1
2
3
4

5

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
John Potter (Bar No. 165843)
johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com
Victoria Parker (Bar No. 290862)
vickiparker@quinnemanueLcom
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
(415) 875-6600
Facsimile:
(415) 875-6700

6 Robert P. Feldman (Bar No. 69602)
bobfeldman@quinnemanuel.com
7 Ella Hallwass (Bar No. 319452)
ellahallwass@quinnemanuel.com
8 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
9 Telephone:
(650) 801-5000
Facsimile:
(650) 801-5100
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff Eric Alexander
11
12

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

14
15

18

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

Plaintiff,

16
17

CASE NO.

ERIC ALEXANDER,

1. Breach of Contract

V.

RACHEL WHETSTONE, an individual; and
DOES 1-10,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

19
Defendants.
20

21
22

Plaintiff Eric Alexander alleges the following against Defendant Rachel Whetstone:

23
24

25
26
27

NATURE OF THE CASE
1.

Mr. Alexander served with distinction as Uber’s Head of Business Development,

Asia from July 14, 2014 through June 6, 2017.
2.

During his tenure with Uber, an Uber Driver in New Delhi, India, raped a fare

paying passenger. Confronted with both criminal and civil liability stemming from the rape, Uber

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

Technologies, Inc.’s Legal Department in San Francisco, California, directed Mr. Alexander, who

2 was then in New Delhi, to coordinate, manage, and execute on Tiber’s legal strategy in response to
3 the attack. Mr. Alexander performed this responsibility on behalf of the Legal Department with
4 exceptional skill and professionalism. Far from being unsympathetic to the rape victim, Mr.
5 Alexander pressed for Uber’s full cooperation in the ensuing law enforcement investigation - a
6 position that was met with stiff opposition from certain individuals within Uber. In the end, Mr.
7 Alexander’s personal cooperation and testimony played a substantial role in the successful
8 prosecution and resulting conviction of the Uber driver. Upon the conclusion of the trial, the
9 Indian prosecutor remarked that Mr. Alexander’s cooperation was instrumental in the conviction
10 of the driver.

11

3.

Defendant Rachel Whetstone served as Uber’s Senior Vice President of

12 Communications and Public Policy from approximately June 2015 through approximately April
13 2017, and thereafter as a consultant to Uber. During this period, Ms. Whetstone harbored deep
14 seated personal animosity against Mr. Alexander over his perceived higher status within Uber, as
15 well as Mr. Alexander’s repeated efforts to curtail Ms. Whetstone’s ongoing racist comments
16 (culminating in Mr. Alexander’s public rebuke of Ms. Whetstone in front of another Uber officer).
17 Given the contentious relationship between the parties, upon her severance from Uber, Ms.
18 Whetstone took the unusual step of insisting on a reciprocal non-disparagement clause that
19 specifically referenced Mr. Alexander by name. Ms. Whetstone thereafter proceeded to violate
20 that clause by spreading false and misleading and/or disparaging information about Mr.
21 Alexander’s response to the rape in India. Ms. Whetstone’s derogatory statements were made in
22 direct violation of the non-disparagement clause to which she agreed upon the end of her
23 employment with Uber.
24

4.

As a direct result of Ms. Whetstone’s disparaging and grossly misleading

25 statements, Mr. Alexander’s employment was terminated; his reputation was destroyed; and he
26 suffered significant financial consequences.
27
28
-2COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 THE PARTIES

1
2

5.

Plaintiff Eric Alexander is an individual who maintains his primary place of

3

residence in Florida. During the time in which some of the events underlying Mr. Alexander’s

4

Complaint occurred, Mr. Alexander was present and conducting business in San Francisco

5

County.

6
7

6.

On information and belief, Defendant Ms. Whetstone is an individual who

maintains her primary place of residence in California and who regularly conducted business in

8 San Francisco County during the time in which many of the events alleged occurred, and
9 continues to do so to date. Ms. Whetstone served as Uber’s Senior Vice President of
10 Communications and Public Policy from approximately June 2015 through approximately April
11
12
13

2017, and thereafter as a consultant to Uber.
7.

The true names and capacities of the defendants named herein as DOES 1 through

10, inclusive, are unknown to Mr. Alexander at the present time, and Mr. Alexander therefore sues

14 such defendants by fictitious names pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Mr.
15 Alexander will, if necessary, amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said
16 defendants when ascertained.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17
18

8.

Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court of California for the

19 County of San Francisco pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of the California Constitution.
20

21

9.

pursuant to sections 395(a), et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

22

10.

23

this Court.

The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum for unlimited civil jurisdiction of

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

24
25

Venue is proper in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco

11.

Mr. Alexander began working for Uber (Asia) Limited on July 14, 2014. Upon

26 information and belief, Uber (Asia) Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies,
27

Inc. Collectively, the entities are referred to herein as “Uber”. Mr. Alexander served as Uber’s

28 Head of Business Development, Asia.
-3COMPLATNT FOR DAMAGES

 1

12.

Through tireless and effective effort, Mr. Alexander became an integral member of

2 Uber’s top executive team. As such, Mr. Alexander contributed to Uber’s growth in new markets
3 and, ultimately, Uber reaching a $70 billion valuation.
4

13.

Mr. Alexander performed his duties and responsibilities in an exemplary manner as

5 evidenced by his outstanding performance evaluations and frequent bonuses. Mr. Alexander was
6 loyal to Uber throughout his employment and endeavored at all times to act in the best interests of
7 the company.
8 Alexander Is Authorized To Act On Behalf Of Uber In The India Rape Case

9

14.

On or around December 5, 2014 an Uber fare paying passenger (referred to herein

10 as aJane Doe”) in New Delhi, India reported to police that she was raped by the driver of her Uber
11 ride. Shiv Kumar Yadev (“Yadev”). Mr. Alexander was in New Delhi at the time of the rape to
12 attend the Economic Times Corporate Award Ceremony on behalf of Uber.
13

15.

Following the Jane Doe rape, Uber’s Legal Department in San Francisco worked

14 closely with Mr. Alexander in responding to the ramifications emanating from the rape in India.
15 Mr. Alexander’s actions in responding to the Jane Doe rape were undertaken pursuant to the
16 direction of the Legal Department. Uber’s Legal Department directed Mr. Alexander to work with
17 Uber’s General Counsel for Southeast Asia to obtain outside counsel to evaluate Uber’s legal
18 exposure. As a result, Uber retained the Khaitan & Co. (“Khaitan”) law firm and other legal
19 advisers.
20

16.

Consistent with the Legal Department’s directives, Mr. Alexander represented Uber

21 in a meeting with the New Delhi police on or around December 9, 2014. During that meeting, the
22 New Delhi police requested that Uber turn over records that were potentially relevant to the rape
23 investigation, including route information as well as any prior customer service complaints against
24 Yadev. Mr. Alexander viewed this request as entirely reasonable and appropriate.
25

17.

Uber maintained records of customer complaints about its drivers, including,

26 notably, about Yadev. In fact, just days prior to the rape, Uber received three customer complaints
27 from female passengers describing Yadev as “scary” and “threatening.” One of the complaints
28 stated words to the effect of the following: “[Yadev] should not be allowed to drive women.
-4COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

18.

Notwithstanding Mr. Alexander’s belief that the prior complaints about Yadev

2

represented highly probative evidence, Uber did not provide the reports to the New Delhi

3

authorities.

4

19.

5

After learning that it would be difficult for New Delhi authorities to convict Yadev

without Uber’s records, Mr. Alexander proposed creating a map that would illustrate Yadev’s

6 route before, during, and after the ride in question.
7

20.

Mr. Alexander developed grave concerns that Uber was not going to provide the

8 route map to the authorities investigating the Jane Doe rape. In light of those concerns, Mr.
9 Alexander elevated the matter directly to Uber’s then-Chief Executive Officer, Travis Kalanick.
10 Mr. Kalanick fully supported Mr. Alexander’s recommendation to cooperate with the local
11

authorities investigating the rape. Mr. Kalanick authorized Mr. Alexander to provide a route map

12 to law enforcement.
13

21.

Mr. Alexander created a route map depicting Yadev’s whereabouts on the night of

14 the rape. With Mr. Kalanick’s approval, Mr. Alexander provided this route map to the New Delhi
15 authorities.
16

22.

Mr. Alexander testified for the prosecution at Yadev’s trial. He introduced a route

17 map that linked Yadev to the victim and established that Yadev had taken the victim to a secluded
18 area during the time of the rape. Yadev was convicted on October 20, 2015. He was sentenced to
19 life in prison.
20

23.

Mr. Alexander’s cooperation in the investigation was important for the successful

21

prosecution of Yadev. In fact, the prosecutor stated that Mr. Alexander’s cooperation played an

22

instrumental role in Yadev’s conviction.

23
24

24.

Mr. Alexander performed his work on the Jane Doe matter properly, ethically and

professionally.

25 Alexander Is Instructed To Obtain The Criminal Case File
26
27

25.

While the criminal prosecution of the driver was pending, Jane Doe filed a civil suit

against Uber in the United States seeking significant monetary damages. Acting on behalf of

28 Uber’s Legal Department, Mr. Alexander enlisted the Khaitan lawyers to obtain a copy of the
-5COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

criminal case file to assist Tiber in formulating a response to the civil action. The Khaitan lawyers

2

obtained and gave Mr. Alexander a paper copy of this file. This case file, which was

3

approximately two inches thick and written primarily in Hindi (which Mr. Alexander does not

4

speak or read) contained Jane Doe’s medical records.

5

26.

Mr. Alexander was acting properly and at the direction of liber’s Legal Department

6 in obtaining the case file. Mr. Alexander paid no bribes to get Jane Doe’s case file; indeed, as far
7

as Mr. Alexander knew (then or now), the file was lawfully obtained by liber’s lawyers. Mr.

8 Alexander never treated this file in a “cavalier” fashion.
9 Whetstone Displays Antagonistic Behavior Towards Alexander
10
11

27.

During their time working together, Ms. Whetstone and Mr. Alexander developed a

fractious and contentious working relationship. Much of the discord stemmed from Ms.

12 Whetstone’s professional jealousy. She correctly perceived that Mr. Alexander was a trusted
13 adviser of Uber’s then-CEO; a status she coveted but never achieved.
14

28.

In addition to this dynamic, Mr. Alexander repeatedly took exception to Ms.

15 Whetstone’s well-known propensity to make racist remarks in the workplace. On multiple
16 occasions during discussion about Uber’s business operations in China, Ms. Whetstone made a
17 slew of derogatory and racist comments. Among other racist comments, Ms. Whetstone stated
18 that the Chinese “cannot be trusted. 9^ Uthey do not play by the rules” and “I hate dealing with the
19 Chinese.
20

21

99

Mr. Alexander found Ms. Whetstone’s comments to be highly objectionable. Mr.

Alexander told Ms. Whetstone that she should refrain from making these racist comments.
29.

Ms. Whetstone’s racist comments continued unabated in India. The matter came to

22

a head during a discussion with an Uber executive in New Delhi. During this discussion, Mr.

23

Alexander rebuked Ms. Whetstone for making a racist comment about Indians. Mr. Alexander

24

called Ms. Whetstone a “racist” in the presence of another Uber executive. Later that day, Mr.

25

Alexander told Mr. Kalanick that he had publicly branded Ms. Whetstone as a racist and that Mr.

26 Kalanick should expect a call from Ms. Whetstone complaining about the incident.
27

30.

Ms. Whetstone again made racist statements during a meeting on February 14,

28 2017 in Uber’s San Francisco offices with a number of Uber’s top executives. During that
-6COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

meeting, Ms. Whetstone stated words to the effect of “I have never understood black people, and

2

they do not understand me. That is why I don’t have a lot of them on my team.” The executives

3

in the room were taken aback by Ms. Whetstone’s overtly racist comment and her self-described

4

racist hiring practices.

5

31.

Ms. Whetstone’s animosity towards Mr. Alexander was evident even prior to the

6 disparaging and libelous statements set forth in this complaint. In late January 2015, Mr.
7

Alexander attended the World Economic Conference in Davos, Switzerland on behalf of Uber.

8 Ms. Whetstone publicly confronted Mr. Alexander, asserting that he “stole Jane Doe’s medical file
9 from the hospital” and “bribed people in India to get the victim’s medical file.” These scurrilous
10 accusations were completely unfounded. _ Mr. Alexander told Ms. Whetstone that her accusations
11

were false.

12

32.

Later, Ms. Whetstone told a senior Uber executive that she was going to “ruin

13 Eric’s career” by telling former United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, who was then
14 conducting an internal investigation for Uber’s Board of Directors, that “Eric bribed people and
15 stole Jane Doe’s medical records.” These defamatory statements were patently false and, upon
16 information and belief, Ms. Whetstone knew them to be false.
17 Whetstone Agrees To A Non-Disparagement Agreement Naming Alexander
18

33.

Upon information and belief: Ms. Whetstone left her position as Uber’s Senior

19 Vice President of Communications and Public Policy in April 2017 pursuant to a severance
20 agreement. Given the long-standing fractious relationship between Ms. Whetstone and Mr.
21 Alexander, Ms. Whetstone insisted upon a non-disparagement clause in the severance agreement
22 that precluded Ms. Whetstone and Mr. Alexander from disparaging each other. Ms. Whetstone
23 and an agent of Uber executed the severance agreement.
24 Whetstone Disparages Alexander
25

34.

Upon information and belief: shortly before June 7, 2017, Ms. Whetstone

26 conveyed to Eric Newcomer of Bloomberg and/or Kara Swisher of Recode, among other news
27 reporters, that Mr. Alexander had acted improperly in responding to the Jane Doe rape. In her
28 efforts to smear Mr. Alexander, Ms. Whetstone depicted Mr. Alexander as a rogue employee
-7COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

investigating the matter without authority and as callous to the victim, while even suggesting that

2 the victim’s medical files were obtained illegally.
3

35.

Upon information and belief: Ms. Whetstone provided Mr. Newcomer and/or Ms.

4 Swisher and other reporters with a grossly unfair and fundamentally misleading account of Mr.
5 Alexander’s involvement in the Jane Doe rape case. Ms. Whetstone did not share with the
6 reporters that Mr. Alexander had insisted on cooperating fully with the Indian authorities. Ms.
7 Whetstone did not disclose that Mr. Alexander in fact personally cooperated with the authorities,
8 including his provision of a route map and testimony that was instrumental to Yadev’s conviction.
9 Ms. Whetstone also did not share that Mr. Alexander was acting at the direction of and in concert
10 with Uber’s Legal Department in responding to the Jane Doe rape. As a result of Ms. Whetstone’s
11

purposeful omission of these and other salient facts, the ensuing media reports provided an

12 incomplete and grossly misleading account of Mr. Alexander’s involvement in the Jane Doe
13

incident.

14
15

36.

On or about June 6, 2017, Mr. Alexander received an email from Mr. Newcomer,

stating he was working on a story and wanted Mr. Alexander to comment on it. Mr. Newcomer

16 stated he had heard that Mr. Alexander had obtained a copy of Jane Doe’s medical report and that
17 he used it in meetings as evidence that Jane Doe had not been physically raped because there was
18 a lack of physical damage. Mr. Newcomer said he was told Mr. Alexander had treated the report
19

a

20
21

cavalierly” and suggested the rape was part of a competitor’s conspiracy.
37.

Mr. Alexander immediately forwarded Mr. Newcomer’s email to Uber’s Global

Public Policy and Communications Director and General Counsel, as he was required to do by

22 Uber policy and practice. Mr. Alexander stated in the email that he found Mr. Newcomer’s email
23

(4

super disturbing.” He voiced his concern about the misrepresentation of the facts contained in the

24 email. Mr. Alexander further stated that he was very concerned about the damage to Uber,
25 himself, and his reputation. Mr. Alexander added the following: “This is the second time this has
26 happened and I’m very concerned about the source of these false stories. I am not certain where
27 this keeps coming from but I fear that Rachel Whetstone’s past bias and judgement against me (in
28
-8COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

particular the India situation which she accused me of many things multiple times) could be a

2

factor here.

3
4

38.

9^

Although Mr. Alexander had, at all times been acting at the direction of Tiber’s

Legal Department and, upon information and belief, the General Counsel knew that Mr. Alexander

5 has been asked by senior executives to obtain the Jane Doe case file and had been given the case
6 file by Tiber’s Indian counsel, Tiber did nothing to set the record straight. Instead, Tiber’s General
7

Counsel and Deputy General Counsel telephoned Mr. Alexander approximately thirty minutes

8 after he had forwarded Mr. Newcomer’s email and terminated his employment with liber.
9

39.

The following day, June 7, 2017, Recode and Bloomberg published two articles

10 (authored by Ms. Swisher and Mr. Newcomer) about the Jane Doe rape case. The articles falsely
11

conveyed or implied that Mr. Alexander acted improperly in responding to the Jane Doe rape; that

12 Mr. Alexander had obtained the medical records illegally; that Mr. Alexander took little care in his
13 treatment of the medical records; and that Mr. Alexander believed the rape had been orchestrated
14 by an Uber competitor. None of this was true.
15

40.

In the weeks and months that followed the June 7, 2017 publications, the false and

16 misleading information contained within those articles was republished on multiple occasions,
17 including but not limited to articles published by Ms. Swisher of Recode on June 11, 2017 and
18 May 16, 2018. Upon information and belief, Ms. Whetstone caused the republication by
19 continuing to contact the press regarding Mr. Alexander.
20

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21

BREACH OF CONTRACT

22
23
24

41.

Mr. Alexander realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 40 of this

Complaint as though fully set forth.
42.

Upon information and belief, defendant Rachel Whetstone and Uber entered into a

25 severance agreement containing a non-disparagement clause providing that Ms. Whetstone would
26 not disparage Plaintiff Eric Alexander, and in return Mr. Alexander would not disparage Ms.
27

Whetstone.

28
-9COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1
2
3
4

43.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Alexander is named in Ms. Whetstone’s

severance agreement and is a third party beneficiary of the severance agreement.
44.

Upon information and belief, Ms. Whetstone breached her severance agreement by

disparaging Mr. Alexander through the dissemination of false and/or misleading information to

5 news reporters and/or others about Mr. Alexander’s involvement in responding to the Jane Doe
6 rape matter.
7
8

9

45.

As a direct and proximate result of Ms. Whetstone’s breach, Mr. Alexander has

suffered loss to his reputation, shame, and hurt feelings, all to his general damages.
46.

As a further direct and proximate result of Ms. Whetstone’s breach, Mr. Alexander

10 has suffered a loss of his job, including the loss of wages and employee benefits in an amount to
11

be proven at trial.

12
13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Mr. Alexander prays for judgment against Defendant Rachel Whetstone,

14 as follows:
15

A.

For general damages according to proof;

16

B.

For special damages according to proof;

17

C.

For attorney fees;

18

D.

For costs of suit;

19

E.

For prejudgment and post-judgment interest according to law; and

20

F.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

21
22
23
24

DATED: September 13, 2018

Respectfully Submitted,
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

25

26
27

Attorneys for Plaintiff Eric Alexander

28
-10COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES