SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-24-2017 3:58 pm Case Number: Filing Date: Oct-24-2017 3:50 Filed by: NEYL WEBB Image: 06077864 COMPLAINT INGRID AVENDAANO ET AL VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 001006077864 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. 3 SUM-100 (0,333,913; A L) (entertainers NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (A VISO AL DEMANDADO): Uber Technologies, Inc. YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): INGRID AVENDANO, ROXANA DEL TORO LOPEZ and ANA MEDINA, on behalf of themselves, and all aggrieved employees You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to ?le a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can ?nd these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the ?ling fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not ?le your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonpro?t legal services program. You can locate these nonpro?t groups at the California Legal Services Web site (wwaawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dies, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versi?n. Lea la informacien a continuaciOn. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despu?s de que le entreguen esta citaciOn papeles legales para presenter una respuesta por escrito en esta corte hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta una ilamada telefenica no lo protegen. Su respuesta per escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su case en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte mas informacien en el Centre de A yuda de las Cortes de California en la biblioteca de le yes de su condado 0 en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar ta cuota de presentacien, pida al secretario de la corte que le de un formulario de exenci?n de page de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso per incumplimiento la corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero bienes sin mas advertencia. Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que llama a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisien a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin ?nes de iucro. Puede en'contrar estos grupos sin ?nes de iucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, an at Centre de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, poni?ndose en contacto con la corte 0 el colegio o?e abogados locales. A VISO: Per lay, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas los costos exentos per imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo 0 ans concesi?n de arbitraje en un case de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte puede desechar el caso. The name and address of the court is: . CASE NUMBER: (El nombre ydireccien de la corte es): San Superior Court ?calm400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direcci?n el mimero de tel?fono del abogado del demandante, 0 del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Outten Golden, One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111; (415 63 - DATE: Clerk, by . Deputy (Fecha) 2 4 ?If Clerk of the Court (Seaman. (Munro) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons 1? (Para prueba de entrega de esta citatien use 91 formulario Proof of Se mons NE I under: 416.10 (corporation) :3 CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) . CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) :1 other(specify): 4. by personal delivery on (date): Pm 1 011 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure 412.20, 465 Judicial Council of California SU MMONS SUM-100 [Rem July 1, 2009] CM-010 staircase 310424) Adam T. Klein (pro hac vice forthcoming); Rachel M. Bien (SBN 315886) OUTTEN GOLDEN, LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 TELEPHONE N0.: 415) 638-8800 Elx N0.: (415)638-8810 I ATTORNEY FOR (Name): laintiffs Ingrid Avedano, Roxana del Toro Lopez, et a1. SUPERIOR COURT or CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco San County Superior Court STREET ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street MAILING ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street OCT 2 4 2017 CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Francisco, CA 94102 BRANCH NAME: CASE NAME: Avenda?o et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. mm? CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation Cl 42:33; I: Counter '3 Joinder JUDGE: demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) El Breach of contracuwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400?3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) '3 Rule 3.740 collections (09) I: Antitrustfl'rade regulation (03) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Other collections (09) El Construction defect (10) DamagelWrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (13) CI Mass tort (40) Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) Product liability (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) El Eminent Insurance coverage claims arising from the El Other PIIPDIWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) types (41) I: Business tort/unfair business practice (07) 3 Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment '3 Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement of judgment (20) Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27) Intellectual property (19) Drugs (33) El Other complaint (not Speci?ed above) (42) Cl Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition '3 Other PDNV tort (35) Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) ?E?'wmm . . Pef'tm" '91 ?mam" award (11) Other petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Wrongful termmatlon (36) El Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (15) I El Other judicial review (39) 2. This case is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states. or countries, or in a federal court 0. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgmentjudicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): all] monetary nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief 6. I:Ipunitive Number of causes of action (specify): 3 This case I: is is not a class action suit. . If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. You Date: October 24, 2017 Jahan C. Saga? motes? (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) NOTICE 0 Plaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases ?led under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to ?le may result in sanctions. 0 File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 0 If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. 0 Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. 10? Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Rules of Court. rules 2.30, 3.220. 3.400?3.403, 3.740; Judicial Council of California Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration. std. 3.10 CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007] M-01 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET 0 To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are ?ling a ?rst paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and ?le, along with your ?rst paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases ?led. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case ?ts both a general and a more speci?c type of case listed in item 1, check the more Speci?c one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to ?le a cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is de?ned as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identi?cation of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for?service requirements and case management rules. unless a defendant ?les a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant ma ?le and serve no later than the time of its ?rst appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)?Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) Other (Personal lnjuryl Property DamagelWrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury! Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/envimnmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice- Physicians Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other (23) Premises Liability slip and fall) Intentional Bodily assault, vandalism) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent ln?iction of Emotional Distress Other (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation slander, libel) (13) Fraud (1 6) Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15) cur-010 [Rev July 1. 2007] CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contractharranty Breach?Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract! Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case?Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory NotelCollections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (1 8) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ?Administrative Mandamus Writ?Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ?Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Of?cer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400?3.403) Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certi?cation of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition Pagezofz c. Jahan C. Saga? (SBN 224887) Rachel W. Dempsey (SBN 310424) OUTTEN GOLDEN LLP IL One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 9411 1 53,,me CountySup?"or 00"" Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415)638-8810 um 24 2017 E-mail: E-mail: rdempsev@outtengolden.com CLERK, WM Adam T. Klein (pro hac vice forthcoming) Rachel M. Bien (SBN 315886) OUTTEN GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com E-mail: nnb@outtengolden.com Attorneys for Plaintif?? and aggrieved employees SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN RANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION INGRID AVENDANO, ROXANA DEL Case TORO LOPEZ, and ANA MEDINA, on behalf of themselves, and all aggrieved COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 1 THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY emp oyees? GENERAL ACT Plaintiff, DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act Plaintiffs Ingrid Avenda?o, Roxana del Toro Lopez, and Ana Medina, individually, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees and the State of California as the real party in interest, allege the following causes of action: SUMMARY OF CLAIMS 1. Plaintiffs bring this representative action on behalf of all aggrieved employees1 and the State of California, against Defendant Uber, Inc. (?Uber? or ?the Company?) for failing to provide equal remuneration for work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility in violation of the Equal Pay Act Cal. Labor Code 1197.5, et seq., and the Private Attorney General Act Cal. Labor Code 2698, et seq. 2. Uber is a global provider of on?demand transportation and food delivery services. In 2015, Uber generated approximately $10.8 billion dollars in revenue.2 Uber is a major California employer with approximately 6,700 employees, many of whom are technical employees.3 3. As a result of Uber?s policies, patterns, and practices, female engineers and engineers of color receive less compensation and are promoted less frequently than their male and/or white or Asian American counterparts. Herein, ?of color? is de?ned as Latino, African American, or American Indian. Aggrieved employees include all engineers throughout the company, including Software Engineers level 1 and 2, Senior Software Engineers level 1 and 2, and Staff Software Engineers. 2 See ?Uber Revenue and Usage Statistics 2017,? analysis/ (last visited Aug. 17, 2017) 3 See ?Handcuffed to Uber, (last visited Aug. 17, 2017) 2 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act 4. Plaintiffs seek to recover civil penalties under PAGA on behalf of themselves, the State of California, and all aggrieved employees employed in California by Defendant Uber within the applicable statutory period (collectively the ?aggrieved employees?). THE PARTIES Plaintiffs 5. Plaintiff Avenda?o is a female Latina engineer who was employed by Uber as a Software Engineer II from February 2014 to June 2017 in San Francisco, California. 6. Plaintiff del Toro Lopez is a female Latina engineer who was employed by Uber as a Software Engineer II from May 2015 to August 2017 in San Francisco, California. 7. Plaintiff Medina is a female Latina engineer who has been employed by Uber as a Software Engineer I from March 2016 to the present in San Francisco, California. Defendant 8. Defendant Uber is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware with its corporate headquarters in the city of San Francisco, California. 9. Upon information and belief, Uber?s California headquarters maintains control, oversight, and direction over the operation of its facilities, including its employment practices. 10. During all relevant times, Uber was Plaintiffs? employer within the meaning of all applicable statutes. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs? claims for civil penalties under the Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Labor Code 2968 et. seq. 12. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs? claims for equal remuneration for equal work under the Equal Pay Act, Cal. Labor Code 1197.5 et seq. 3 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act 13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over this matter because Uber maintains its headquarters in California, conducts substantial business activity in this state, and engaged in the unlawful acts described herein in this state. 14. Venue is proper in this county under California Code of Civil Procedure 395.5 because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this county. FACTUAL ALLEGATION 15. Upon information and belief, Uber maintains uniform employment, compensation, performance review, and promotion policies throughout the State of California. 16. Upon information and belief, Uber cultivates and promotes a common corporate culture. Its of?ces throughout California use a common organizational structure, organizing employees by common job titles. Performance Evaluations 17. Uber uses a companywide ?stack ranking? system for evaluating employee performance, which requires supervisors to rank employees from worst to best. 18. This process is an invalid performance measurement system, as it sets arbitrary cutoffs among performers with similar performance. The stack ranking process forces a distribution of performance ratings outcomes regardless of whether there are meaningful performance differences between individual employees within a particular peer group. 19. An employee?s rank is not based on valid and reliable performance measures. The used criteria are not valid or reliable, and they do not properly measure performance. Uber implements this performance measurement system in a way that disadvantages female employees and employees of color. 4 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act 20. Supervisors are instructed to use these unreliable qualitative assessments of employees? performance, known as ?perf,? in assigning the employees in their review group a recommended ranking from worst to best. A lower score makes it dif?cult for an employee to advance professionally. 21. This forced ranking process takes place biannually, and performance review scores are used for compensation and promotion decisions. 22. In this system, female employees and employees of color are systematically undervalued compared to their male and white or Asian American peers because female employees and employees of color receive, on average, lower rankings despite equal or better performance. 23. Performance management systems that include unreliable and invalid criteria create inaccurate and biased outcomes. Upon information and belief, Uber?s stack ranking system has had an adverse impact upon female employees and employees of color. Compensation 24. Uber employs common, unvalidated, unreliable, and discriminatory procedures for determining employees? compensation that disparately impact female employees and employees of color. 25. Upon information and belief, Uber pays female engineers and engineers of color less compensation (including but not limited to salary, bonus, other cash compensation, equity stock, options, etc.], bene?ts, and other wages and/or other compensation) than it pays to its male and/or white or Asian American counterparts. 26. On information and belief, Uber sets initial compensation for aggrieved employees based on their past compensation. To the extent it is the only variable responsible for 5 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act a gap in compensation based on gender, race, and/or ethnicity, it is discriminatory. In particular, this practice disadvantages women, who are generally paid 18% less than men in the same occupation in the marketplace. It also disadvantages people of color, who are generally paid signi?cantly less than whites in the same occupation in the marketplace. 27. In addition, inequity in compensation based on gender, race, and ethnicity compounds over time because periodic compensation decisions, such as salary increases, are affected by current salary and salary band. 28. Uber employees? cash compensation includes two components: salary and bonus. Annually, employees are eligible for a merit increase to their base salary and a bonus. Whether, and how much, an employee receives in any of these categories is determined by her performance rating, job title, and manager input. Because female employees and employees of color have been systematically disadvantaged by the stack ranking performance evaluation process, their outcomes in terms of raises and bonuses have suffered compared to their male peers. 29. Additionally, Uber employees receive compensation in the form of equity, including but not limited to grants of Restricted Stock Units, Incentive Stock Options, and/or Non-Quali?ed Stock Options. Upon information and belief, Uber awards equity compensation disproportionately to men over women and to whites and Asian Americans over people of color. 30. Furthermore, Uber employees receive compensation in the form of bene?ts, such as health care medical, dental, vision) bene?ts, free or discounted Uber rides, retirement bene?ts 401 plans), and more. Upon information and belief, Uber awards bene?ts disproportionately to men and whites and Asian Americans over women and people of color, respectively. 6 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act 31. Uber?s uniform employment practices have a disparate impact against female employees and employees of color, in terms of compensation. Promotions 32. Uber also employs common, unvalidated, unreliable, and discriminatory procedures for selecting employees for promotion. Because promotions are tied to the performance review process, female employees and employees of color are adversely impacted in promotions as well. Promotions are not determined by objective, valid, and/or reliable performance measures. Additionally, because promotions often cause increases in compensation, Uber?s promotion practices cause and compound compensation inequities that harm and have harmed Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees. 33. Upon information and belief, female employees and employees of color were promoted at a slower rate than male and white or Asian American employees, respectively. Uber Paid Plaintiffs and Other A rieved Em lo ees Less Than Their Male And/Or White or Asian American Counterparts And Deprived Them of Opportunities To Advance 34. Plaintiffs were treated differently than their male and/or white or Asian American colleagues. For example, del Toro Lopez and Medina were initially brought on as independent contractors as opposed to full-time employees. This contractor status meant that they received less compensation than full-time Uber employees and were impeded from effectively onboarding to their teams because they had limited access to company tools and training sessions. On information and belief, male and/or white or Asian American technical hires were not subject to similar treatment. 35. In addition, Plaintiffs? managers assigned them tasks and duties that were less meaningful, challenging, and important than those of their similarly situated male and/or white 7 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act or Asian American colleagues. Management also failed to provide them with adequately concrete professional goals or guideposts. On information and belief, their male and/or white or Asian American counterparts were not subject to this treatment. 36. Despite their strong work effort and performance, Plaintiffs were promoted more slowly than their male and/or white or Asian American colleagues. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the California Equal Pay Act Cal. Labor Code ??1197.5 et seq., 1194.5 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and All Aggrieved Employees) 37. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 38. Uber has discriminated and continues to discriminate against Plaintiffs in violation of California Labor Code 1197 .5 et seq. by paying them at wage rates less than the wage rates paid to its male and/or white or Asian American engineers for substantially equal or similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions. 39. Uber?s failure to pay Plaintiffs equal wages for performing substantially equal or similar work is not justi?ed by any lawful reason. 40. Uber has will?illy violated California Labor Code? 1197.5 by intentionally, knowingly, and/or deliberately paying Plaintiffs less than male and/or white or Asian American engineers for substantially equal or similar work. 41. As a result of Uber?s ongoing conduct, violation of California Labor Code 1197.5, and/or willful discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer harm, 8 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act including but not limited to lost earnings, lost bene?ts, and other ?nancial loss, as well as non- economic damages. 42. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under law, including wages, interest, and liquidated damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 Cal. Lab. Code 2698-26995 (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and All Aggrieved Employees) 43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all other paragraphs as if they were set forth again herein. 44. Under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code 2698-26995, an aggrieved employee, on behalf of herself and other current or former employees as well as the general public, may bring a representative action as a private attorney general to recover penalties for an employer?s violations of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. These civil penalties are in addition to any other relief available under the California Labor Code, and must be allocated 75% to California?s Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% to the aggrieved employee, pursuant to California Labor Code 2699. 45. Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and all aggrieved employees, as well as the general public, that Defendant has violated the Equal Pay Act, section 1197.5 of the California Labor Code, which is actionable through PAGA. 46. In particular, as a result of Uber?s common policies and practices, Uber has discriminated against Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees by paying them less than similarly- 9 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act situated male coworkers, failing to promote them at the same or similar rate as their similarly- situated male coworkers, and failing to properly investigate and take measures to remedy complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination. 47. The differential in pay between male and female employees was not due to seniority, merit, or the quantity or quality of production, a bona ?de factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience, but was due to gender. In the alternative, to the extent that Uber relied upon one or more of these factors, said factor(s) were not reasonably applied and did/do not account for the entire wage differential. 48. Uber caused, attempted to cause, contributed to, or caused the continuation of, the wage rate discrimination based on sex and/or race or ethnicity. The foregoing conduct constitutes a willful violation of the Equal Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code ?1197.5, et seq. 49. As a result of Uber?s willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost bene?ts, and other ?nancial loss, as well as non-economic damages. 50. This violation entitles Plaintiffs, as private attorneys general, to recover the applicable civil penalties on their own behalf, on behalf of all aggrieved employees, and on behalf of the general public. California Labor Code 2699(a), which is part of PAGA, provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any provision of this code that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency or any of its departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies, or employees, for a violation of this code, may, as an alternative, be recovered through a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of themselves or herself and other current or former employees pursuant to the procedures speci?ed in 2699.3. California Labor Code 2699(f), which is part of PAGA, provides in pertinent part: For all provisions of this code except those for which a civil penalty is speci?cally 10 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act provided, there is established a civil penalty for a violation of these provisions, as followsthe time of the alleged violation, the person employs one or more employees, the civil penalty is one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation. 51. Plaintiffs are entitled to civil penalties, to be paid by Defendant and allocated as PAGA requires, pursuant to California Labor Code 2699(a) for Defendant?s violations of the California Labor Code for which violations a civil penalty is already speci?cally provided by law. 52. Plaintiff is also entitled to civil penalties, to be paid by Defendant and allocated as PAGA requires, pursuant to California Labor Code 2699(t) for Defendant?s violations of the California Labor Code for which violations 3 civil penalty is not already speci?cally provided. 53. On June 21, 2017, Plaintiff Avenda?o provided written notice by certi?ed mail to the LWDA of the legal claims and theories of this case. Plaintiff simultaneously provided a COpy of that notice by certi?ed mail to Defendant. On July 19, 2017, Plaintiff del Toro Lopez provided written notice by certi?ed mail to the LWDA of the legal claims and theories of this case. Plaintiff simultaneously provided a copy of that notice by certi?ed mail to Defendant. The LWDA did not provide notice ?within 65 calendar days of the postmark date of? Plaintiffs? notices, so Plaintiffs are entitled to assert this claim. Cal. Labor Code 54. Under PAGA, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the maximum civil penalties permitted by law for the violations of the California Labor that are alleged in this Complaint. ll Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices Cal. Bus. Prof. Code ?17200 et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and All Aggrieved Employees) 55. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and reincorporate by reference all allegations in each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 56. Uber?s policies and/or practices of paying female engineers and engineers of color less than male and/or white or Asian American engineers for substantially similar work performed and of discriminating against female engineers and engineers of color in compensation and the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment on the basis of their sex and race or ethnicity constitute business practices because Uber?s acts and omissions as alleged herein have been done repeatedly over a signi?cant period of time, and in a systematic manner, to the detriment of Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees. 57. Uber?s acts and omissions, as alleged herein, violate the California Equal Pay Act, as amended, Labor Code 1197 .5 et seq., and therefore constitute unlawful business practices prohibited by Business Professions Code 17200 et seq. 58. Uber?s acts and omissions, as alleged herein, constitute unfair business practices prohibited by Business Professions Code 17200 et seq. Uber?s business practices of paying women engineers and engineers of color less than male and/or white or Asian American engineers for substantially similar work, of assigning and keeping women engineers and engineers of color in lower levels and less highly compensated job ladders than similarly- quali?ed male and/or white or Asian American engineers, and of failing to promote women engineers and engineers of color cause harm to Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees that outweighs any reason Uber may have for doing so. Uber?s business practices as alleged herein 12 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act are also immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and offensive to the established public policies of ensuring women and people of color are paid equally to male and/or white individuals for performing substantially similar work, as re?ected in the California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Labor Code 1197 .5 et seq. AS a result of its unlawful and/or unfair business practices, Uber has reaped and continues to reap unfair and illegal pro?ts at the expense of Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees. Accordingly, Uber should be disgorged of its illegal pro?ts, and Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees are entitled to restitution with interest of such ill-gotten pro?ts in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 59. Uber?s unlawful and/or unfair business practices entitle Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and other equitable relief available under law. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of all aggrieved employees, pray for relief as follows: All wages due pursuant to California Labor Code 1197.5(h) in an amount to be ascertained at trial; Liquidated damages pursuant to California Labor Code Designation of Plaintiffs as representatives of the PAGA action; A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate California Labor Code sections 1197.5, et seq.; A preliminary and permanent injunction against Uber, of?cers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in policies, patterns, and/or practices that discriminate against Plaintiffs and all aggrieved employees because of their gender; 13 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act (1) An order that Uber institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for all employees regardless of gender and/or race or ethnicity, and that it eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices; An order requiring Uber to develop and institute accurate and validated standards for evaluating performance, determining pay, and making promotion decisions; An order to ensure that Uber complies with the injunction provisions of any decree that the Court orders; An order retaining jurisdiction over this action to ensure that Uber complies with such a decree; An order restoring Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees to their rightful positions at Uber reinstatement), or in lieu of reinstatements, an order for front pay bene?ts; All civil penalties recoverable under Restitution of all monies due to Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees, as well as disgorgement of Uber?s pro?ts from its unlawful and/or unfair business practices; Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys? fees to the extent allowable by law; Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; (0) A service award for Plaintiffs in recognition for the time and risk incurred in asserting these claims on behalf of aggrieved employees, and the value they have created by doing so; and Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper. l4 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial to the extent authorized by law. Dated: October 24, 2017 By: Jalb?n c. Sel'ga?fi Jahan C. Saga? (SBN 224887) Rachel W. Dempsey (SBN 310424) OUTTEN GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: Adam T. Klein (pro hac vice forthcoming) Rachel M. Bien (SBN 315886) OUTTEN GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com Attorneys for Plainti?r and aggrieved employees 15 Complaint for Violations of the Private Attorney General Act