1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HOYER & HICKS Richard A. Hoyer (SBN 151931) rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com Ryan L. Hicks (SBN 260284) rhicks@hoyerlaw.com Sean D. McHenry (SBN 284175) smchenry@hoyerlaw.com Nicole B. Gage (318005) ngage@hoyerlaw.com 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94114 tel (415) 766-3539 fax (415) 276-1738 Attorneys for Plaintiff LORETTA LEE 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 12 Case No. LORETTA LEE, 13 Plaintiff, 14 vs. 15 GOOGLE, INC. and DOES 1-25, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of FEHA (2) Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (3) Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA (4) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (5) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (6) Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (7) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA (8) Wrongful Termination (9) Interference in Violation of FMLA (10) Retaliation in Violation of FMLA (11) Interference in Violation of CFRA (12) Retaliation in Violation of CFRA 23 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 24 COMPLAINT 1 1 Plaintiff Loretta Lee, (hereinafter “Lee” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action against 2 Defendant Google, Inc. (“Google” and/or “Defendant”) and DOES 1-25 (collectively 3 “Defendants”) and alleges as follows: 4 NATURE OF THE ACTION 5 1. 6 seven years. She performed well in her position and was regarded as an excellent 7 engineer, receiving many commendations over the years. 8 2. 9 harassment as her male co-workers engaged in inappropriate behavior and made lewd Plaintiff Loretta Lee worked as a Software Engineer for Defendant Google for over In a male-dominated workplace, Plaintiff was frequently subjected to sexual 10 remarks to her. Defendant failed to prevent this severe and pervasive sexual harassment. 11 3. 12 under her desk, refusing to explain himself, Human Resources pressured Plaintiff to file a 13 report against him. When Plaintiff refused to file the report for fear of being labeled an 14 informer, Human Resources wrote her up and failed to take any remedial action regarding 15 the incident. 16 4. 17 the harasser nor anyone else in her group would approve her code and she did not receive 18 appropriate feedback on her work. 19 5. 20 after working extreme hours for many years. Shortly after she returned, Plaintiff also 21 requested time to attend physical therapy appointments for a car accident injury. Defendant 22 failed to grant her requests for accommodation or engage in an interactive process to 23 accommodate her disability. 24 /// After one particularly troubling incident when Plaintiff found a male co-worker hiding Over the next few months, Plaintiff was, as she feared, labeled an informer. Neither Also around this time, Plaintiff took a medical leave to treat for her mental health COMPLAINT 2 1 6. In February 2016, Google terminated Plaintiff for “performance issues.” The 2 termination came shortly after she asked for disability accommodations and once again fell 3 victim to sexual harassment. 4 7. 5 and gender discrimination, for which Google failed to take corrective action. Additionally, 6 Google discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her disability, failed to accommodate 7 her, retaliated against her, and terminated her. Google’s bro-culture contributed to Plaintiff’s suffering frequent sexual harassment 8 9 PARTIES 8. Plaintiff was, at all relevant times herein, a resident of the State of California and 10 employed by Defendant Google to work as a Software Engineer at its Los Angeles campus, 11 and later at its Mountain View campus. 12 9. 13 California. At all relevant times, Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer. Defendant Google is a technology company headquartered in Mountain View, 14 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15 10. 16 the unlimited jurisdiction of this Court. 17 11. 18 Plaintiff is a resident of California and Defendant is headquartered in Mountain View, 19 California. 20 12. 21 §395.5 because the unlawful acts alleged herein occurred in Santa Clara County. The amount of damages herein is greater than $25,000. This case is therefore within This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and claims involved in this action because Venue is proper in Santa Clara County pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 22 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 23 13. 24 Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). Plaintiff received a right-to-sue Plaintiff filed a timely charge of discrimination against Defendant with the California COMPLAINT 3 1 notice from DFEH dated February 18, 2017, and has commenced this action in a timely 2 manner. 3 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4 14. 5 2008, and later moved to its Mountain View campus. 6 15. 7 In less than four weeks in 2015, she singlehandedly wrote the code for Google’s first ever 8 company-wide internal contest, Product Excellent Fit. Thousands of Googlers participated. 9 The contest is now a biannual event, run by a 10-person team. Plaintiff also placed first and Plaintiff began working at Google’s Los Angeles campus as a Software Engineer in Plaintiff excelled at her job and was considered a talented and rising star at Google. 10 third place in 2011 and 2013 hackathons at Google. She consistently received excellent 11 performance reviews and feedback until shortly before her termination. 12 Gender Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Retaliation 13 16. Plaintiff was one of very few female Software Engineers working for Google. For 14 many years, she endured a male-dominated work environment permeated by sexual 15 harassment. 16 17. 17 comments, pranks, and even physical violence. Some examples are as follows: Male 18 colleagues spiked her drinks with whiskey and laughed about it. Male engineers shot nerf 19 balls and darts at her almost every day. On occasion, male colleagues sent Plaintiff 20 disturbing and bizarre messages. One colleague sent her a text message asking if she 21 would like a “horizontal hug.” Another showed up at her apartment with a bottle of liquor 22 and offered to work with her to fix a problem she was having with one of her devices. 23 Plaintiff asked him to leave but he refused. During a holiday party, Plaintiff was slapped in 24 the face by an intoxicated male co-worker for no apparent reason. Men in the workplace At Google, Plaintiff was harassed on a daily basis. She was the subject of lewd COMPLAINT 4 1 ogled at her constantly. Plaintiff worked at Google beginning when she was 26 years old, 2 and this bro-culture was the only professional environment she knew. 3 18. 4 desk after a short break, she found a male co-worker on all fours, underneath her desk. 5 When he noticed Plaintiff approaching, he jumped up and shouted “You’ll never know what 6 I was doing!” 7 19. 8 various forms of sexual harassment. However, the incident with the co-worker under her 9 desk unnerved her. Plaintiff had never spoken to that co-worker before. She was frightened 10 by his comment and believed he may have installed some type of camera or similar device 11 under her desk. 12 20. 13 hung on a lanyard around her neck, and asked “What’s your name?” As he grabbed the 14 lanyard, his hand grazed her breasts. 15 21. 16 incident, they began scheduling weekly meetings with Plaintiff in an attempt to get her to file 17 a report against the co-worker. Human Resources explained that it would take action 18 against the co-worker. Specifically, they would notify his supervisor, talk to him, and he 19 might be required to watch additional sexual harassment video training. 20 22. 21 change the sexually charged environment that she endured for years. In fact, she believed 22 filing a report would make her life worse as she would be labeled an “informer.” As a team 23 member, she knew her own performance relied upon the cooperation of others, specifically 24 their approval of the code she wrote. She also knew that being ostracized could effectively In January 2016, Plaintiff was working late one night and when she returned to her In large part, Plaintiff had grown accustomed to the inappropriate comments and The next day, the co-worker approached Plaintiff, grabbed the name badge that When Human Resources and the Senior Engineering Director learned of the Plaintiff knew none of the actions Human Resources claimed they would take would COMPLAINT 5 1 end her career at Google. She expressed these views to Human Resources, but they did 2 not relent. They continued to schedule frequent meetings during which they encouraged 3 Plaintiff to file a report against the co-worker. 4 23. 5 Human Resources continued to pressure Plaintiff, the victim and one of only a few women 6 in a group of 100-200 Googlers, to make a sexual harassment complaint. Google was fully 7 aware of what was transpiring and had no real plan to combat it. More egregiously, Human 8 Resources wrote Plaintiff up again for “not cooperating” when she failed to report the sexual 9 harassment incident. At this time, video had apparently surfaced depicting the incident. Despite this, 10 24. Eventually, Human Resources convinced Plaintiff to file the report; however, they did 11 not thoroughly investigate Plaintiff’s claims. Instead, they simply alleged that her claims 12 were unsubstantiated. This emboldened her colleagues to continue their inappropriate 13 behavior. 14 25. 15 code, no one in her group would approve it, which stalled the entire project. This also led to 16 Plaintiff being labeled a “poor performer,” despite her explaining that the team would not 17 approve her code. Plaintiff’s code reviewer also requested questionable changes to the 18 code she had written. The two debated it, and ultimately Plaintiff made the changes. 19 However, her code reviewer then came back and told Plaintiff to return the code to its 20 original version, causing an unnecessary delay of several weeks. 21 26. 22 only a couple of months after she fell victim, once again, to sexual harassment. Plaintiff’s 23 failure to report the sexual harassment did not prevent colleagues from retaliating against 24 her. Not only did Google fail to prevent severe and pervasive sexual harassment in Over the next few months, Plaintiff’s fears were realized. Though she diligently wrote On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff was terminated for “poor performance.” This came COMPLAINT 6 1 Plaintiff’s workplace, but the repeated and awkward meetings that Human Resources 2 forced Plaintiff to attend led her group to retaliate against her in the very way she feared. 3 27. 4 practice of ignoring sexual harassment in the workplace, making no significant efforts to 5 take corrective action, and punishing the victim. Google’s failure to take appropriate remedial action is consistent with its pattern and 6 Disability Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate, Failure to Engage in the Interactive 7 Process, and Wrongful Termination 8 28. During her employment with Google, Plaintiff was a productive an talented software 9 engineer. She often worked long hours, up to 16 hours per day on occasion. 10 29. After working extreme hours for many years, in July 2015, Google insisted that 11 Plaintiff take time off to assess her mental state. Coming shortly after a particularly 12 sleepless work marathon, she believed that the time off was a reward for all of her efforts 13 and an attempt to get her to de-stress. For the next several months, Plaintiff sought and 14 obtained treatment for her mental health. Plaintiff returned to work on November 3, 2015. 15 30. 16 by a drunk driver and her car was totaled. She began experiencing severe back pain, which 17 required physical therapy. The pain made it painful to sit or stand in one place for several 18 hours. 19 31. 20 outpatient treatment and follow up therapy appointments as the appointments were only 21 available during work hours. At first, Google human resources said it would accommodate 22 Plaintiff. However, instead of doing so, the Senior Engineering Director told Plaintiff she 23 “better be doing that on [her] own time.” 24 32. On November 15, 2015, shortly after Plaintiff returned to work, she was rear ended To manage her pain and heal, Plaintiff requested time off during the day to attend Plaintiff also took medication that made her sleep schedule erratic. She asked for a COMPLAINT 7 1 flexible start time to adjust to her medication. Google claimed it would honor this request, 2 however, her managers continued to reprimand her for arriving late. 3 33. 4 and erratic sleep schedule so that she could continue to deliver a high volume of quality 5 software code, in-line with her work prior to the onset of her disability. As a result, Plaintiff’s 6 back and mental conditions progressively worsened. 7 34. 8 began to receive negative feedback for the first time. Plaintiff received a negative two-word 9 performance review – Needs Improvement – which was the first negative review of her Out of fear of losing her job, Plaintiff attempted to suffer through the physical pain Shortly after Plaintiff notified her supervisors of her need for accommodations, she 10 career and in spite the fact that she was still producing the same caliber work. Plaintiff was 11 also written up for absences, which caused her to stop attending her therapy sessions. 12 35. 13 she was producing a high volume of work for the company, but it would not adjust her 14 schedule when she required accommodations to care for herself. 15 36. 16 had “communication” issues, Human Resources gave Plaintiff three options: (1) exit Google 17 with a severance package; (2) agree to maintain regular attendance, meet performance 18 expectations, and exhibit professional behavior with others, all of which would be outlined in 19 a Final Written Warning; or (3) take a medical leave to address the mental health issues 20 she had been dealing with, such as adjusting to her medications, but that her return would 21 be conditioned upon her agreement with the expectations set forth in a Final Written 22 Warning. 23 37. 24 returned to work on February 22, 2016 and was given a Final Written Warning. The next Google had previously allowed Plaintiff to work from home and late at night when After some time, alleging they were “unsatisfied” with her performance and that she Plaintiff chose the third option and commenced a leave on February 4, 2016. She COMPLAINT 8 1 day, she was terminated. This termination came shortly after she requested reasonable 2 accommodations. 3 38. 4 and then using her absence against her. Upon her return, Google also retaliated against 5 Plaintiff for requesting accommodations when it used them as a basis for write-ups and 6 poor performance reviews. Google’s retaliation eventually led to Google’s three-option 7 ultimatum and Plaintiff’s unlawful termination. 8 39. 9 were willful, oppressive and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, and were designed Google retaliated against Plaintiff by suggesting that she go out on medical leave Defendant’s actions were undertaken for improper purposes as alleged above and 10 and intended to cause and did, in fact, cause and continue to cause Plaintiff to suffer 11 severe emotional distress, pain and suffering, and substantial economic damage and, 12 therefore, justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages. 13 40. 14 stated below. The above allegations are incorporated by reference in each and every cause of action 15 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Hostile Work Environment Harassment in Violation of FEHA 16 17 41. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) provides in pertinent part 18 that it is an unlawful practice for an employer to subject an employee to harassment based 19 on his or her sex and/or gender, causing a hostile work environment. 20 42. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of FEHA. 21 43. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant. 22 44. Plaintiff has been subjected to unwanted harassing conduct and a hostile work 23 environment because of her sex and/or gender. 24 45. The harassing conduct was severe or pervasive. COMPLAINT 9 1 46. A reasonable woman in Plaintiff’s circumstances would consider the work 2 environment to be hostile or abusive. 3 47. Plaintiff considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. 4 48. Plaintiff has been harmed. 5 49. The harassing conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 7 Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA 8 50. FEHA provides in pertinent part that it is an unlawful practice for an employer to 9 discriminate against any individual on the basis of the individual’s gender. 10 51. The actions and conduct of Defendant, as alleged hereinabove, constitute 11 discrimination on the basis of gender against Plaintiff, in violation of FEHA. 12 52. 13 hereinabove, Plaintiff has been deprived of a discrimination-free work environment, lost 14 income and benefits, and suffered other damages to be determined at trial. 15 53. 16 alleged hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, physical pain and suffering, 17 and injuries in an amount to be proven at trial. 18 54. 19 employ attorney’s fees and is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Gov. Code §12965 and 20 CCP §1021.5. As a direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as alleged As a further and direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as As a further result of Defendant’s violation of FEHA, Plaintiff has been compelled to 21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 22 Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA 23 55. FEHA provides in pertinent part that employers must take all reasonable steps to 24 prevent harassment. Cal. Gov. Code §12940(k). COMPLAINT 10 1 56. The actions and conduct of Defendant, as alleged hereinabove, constitute failure to 2 prevent sexual harassment, in violation of FEHA. 3 57. 4 hereinabove, Plaintiff has lost income and benefits, and suffered other damages to be 5 determined at trial. 6 58. 7 alleged hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, physical pain and suffering, 8 and injuries in an amount to be proven at trial. 9 59. As a direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as alleged As a further and direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as As a further result of Defendant’s violation of FEHA, Plaintiff has been compelled to 10 employ attorney’s fees and is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §12965 11 and CCP §1021.5. 12 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13 Retaliation in Violation of FEHA 14 60. 15 retaliate against an employee for opposing discriminatory activity that she reasonably 16 believes to be unlawful. 17 61. 18 against Plaintiff, in violation of FEHA. 19 62. 20 hereinabove, Plaintiff has lost income and benefits, and suffered other damages to be 21 determined at trial. 22 63. 23 alleged hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, physical pain and suffering, 24 and injuries in an amount to be proven at trial. FEHA provides in pertinent part that it is an unlawful practice for an employer to The actions and conduct of Defendant, as alleged hereinabove, constitute retaliation As a direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as alleged As a further and direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as COMPLAINT 11 1 64. As a further result of Defendant’s violation of FEHA, Plaintiff has been compelled to 2 employ attorney’s fees and is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Gov. Code §12965 and 3 CCP §1021.5. 4 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 5 Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA 6 65. 7 discriminate against any individual on the basis of the individual’s physical or mental 8 disability. 9 66. FEHA provides in pertinent part that it is an unlawful practice for an employer to The actions and conduct of Defendant, as alleged hereinabove, constitute 10 discrimination on the basis of physical and/or mental disability against Plaintiff, in violation 11 of FEHA. 12 67. 13 hereinabove, Plaintiff has been deprived of a discrimination-free work environment, lost 14 income and benefits, and suffered other damages to be determined at trial. 15 68. 16 alleged hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, physical pain and suffering, 17 and injuries in an amount to be proven at trial. 18 69. 19 employ attorney’s fees pursuant to Gov. Code §12965 and CCP §1021.5. As a direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as alleged As a further and direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as As a further result of Defendant’s violation of FEHA, Plaintiff has been compelled to 20 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA 22 70. 23 accommodations for employees’ known physical or mental disabilities. Employers must 24 engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee to determine effective FEHA provides in pertinent part that employers must make reasonable COMPLAINT 12 1 reasonable accommodations. Cal. Gov. Code §12940(n). 2 71. 3 accommodate Plaintiff, in violation of FEHA. 4 72. 5 hereinabove, Plaintiff has lost income and benefits, and suffered other damages to be 6 determined at trial. 7 73. 8 alleged hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, physical pain and suffering, 9 and injuries in an amount to be proven at trial. The actions and conduct of Defendant, as alleged hereinabove, constitute failure to As a direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as alleged As a further and direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as 10 74. As a further result of Defendant’s violation of FEHA, Plaintiff has been compelled to 11 employ attorney’s fees and is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §12965 12 and CCP §1021.5. 13 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA 15 75. 16 engage in the interactive process with an employee. 17 76. 18 interactive process, in violation of FEHA. 19 77. 20 above, Plaintiff has been deprived of a discrimination-free work environment, lost income 21 and benefits, and suffered other damages to be determined at trial. 22 78. 23 alleged hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, physical pain and suffering, 24 and injuries in an amount to be proven at trial. FEHA provides in pertinent part that it is an unlawful practice for an employer not to Defendant’s conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes failure to engage in the As a direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant, as alleged As a further and direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant as COMPLAINT 13 1 79. As a further result of Defendant’s violation of FEHA, Plaintiff has been compelled to 2 employ attorney’s fees and is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Gov. Code §12965 and 3 CCP §1021.5. 4 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 5 Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 6 80. 7 of public policy against Plaintiff in violation of the common law principles explained in Tameny 8 v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167 and its progeny. 9 81. Defendant’s conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes wrongful termination in violation As a direct result of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant, as alleged 10 above, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages, lost benefits, and emotional distress in an amount 11 to be proven at trial. 12 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13 Interference in Violation of FMLA 14 82. 15 unlawful practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise or the 16 attempt to exercise any right provided by the FMLA. 17 83. Defendant is an employer covered by the FMLA. 18 84. Plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition. 19 85. Plaintiff was eligible for medical leave under the FMLA. 20 86. Plaintiff notified Defendant of her serious health condition and her need for medical 21 leave. 22 87. Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s FMLA rights. 23 88. Plaintiff was harmed. 24 89. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. The Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) provides in pertinent part that it is an COMPLAINT 14 1 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Retaliation in Violation of FMLA 3 90. FMLA provides in pertinent part that it is an unlawful practice for an employer to 4 terminate and/or discriminate against an employee for the exercise or attempt to exercise 5 any right provided by the FMLA. 6 91. Plaintiff was eligible for medical leave under the FMLA. 7 92. Plaintiff requested and took medical leave. 8 93. Defendant discriminated against and terminated Plaintiff. 9 94. Plaintiff’s request to take medical leave and her taking of the medical leave was a 10 negative factor in Defendant’s decision to terminate and/or discriminate against Plaintiff. 11 95. Plaintiff was harmed. 12 96. Defendant’s retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 13 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 Interference in Violation of CFRA 15 97. 16 unlawful practice for an employer to interfere with an employee’s exercise or attempt to 17 exercise any right provided by CFRA. 18 98. Defendant is an employer covered by CFRA. 19 99. Plaintiff suffers from a serious health condition. 20 100. Plaintiff was eligible for medical leave under CFRA. 21 101. Plaintiff notified Defendant of her serious health condition and her need for medical 22 leave. 23 102. Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s CFRA rights. 24 103. Plaintiff was harmed. The California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) provides in pertinent part that it is an COMPLAINT 15 1 104. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 2 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 3 Retaliation in Violation of CFRA 4 105. 5 terminate and/or discriminate against an employee for the exercise or attempt to exercise 6 any right provided by CFRA. 7 106. Defendant is an employer covered by CFRA. 8 107. Plaintiff was eligible for medical leave under CFRA. 9 108. Plaintiff requested and took medical leave. 10 109. Defendant discriminated against and terminated Plaintiff. 11 110. Plaintiff’s request to take medical leave and her taking of the medical leave 12 motivated Defendant’s decision to terminate and/or discriminate against Plaintiff. 13 111. Plaintiff was harmed. 14 112. Defendant’s retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. CFRA provides in pertinent part that it is an unlawful practice for an employer to 15 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 17 1. For an award of damages to Plaintiff against Defendant for its termination of 18 Plaintiff, including compensatory damages, economic damages, emotional and physical 19 distress, and for any punitive or penalty damages allowed under California law; 20 2. All applicable statutory penalties; 21 3. Costs and expenses of this action incurred herein, including reasonable 22 23 24 attorneys’ fees and expert fees; 4. A declaratory judgment that Defendant discriminated against and retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of FEHA; COMPLAINT 16 1 2 5. For an order awarding Plaintiff liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §2617(a)(1)(A)(iii); 3 6. Pre- and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; 4 7. Exemplary damages; and 5 8. Any and all such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems 6 necessary, just and proper. 7 8 9 10 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all causes of action and claims to which she has a right to jury trial. Date: February 16, 2018 HOYER & HICKS 11 12 Richard A. Hoyer Attorneys for Plaintiff LORETTA LEE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMPLAINT 17