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this action through the date of trial in this action (“Class Period”) in Information Technology, Product Development, or Support job functions (“Covered Positions”). 10 Throughout the Class Period and throughout California, Oracle has 2. 11 discriminated against its female employees by systematically paying them lower wage rates 12 than Oracle pays to male employees performing substantially equal or similar work under 13 similar working conditions, in violation of the California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Labor Code 14 §l 197.5, 15 substantially equal or similar work is not justified by any lawful reason. 16 as amended. Oracle’s failure to pay women and men equal wages for performing At all relevant times, Oracle has known or should have known of this pay 3. 17 disparity between its female and male employees, yet Oracle has taken no action to equalize men 18 and women’s pay for substantially equal or similar work. Oracle’s failure to pay female 19 employees the same wage rates paid to male employees for substantially equal or similar work 20 has been and is 21 4. willful. As a result of Oracle’s discriminatory and unlawful pay policies and/or 22 practices, Plaintiffs and class members have been denied fair wages for all‘work performed 23 during the Class Period and are entitled to wages due, interest thereon, and liquidated 24 damages, plus interest. In addition to damages, Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and 25 injunctive relief enjoining Oracle from continuing to pay women less than men for 26 substantially similar work. 27 /// 28 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because Defendant is a corporation that maintains its headquarters in California, is licensed to do business in California, regularly .5; conducts business in California, and committed and continues to commit the unlawful acts alleged herein in California. \IONKII 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§395 and 395.5 because Defendant is a corporation that maintains its headquarters in the County of San Mateo and because a substantial part of the unlawful acts alleged herein occurred and continue to occur in this County. 10 11 PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Rong J ewett is a woman who was employed by Oracle as an application 12 engineer (also known as “application developer”) and senior application engineer (also known as 13 “senior application developer”), which are both Covered Positions, at Oracle’s headquarters 14 located in Redwood Shores from approximately April 2012 to approximately July 2016. On 15 information and belief, Oracle paid Plaintiff J ewett less than men for substantially equal or 16 similar work. 17 8. Plaintiff Sophy Wang is a woman who was employed by Oracle as an application 18 engineer (also known as “application developer”), senior application engineer (also known 19 “senior application developer”), project lead, and principal application engineer (also known 20 “principal application developer”), which are all Covered Positions, at Oracle’s headquarters 21 located in Redwood Shores from approximately October 2008 to approximately March 2017. 22 On information and belief, Oracle paid Plaintiff Wang less than men for substantially equal or 23 similar work. 24 9. Plaintiff Xian Murray is a woman who was employed by Oracle as a as as software 25 engineer, senior engineer, and project lead, which are all Covered Positions, at Oracle’s 26 headquarters located in Redwood Shores from approximately March 2011 through 27 approximately October 2016. On information and belief, Oracle paid Plaintiff Murray less than 28 men for substantially equal or similar work. 3. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10. Defendant Oracle America, Inc. is a corporation that develops and markets software and hardware products and also sells services related to those products. Oracle’s headquarters are located at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, California 94065. Upon information and belief, Oracle employs over 7,000 employees at its Redwood Shores headquarters and also has employees at its 14 other office locations throughout California. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. On January 17, 2017, the United States Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) filed an administrative complaint against Oracle based on its compliance review of Oracle’s headquarters in Redwood Shores, California, which 10 found “systemic discrimination against women” and “gross disparities in pay” even after 11 controlling for job title, full-time status, exempt status, global career level, job specialty, 12 estimated prior work experience, and company tenure. OFCCP’s compliance audit 13 Redwood Shores headquarters found that from at least January 14 1, of Oracle’s 2014 onward, and on information and belief from 2013 onward, Oracle discriminated against qualified female 15 employees in its Information Technology, Product Development, and Support lines 16 or job functions (covering 80 job titles) based upon sex by paying them less than male employees 17 employed in similar roles. 18 12. of business Throughout the Class Period, Oracle’s employees employed in Information 19 Technology, Product Development, or Support job functions throughout California have 20 performed substantially equal or similar work under similar working conditions 21 employees with the same job title, regardless 22 13. as other Oracle of employees’ office locations. Throughout the Class Period, Oracle’s central administrative officers based in its 23 Redwood Shores headquarters have maintained centralized control over employees’ terms and 24 conditions of employment, including, without limitation, job and location assignment, career 25 progression, promotion, and compensation policies, practices and procedures. 26 14. Throughout the Class Period, Oracle’s corporate headquarters has maintained 27 responsibility for hiring employees, setting wages, and assigning the location of employment 28 across all of its California offices. 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 15. Throughout the Class Period, Oracle’s compensation policies and practices have been and continue to be centrally determined and unifom applied to all of Oracle’s employees throughout its California office locations. 16. Throughout the Class Period, Oracle has maintained and continues to maintain a centrally determined and uniformly applied set of policies and/or practices for determining employees’ wage rates throughout California, including centralized policies and/or practices for setting employees’ initial pay, and centralized policies and/or practices for giving employees pay raises. For example, Oracle’s corporate headquarters administers a centralized pay structure requiring that employees’ salaries be restricted to corporate-imposed compensation ranges. 10 These compensation ranges are set on a company—wide basis and apply across all 11 California offices. 12 17. of Oracle’s Throughout the Class Period, all compensation decisions concerning Oracle’s 13 California employees have been and continue to be subject to approval by Oracle’s central 14 administrative officers based in headquarters. Salary increases are dictated by payroll budgets 15 established by corporate headquarters, and must be approved by central management. Similarly, 16 Oracle has applied uniform promotion policies and practices to its employees throughout 17 California, including its requirement that promotions must be approved by Oracle’s corporate 18 headquarters. 19 18. Throughout the Class Period, Oracle has maintained and continues to maintain a 20 centrally determined and uniformly applied policy and/or practice throughout California of not 21 adjusting employees’ wage rates to ensure that it does not pay its female employees less than its 22 male employees for substantially equal or similar work. 23 19. Throughout the Class Period, Oracle has paid women less than men for 24 substantially equal or similar work, when viewed 25 responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions. 26 20. as a Oracle is required to maintain records composite of skill, effort, of the wages and and wage rates, job 27 classifications, and other terms and conditions of employment 28 California. Oracle therefore knew or should have known that it paid female employees in the of all of its employees throughout 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Covered Positions less than it paid their male counterparts for performing substantially equal or similar work, yet Oracle took no steps to eliminate its unlawful and discriminatory pay practices at any time during the Class Period. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS A 21. Plaintiffs bring their first through third causes of action on behalf of themselves \IONKII and on behalf of the following proposed class (“Class”): All women employed by Oracle in California in Information Technology, Product Development, or Support job functions at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of the original Complaint through the date of trial in this action. 10 22. 11 This action is appropriately suited for a class action because: The proposed Class is numerous and ascertainable. On information and a. 12 belief, the proposed Class includes thousands of current and former female Oracle employees 13 located across California, and therefore j oinder 14 impractical. 15 of all individual Class members would be This action involves questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and all b. 16 Class members which predominate over any individual issues, including but not limited to: (a) 17 whether Oracle has 18 rates lower than those paid to its male employees performing substantially equal or similar work 19 under similar conditions; (b) whether Oracle’s systemic policy and/or practice 2o female employees at wage rates lower than those paid to their male counterparts violates the 21 California Equal Pay Act, 22 systemic policy and/or practice 23 paid to their male counterparts was willful. These common questions of law and fact 24 predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members in this action. 25 0. a systemic policy and/0r practice as amended, Cal. of paying its female employees at wage of paying its Labor Code §1197.5; and (c) whether Oracle’s of paying its female employees at wage rates lower than those Plaintiffs J ewett’s, Wang’s, and Murray’s claims are typical of Class 26 members’ claims because they are women who were employed by Oracle in California during 27 the Class Period in one or more 28 paid less than male employees for substantially equal or similar work. Upon information and of the Covered Positions, and, on information and belief, were 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT belief, Oracle has applied uniform wage rate policies and practices to its employees throughout California at all times throughout the Class Period. d. Plaintiffs J ewett, Wang, and Murray are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the class because it is in Plaintiffs’ prosecute the claims alleged herein to obtain full compensation due to the best interests to Class for all work performed, and to obtain injunctive relief to protect the Class from further discriminatory wage rates going forward. Plaintiffs have selected counsel who have the requisite resources and ability to prosecute this case as a class action and are experienced labor and employment attorneys who have successfully litigated other cases involving similar issues, including in class actions. 10 e. This suit is properly maintained as a class action under C.C.P. §3 82 ll because Oracle has implemented an unlawful wage rate scheme that is generally applicable to the 12 Class, making 13 with respect to the Class 14 because the common questions 15 individual members of the class. For all these and other reasons, 16 other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 17 18 19 20 21 22 it appropriate to as a issue final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief whole. This suit is also properly maintained as a class action of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only a class action is superior to of the controversy set forth herein. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the California Equal Pay Act, as amended Cal. Labor Code §§1197.5, 1194.5 (Brought by All Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Plaintiff Class) 23. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and every preceding paragraph 24. as if fully set forth herein. Oracle has discriminated against Plaintiffs and all Class members in violation of 23 California Labor Code §1l97.5 by paying its female employees at wage rates less than the wage 24 rates paid to male employees for substantially equal or similar work, when viewed as a 25 composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, 26 throughout the Class Period. 27 28 25. Oracle willfully violated California Labor Code §1 197.5 by intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately paying women less than men for substantially equal or similar work throughout—therGlass—Beriod .W. 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 26. As a result of Oracle’s conduct, violation of California Labor Code §1197.5, and/or Oracle’s willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered and will continue to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost enefits, and other financial loss, as well as non-economic damages. 27. Plaintiffs and Class members are therefore entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under law, including wages, interest, and liquidated damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees Cal. Labor Code §§201-203, 1194.5 (Brought by All Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Plaintiff Class) 10 11 12 28. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and every preceding paragraph 29. as if fully set forth herein. Pursuant to California Labor Code §§201, 202, and 203, Oracle is required to pay 13 all earned and unpaid wages to an employee who is discharged or quits. California Labor Code 14 §201 mandates that 15 unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately. California Labor Code §202 16 mandates that 17 quitting are due and payable no later than 72 hours after the employee quits his or her 18 employment, unless the employee provided at least 72 hours of notice 19 quit, in which case the wages are due immediately at the time of quitting. 20 30. if an employer discharges an employee, the employee’s wages accrued and if an employee quits, the employee’s wages accrued and unpaid at the time of of his or her intention to California Labor Code §203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay in of an employee who is 21 accordance with California Labor Code §§201 and 202 any wages 22 discharged or who quits, the employer is liable for waiting time penalties in the form 23 continued compensation to the employee at the same rate for up to 30 work days. 24 31. of By intentionally and deliberately paying Plaintiffs and Class members lower 25 wages than wages paid to their male counterparts for performing substantially equal or similar 26 work, Oracle has willfully failed and continues to fail to pay all accrued wages due to Plaintiffs 27 and Class members who have been discharged or who have quit, 28 §§201 and 202, respectively. 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT in violation of Labor Code 32. As a result of Oracle’s unlawful actions and omissions, Plaintiffs and former employee Class members are entitled to all available statutory penalties, including the waiting time penalties provided in California Labor Code §203, together with interest thereon, as well as other available remedies. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices (Brought by All 33. Plaintiffs hereby re—allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and every preceding paragraph 34. 10 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq. Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Plaintiff Class) as if fully set forth herein. Oracle’s policies and/0r practices of paying female employees less than male 11 employees for substantially equal or similar work performed and 12 employees who are discharged or who quit all wages earned and due constitute business 13 practices because Oracle’s acts and omissions as alleged herein have been done repeatedly over a 14 significant period of time, and in a systematic manner, to the detriment of Plaintiffs and Class 15 members. 35. 16 Oracle’s acts and omissions, as of failing to timely pay female alleged herein, violate the California Equal Pay 17 Act, 18 therefore constitute unlawful business practices prohibited by Business 19 §17200 et seq. 20 as amended, 36. Labor Code §1197.5, and California Labor Code §§201, 202, and 203, and Oracle’s acts and omissions, as & Professions Code alleged herein, constitute unfair business practices 21 prohibited by Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq. Oracle’s business practice of paying 22 women less than men for substantially equal or similar work causes harm to Plaintiffs and Class 23 members that outweighs any reason Oracle may have for doing so. Oracle’s business practice as 24 alleged herein is also immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and offensive to the 25 established public policies 26 substantially equal or similar work, as reflected in both the California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Labor 27 Code §l 197.5, and the federal Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §206(d), and ensuring women are not 28 discriminated against in the workplace, of ensuring women as and men are paid equally for performing reflected in both the California Fair Employment and 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §12940 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. 37. As a result of its unlawful and/or unfair business practices, Oracle has reaped and continues to reap unfair and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiffs and Class members. Accordingly, Oracle should be disgorged of its illegal profits, and Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to restitution at the time 38. with interest of such ill-gotten profits in an amount according to proof of trial. Oracle’s unlawful and/or unfair business practices entitle Plaintiffs and Class members to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and other equitable relief available 10 under law. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment 11 12 13 Cal. C.C.P. § 1060 et seq. (Brought by All Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Plaintiff Class) 39. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and 14 every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 15 40. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties relating to 16 the legal rights and duties of the parties as set forth above, for which Plaintiffs desire a 17 declaration of rights and other relief available pursuant to the California Declaratory Judgment 18 Act, C.C.P. §1060 et seq. 19 41. A declaratory judgment is necessary and proper in that Plaintiffs contend that 20 Oracle has committed and continues to commit the violations set forth above and, on information 21 '22 23 24 25 and belief, Oracle will deny that it has done so and/or will continue to commit such acts. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Representative Action for Civil Penalties Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698- 2699.5 (Brought by Plaintiffs J ewett and Wang on Behalf of Themselves, All Similarly Aggrieved Current and Former Oracle Employees, and the State) 42. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and 26 every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 27 43. Plaintiffs J ewett and Wang are each an “aggrieved employee” within the meaning 28 of California Labor Code §2699(c), and are each a proper representative to bring a 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT civil action on behalf of herself and other current and former employees of Oracle pursuant to the procedures specified in California Labor Code §2699.3, because Plaintiffs Jewett and Wang were employed by Oracle and the alleged violations of California Labor Code §§201-203 and 1197.5 were A committed by Oracle against them. Pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act 44. of 2004 (“PAGA”), Labor Code §§2698-2699.5, Plaintiffs seek to recover civil penalties in the amount of $100 for \OOO\IO\UI each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation, and $200 for each aggrieved employees per pay period for each subsequent violation of California Labor Code §l 197.5 as alleged herein. 10 ll 12 45. Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code §2699(g)(l). 46. Pursuant to California Labor Code §2699.3, Plaintiffs J ewett and Wang gave 13 written notice by online filing with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency 14 (“LWDA”) 15 Code alleged to] have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged 16 violations. More than sixty-five (65) calendar days have passed since the postmark date of 17 Plaintiffs’ notice letter, and the LWDA has not provided notice to Plaintiffs that it intends to 18 investigate the alleged violations. Plaintiffs have therefore complied with the prerequisites set 19 forth in California Labor Code §2699.3 for commencing and by certified mail to Oracle of the specific provisions of the California Labor a representative action under PAGA. 20 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 22 respectfully pray for relief against Oracle as follows: 23 1. For an order certifying this action 24 2. For an order appointing Plaintiffs J ewett, Wang, and Murray as class 25 26 27 28 as a class action; representatives, and appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel; 3. For all wages due pursuant to California Labor Code §l 197.5(h) in an amount to be ascertained at trial; 4. For liquidated damages pursuant to California Labor Code §l 197.5(h); l 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 5. For prejudgrnent interest on unpaid Wages at a rate of 10% per annum pursuant to California Labor Code §1197.5(h) and California Civil Code §§3287~3288, and/or any other applicable provision providing for prejudgment interest; flout-hunts) 6. . , For statutory and civil penalties acCording to proof, including but not limited to all waiting time penalties authorized by California Labor Code §203 and all penalties authorized by I California Labor Code §2699(f)(2); 0° 7. For declaratory relief; 8. For restitution disgorgement 10, 9. of all monies due to Plaintiffs and Class Members, as well as of Oracle’s profits from its unlawful and/or unfair business practices; For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Oracle from violating 11 California Labor Code §1197.5 by paying its female employees lower wage rates than those paid 12 to their male counterparts for substantially similar work, and from engaging in the unfair and 13 unlawful business practices complained of herein; 14 10. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code §§1 197.5(11) and 2699(g)(1), 16 17 California Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, and/or any other applicable provision providing for attorneys’ fees and costs; and 11. For such further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. 18 Respectfully submitted, 19 20 Dated: August 28, 2017 JAMES M. FINBERG EVE CERVANTEZ PEDER THOREEN P. CASEY PITTS CONNIE K. CHAN 3":1 n LLP figs 21 22 111% 23 24 y; «mg , r j “" ii , f 3’? gww“ «««««« Jar?“ Finberg "lHN-Ml LLAN \ CHAYA MANDELBAUM ERIN PULASKI Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP Attorneys for Plaintzfis 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs Rong Jewett, Sophy Wang, and Xian Murray, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby demand a jury trial with respect to all issues triable of right by jury. Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. FINBERG EVE CERVANTEZ PEDER THOREEN P. CASEY PITTS CONNIE g‘wGlfi‘sfiN Dated: August 28, 2017 All? a??? f, «W” 5 Jame MWerg w ““ ULLAN CHAYA MANDELBAUM ERIN PULASKI Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP Attorneys for Plaintzfls 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /\