RUBEN SABA, LLP 9350 Wlishire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hilis, CA 90212 'tvand RUBEN SABA, LLP RYAN D. SABA, ESQ. (State Bar No. 192370) rsaba@rosensaba.com TYLER c. VANDERPOOL, ESQ. (State Bar' Nd.g79175) 'ol' oseneabaeoin 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone: (310) 285?1727 Facsimile: (310) 285-1728 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, MELANIE MCCRACKEN and JESSICA NEGRON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS DISTRICT MELANIE MCCRACKEN, an individual, and JESSICA NEGRON, an individual, Plaintij??, v. RIOT GAMES, INC, 3 Delaware corporation; and. DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. 1 Case No: CLASS ACTION CORIPLAINT FOR D-AJWAGES- i. Violation of California Equal Pay Act (Cal. Lab. Code 2. Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of California Equal Pay Act (Cal. Lab. Code 3. Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (Cal. Gov?t. Code ?12940(a)) 4. Harassment in Violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (Cal. Gov?t. 5. Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (Cal. Gov?t. Code ?12940(h)) 6. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (Cal. Gov Code ?12940(k)) 7. Constructive Termination in Violation of California Law and Public Policy 8. Violations 0f Unfair Competition Law (Bus. Prof Code ?17200, et seq.) Denim FOR A JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT LLP 9350 Wrishire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 THIS HONORABLE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES: NOW COME Plaintiffs MELANIE MCCRACKEN and JESSICA NEGRON (collectively, ?Plaintiffs?) W110 allege causes of action, indiVidually and on behalf .of a class. of other similarly: situated current and former California employees, against Defendants RIOT GAMES, INC. (?Riot Games?), a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, (collectively, ?Defendants?) as follows: NATURE OF ACTION 1. Plaintiffs Melanie McCracken and Jessica Negron are, respectively, a current and former employee of Riot Games. Like many of Riot Games? female employees, Plaintiffs have been denied equal pay and found their careers sti?ed because they are women. Moreover, Plaintiffs have also seen their working conditions negatively impacted because of the ongoing sexual harassment, misconduct, and bias which predominate the sexually?hostile working environment of Riot Games. 2. The term used to identi?v and instill the ideals of a Riot Games employee is ?Rioter.? The primary tenet of being a ?Rioter? is being a ?core garner.? While the term is ostensibly meant to promote the hiring and advancement of people who are video game fanatics, it has a more nefarious meaning to its female employees. Speci?cally, the term ?core gamer? is an unwritten policy and practice of preferring men to women in the hiring, promotion, and compensation of its employees. It is also a conduit to forcing its female employees to endure the sexual harassment and misconduct that has plagued ?gaming culture,? and to keep silent about these issues. In sum, being a ?core gamer? equates to being a man, and the presumption is that women are not core gamers and therefore not true ?Rioters.? 3. Recently, two major news publications commenced a series of in?depth reports on the extensive sexual harassment and gender discrimination that has been cultivated at Riot Games by its leadership. However, even though the issues plaguing Riot Games have come to light in a public forum, Riot Games is simply sweeping these allegations under the rug with empty investigations and counseling, while protecting the bad actors from any repercussion. The prevalent misconduct cannot be ignored any longer, as Plaintiffs seek to ensure the complaints of all female 2 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, 9350 Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 employees of Riot Games are taken seriously and acted upon. Accordingly, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly-situated current and former California employees of Rim Games: this. 0.13.5.8. action lawsuit to obtain monetary damages. and cause social change for the misconduct perpetrated by Riot Games. 4. Speci?cally, Plaintiffs seek to stop Riot Games? custom and practice of paying women less than similarly-situated men; assigning women to jobs that Riot Games does not compensate as highly as those jobs populated by men, even when women are equally quali?ed for the more highly compensated jobs; promoting similarly-situated and quali?ed men more frequently than women who are equally or more quali?ed for promotion; assigning or demoting women to lower paid positions than similarly~situated men, even when these women?s quali?cations were equal to or greater than the men?s quali?cations; and creating, encouraging, and maintaining a work environment that exposes its female employees to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the basis of their gender or sex. THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Melanie McCracken is an adult female resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and has been employed by Riot Games from approximately October 2013 through the present. 6. Plaintiff Jessica Negron is an adult female resident of the State of Connecticut and was employed by Riot Games from approximately April 2015 through April 2017. 7. Defendant Riot Games is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 12333 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90064. Riot Games was founded in 2006 and is a video game developer, best known for creating and selling ?League of Legends,? a multiplayer online battle- arena game and the company?s banner product. Riot Games operates 24 of?ces around the world and employs approximately 2,500 staff members of which 80% of whom are male. At all relevant times, Riot Games was and is doing business in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 3 COMPLAINT RUBEN 9350 thshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 The true names and capacities, whether individual, plural, corporate, partnership, associate, or otherwise, of DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore . 5116.3 said. Defendants by .snch?ctitious names, Thefull extent of the facts linking such. ?ctitiously sued Defendants is unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE was, and is, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally reSponsible for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally legally and proximately caused the hereinafter described injuries and damages to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will hereafter seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show the fictitiously sued Defendants? true names and capacities, after the same has been ascertained. The term ?Defendants? used in this Complaint shall mean Defendant Riot Games and Does 1-10. 9. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS he ?Bro Culture? Fostered by Riot Games. Riot Games is notorious for fostering a culture of sexism and mistreatment towards women. After having endured years of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and without any corrective action by their employer, many of the female employees of Riot Games spoke out about these issues publicly. 10. On August 7, 2018, Kotaku, a video game website and blog, published an expose on the ?bro culture? of Riot Games and the prevalent sexism and mistreatment of women.1 Over the course of several months, Koiaku interviewed 28 current and former Riot Gaines employees. In the article, a clear division between the treatment of male and female employees was illuminated. ll. the following: Examples of the ?bro culture? at Riot Games, include but are not limited to some of Defendants have required many female employees to ful?ll roles above their title and pay grade, while falsely promising these women with a promotion and 1/ Cecilia D?Anastasio, Inside The Culture of Sexism at Riot Games, August 7, 2018, available at ://kotaku .com/insi de-the-culture-o f?sexism?at-riot?games- 1 8281 6548 3 4 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, LLP 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Bevedy Hills, CA 90212 (C) (6) 12. individuals who are best described as ?video game fans and, speci?cally, hardcore video game fans.? However, men are assumed to be core gamers, whereas women are assumed to not be core gamers or even gamers at all. Because this hiring practice disproportionately favors men, many quali?ed women have been denied employment because they were not considered ?core gamers.? Female applicants and employees who are outspoken are considered ?aggressive,? ?too ambitious,? and ?annoying.? Indeed, Plaintiff Negron?s former supervisor, Geoff Chandler, once told her that ?diversity should not be a focal point of the design of Riot Games? products because gaming culture is the last remaining safe-haven for white teen boys.? Similarly, in 2015, at a Global Rioter ultimately hiring a man ?ll the role after the female employee was already competently performing the position. Female employees are regularly belittled by supervisors at staff. meetings by. comments such as ?her kids and husband must really miss her while she was at work;? ?she talks louder than she should;? ?she?s shrill,? or ?she should speak less.? Male employees are celebrated for their ideas while simultaneously women are either not asked for ideas, or if they are asked, the ideas are dismissed immediately without conversation and with repugnance. Women are made fun of and sexually objecti?ed. There is even an ongoing e-mail chain of ?Riot Games Hottest Women Employees? which rates the ?hotness? of each female on. the list. Women are required to participate and tolerate crude male humor which include jokes about sex, defecation, masturbation, rape, and torture. Women who do not join in these adolescent humor jokes, are classified as ?snobby? and unwilling to ?t in with the company. During a single month, Ms. Negron counted that the word ?dick? was used in excess of 500 times by male employees of Riot Games. Women are required to participate in online gaming where they are routinely harassed and demeaned by other players. Female employees must therefore be subjected to internal and external harassment as part of their working conditions. During the hiring process, Riot Games looks for ?core gamers,? predominantly male 5 COMPLAINT RUBEN 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250. Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Conference, a senior producer named Steve Snow spoke to an audience which included Plaintiff McCracken and other female attendees and emphasized the importance of hiring only ?core gamers,? agroup that is comprised .almest exclusively of men.2 .In sum, Riot Games women who are quiet and will literally and ?guratively ?shut up and play the game.? 13. If a female gets a job with Riot Games, the discrimination continues through the female employee?s tenure at Riot Games. During meetings and feedback sessions, female employees are constantly talked over by men in meetings. These meetings typically comprise up to half of a typical workday at Riot Games. Ultimately, the discrimination creates a ceiling for its female employees as they are denied higher pay, promotions, and leadership Opportunities. 14. The ability to gain promotions, better job titles, and equal pay is not the only issue plaguing the women of Riot Games. Female employees are exposed to ongoing sexual harassment and misconduct and are subjected to retaliation for speaking out against such misconduct. 15. As examples of the hostile work environment, female employees have endured the following: There are unsolicited and unwelcome pictures of male genitalia shown to employees from their bosses or colleagues. (13) A female employee discovered an e?mail chain discussing what it would be like to ?penetrate her,? in which a colleague added that she would be a good target to sleep with and not call again. (0) Another female employee recalled a colleague once informing her that she was on a list getting passed around by senior leaders detailing who they would sleep with. Two former employees said they felt pressure to leave Riot Games after making their concerns about gender discrimination known. One former male employee said that Riot Games? ?bro culture? is more pronounced ?behind closed doors.? A former employee was asked ?how big is your e-peen?? during an interview, referring to measuring her video game acumen in terms of penis size. 2/ Throughout Plaintiff McCracken?s tenure at Riot Games, she has consistently received positive performance reviews in all areas except ?culture fit? which focuses on whether an employee is a ?core gamer.? 6 COMPLAINT RUST-SN SABA, LLP 9350 Wrishire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (1) (In) (11) (0) A female employee who complained about the frequent usage of the words ?bitch? and ?pussy? in the work environment saw the conversation pivot towards her interpretations. of the than their usage. Men telling jokes or circulating e-mails with jokes or pictures that are intended to demean women?s intellect or are sexually explicit. Intentionally explaining information or ideas to women in a condescending or patronizing way, also referred to as ?mansplaining.? Punching, grabbing, and touching each other?s genitals as a form of a gag. Using their hands to signal gestures of male masturbation or female cunnilingus. Mimicking women blatantly in front of them. Telling stories on a daily basis about alcohol consumption and sexual conquests from the night or the preceding weekend. Use their bodies to simulate ?humping? another person. Expressing ?atulence as a form of a joke and then laughing about it with other male colleagues. The co?founder of the company, Brandon Beck, used the phrase ?no doesn?t necessarily mean no? as a slogan for the company during a company meeting. His comment was met with laughter by many of the attendees. A male employee Spoke out about the rape joke, but was informed by the company?s co?founders that his time at the company was limited, and he was forced to separate from the company.3 A former male employee was allowed to remain in a position of leadership despite regularly making sexual comments in the workplace and dragging and raping another Riot Games? employee. A former vice-president routinely bragged about Visiting strip clubs on work trips during his seven~year tenure at Riot Games. 3/ On August 27, 2018, former software developer and engineer Barry Hawkins published a blog post articulating the reasons for his departure, which included inappropriate behavior in the workplace, the use of sexual references and gestures, and sexist and inappropriate language about women. Mr. Hawkins? post can be found at: 7 COMPLAINT 9350 Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hiils, CA 90212 August 16, 2018, a ?Riot Unplugged? meeting occurred to discuss the issues espoused in the Kataku article. ?Riot Unplugged? is a question and answer session between the C00, CEO, and President of. Riot Games and the-employees. After the-meeting, a female employee sent a company-wide e-mail in Riot Games? Los Angeles of?ce, with a terse, con?dent subject line reading, ?That was not enough for me.? This email was met with a ?ood of concerned reSponses from other female employees. 17. On August 29, 2018, 22 days after Kotaku published the article detailing the culture of sexism at Riot Gaines, Defendants posted an apology blog stating the company ?hasn?t always beenh?or wasn?t?the place we promised you? and led all employees, especially women, to believe that the company was going to make ?big, impactful cultural changes that have yet to be seen and do not make up for the hundreds, if not thousands, of women affected, punished, terminated, or rejected by Riot Games? illegal employment practices.?4 At a forum with Marc Merrill, a co-founder of Riot Games, he admitted fault and began crying in front of an audience of his employees. 18. On September 2018, nearly a month after the original Koraku article was published, Daniel Klein and Mattias Lehman, two longtime Riot Games employees that were outspoken advocates for gender diversity, were separated from the company. Current and former employees of Riot Games believe that their exit was related to Riot Games? controversial West,? a session that was implemented to correct and atone for its discriminatory and sexist culture towards women by offering resume feedback and advice to women and non-binary aSpiring professionals on how to enter the gaming industry. However, men were not welcome at this event. Social media reacted to this FAX West panel with strong opinions, which included the following: ?You don?t fix your shitty corporate culture by being sexist towards men.? 19. After Riot Games was exposed, employees were asked to not publicly comment on the controversy. However, Mr. Klein and Mr. Lehman, always strong advocates for women and women?s issues, would not remain quiet and spoke out publicly through social media to address Riot 4/ Cecilia D?Anastasio, ?We ?re Sorry Riot Pledges Sweeping Changes to Address Accusations of Sexism, August 29, 2018, available at 1828689111 8 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, LLP 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beveriy Hilts. CA 90212 Games? sexist corporate culture, including their thoughts on the FAX West panel.5 Speci?cally, Mr. Klein defended his advocacy for gender diversity at Riot Games and decried the idea that ?sexism against men? was occurring by standingup against discriminati.on,.e5pecially given. that men are inherently not a marginalized gender. Mr. Lehman sided with Mr. Klein and felt that he was being policed by people who should instead be ?calling out those harassing and threatening him.? On information and belief, Mr. Lehman and Mr. Klein were terminated from Riot Games. 20. On September 13, 2018, Koralm published another article shockingly reporting that the men in senior leadership roles that essentially created and cultivated Riot Games? ?bro culture? are still employed by the company. Many former and current Rioters were outraged that Mr. Klein and Mr. Lehman were separated from the company for speaking out against the exact perpetrators of the culture that made discrimination so prevalent at Riot Games, yet there was no punishment or repercussion for the senior leadership.6 21. On October 14, 2018, The Los Angeles Times published an article detailing its own investigation into Riot Games? corporate culture by interviewing ten current and former employees who said that they experienced double standards, glass?ceilings, and/or sexual harassment at the company. 7 The employees that spoke out described a ?workplace where women were regularly talked over or ignored. When some women argued their points of View in meetings, they were labeled hysterical or simply excluded from future meetings and. opportunities, while men were promoted for the same behavior. Two women said they experienced professional retaliation for asking pointed questions in sessions with senior managers.? Three of the employees con?rmed Koraka?s report of sophomoric and sexualized behavior in the workplace, including a runnin a that ?involved male co-workers smackin one another?s enitals.? 5/ Cecilia D?Anastasio, Two Riot Employees Leave under Complicated Circumstances after PAX Session Excluding Men available at circumstance?1 828 8 86072. 6/ Cecilia D?Anastasio, Riot Games Says It Wants to Clean up its Mess, But the People Who Made It Are Still There, September 12, 2018, available at 1829013902. 7/ Sam Dean, Allegations of sexism and harassment roil Riot Games, the developer of ?League of Legends, October 14, 2018, available at story.html. 9 COMPLAINT 9350 WIIshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Plaintiff Jessica Negron ?s Allegations 22. In or around April 2015, Jessica Negron began her employment with Riot Games as .. Assistant Content Editor. Atall times relevant herein, Ms. .. . Negron was quali?ed to perform this job. 23. Approximately six months into her job with Riot Games, Ms. Negron?s manager left the company and she took on the responsibilities and duties of her former manager?s position, but did not receive an increase in her salary or a change in her job title. 24. Nearly a year later, Ms. Negron still had not received the title and salary increase for doing the work of her former manager that she had deserved. On information and belief, the position occupied by her former manager makes approximately $160,000 per year. 25. Throughout her time as acting manager, and on a near-weekly basis, Ms. Negron asked her superiors about making the job of?cial. Ms. Negron?s supervisor, Geoff Chandler, gave her Open feedback about how successful she was in that role, and a colleague corroborated that she was being groomed for the position. However, Mr. Chandler had no intention of actually promoting Ms. Negron. Instead, Ms. Negron was never even interviewed for the position, while three different men were hired at various intervals for the position. The ?rst two men each held the position for a couple of weeks. Ultimately, Dillon Buckner was chosen to fill the role and become Ms. Negron?s new boss. 26. Thereafter, Ms. Negron contacted Mr. Buckner, to inform him, for the past year, she had been working as and being groomed for the Content Editor role and was never compensated for the position?s increased duties and responsibilities. Although Mr. Buckner was empathetic to her situation, he did nothing to help her and accepted the position knowing that it was a step up in his career. Instead, he questioned if the result would have been different had Ms. Negron been a man. 27. When Ms. Negron asked Riot Games? upper management for feedback on why she was never interviewed for the role, she was told that she ?didn?t do enough to ?take? the role and they wanted to give the man who eventually took it an Opportunity to take on more responsibility.? 28. Ms. Negron had to sit in a room of 50 people to hear the of?cial announcement that Mr. Buckner was leading the team. This was extremely embarrassing for Ms. Negron. Female 1 0 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, LLP 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 employees consoled her knowing that she was performing that role, but was passed up for the formal title and pay raise because the company favored a man. 29. Thereafter, Ms. Negron formally. complainedto Human Resources, but done at all. 30. A few months after Ms. Negron complained to Human Resources, Mr. Buckner intimated to Ms. Negron that he was being pressured to terminate her employment and that, in doing so, it would be a ?Show of strength.? 0n information and belief, the pressure to terminate Ms. Negron?s employment was coming from Mr. Chandler and Bob Holtzman, Riot Games? Games and E?Sports Communications Consultant. In response, Ms. Negron again formally complained to Human Resources, but no remedial action was taken. 3 l. Ms. Negron was then told by Mr. Chandler that he was creating a new position for her on a new team, but this new position would not come with a salary increase. In fact, this so- called position was never actually created or offered to Ms. Negron, but was simply another de?ection tactic employed by Mr. Chandler in an attempt to appease Ms. Negron in the short-term. 32. In or around February or March 2017, Ms. Negron learned that Mr. Buckner was leaving his position in the department. Ms. Negron was asked to again take over the role Mr. Buckner was vacating. However, Ms. Negron was told that there would be no change in her title or salary, even though Mr. Buckner has been afforded a higher title and salary for doing the same job. Speci?cally, when asked, Mr. Buckner stated ?That?s not going to happen.? 33. After realizing that Riot Games was never going to promote her, or pay her the fair salary for the work she was performing without the of?cial job title, on or around April 7, 2017, Ms. Negron resigned from her employment with Riot Games. At the time of her resignation, Ms. Negron was making approximately $59,000 per year. 34. On or around April 8, 2017, the day after Ms. Negron?s resignation, she moved and is now a resident of the State of Connecticut (where her family resides) because she could no longer afford to live in Los Angeles, California without gainful employment. ?l 1 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, LLP 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Games as an Executive Assistant-in the International group. Shortly after-her hiring, Ms. McCracken - move to another department and ?nd a better opportunity with greater upward mobility. Upon Plaintiff clan ie cCracken ?s Allegations. 35. In or around October 2013, Melanie McCracken began her employment with Riot was told that she would soon- be supervised by Jin Oh, who was becoming the Head of International. 36. During her time under Mr. Oh?s supervision, from approximately early 2014 through March 2015, Ms. McCracken observed and endured discrimination based on her sex/ gender as he created a harassing and hostile work environment for employees who reported to him. 37. Mr. Oh discriminated against women based on their sex or gender throughout his tenure with Riot Games. Speci?cally, Mr. Oh did not hire females to ?ll vacancies in senior employment positions. Mr. Oh would only hire females to act as ?assistants? and claimed that he would ?feel weird having a male? in such a role. 38. In or around September 2014, Ms. McCracken expressed to Mr. Oh her intention to learning that Ms. McCracken had obtained a position on another team, Mr. Oh chided her for taking a position outside his team and demanded she ?nd a suitable replacement to his liking before she would be ?released? to another team. Mr. Oh?s criteria for a suitable replacement would be a ?fool?s errand? of ?nding a female candidate with an MBA willing to work as an assistant for below?market pay. Mr. Oh?s demand would ultimately require the intervention of the manager for Ms. McCracken?s new team in order to free her from Mr. Oh?s control. 39'. Fearing further retaliation on the part of Mr. Oh, Ms. McCracken approached Michael Cullen, a member of Riot Games? human resources team to discuss Mr. Oh?s discrimination against Ms. McCracken and other employees based on their sex or gender, and Mr. Oh?s reaction against her for taking a position on another team. Ms. McCracken requested that her complaint be documented and for it to remain anonymous. However, Mr. Cullen failed to keep their meeting con?dential, and, after returning from a business trip, Mr. Oh sat Ms. McCracken down in a conference room and said, hear you?ve been talking to Michael Cullen about me.? Ms. McCracken was petri?ed and angry and terri?ed that she had no one to trust at her own company. 1 2 COMPLAINT 9350 Wrishire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 40. Fortunately, Ms. McCracken was able to transition from the International region to the North America region. From March 2015 through May 2016, Ms. McCracken worked as an Of?ce. Manager in the. North America region. .Ms. McCracken? comfort in her new position would-- be short?lived as her supervisor would announce his resignation, and Mr. Oh was announced as the new temporary head of the North America region. Ms. McCracken was warned by her outgoing supervisor to move to another team as she had a target on her back for complaining about Mr. Oh?s previous misconduct. Indeed, in August 2016, Ms. McCracken was given a ?ve-month countdown to ?nd a new position or ?be fired.? 41. On information and belief, Ms. McCracken?s complaint against Mr. Oh was not internally investigated because Mr. Oh separated from Riot Games in 2016. 42. In January 2017, Ms. McCracken transitioned to her current position in the Internal Communications Division. In this capacity, Ms. McCracken would work with Riot Games? Senior Leadership team (the which consists of (1) Nicole Laurent, (2) Scott Gelb, and (3) Dylan Jadeja, President. At all times relevant herein, Ms. McCracken was and is quali?ed to perform. this job. 43. On or around June 4, 2018, Ms. McCracken received a text message from her friend, Dan Wang, the Head of Operations for Riot China. The D3 were in Shanghai for a worldwide tour. The message contained. a video of Wang and Mr. Gelb at a dance club with scantily?clad women in Shanghai.8 44. On June 6, 2018, Ms. McCracken met with a group of gamers and casually mentioned that the D3 were having a good time in Shanghai. Ms. McCracken did not mention Mr. Wang or Mr. Gelb by name, nor did she reference the video sent by Mr. Wang, and felt that her comments were pretty innocuous. 45. On the morning of June 14, 2018, Ms. McCracken received a Slack Message (which is a Riot Games internal electronic instant messaging/chat platform) from Jordan Carver, a member of her gaming group and a recruiter, asking if they could meet. However, before this meeting could 8X Notably, Mr. Gelb was described in the September 13, 2018, Koraku article as being well-known to ?fart on, ball-tap, and, sometimes, hump colleagues for comedic effect.? Multiple sources also continued that they have witnessed Mr. Gelb touching men?s genitals and farting near or on other employees. 1 3 COMPLAINT SABA, 9350 ?Nrishire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 occur, Ms. McCracken was instead pulled into a one?on-one meeting with Mr. Gelb. Mr. Gelb then told Ms. McCracken, ?So, I hear that you?ve been showing people pictures of me at a strip club.? (3er also posited that maybe. he had ?done something to her at a party.? or previo.usl.y..h.arassed her to warrant the dissemination of such photographs. However, Ms. McCracken was baf?ed and had no idea what he was referring to. Mr. Gelb speci?ed that he had heard this from a source in her gaming group, and Ms. McCracken then realized that he was talking about potential photographs taken at the in Shanghai. 46. Ms. McCracken immediately told Mr. Gelb what she had actually said to the team and Mr. Gelb was insistent on telling her that, although he went out for drinks with Mr. Wang that night, he was back in his hotel room by 11:30 pm. and did not do anything wrong. Ms. McCracken was embarrassed and told him that it was none of her business. Mr. Gelb then stated that he understood how gossip traveled through the company and wanted to make sure that, if it was Mr. Carver who was spinning this story, that his actions will not go ?unpunished.? 47. Mr. Gelb concluded their meeting and asked Ms. McCracken to ?clean up? the gossip, chalking the whole situation up to a ?bad game of telephone.? Mr. Gelb also mentioned that, with the impending Kora/Ea article on the horizon, he wanted to be extra cautious about what was being said about him. Mr. Gelb also expressed his displeasure that Mr. Wang had shared any information about that evening to Ms. McCracken. 48. Immediately after her meeting with Mr. Gelb, Ms. McCracken met with Mr. Carver and was very upset about how her words were misrepresented. Mr. Carver then confessed that he had told his manager the ?strip club? story, who had then told her manager, Jordan Mazer, who had repeated the story to Mr. Gelb. Mr. Carver told Ms. McCracken that he regretted telling the story to his manager and never intended this situation to escalate the way it did. 49. On the same day that Ms. McCracken and Mr. Carver met, there was another ?Riot Unplugged? meeting. During the event, Mr. Laurent approached Ms. McCracken in front of her team and loudly joked, hear that you have naked photos of Gelb on the dark web. How much are they?? Ms. McCracken was distressed and embarrassed thay Mr. Laurent had said this in front of her other team members. Ms. McCracken informed him that she did not do any such thing and Mr. 14 COMPLAINT RDSEN SABA, LLP 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hilts. CA 90212 Laurent said that he knew and was just ?trolling? her. He went on to say that Mr. Gelb was now worried about being able to go out and have fun at the next World Tour stop in Europe due to this . ?S.ituati0n.?.? Ms. McCracken was. upset knowing. that the. entire D3. group knew about issue and - that she was somehow to blame. 50. On June 15, 2018, Ms. McCracken set up meetings with the gaming group to go over their recollection of their conversations about Mr. Gelb. No group members remembered there ever being any mention of inappropriate photographs, let alone any photographs being shown or distributed, or of Ms. McCracken even mentioning Mr. Gelb?s name in conjunction with a strip club. 51. On June 18, 2018, Ms. McCracken met with Mr. Carver and Mr. Mazer to go over their recollection of the Mr. Gelb story and concluded that this was simply a bad game of telephone. Later that day, Ms. McCracken sent Mr. Gelb a Slack. Message apologizing for her involvement for the entire ordeal. Mr. Gelb informed her that Mr. Cullen would be handling the situation going forward and that there would be an investigation. 52. On June 19, 2018, Ms. McCracken received a frantic text message from Mr. Wang because he was going to be confronted for his role in sending Ms. McCracken the video from the in Shanghai. 53. Mr. Cullen met with Ms. McCracken and the rest of the gaming group to investigate the situation and take everyone?s statements. It. became apparent that the investigation was opened to simply insure that no photographic evidence of any misconduct: by Mr. Gelb in Shanghai existed and to intimidate the members of the gaming group into staying silent. Mr. Cullen concluded the investigation, and was satis?ed that he did not ?nd anything, but the process had the desired chilling effect. 54. In June 2018, Ms. McCracken was in the process of being promoted. Ms. McCracken had been recently successful in a delivering a strategy for the announcement of particular Riot Games product, and was slated to be promoted to the role of Strategist. However, Ms. McCracken was removed from decision-making for her products, the date of her next event was changed without her knowledge, and she was prevented from attending senior leadership meetings, thereby reducing the scope of her role within the company. 1 5 COMPLAINT Rosana SABA, LLP 9350 Witshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Seyfarth Shaw, LLP was hired ..sorne..of.the issues facing?Riot Games. However, the - 55. Ms. McCracken?s position at Riot Games has been essentially neutralized as she is unable to attend senior leadership meetings with the D3. Recently, an attorney with the law ?rm of results of the investigation were inconclusive and no action was taken against any of the bad actors. Instead, after being made aware of Ms. McCracken?s anxiety about Mr. Gelb?s actions, Ms. McCracken was moved to another building at Riot Gaines? of?ces and isolated from her team. She has experienced tremendous anxiety and stress for having spoken out about the misconduct at Riot Games. 56. Mr. Oh has since been re?hired by Riot Games in a senior leadership position above Ms. McCracken. 57. Despite M's. McCracken?s hard work to achieve her promotion, it has been put on hold and her future with Riot Games is dire, at best. Ms. McCracken remains employed at Riot Games at the time of the ?ling of this lawsuit because she wants to see change be made to the unacceptable ?bro culture? at Riot Games. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 58. Plaintiffs bring the ?rst through sixth and eighth causes of action on behalf of themselves, where applicable, and on behalf of the following proposed class (?Class?): All women currently or formerly employed by Riot Games, Inc. in California that requested but were denied a job promotion, increase in compensation, or equal pay because of their gender or sex; suffered retaliation related to a requested job promotion, increase in compensation, or equal pay (including wrongful or constructive termination); were harassed, discriminated, and/or retaliated against based on their gender or sex; and/or suffered other disparate treatment or retaliation based on their gender or sex during the time period beginning four years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint through the trial of this matter. 59. Alternatively, Plaintiffs bring the ?rst through sixth causes of action, separately, on behalf of themselves as applicable, and on behalf of the following proposed subclasses (?Subclasses?): 1 6 COMPLAINT Rinses: SABA, LLP 9350 ?Mlshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (0) (6) 60. Civil Procedure ?3 82 because there exists an ascertainable and suf?ciently numerous Class and/0r Subclasses, a well-de?ned community of interest, and substantial bene?ts from certi?cation that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives. 61. class action both necessary and ef?cient. The proposed Class includes hundreds of current and former female Riot Games employees located across California. Members of the Class and/or Subclass 1: All women currently or formerly employed by Riot Games, Inc. in California that were denied a promotion, increase in compensation, or equal pay based on their gender -or--sex, during the time period beginning four-years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint through the trial of this matter. Subclass 2: All women currently or formerly employed by Riot Games, Inc. in California that were discriminated or retaliated against for requesting a promotion, increase in compensation, or equal pay, during the time period beginning four years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint through the trial of this matter. Subclass 3: All women currently or formerly employed by Riot Games, Inc. in California that were discriminated against because of their gender or sex, during the time period beginning four years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint through the trial of this matter. Subclass 4: All women currently or formerly employed by Riot Games, Inc. in California that were harassed. because of their gender or sex, during the time period beginning four years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint through the trial of this matter. Subclass 5: All women currently or formerly employed by Riot Games, Inc. in California that were retaliated against because of their gender or sex or for engaging in protected activity, during the time period beginning four years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint through the trial of this matter. This action is appropriately suited for a class action pursuant to California Code of Numerosity and Ascertainability. The size of the Class and/or Subclasses makes a 17 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, LLP 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Subclasses are ascertainable through Riot Games? records, but are so numerous that joinder of all individual Class or Subclasses would be impractical. .. . Predominant?ommon. OuestionsofLaw. and..E.act. . . Common questions. of law and fact affecting the rights of all Class andlor Subclasses predominate over any individualized issues. These common questions include, but are not limited to: Cb) (C) Whether Riot Games has a systemic policy and/or practice of willfully paying its female employees at rates lower than those paid to its male employees performing substantially equal or similar work under similar conditions, in violation of California Labor Code ?l 197.5, et seq; Whether Riot Games has a systemic policy and/or practice of willfully assigning and channeling women to lower paying job positions, job ladders, and salary levels than its male employees, in violation of California Labor Code ?1 197.5, et seq.; Whether Riot Games has a systemic policy and/or practice of committing adverse employment actions against its female employees who engage in protected activities when requesting promotions, increases in pay, or equal pay, in in violation of California Labor Code et seq; Whether Riot Games has a systemic policy and/or practice of committing adverse employment actions against its female employees because of their gender or sex, in violation of California Government Code ?12940(a), et seq. Whether Riot Games has a systemic policy and/or practice of permitting harassment of its female employees because of their gender or sex, in violation of California Government Code ?12940(j)( 1), et seq. Whether Riot Games has a systemic policy and/or practice of committing adverse employment actions against its female employees for engaging in protected activities when lodging complaints and/or requesting promotions, increases in pay, or equal pay, in violation of California Government Code ?12940(h), et seq. Whether Riot Games has a systemic policy and/or practice of failing to prevent discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation against its female employees because 18 COMPLAINT 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beveriy Hilts, CA 90212 their gender or sex, in violation of California Government Code ?12940(k), et seq. (11.) Whether. Riot Games has a systemic policy andiorpractice of unlawful, unfair, or. fraudulent business activities which allow it to unfairly compete in the marketplace. 63. Typicali?. Plaintiffs? claims are typical of the Class and/or the Subclasses? Equal Pay Act claims because Plaintiffs are women who are or were employed by Riot Games in California during the Class Period and were denied promotions and/or paid less than their male counterparts for substantially equal or similar work. Plaintiffs? claims are typical of the Class and/or the Subclasses? Fair Employment Housing Act claims of women were denied promotions and/or paid less than their male counterparts for substantially equal or similar work and/or were discriminated, retaliated, or harassed because of their gender or sex. 64. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class and/or Subclasses because their individual interests are consistent with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of the Class and/or Subclasses, and because Plaintiffs have retained counsel who have the requisite resources and ability to prosecute this case as a class action and. are experienced labor and employment attorneys who have successfully litigated other cases involving similar issues, including in class actions. 65. Superiority of Class Mechanism. Class certi?cation is apprOpriate because common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class andXor Subclasses. Riot Games? liability in this case is based on uniform company policies and procedures applicable to all employees. The compensation that Riot Games owes to each individual Class member is small in relation to the expense and burden (of individual litigation to recover that compensation. The prosecution of separate actions against Riot Games by individual Class and/or Subclasses could create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications which could establish incompatible standards of conduct for Riot Games. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and ef?cient adjudication of the controversy set forth herein. ?19 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, LLP 9350 WIIshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 ?Within. the City of Los Angeles, Ccunty of Les Angeles, State of Califomia, which is within the JURISDICTION AND VENUE 66. The events causing damage to Plaintiffs, as described in this Complaint, all occurred jurisdictional boundaries of the Superior Court of the County ofLos Angeles. 6?7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because Defendant Riot Games is a corporation that maintains its headquarters in Los Angeles, California, is licensed to do business in California, regularly conducts business in California, and committed and continues to commit the unlawful acts alleged herein in California. 68. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure ?3 95.5. Riot Games has an office in Los Angeles, which is where many Class and/or Subclasses have worked and continue to work. Riot Games? obligation to pay its female employees equally to its male employees, and its liability for failing to do so, and any retaliatory acts related to Riot Games? unfair and/or unlawful employment practices, therefore arise in the County of Los Angeles. 69. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure {3382, Plaintiffs bring these claims individually and as a class action on behalf of a class of current and former employees of Riot Games and who were forced out for asking for promotions or salary increases or were not equally paid for substantially similar work based on gender, at any time four years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint. 70. This action is not subject to the Federal Class Action Fairness Act. EXHAUST ION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 71. On or about November 5, 2018, Plaintiff Melanie McCracken exhausted her administrative remedies by timely requesting that the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing grant her the ?Right to Sue? the named Defendants on the allegations set forth herein. On or about November 5, 2018, the issued a ?Right to Sue? letter to Plaintiff Melanie McCracken granting her the right to sue the Defendants identi?ed herein. 20 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the California Equal Pay Act (California Labor Code ?1 I 97.5 et seq.) (By Plaintiffs and the. Class and/0r Subclasses Against All Defendants) .. . 72. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint. 73. Defendants have and continue to pay Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses at a rate less than Defendant?s male employees in violation of the California Equal Pay Act, California Labor Code ?l 197.5, or seq. 74. Plaintiffs and the Class and/0r Subclasses were performing substantially similar work as Defendant?s male employees with respect to their skill, effort, and responsibility. 75. Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses were performing substantially similar work under similar working conditions as Defendant? 3 male employees. 76. Defendants caused, attempted to cause, contributed to, or caused the continuation of the wage rate Violations of the California Equal Pay Act. 77. Defendants willfully or recklessly disregarded the fact that its conduct was in Violation of the California Equal Pay Act. 78. As a result of Defendants? conduct alleged herein and/or Defendants? willful, knowing, and intentional violations of the California Equal Pay Act, Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses have suffered and will continue to suffer harm, including, but not limited to, lost wages, lost bene?ts, and other ?nancial loss. 79. Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses should be awarded all legal and equitable remedies, including underpaid wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys? fees under California Labor Code ?1197.5 and California Code of Civil Procedure ?1021.5. 80. Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses are also entitled to civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 1197.5 and 2699(f). 81. The aforementioned acts were committed by Defendants, and each of them, by and through their reSpective officers, directors, managing agents, agents and/or representatives and/or were lmown to, aided, abetted, authorized by, rati?ed by and/or otherwise approved by their 21 COMPLAINT Reserve SABA, 9350 Wilshire Bouievard, Suite 250, Beverly Hiils, CA 90212 respective of?cers, directors, managing agents and/or representatives. The above acts of Defendants, and each of them, were deSpicable and committed knowingly, willfully, fraudulently, . and/ .017 maliciously, with theintent to. harm, iuj annoy, and oppress Plaintiff. MeCracken and .. the Class and/or Subclasses and with a conscious disregard of their rights. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses seek punitive and exemplary damages from the named Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Discrimination Retaliation. in Violation of Cal?omia ?5 Equal Pay Act (California Labor Code et seq.) (By Plaintiff Melanie McCraeken and the Class and/or Subclasses Against All Defendants) 82. Plaintiff McCracken realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint. 83. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses suffered discrimination and retaliation because of their protected activities in violation of California Labor Code including with respect to their requests for promotions, increased compensation, and/or equal pay. 84. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses? protected activities were reSponded to by Defendants with denied promotions, refusals to provide increased compensation or equal pay, demotions, reassignment with signi?cantly different responsibilities, losses of benefits, suspensions, terminations, and other adverse employment actions. 85. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class andior Subclasses? protected activities were substantial motivating factors for the adverse employment actions. 86. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants? aforesaid wrongful conduct, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/0r Subclasses have been harmed in that they have suffered the loss of past and future wages and earnings, benefits, and such additional amounts of money they would have received if Defendants had not committed the adverse employment actions. As a result of such discrimination and retaliation and their consequences, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class 22 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, 9350 \Mlshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverty Hills, CA 90212 and/or Subclasses have suffered additional economic harm and damages, to be stated according to proof at trial. 3.7-, . AS. aresult 0f Dafendants? conduet as alleged. herein, Plaintiff McCracken and the . .. . Class and/or Subclasses have been required to retain counsel to represent them. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses will continue to incur attorneys? fees and costs in an amount Within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses are therefore entitled to an award based on the reasonable attorneys? fees necessarily incurred in the preparation and prosecution of this action, in an amount to be stated according to proof at trial. 88. The aforementioned acts were committed by Defendants, and each of them, by and through their respective officers, directors, managing agents, agents and/or representatives and/or were known to, aided, abetted, authorized by, rati?ed by and/or otherwise approved by their respective of?cers, directors, managing agents and/or representatives. The above acts of Defendants, and each of them, were despicable and committed knowingly, willfully, fraudulently, and/or maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, annoy, and oppress Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses and with a conscious disregard of their rights. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses seek punitive and exemplary damages from the named Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of California Government Code ?12940, et seq. (By Plaintiff Melanie McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses Against All Defendants) 89. Plaintiff McCracken realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 7 i of this Complaint. 90. At all relevant times, Government Code ?12940(a) was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. Government Code ?12940(a) prohibits Defendants from discriminating against any employee on the basis of sex or gender. 91. At all relevant times, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses were female and therefore members of a protected group, pursuant to California Government Code 23 COMPLAINT .9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 ??12926, 12945. 92. At all relevant times, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses perfo?nediheilfjub duties. with. exceptionalresults. 93. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses were subjected to unlawful discrimination by Defendants, and each of them, because they are women. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses? sex and/or gender were motivating reasons for the harassment, discrimination, and retaliation alleged herein. 94. Plaintiff McCracken is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendants had in place policies and procedures that speci?cally prohibited discrimination based on sex and/or gender, retaliation based on complaints about discriminatory practices based on sex and/or gender, and sexual harassment against and upon employees of Defendants. Plaintiff McCraeken alleges that those same policies required Defendants? employees, managers, of?cers, and agents to prevent such same illegal conduct. 95. However, Defendants, and each of them, failed to implement and/or enforce their respective anti?discrimination policies. Instead, Defendants further discriminated against Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses by preferring men in the workplace, particularly with respect to their hiring, promotions, and compensation, and by responding to male employees? grievances and complaints swiftly and thoroughly, as compared to female employees? grievances and complaints, which were more likely to be disregarded, not investigated, or mishandled. 96. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants? aforesaid wrongful conduct, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses have been harmed in that they have suffered the loss of past and future wages and earnings, benefits, and such additional amounts of money they would have received if Defendants had not discriminated against them. As a result of such discrimination and its consequences, Plaintiff McCracken and/or the Class and/or Subclasses have suffered additional economic harm and damages, to be stated according to proof at trial. 97. The acts of Defendants as alleged herein have been reckless and/or intentional, in that Defendants, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses? rights, acted so as to cause each of them to suffer a loss of employment benefits and to suffer the 24 COMPLAINT RUSEN SABA, 9350 \Mlshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 injury, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress and hardship alleged herein. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses did suffer and still do suffer emotional distress, anxiety, stress, and. . Worry because. of . Defendants? conduct. .Accordingly,.. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses are entitled to recover general damages against said Defendants in a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, in an amount to be stated according to proof at trial. 98. As a result of Defendants? conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses have been required to retain counsel to represent their interests. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses will continue to incur attorneys? fees and costs in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses are therefore entitled to an award based on the reasonable attorneys? fees necessarily incurred in the preparation and prosecution of this action, pursuant to Government Code ?12965(b), which amount will be stated according to proof at trial. 99. The aforementioned acts were committed by Defendants, and each of them, by and through their respective of?cers, directors, managing agents, agents and/or representatives and/or were known to, aided, abetted, authorized by, rati?ed by and/or otherwise approved by their respective of?cers, directors, managing agents and/or representatives. The above acts of Defendants, and each of them, were despicable and committed knowingly, willfully, fraudulently, and/or maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, annoy, and oppress Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses and with a conscious disregard of their rights. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses seek punitive and exemplary damages ?om the named Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Harassment in Violation of California Government Code et seq. (By Plaintiff Melanie McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses Against All Defendants) Plaintiff McCracken realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint. 25 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, Lu:- 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 101. . At all times relevant for purposes of this Complaint, California Government Code ?12940, et seq. were in full force and effect and were binding on all Defendants. California Government Cede states that it is unlawful or an employer. . .or any other person, because of. . .sex [and/or] gender, harass an 102. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses were subjected to harassment on the basis of her sex/ gender. Said conduct was severe, pervasive, constant and continuous, and was offensive, humiliating, and harassing to Plaintiff and would have been offensive to a reasonable person in Plaintiff circumstances. 103. Furthermore, by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation and not taking proper remedial action following Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses? complaints, Defendants rati?ed the unlawful conduct of its managers and. supervisors. 104. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants? aforesaid wrongful conduct, Plaintiff McCracken and. the Class and/or Subclasses have been harmed in that they have suffered the loss of past and ?tture wages and earnings, benefits, and such additional amounts of money they would have received if Defendants had not harassed them. As a result of such harassment and its consequences, Plaintiff McCracken and/or the Class and/or Subclasses have suffered additional economic harm and damages, to be stated according to proof at trial. 105. The acts of Defendants as alleged herein have been reckless and/or intentional, in that Defendants, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses? rights, acted so as to cause each of them to suffer a loss of employment bene?ts and to suffer the injuiy, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress and hardship alleged herein. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses did suffer and still do suffer emotional distress, anxiety, stress, and worry because of Defendants? conduct. Accordinglv, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses are entitled to recover general damages against said Defendants in a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, in an amount to be stated according to proof at trial. 106. As a result of Defendants? conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses have been required to retain counsel to represent their interests. Plaintiff 26 COMPLAINT RUSEN QSABA, 9350 \Mlshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses will continue to incur attorneys? fees and costs in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or . 311130133868 are therefore entitled. to award based. on the reasonableattomeys? fees.ne.c.ess.arily.. .. incurred in the preparation and prosecution of this action, pursuant to Government Code ?12965 which amount will be stated according to proof at trial. 107. The aforementioned acts were committed by Defendants, and each of them, by and through their respective officers, directors, managing agents, agents and/or representatives and/or were known to, aided, abetted, authorized by, rati?ed by and/or otherwise approved by their respective of?cers, directors, managing agents and/or representatives. The above acts of Defendants, and each of them, were despicable and committed knowingly, willfully, fraudulently, and/or maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, annoy, and oppress Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses and with a conscious disregard of their rights. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses seek punitive and exemplary damages from the named Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation in. Violation of California Government Code ?12940, et seq. (By Plaintiff Melanie McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses Against All Defendants) 108. Plaintiff McCracken realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through ?71 of this Complaint. 109. At all times relevant for purposes of this Complaint, the FEHA, California Government Code ?12940, et seq. was in full force and effect and binding on Defendants. 110. It is an unlawful employment practice to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices protected under California Government Code ?12940(h). Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclass engaged in protected activities including, but not limited to, lodging complaints, requesting equal pay or increased compensation, and/or requesting promotions. 27 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, LLP 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250. Beverly Hills, CA 90212 111. As a result of engaging in protected activity, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclass suffered denied promotions, re?lsals to provide increased compensation or equal demotions, reassignment. with significantly . different .responsib.il.ities,.. losses - suspensions, terminations, and other adverse employment actions. 112. The adverse employment actions were substantially motivated by Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses? protective activities. 113. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants? aforesaid wrongful conduct, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses have been harmed in that they have suffered the loss of past and future wages and earnings, bene?ts, and such additional amounts of money they would have received if Defendants had not retaliated against them. As a result of such retaliation and its consequences, Plaintiff McCracken and/or the Class and/or Subclasses have suffered additional economic harm and damages, to be stated according to proof at trial. 114. The acts of Defendants as alleged herein have been reckless and/or intentional, in that Defendants, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses? rights, acted so as to cause each of them to suffer a loss of employment benefits and to suffer the injury, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress and hardship alleged herein. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses did suffer and still do suffer emotional distress, anxiety, stress, and worry because of Defendants? conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses are entitled to recover general damages against said Defendants in a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, in an amount to be stated according to proof at trial. 115. As a result of Defendants? conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses have been required to retain counsel to represent their interests. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses will continue to incur attorneys? fees and costs in an amount Within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses are therefore entitled to an award based on the reasonable attorneys? fees necessarily incurred in the preparation and prosecution of this action, pursuant to Government Code 12965 which amount will be stated according to proof at trial. 28 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, LLP 9350 \Mlshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hilts. CA 90212 116. The aforementioned acts were committed by Defendants, and each of them, by and through their respective of?cers, directors, managing agents, agents and/or representatives and/or were known aided, abetted, authorized. by, rati?ed by and/or otherwise approved by. their respective of?cers, directors, managing agents and/or representatives. The above acts of Defendants, and each of them, were despicable and committed knowingly, willfully, fraudulently, and/or maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, annoy, and oppress Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses and with a conscious disregard of their rights. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses seek punitive and exemplary damages from the named. Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation. in Violation of California Government Code et seq. (By Plaintiff Melanie McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses Against All Defendants) 17. Plaintiff McCracken realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint. 118. At all times relevant for purposes of this Complaint, Government Code ?l2940(k), et seq, was in full force and effect and binding on Defendants. It requires Defendants to, among other things, ?take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination from occurring.? 119. In perpetuating the above?described acts and failures to act, Defendants violated California Government Code ?12940(k) by failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent such discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on gender and sex from occurring. Code ?l2940(k). 120. Defendants repeatedly violated California Government Defendants? acts and failures to act include, but are not limited to, the following: Having no policies, practices and procedures and/or failing to implement policies, practices and procedures and/or having ineffective policies, practices, and procedures regarding Defendants? obligations to refrain from harassment or discrimination; 29 COMPLAINT 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Having no policies, practices and procedures and/or failing to implement policies, practices and procedures and/or having ineffective policies, practices, and procedures regardingthe handling of complaints.ofharassment or. discrimination; Failing to investigate when harassment or discrimination was reported, despite there being such reports; Failing to provide any and/or adequate training, education, or information to their personnel, and most particularly to management and supervisory personnel with regard to policies and procedures regarding preventing harassment or discrimination; and Failing to appoint a quali?ed, neutral third party to investigate an employee?s allegations. 121. During the entire relevant period, Defendants failed to take all. reasonable steps to prevent discrimination or harassment and such discrimination or harassment was condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned, and rati?ed. 122. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants? aforesaid wrongful conduct, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses have been harmed in that they have suffered the loss of past and future wages and earnings, bene?ts, and such additional amounts of money they would have received if Defendants had not retaliated against them. As a result of such retaliation and its consequences, Plaintiff McCracken and/or the Class and/or Subclasses have suffered additional economic harm and damages, to be stated according to proof at trial. 123. The acts of Defendants as alleged herein have been reckless and/0r intentional, in that Defendants, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses? rights, acted so as to cause each of them to suffer a loss of employment bene?ts and to suffer the injury, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress and hardship alleged herein. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses did suffer and still do suffer emotional distress, anxiety, stress, and worry because of Defendants? conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses are entitled to recover general damages against said Defendants in a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, in an amount 30 COMPLAINT RUBEN 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beveriy Hilts, CA 90212 stated according to proof at trial. 124. As a result of Defendants? conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses have been required to retain counsel to represent their interests. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses will continue to incur attorneys? fees and costs in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Plaintiff McCracken and the Class andfor Subclasses are therefore entitled to an award based on the reasonable attorneys? fees necessarily incurred in the preparation and prosecution of this action, pursuant to Government Code ?12965(b), which amount will be stated according to proof at trial. 125. The aforementioned acts were committed by Defendants, and each. of them, by and through their respective of?cers, directors, managing agents, agents and/or representatives and/or were known to, aided, abetted, authorized by, rati?ed by and/or otherwise approved by their respective of?cers, directors, managing agents and/or representatives. The above acts of Defendants, and each of them, were despicable and committed knowingly, willfully, fraudulently, and/or maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, annoy, and oppress Plaintiff McCracken and the Class and/or Subclasses and with a conscious disregard of their rights. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses seek punitive and exemplary damages from the named Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Constructive Termination of Employment in Violation of California Law and Public Policy (By Plaintiff Jessica Negron Against All Defendants) 126. Plaintiff Negron realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through. 71 of this Complaint. 127. At all relevant times, California Government Code ?12920 provides that it is the public policy of California that ?it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opporumity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation.? 31 COMPLAINT 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250. Beverly Hills, CA 90212 128. As set forth above, Plaintiff Negron was discriminated and retaliated against in the following ways: refusing to promote Plaintiff Negron despite her satisfactory performance .. throughout the?duration-of her employment,- puni?shing Plaintiff promotions and salary increases, hiring a new employee to fill the Content Editor role and demoting Plaintiff Negron to her former position, making repeated empty promises of future promotions, refusing to consider Plaintiff Negron for the again vacant Content Editor role, and continued discriminatory treatment based on sex, creating a hostile work environment. 129. Due to her intolerable working cenditions, Plaintiff Negron quit her job on or about April 7, 2017. 130. Plaintiff Negron believes that the working conditions during her employment with Defendants were unusually aggravated such that it was intolerable to continue working in the environment where she may be further subjected to discrimination and retaliation. 131. Plaintiff Negron?s constructive termination was in violation of fundamental public policies as set forth above. 132. The acts of Defendants as alleged herein have been reckless and/or intentional, in that Defendants, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff Negron?s rights, acted so as to cause her to suffer a loss of employment and to suffer the injury, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress and hardship alleged herein. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff Negron did suffer and still does suffer emotional distress, anxiety, stress, and worry because of Defendants? conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff Negron is entitled to recover general damages against said Defendants in a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, in an amount to be stated according to proof at trial. 133. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of Defendants? aforesaid wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Ne gron been harmed in that she has suffered the loss of past and future wages and earnings, bene?ts, and such additional amounts of money she would have received if Defendants had not caused her to constructively discharge her employment. As a result of misconduct, Plaintiff Negron has suffered additional economic harm and damages, to be stated according to proof at trial. 32 COMPLAINT RUSEN SABA, 9350 Witshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 ?were. known 1'0, aided,__ abetted, authorized by, ratified by and/or. otherwise. approved by. their. 134. The aforementioned acts were committed by Defendants, and each of them, by and through their respective of?cers, directors, managing agents, agents and/or representatives and/0r respective officers, directors, managing agents and/or representatives. The above acts of Defendants, and each of them, were despicable and committed knowingly, willfully, fraudulently, and/or maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, annoy, and oppress Plaintiff Negron and with a conscious disregard of her rights. By reason thereof, Plaintiff Negron seeks punitive and exemplary damages from the named Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of Unfair Competition Lowpm?suani to Business Professionals Code 7200, et seq. (By All Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses Against All Defendants) 135. Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and eve1y allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint. 136. California Business Professions Code ?l7200, er seq. prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. 137. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action in a representative capacity on behalf of the general public and the Class and/or Subclasses. Plaintiffs and the Class andfor Subclasses have suffered and continue to suffer injury in fact and deprivation of wages and monies as a result of Defendants? actions. 138. The actions of Defendants, as alleged herein, amount to conduct which is unlawful and in violation of law. As such, such conduct constitutes unfair business practices, in violation of Business Professions Code ?17200, et seq. 139. Defendants? conduct as herein alleged has damaged Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses by denying them equal pay, promotions, increased compensation, and a working environment free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Defendants? actions are thus 33 COMPLAINT 1.1.1: 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 substantially damaging to Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses, causing them injury in fact and loss of money. 140. AS. a result of such conduct, Defendants have unlaw?illy and unfairly. obtained. monies owed to Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses. 141. The proposed Class and/or Subclasses can be identi?ed by reference to payroll and related records in the possession of Defendants. The amount of wages due to Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses can be readily determined from Defendants? records and/or preper scienti?c and/or expert evidence. Plaintiffs and the proposed Class and/or Subclasses are entitled to restitution of monies due and obtained by Defendants during the Class Period as a result of Defendants? unlawful and unfair conduct. 142. During the Class Period, Defendants committed, and. continue to commit acts of unfair competition as de?ned by Sections Business Professions Code ?17200, et seq., by and among other things, engaging in the acts and practices described above. 143. Defendants? course of conduct, acts, and practices in Violation of the California laws and regulations, as mentioned in each paragraph above, constitute distinct, separate, and independent Violations of Sections Business (it Professions Code ?17200, et seq. 144. The harm to Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses of being wrongfully denied equal pay, promotions, increased compensation, and a working environment free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, outweighs the utility, if any, of Defendants? policies and practices, and therefore, Defendants? actions described herein constitute unfair business practices or acts within the meaning of Business Professions Code ?17200, et seq. 145. Defendants? conduct described herein threatens an incipient Violation of California?s labor laws, and/or violates the policy or Spirit of such laws, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition. 146. Defendants? course of conduct described herein further violates Business Professions Code ?17200, et seq. in that it is fraudulent, improper, and/or unfair. 147. The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices and acts of Defendants as described hereinabove have injured Plaintiffs and the Class and/0r Subclasses in that they were 34 COMPLAINT RUBEN SABA, 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 wrongfully denied equal pay, promotions, increased compensation, and a working environment free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a direct result of their Maw?il business practices alleged in this complaint and will continue to bene?t from those practices and have an unfair competitive advantage if allowed to continue such practices. Under Business Professions Code ?l7200 et seq, Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses seek restitution of all monies not paid to them by Defendants. 149. Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law as Defendants, unless enjoined by the Order of this Court, will continue to systematically violate the provisions of the Labor Code and Government Code referenced herein. Defendants? conduct is continuing, ongoing, capable of repetition, and will continue unless restrained and enjoined by the Court. Accordingly, injunctive relief is prOper and necessary pursuant to California Business Professions Code ?l7203. 150. Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses? efforts in securing the requested relief will result ?in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest? for a signi?cant bene?t, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on . . . a large class of persons, the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement . . . are such as to make the award appropriate, and such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.? Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses request that the Court also award reasonable attorneys? fees pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure ?1021.5. 151. Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclasses seek remedies and penalties pursuant to California Business Professions Code ?17205, which are cumulative to the remedies and penalties available under all other laws of this state. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 152. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby demand a trial by jury. 35 COMPLAINT RDBEN SAEIA, LLP 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, respectfully prayfor relief, Where applicable, against Defendants__as_ follows: i. For an order certifying this action as a class action; 2. For an order appointing Plaintiffs Melanie McCracken and Jessica Negron as Class Representatives and appointing Plaintiffs? counsel as Class counsel; 3. For all wages (including base salary, bonuses, and stock) due pursuant to California Labor Code ?l 197.501) in an amount to be ascertained at trial; 4. For liquidated damages pursuant to California Labor Code 5. For punitive damages, as alleged herein; 6. For prejudgment interest on unpaid wages at a rate of 10% per annum pursuant to California Labor Code ?ll97.5(h) and California Civil Code 3287?3288, and/or any other applicable provision for prejudgment interest; 7. For statutory and civil. penalties according to proof; 8. For restitution of all monies due to Plaintiff and Class or Subclasses, as well as disgorgernent of Defendants? pro?ts from its unlawful and/or unfair business practices; 9. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from violating California Labor Code ?1197.5, et seq, by paying its female employees lower wages than it pays their male counterparts for substantially similar work; and from engaging in the unfair and unlawful business practices complained of herein in violation of California Business Professions Code ?l7200, e: 569.; 10. For reasonable attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code California Code of CiviZ Procedure ?1021.5, and/or any other applicable provision providing for attorneys? fees and costs; and 36 COMPLAINT RDSEN LLP 9350 Wilshire Bouievard, Suite 250, Beverly Hiils, CA 90212 For such further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. _._R63pectfu1_ly Submitted, RUSEN SAEA, By: V7 .. SABA, ESQ. TYLER c. VANDERPOOL, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs MELANIE MCCRACKEN and JESSICA NEGRON DATED: November 5, 2018 37 COMPLAINT eovsnuouomassm JR.- DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING mmomw mm 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA 95758 (800] 884-1684 [Voice] I {800] 700-2320 I California?s Relay Service at 711 emaii: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov . RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint DFEH Matter Number: 201811-04131505 Right to Sue: McCracken Riot Games, inc. To All Respondent(s): Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DF EH) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records. Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact information. No response to DFEH is requested or required. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under. Fair-Employment and-Housing Aet -- (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.) In the Matter of the Complaint of Melanie McCraCken DFEH N0. 201811-04131505 Complainant, vs. Riot Games, Inc. 12333 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Respondents 1. Respondent Riot Games, Inc. is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.). 2. Complainant Melanie McCracken, resides in the City of Beverly Hills State of California. 3. Complainant alleges that on or about November 5, 2018, respondent took the following adverse actions: Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, sexual harassment? hostile environment. Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's sex/gender and as a result of the discrimination was denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, denied equal pay, denied or forced transfer, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied work opportunities or assignments. Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment and as a result was denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, denied equal pay, denied or forced transfer, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege, failed to give equal considerations in making employment decisions. -1- Complaint DFEH No. 20181 1-04131505 Date Filed: November 5, 2018 Additional Complaint Details: -2- Complaint DFEH No. 201811-04131505 Date Filed: November 5, 2018 comwmm-tsoomg VERIFICATION Tyler C. Vanderpool, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read based on information and belief, which I believe to be true. the foregoing know-the contents -thereof.-- The matters alleged are-- On November 5, 2018, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. -3- Beverly Hills, CA Date Filed: November 5, 2018 Complaint - DFEH No. 201811-04131505