_x ALEXANDER KRAKOW GLICK LLP - I I Michael S. Morrison (State Bar No. 205320) Jessica 5. Choi (State Bar No. 312796) 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, California 90401 T: 310 394 0888 F: 310 394 0811 E: Attorneys for Plaintiff Elizabeth Rose, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ELIZABETH ROSE, an Individual, on behalf) Case No. of herself and all others similarly situated CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE . ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF: V. 1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT (California Equal Pay Act, as amended by the Fair Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 5 1197.5); VICE MEDIA a Delaware corporation, VICE MEDIA LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive Defendants- VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EQUAL PAY ACT (New York State Equal Pay Act, as amended by the Achieve Pay Equity Law; N.Y. Lab. L. 5 194); 9? VIOLATION OF FEDERAL EQUAL PAY ACT (Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended by the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. 206(d)); CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code I 17200, et seq.) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff ELIZABETH ROSE ("Plaintiff"), as an individual and on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, complains and alleges on information and belief the following against VICE MEDIA VICE MEDIA LLC, and DOES 1-100 (collectively "Defendants" or "Vice Media"): INTRODUCTION 1. This case arises out of Defendants' systematic, company?wide, unlawful treatment of Plaintiff and hundreds of similarly situated employees in violation of the California Equal Pay Act, the New York Equal Pay Act, the Federal Equal Pay Act of 1963, and California's Unfair Compensation Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. In a statement to all global staff of Vice Media on December 23, 2017, Vice Media founders Shane Smith and Suroosh Alvi admitted: "Listening to our employees over the past year, the truth is inescapable: from the top down, we have failed as a company to create a safe and inclusive workplace where everyone, especially wOmen, can feel respected and thrive." 2. Defendants Vice Media Inc. and Vice Media LLC are-Delaware corporations based in Los Angeles, California and Brooklyn, New York that operate as a digital media and broadcasting company. Defendants create, edit, and produce youth- focused media and content for various platforms, including for their online digital publications, channels, web series, television network, and HBO television series. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a channel manager and project manager, where she worked on creating and producing content for Vice Media. 3. Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes (defined in detail below) are female employees who were/are employed by Defendants in California and/or New York. . -2- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants' female employees face discrimination in pay, promotions, and other unequal opportunities in the terms and conditions of their employment. Through formal policies and widespread practices, Defendants' male leadership interferes with, limits, or prevents female employees from receiving equal pay for equal or substantially similar work compared to their male counterparts. 4. This action alleges that Defendants have violated California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq., based on theirviolations of the California Equal Pay Act, as amended by the California Fair Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5, et seq. and the California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5 (West 2015) (amended 2015). This action further alleges that Defendants have violated the New York State Equal Pay Act, as amended by the Achieve Pay Equity Law, N.Y. Lab. L. 194, et seq., and the New York State Equal Pay Act, N.Y. Lab. L. 194 (McKinney 2015) (amended 2015). 5. The violations described in this lawsuit entitle Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes to the balance of the difference between the wages, including interest thereon, and an equal or triple amount as liquidated damages, together with the costs of the suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 6. In addition, Plaintiff sues on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees who worked for Defendants and who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., specifically, the collective action provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b). This action claims that Defendants have violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 of the FLSA by depriving Plaintiff, as well as others similarly situated to Plaintiff who are members of the FLSA Class (defined below), of their lawful wages in the form of unpaid wages resulting from an unlawful wage rate differential. This action seeks all unpaid compensation, an equal amount of liquidated damages and/or prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Plaintiff's action seeks monetary damages, including full restitution from Defendants as a result of Defendants? unlawful, fraudulent and/or unfair business practices. -3- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are residents of and/or doing business in the state of California. Defendant Vice Media Inc. is subject to personal jurisdiction as a Delaware corporation, with its principal places of business in New York and Los Angeles, California, conducting substantial and continuous commercial activities in California. Defendant Vice Media LLC is subject to personal jurisdiction as a Delaware limited liability corporation, with its principal places of business in New York and Los Angeles, California, conducting substantial and continuous commercial activities in California. This case arises from Defendants' wrongful conduct in California, where Defendants employed Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes (defined below). 8. Venue is proper in this Court in accordance with Section 395(a) and Section 395.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure in that liability arose in this County because at least some of the transactions that are the subject matter of this Complaint occurred therein and/or each Defendant either is found, maintains offices, transacts business, and/or has an agent therein. PARTIES 9. Plaintiff Elizabeth Rose is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendants as a channel manager and project manager from approximately April 2014 to February 2016, working in Defendants' Brooklyn office and A Los Angeles office. 10. Defendant Vice Media Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. Defendant Vice Media LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in California. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges that collectively Defendants have been doing business in California at all relevant times. 11. Section of Industrial Wage Commission Order Number 12? 2001 defines an ?employer? as any ?person as defined in Section 18 of the [California] -4- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Labor Code, who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person.? Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 203(d), the definition of "employer" under the Federal Labor Standards Act "includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee". Pursuant to New York State Labor Law 190, the New York State Labor Law defines "employer" as "any person, corporation, limited liability company, or association employing any individual in any occupation, industry, trade, business or service." At all relevant times, Defendants were and are employers covered under the California Labor Code, FLSA, and New York State Labor Law. 12. The true names and capacities of Defendants named as Does 1-100, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or othenNise, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show true names and capacities when they have been determined. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and, on that basis, alleges, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this Complaint and that Plaintiff's damages as alleged were legally caused by such Defendants. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that, at all times mentioned, each of such Defendants was the agent, servant, employee, or representative of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the scope of such agency or employment. Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants constituted an ?integrated enterprise? and ?integrated employers" with interrelated operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership and/or financial controls. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were, at all relevant times, the alter egos and/or the agents of each other. Wherever reference is made to Defendants herein, it is intended to include all of the named Defendants as well as the Doe defendants. Each of the fictitiously named Doe defendants is responsible for the occurrences herein alleged and proximately caused Plaintiff damages. Ill -5- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 13. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 382, on behalf of the following classes. The classes that Plaintiff seeks to represent are composed of and defined as follows: - a. CEPA Class: All female employees who work(ed) for Defendants in California at any time within three (3) years prior to the filing of this Complaint until the final judgment (referred to as the Class"); b. In addition, Plaintiff also proposes the following CEPA subclass: i. CEPA Non-Willful Subclass: All female employees who work(ed) for Defendants in CalifOrnia at any time within two (2) years prior to the filing of this Complaint until the final judgment (referred to as the Non?Willful Subclass"); c. NYSEPA Class: All female employees who work(ed) for Defendants in New York at any time within six (6) years prior to the filing of this Complaint until the final judgment (referred to as the Class"). 14. The members of the CEPA Class and NYSEPA Class (collectively, "Plaintiff Classes") are so numerous that joinder of all members would be unfeasible and impracticable. The membership of the CEPA Class is greater than 100 individuals and the membership of the NYSEPA Class is greater than 600 individuals, but the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable via inspection of the personnel records and other documents maintained by Defendants. 15. There are common questions of law and fact as to members of the Plaintiff Classes which predominate over questions affecting only individual members, including. without limitation: A. Whether Defendants denied Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff -5- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Classes equal wages for the same or substantially similar work to which they are entitled pursuant to the California Equal Pay Act or the New York State Equal Pay Act; B. Whether Defendants' failure to compensate female employees at a level commensurate with comparable male employees was willful within the meaning of the California Equal Pay Act or the New York State Equal Pay Act; I C. Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices under Section 17200, et seq., of the California Business and Professions Code; D. The effect upon and the extent of damages suffered by members of the Plaintiff Classes and the appropriate amount of compensation. 16. The claims Plaintiff pleads as class action?claims and the relief she seeks are typical of the claims and relief necessary to remedy the claims of all members of the Plaintiff Classes as they arise out of the same course of conduct and are predicated on the same violation(s) of the law. Plaintiff, as a representative party, will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the classes by vigorously pursuing this suit through her attorneys who are skilled and experienced in handling matters of this type. 17. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and as Class Representative for the Plaintiff Classes, seeks the following relief for her individual claims and for those of the members of the proposed Classes: a declaratoryjudgment that Defendants have engaged in systemic gender discrimination against the Classes by paying female employees less than their male counterparts for equal or substantially similar work; a permanent injunction against such continuing discriminatory pay practices, policies, and procedures; injunctive relief that effectuates a restructuring of Defendants' compensation and promotion policies, practices, and procedures; the unpaid balance of wages owed, plus interest on that amount, liquidated damages; compensatory damages; (9) attorneys? fees, costs, and expenses; statutory and civil penalties; and other equitable remedies necessary to make the female employees whole from Defendants' discrimination. -7- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL .A 18. The nature of this action and the nature of the laws available to the Plaintiff Classes make use of the class action format, a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to afford relief to members of the Plaintiff Classes. Further, this case involves a corporate employer and a large number of individual employees possessing claims with common issues of law and fact. If each employee were required to file an individual lawsuit, the corporate Defendants would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage since they would be able to exploit and ovenivhelm the limited resources of each individual Plaintiff with their vastly superior financial and legal resources. Requiring each class member to pursue an individual remedy would also discourage the assertion of lawful claims by employees who would be disinclined to pursue an action against their present and/or former employer for an appreciable and justifiable fear of retaliation and permanent damage to their careers at present and/or subsequent employment. Proof of a common business practice or factual pattern, of which the named Plaintiff experienced, is representative of the Plaintiff Classes and will establish the right of each of the members of the Plaintiff Classes to recovery on these alleged claims. 19. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual members of the Plaintiff Classes, even if possible, would create: a substantial risk of inconvenient or varying verdicts or adjudications with respect to the individual members of the Plaintiff Classes against the Defendants; and/or legal determinations with respect to the individual members of the Plaintiff Classes which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the other class members' claims who are not parties to the adjudications and/or would substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect their interests. Further, the claims of the individual members of the Plaintiff Classes are not sufficiently large to warrant vigorous individual prosecution considering all of the associated concomitant costs and expenses. Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. -3- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 20. Plaintiff brings FLSA claims on behalf of the following category of similarly situated individuals who worked for Defendants: a. FLSA Class: All female employees who work(ed) at Defendants' Los Angeles and/or Brooklyn offices at any time within three (3) years prior to the filing of this Complaint until the final judgment (referred to as the Class?); b. In addition, Plaintiff also proposes the following FLSA subclass: i. FLSA Non-Willful Subclass: All female employees who work(ed) at Defendants' Los Angeles and/or Brooklyn offices at any time within two (2) years prior to the filing of this Complaint until the final judgment (referred to as the Non?Willful Subclass"); I 21. Defendants are liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate Plaintiff in accordance with the Federal Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d), and therefore, notice should be sent to the members of the FLSA Class. The members of the FLSA Class would benefit from issuance of a court supervised Notice of the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join in the present lawsuit. Members of the FLSA Class are known to Defendants, are readily ascertainable and can be located through Defendants' records. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 22. Men dominate Vice Media's leadership and management. Based on Plaintiff's information and belief, compensation decisions at Vice Media are centrally controlled and decided by male executives and management. Defendants discriminate against women by permitting their predominantly male leadership to favor men overtly in pay, promotions, and other opportunities regardless of their qualifications and to othenNise discriminate against women. Defendants' leadership fosters or condones a company culture that marginalizes, demeans, and undervalues women. Based on .9. CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff's information and belief, Defendants' widespread discriminatory practices and policies affect pay and promotion and result in unlawful gender-based wage differentials. 23. Defendants are aware of Vice Media's inequitable pay, promotion, job assignments, and other practices, as admitted in Defendants' December 23, 2017 statement by Vice Media founders Shane Smith and Suroosh Alvi to all global staff acknowledging widespread claims of gender4based disparate treatment in employment and "the detrimental 'boy?s club? culture that fostered inappropriate behavior that permeated throughout the company." As one of Defendants' goals, founders Smith and Alvi included: "Pay Parity: We have committed to pay parity by the end of 24. These problems affecting pay and promotion are systemic and company? wide. They stem from Defendants' common employment policies, practices, and procedures, including Defendants' compensation, job assignment, and promotion policies, practices, and procedures. Such policies, practices, and procedures are not valid, job-related, orjustified by business necessity and all suffer from: a lack of transparency; inadequate quality standards and controls; insufficient implementation metrics; and inadequate opportunities for redress or challenge. As a result, female 7 employees are compensated and promoted within a system that is insufficiently designed or implemented to consistently, reliably, or equitably manage or reward employees. These problems affecting pay and promotion also stem from centralized decision-making by Defendants' predominately male leadership team, which maintains centralized control over employees? terms and conditions of employment and is responsible for formulating, reviewing, and approving the acts, policies, and practices that result in the systemic unlawful disparate treatment and unlawful disparate impact on female employees in pay, promotion, and assignments. 25. Plaintiff and proposed members of the Plaintiff Classes and FLSA Class are current or former employees of Defendants who work(ed) in Defendants' offices located in Los Angeles, California and/or Brooklyn, New York. 26. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a project manager and later -10- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ocom-?xoum-pr?x became a channel manager. Plaintiff first began working out of Defendants' Brooklyn office in 2014 and later began working out of the Los Angeles office around the beginning of 2015. 27. Defendants employed hundreds of employees to work on written, audio, and visual content created by and produced by Defendants, and to perform other services for Defendants. 28. Plaintiff worked on Vice Media's collaboration with Live Nation Entertainment ("Live Nation"). In or around 2015, Vice Media and Live Nation partnered to launch a joint digital venture to produce music-focused content for a variety of platforms. As part of herjob, Plaintiff received internal memoranda that listed the salaries of approximately 35 Vice Media employees. Plaintiff learned that she and other female employees made far less than male employees for the same or substantially similar work. For example, Plaintiff hired her male subordinate, but she learned that this male employee earned approximately $25,000 per year more than her. This male employee quickly rose through the ranks and was later promoted to a position as Plaintiff's supervisor by the male executive overseeing the Live Nation joint venture, who told Plaintiff that the male employee was a "good personality fit" for male clients at Live Nation. 29. After learning about the gender-based compensation disparities, Plaintiff spoke to other women employed by Defendants, who also confirmed they were paid less than male counterparts at the company for the same or substantially similar work. For example, one female employee earned approximately $50,000 per year, but her male counterparts doing the same or substantially similar work made an additional $15,000 per year. When this same female employee was later promoted to the position of managing editor, Defendants paid her approximately $15,000 less per year than the male employee that previously held the managing editor position. In another instance, when Defendants hired two editors, one based in Brooklyn and the other based in Los Angeles, the female employee in charge of hiring the editors asked Manager Michael -11- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Prommer about the pay differential in compensation offered to the male editor hired for the Brooklyn office and the female editor hired for the Los Angeles office. When the employee asked why the female editor was not being offered the same compensation position as the male editor, Prommer pushed back by stating, "this is how much we can offer her" and "that's what the budget was." I 30. Defendants' pay practices violate the California Equal Pay Act, New York State Equal Pay Act, and Federal Equal Pay Act. Through their common policies, practices, and procedures, Defendants used: a compensation system that lacks meaningful or appropriate standards, implementation metrics, quality controls, and transparency; used that compensation system to compensate female employees less than similarly?situated male employees; systemically, intentionally, or knowingly compensated female employees less than similarly?situated male employees; systematically, intentionally, knowingly, or deliberately sowed an indifference to evidence of discrimination in pay, promotion, and assignments or otherwise minimized, ignored, or mishandled evidence of or complaints of gender discrimination in pay, promotion, and. assignment; and othenNise discriminated against female employees in the terms and conditions of employment. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT (California Equal Pay Act, as amended by the California Fair Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5, et seq.; California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5 (West 2015) (amended 2015)) (On behalf of Plaintiff, in her individual and representative capacities, and the CEPA Class) 31. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegatiOns contained in all previous paragraphs as though fullyset forth at length herein. 32. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff and all members of the CEPA Class in violation of the California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5 (West -12- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2015) (amended 2015). Defendants have paid Plaintiff and members of the CEPA Class less than similarly-situated male employees in the same establishment performing equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. 33. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff and all members of the CEPA Class in violation of the California Equal Pay Act, as amended by the California Fair Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5, et seq. Defendants have paid Plaintiff and members of the CEPA Class less than similarly-situated male employees performing substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions. 34. Defendants have subjected the Plaintiff and members of the CEPA Class to common discriminatory pay policies, including, but not limited to: a discriminatory system of determining compensation; a discriminatory system for promotions, which results in employees performing the same tasks receiving different compensation; and other forms of discrimination affecting pay. 35. The differential in pay between male and female employees was not due to seniority, merit, the quantity or quality of production, or a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience, but was due to gender. In the alternative, to . the extent that Defendants 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. 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that Defendants caused, attempted to cause, contributed to, or caused the continuation of, wage rate discrimination based on sex. Moreover, the foregoing conduct constitutes a willful violation of the California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5, (West 2015) - (amended 2015), and California Equal Pay Act, as amended by the California Fair Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5, et seq. Therefore, a three-year statute of limitations applies to such violations, pursuant to California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5(h) (West 2015) (amended 2015), and California Equal Pay Act, as amended by -13- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL the California Fair Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code 37. As a proximate cause of these aforementioned violations, Plaintiff and members of the CEPA Class have been damaged in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff and members of the CEPA Class are entitled to recover the unpaid balance of wages owed, plus interest on that amount, an equal amount as liquidated damages, all penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs of suit pursuant to California Labor Code 1197.5(g) and as well as any other legal and equitable relief the Court deems just and proper, including injunctive relief that effectuates a restructuring of Defendants' compensation and promotion policies, practices, and procedures and a permanent injunction against such continuing discriminatory pay practices and policies in violation of the California Equal Pay Act. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EQUAL PAY ACT (New York State Equal Pay Act, as amended by the New York Achieve Pay Equity Law, N.Y. Lab. L. 194, et seq.; New York State Equal Pay Act, N.Y. Lab. L. 194 (McKinney 2015) (amended 2015)); (On behalf of Plaintiff, in her individual and representative capacities, and the NYSEPA Class) 38. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein. 39. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff and all members of the NYSEPA Class in violation of the New York State Equal Pay Act, N.Y. Lab. L. 194 (McKinney 2015) (amended 2015). Defendants have paid Plaintiff and members of the NYSEPA Class less than similarly-situated male employees in the same establishment performing equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. 40. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff and all members of the -14- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL NYSEPA Class in violation of the New York State Equal Pay Act, as amended by the New York Achieve Pay Equity Law, N.Y. Lab. L. 194, et seq. Defendants have paid Plaintiff and members of the NYSEPA Class less than similarly-situated male employees at Defendants' workplaces located in the same geographical region, no larger than a county, performing equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. 41. Defendants have subjected the Plaintiff and members of the NYSEPA Class to common discriminatory pay policies, including, but not limited to: a discriminatory system of determining compensation; a discriminatory system for promotions, which results in employees performing the same tasks receiving different compensation; and other forms of discrimination affecting pay. 42. The differential in pay between male and female employees was not due to seniority, merit, the quantity or quality of production, or a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience, but was due to gender. In the alternative, to the extent that Defendants 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. 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that Defendants caused, attempted to cause, contributed to, or caused the continuation of, wage rate discrimination based on sex. Defendants used a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of sex; there exists alternative employment practice(s) that would serve the same business purpose and not produce such differential; and Defendants have refused to adopt such alternative practice(s). 44. Moreover, the foregoing conduct constitutes a willful violation of the New York State Equal Pay Act, N.Y. Lab. L. 194 (McKinney 2015) (amended 2015), and the New York State Equal Pay Act, as amended by the Achieve Pay Equity Law, N.Y. Lab. L. 194, et seq., and Defendants cannot prove a good faith basis to believe that their underpayment of wages was in compliance with the law. Therefore, Plaintiff and members of the NYSEPA Class are entitled to recover liquidated damages in an -1 5- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL additional amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the total amount of the wages found to be due, pursuant to New York State Equal Pay Act, N.Y. Lab. L. 198(1-a) (McKinney 2015) (amended 2015), and/or an additional amount up to three hundred percent (300%) of the total amount 0f wages found to bedue, pursuant to the New York State Equal Pay Act, as amended by the Achieve Pay Equity Law, N.Y. Lab. L. 194 and 198. 45. As a proximate cause of these aforementioned violations, Plaintiff and members of the NYSEPA Class have been damaged in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff and members of the NYSEPA Class are entitled to recover the full amount of any underpayment, plus interest on that amount, an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to one hundred percent (100%) or up to three hundred percent (300%) of the total amount of unpaid wages, all penalties, all reasonable attorney's fees, ordinary costs, and a reasonable sum not exceeding fifty dollars for expenses which may be taxed as costs, pursuant to New York Labor Law 198, as well as any other legal and equitable relief the Court deems just and proper, including injunctive relief that effectuates a restructuring of Defendants' compensation and promotion policies, practices, and procedures and a permanent injunction against such continuing discriminatory pay practices and policies in violation of the New York State Equal Pay Act. 46. In the event that Plaintiff and members of the NYSEPA Class must enforce any judgment or court order awarding remedies under New York Labor Law 198(4), Plaintiff and members of the NYSEPA Class are also entitled under New York Labor Law 198 to collect attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing any court judgment, and if any amounts remain unpaid upon the expiration of ninety days following issuance of judgment, or ninety days after expiration of the time to appeal and no appeal is then pending, whichever is later, the total amount of judgment shall automatically increase by fifteen percent. -16- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF FEDERAL EQUAL PAY ACT (Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 - 29 U.S.C. 206(d)) (On behalf of Plaintiff, in her individual and representative capacities, and the FLSA Class) 47. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein. 48. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Class in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 206, et seq., as amended by the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Defendants have paid Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Class less than similarly-situated male colleagues performing equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. 49. Defendants have subjected Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Class to common discriminatory pay policies, including, but not limited to: a discriminatory system of determining compensation; a discriminatory system for promotions, which results in employees performing the same tasks receiving different compensation; and other forms of discrimination affecting pay. 50. I The differential in pay between male and female employees was not due to seniority, merit, quantity, or quality of production, but was due to gender. 51. Plaintiff is informed and believesand alleges that Defendants caused, attempted to cause, contributed to, or caused the continuation of, wage rate discrimination based on sex in violation of the Federal Equal Pay Act. Moreover, the foregoing conduct constitutes a willful violation of the Federal Equal Pay Act within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 255(a). Because Defendants have willfully violated the Federal Equal Pay Act, a three-year statute of limitations applies to such violations, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 255. -17- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL u?X 52. As a proximate cause of these aforementioned violations, Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Class have been damaged in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Class are entitled to recover the unpaid balance of wages owed, plus interest on that amount, an equal amount as liquidated damages, all penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of suit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b), as well as any other legal and equitable relief the Court deems just and proper, including injunctive relief that effectuates a restructuring of Defendants' compensation and promotion policies, practices, and procedures and a permanent injunction against such continuing discriminatory pay practices and policies in violation of the Federal Equal Pay Act. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17200, w) (On behalf of Plaintiff, in her individual and representative capacities, and the CEPA Class) 53. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein.- I 54. Defendants' violations of the employment laws and regulations, as alleged in this Complaint, include, among other things, Defendants' willful failure to pay female employees equally as alleged above, constitutes unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent activity prohibited by the Unfair Competition Law, codified in California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. 55. As a result of Defendants' unfair business practices, Defendants have reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff, members of the CEPA Class, and members of the general public. Defendants should be compelled to restore such monies to Plaintiff and members of the CEPA Class, as well as any other legal and equitable relief the Court deems just and proper, including injunctive relief that effectuates a restructuring of Defendants' compensation and promotion policies, -18- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL practices, and procedures and a permanent injunction against such continuing discriminatory pay practices and policies in violation of state and federal Equal Pay laws. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for relief as follows: 1. That the Court determines Causes of Action 1, 2, and 4 may be maintained as a class action and Cause of Action 3 may be maintained as a collective action; 2. Declare that Defendants' compensation and promotion policies, practices, and/or procedures challenged herein are illegal and in violation of the rights of the Plaintiff, members of the Plaintiff Classes, and members of the collective action; 3. Issue a permanent injunction against Defendants and Defendants' officers, trustees, owners, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging in any conduct violating the rights of the Plaintiff, members of the Plaintiff Classes, members of the collective action, and order such injunctive relief as will prevent Defendants from continuing their discriminatory pay practices and from engaging in any further unlawful gender discrimination in pay as set forth herein; 4. Order Defendants to adjust the wage rates and benefits for the Plaintiff, members of the Plaintiff Classes, and members of the collective action to the level that they would be enjoying but for Defendants' discriminatory pay policies, practices, and/or procedures; 5. Award liquidated and compensatory damages to Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Classes; 6. Award penalties available under applicable laws; -19- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7. Order Defendants'to make whole the Plaintiff, members of the Plaintiff Classes, and members of the collective action by providing them with any other monetary and affirmative relief; 8. Award litigation costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, to the Plaintiff, members of the Plaintiff Classes, and members of the collective action, including those available under California Labor Code 1197.5 (9) and and New York Labor Law 198; 9. Award Plaintiff, members of the Plaintiff Classes, and members of the collective action all pre-judgment interest and post?judgment interest available under law; 10. Award Plaintiff, members of the Plaintiff Classes, and members of the collective action'any other appropriate equitable relief; 11. Order that this Court retain jurisdiction of this action until such time as the Court is satisfied that Defendants have remedied the practices complained of herein and are determined to be in full compliance with the law; and 12. Award additional and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. DATED: February 12, 2018 ALEXANDER, KRAKOW GLICK LLP MICHAEL s. MORRISON JESSICA S. CHOI Attorneys for Plaintiff ELIZABETH ROSE, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public -20- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. DATED: February 12, 2018 ALEXANDER, KRAKOW GLICK LLP Mk MICHAEL s. MORRISON JESSICA S. CHOI Attorneys for Plaintiff ELIZABETH ROSE, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public -21- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL