DISTRICT COURT CIVIL COVER SHEET County. Nevada CASE NO: A-19-802786-C Department 20 Case No. {As's'igm'tl by (rem arm-u; 1. Pa rty In formation (provide boil: home and mailing addresses if different) Plaintiflts) Judy Doe No. 1, Judy Doe No. 2, Judy Doe No. Judy Doe _No. 4, .Wynn Resorts, Limitedl Las Vegas. LLC. Does l-X; Judy odd Judy Doe No. 6, Judy 093m. 7.: Judy Doe No.3, i and Judy Doe No. 9 I Defendantts) Roe Corporations l-X i . lAttorncy Attorney Eng'anq?v?f(702) 529-2s11__ ?__Ja_son Maier._ Joseph Gutierrez. Danielle Barraz?af MGA 881.6?Spanish Ridge Dr., LV. 189148.002) 629-7900 II. Natu re 0f Gilease select the one most n'pe below) Civil Case Filing Types Real Property Landlordll?enant t- EIUnlawl?ul Delaincr DOIher Landlordfl?enant Title to Property Elludicial Foreclosure Title to Property Other Real Property I]CondemnationlEminent Domain DOIlter Real Property '_Ke'giige'nci~ 'I'orts DAuto Ell?remiscs Liability DOther Negligence Malpractice Medicatiocmai El Legal DAccounting [IOther Malpractice Other Torts Dammit-i Liability Misconduct IE Employment 'I?ort El Insurance Tort EIOther 'l'ort Probate Construction Defect Contract Judicial Review/Appeal re hate? Ilselcct?cnse type and estate value) DSummary Administration Administration DSpecial Administration Aside : Other Probate Estate Value Clever $200,000 Between $100000 and 3200000 : Under 00.000 or Unknown $2.500 DChapter 40 DOlhcr Construction Defect Contract Case DUnil'orm Commercial Code Building and Construction insurance Carrier DCommercial Instrument DCollection of Accounts Employment Contract DOther Contract JudiciaTRei'icw Dl-?orcelosure Mediation Case [Petition to Soul Records '3 Mental Competency Nevada State Agency Appeal Department of Motor Vehicle 1: Worker?s Compensation 1:]Other Nevada State Agency Appeal Other DAppeal from Lower Court DOlhcr Judicial ReviewlA ppeal Civil Writ Civil Writ Writ of labeas Corpus DWrit of Mandamus DWrit ot?Quo Warrant DWrit of Prohibition ElOthcr Civil Writ Other Civil Filing Other (Tivil Filing DCompromise ol?Minor's Claim Dlioreign Judgment DOther Civil Matters Business Court ?lings should be?lcrl using the Busi?s oar! civil cmrerslieer. Seer 30. 2a c?t Date Not :idn ADC Research Statistics Uml PurSuJItl to NR5 3 Fl." See other .sirleforfamr'lr?relq ed case?lings. Form PA Jul Rm 3- I Case Number: Electronically Filed 9/30/2019 1:30 PM Steven D. Grierson CLERK OF THE COURT CASE NO: A-19-802786-C Department 20 Case Number: A-19-802786-C through and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusiVe, Defendants. Plaintiffs Judy Doe No. 1; Judy Doc No. 2; Judy Doe No. 3; Judy Doc No. 4; Judy Doc No. 5; Judy Doe No. 6; Judy Doe No. 7; Judy Doe No. 8; and Judy Doc No. 9, whose identities are known to Defendants but are being withheld from public disclosure in this Complaint at this time due to privacy and safety concerns, by and through their attorneys, the law ?rms of GILBERT ENGLAND LAW FIRM and MAIER GUTIERREZ ASSOCIATES, hereby demand a trial by jury and complain and allege against Defendants as follows: 1. Plaintiff JUDY DOE NO PARTIES . 1 (?Judy Doe No. was, a resident of Clark County, Nevada. 2. Plaintiff JUDY DOE NO . 2 (?Judy Doc No. was, a resident of Clark County, Nevada. 3. Plaintiff JUDY DOE NO . 3 (?Judy Doe No. was, a resident of Clark County, Nevada. 4. Plaintiff JUDY DOE NO . 4 (?Judy Doc No. was, a resident of Clark County, Nevada. 5. Plaintiff JUDY DOE NO . 5 (?Judy Doe No. was, a resident of Clark County, Nevada. 6. Plaintiff JUDY DOE NO . 6 (?Judy Doe No. was, a resident of Clark County, Nevada. 7. Plaintiff JUDY DOE NO . 7 (?Judy Doe No. was, a resident of Clark County, Nevada. 8. Plaintiff JUDY DOE NO . 8 (?Judy Doe No. was, a resident of Clark County, Nevada. 9. Plaintiff JUDY DOE NO . 9 (?Judy Doc No. is, and at all times pertinent hereto is, and at all times pertinent hereto is, and at all times pertinent hereto is, and at all times pertinent hereto is, and at all times pertinent hereto is, and at all times pertinent hereto is, and at all times pertinent hereto is, and at all times pertinent hereto is, and at all times pertinent hereto was, a resident of Clark County, Nevada. 10. All Plaintiffs believe that public disclosure of their identities will subject them to further retaliation, humiliation and scorn, will invade their solitude and privacy and that of their families if it becomes known what lurid and abusive conduct was directed at them by Steve Wynn. Defendant WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC is the corporate entity issuing paychecks to Plaintiffs. According to 3/15/19 Massachusetts Gaming Commission Investigative Report, this is the subsidiary entity ultimately controlled by Defendant WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED, the parent company, and both are being sued herein and hereinafter collectively called ?Wynn Resorts?. These defendant entities are, at all times pertinent hereto, Nevada corporations or business entities and together with the ?ctitious defendants described below, these Resorts defendant entities operate two side by side, connected luxury hotels and casinos, known as Las Vegas and Encore Resort, which were founded, built, managed and fully controlled by Steve Wynn, the largest shareholder, until March 2018. These properties are located at 3131 South Las Vegas Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada. These properties are operated through various business entities and licenses, including Defendants, holding business, gaming and liquor licenses to do so, and are authorized to and are conducting business in Clark County, Nevada. 12. Plaintiffs are not familiar with the complex corporate interrelationships through which the named defendants WYNN RESORTS operates these world famous, multi-million dollar luxury hotel and gaming properties, Las Vegas and Encore Resort, where the Plaintiffs are employed. Thus, the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary, associate, partnership, joint venturers or otherwise, of these ?ctitious (additional) defendants herein designated as DOES I through and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive. Their identities and names are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, who therefore sue these defendants by ?ctitious names. 13. These ?ctitious defendants, acting with or at the direction of the named Defendants, may also be responsible and therefore liable for the injurious conduct or illegal conduct which harmed each of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will seek leave of the Court to insert the true names and capacities of such Defendants when the same have been ascertained and will ?lrther seek leave to join said Defendants in these proceedings. 14. Defendants engage in activities which affect interstate commerce and they employ more than 15 employees in the timeframes required and thus are subject to both the Nevada statutes and federal statutes prohibiting discrimination. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. This is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs for damages and injunctive relief under Nevada?s anti-discrimination law (including NRS 613.330 et seq.) and under the federal anti- discrimination statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq. Defendants are employers subject to the aforementioned statutes and the Plaintiffs, as employees, are entitled to the ?ll] protection of those statutes. 16. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to NEV. REV. STAT. 14.065 and 28 U.S.C. 1331, and for the torts pled below, the amount in controversy for each Plaintiff exceeds $15,000. 17. Venue is proper as each Plaintiff resides in this judicial district, Defendants conduct business in this judicial district, and the acts complained of occurred wholly or in part in this judicial district. Venue is also proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?1391 because ?a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred? in Nevada. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 18. All Plaintiffs ?led paperwork resulting in individual formal charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dual-?led with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission These ?lings ful?lled Plaintiffs? obligations to initiate administrative claims before ?ling suit. 19. In administrative ?lings, which began in March 2018 and thereafter, each Plaintiff provided sworn, detailed, explicit factual statements and some corroborative documents (when possible) demonstrating that they had been subjected to years of illegal sex discrimination by Resorts, their employer, in the form of Steve Wynn?s sexual harassment, along with the creation and maintenance of a hostile work environment at Resorts due to the enabling and toleration of Steve Wynn?s misconduct by high level executives and human resources personnel, the lack of effective internal complaint or HR procedures, and their (Plaintiffs) legitimate fear that complaining would lead to retribution and even job loss. The Plaintiffs also alleged in their administrative ?lings that since the January, 2018 public media disclosure of the enormity and duration of Steve Wynn?s misconduct, the manner in which Resorts responded to those allegations, as detailed below, constitutes retaliation, in violation of state and federal law, which continues to present. 20. Based on documents now available to Plaintiffs, in March, April and May, 2018, the EEOC noti?ed Resorts (addressed to Troy Mitchum, VP of HR) of the identities of Resorts employees making claims to the EEOC in the spring of 201 8. Later, in the spring and summer of 2018, the EEOC provided Resorts with c0pies of the Charges of Discrimination ?led by at least ten employees, including these nine Judy Doe Plaintiffs. 21. Based on documents now available to Plaintiffs, the EEOC appears to have commenced its investigation seven months later, in November 2018. For months thereafter, the EEOC made requests but then allowed Resorts to escape the usual disclosures required of employers, including ?ling of position statements, providing lists of Salon emplOyees, personnel ?les, etc. Upon information and belief, in June or July 2019, without notifying the Plaintiffs, the EEOC may have entered into a secret conciliation/settlement agreement with Resorts, which offered no compensation or Title VII remedy of any kind to any Charging Party (employees who had Charges) for the past discrimination and retaliation they were and many co-workers were subjected to. 22. On or about July 2, 2019, the EEOC issued each Plaintiff an individual ?Notice of Right to Sue? notice, all received on July 5, 2019. 23. This suit is being ?led within 90 days of Plaintiffs? receipt of the ?Notice of Right to Sue? notices. Thus, Plaintiffs have met all administrative exhaustion prerequisites to bring this lawsuit. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 24. Plaintiffs are all current employees of Resorts who are working in the Salon and/or Encore Salon (collectively referred to as the ?Salon?). 25. Resorts was built, owned and operated by Resorts? Chairman and CEO Steve Wynn. For decades prior to March 2018, Steve personally selected the high-level management executives who operated his world famous hotel and casino properties under his direction. Steve personally recruited and selected the board members of the companies he controlled, including the Defendants herein. Defendants? high-level executives, past and some current, enabled, facilitated and covered up decades of wrongful, abusive sex-based Steve misconduct in this Resorts workplace and in earlier Wynn-controlled workplaces. This misconduct included, but is not limited to, Steve Wynn?s using the Resorts workplace as his personal hunting ground, ?nding and subjecting female employees to sexual advances, sexual harassment, inappropriate touching, and pressuring female Resorts employees to perform sex acts on him. 26. Upon information and belief, on or around late 2017/early 2018, various national media outlets began investigating Steve Wynn?s years of workplace misconduct and the pattern and practice of Resorts of failing to address it. 27. According to the Investigative Report issued by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission on March 15, 2019 and the hearings conducted on April 2,3 and 4, 2019, Resorts learned beforehand that national media was about to publish stories about Steve Wynn?s misconduct and years of cover-up. 28. Before publication, on or around January 17, 2018, Resorts convened a pre-shift meeting for Salon employees where Maurice Wooden (then-President of Las Vegas) and Troy Mitchum (then-Vice President of Human Resources and son of Steve Wynn?s longtime executive assistant Cindy Mitchum) told Salon employees that Resorts knew reporters were contacting employees and that if anyone was threatened by the reporters they should let Troy Mitchum know and he would handle it. 29. At this January 17, 2018 pre-shi? meeting, Resorts President Maurice Wooden emphasized that nobody should talk to reporters. 30. Troy Mitchum and Maurice Wooden?s comments at the January 17, 2018 pre-shift meeting made Salon employees (including Plaintiffs in attendance and those who learned about it later) understand that Resorts did not want them to tell the media the truth about Steve misconduct and the years of cover-up. A number of Salon employees, including Plaintiffs, knew they had been abused and mistreated by Steve in years past. For years, they had lived in fear of being chosen (again) by Steve to be his sexual prey and now they feared being exposed now as one of his victims. They also scared, even more so, that because Defendants made it clear that Steve was still in charge, Resorts might take some action against them if they spoke the truth about him, either internally or to the media. 31. Beginning on January 26, 2018, numerous national media outlets published reports of years of Steve Wynn?s misconduct at his hotels and casinos, that he had been abusing his power and committing sexual harassment, especially able to harass Salon and Spa female employees who were unable to escape him and were required to provide him services (situations he used to compromise and exploit them, often in private.) 32. Later on that same day, January 26, 20l 8, Las Vegas President Maurice Wooden issued a memo that Resorts was ?supportive? of Steve and his leadership, and that the news media was just trying to assail Steve Wynn. A copy of the Wooden memo as posted in Plaintiffs? workplace is attached as Exhibit 1. 33. President Maurice Wooden?s memo shocked and dismayed many Salon employees, including Plaintiffs. As usual, Resorts was quick to defend Steve and did not (and had not ever) investigated allegations of his wrongdoing, past cover-ups and rumored payoffs to victims. Las Vegas President Maurice Wooden?s memo was designed to sti?e the speech of Resorts employees (including Plaintiffs) who had experienced abusive conduct by Steve or who knew or suspected that some of their Salon or Spa co-workers had been his victims over many years. 34. Following this media exposure, on January 31, 2018, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission opened an investigation into Resorts in relation to their gaming licenses. Nevada gaming authorities did so shortly thereafter. Neither of those agencies have the power or authority to compensate victims such Plaintiffs and their co-workers for injuries or damage. 35. On January 3 2018, Resorts convened a mandatory meeting for Salon staff at the Country Club for a personal appearance and statement by Steve Wynn. While his security and top executives lined the walls, Steve asked the 40+ Salon employees assembled to raise their hands if they ever felt assaulted or abused by him, pressuring the Salon employees to ?out? themselves and subject themselves to further humiliation and possible retaliation. 36. Many Salon employees (including Plaintiffs) felt intimidated during and a?er this January 31, 2018 Country Club meeting. Defendants? high level executives and security personnel were located at the sides of the room, observing the reactions of the Salon employees assembled. Salon employees, Plaintiffs included, knew that most, if not all, of high level executives knew that at least some of Steve Wynn?s past victims would be in this audience. 37. At this January 31, 2018 Country Club meeting, Steve claimed he and the Salon employees were ?family,? and said he would protect them from the media. This pitted the Salon employees against the reports in media about his misconduct, and implied that the Salon employees were not welcome to voice their concerns to the media or internally within Resorts. 38. On or around February 1, 2018, Steve appeared at the Salon, with a camera crew, to participate in birthday celebration for an 80 year old Salon employee, a highly unusual event for Steve Wynn. Steve joked about sexually harassing that female employee, kissed her on the lips, initiated kisses and group hugs with other Salon employees, and made intimidating comments about the press. His conduct disgusted some of the employees and made many other employees present extremely uncomfortable and fearful. 39. Steve Wynn?s behavior at the February 1, 2018 birthday celebration intimidated many Salon employees, including Plaintiffs present or who later heard about it. His conduct and comments sent a clear message that Steve was still in control and that he was still fully supported by their employer, Resorts. This implicitly suggested that raising concerns about current or past Steve misconduct would have grave and damaging consequences. 40. At the February 1, 2018 birthday celebration, Salon employees, including some Plaintiffs, were told by their Salon Director, Claude Baruk, that he needed them to go on camera to say that Steve had not assaulted or abused them, and to make complimentary statements about Steve Wynn. Some did, fearing retribution if they declined. Other Plaintiffs (and other employees) not present learned that employees were being asked to do testimonials on video about Steve Wynn. They feared being asked, believing that declining or avoiding Mr. Baruk?s request would have serious consequences, such as retaliation in the workplace or that the refusal would identify the person as a victim of Steve in the past. Salon Director Claude Baruk had been selected and installed as Salon Director, displacing prior longtime Salon Director Jorgen Nielsen in 2013. Mr. Baruk was known to be in close contact with Steve and the new Mrs. Steve Wynn, Andrea Wynn, who resided in a private villa at the Hotel. 41. Under the circumstances, this ?lming was coercive and personally invasive, making Salon employees feel like if they said no to being captured on camera, they would be punished. It also invaded the privacy of certain Salon employees who had no desire to have their image recorded for Resorts? use, or put them in a false light by making it seem that they were supporting Steve and vouching that he had not done the things being reported in the media. 42. On or around February 6, 2018, Steve resigned from his position as chairman and CEO of Resorts but continued to live in his private villa at the Hotel for a number of months. 43. Salon employees became aware that Steve continued to ask for receive salon services through late February 2018 and March 2018 (including by some of the Plaintiffs). Salon employees, including Plaintiffs, took this as a signal that Resorts was still being controlled by Steve Wynn, and that his conduct and misconduct would continue to be tolerated and even covered up, and that Resorts was not interested or serious about protecting its employees, and certainly not from Steve or his remaining allies in the executive ranks (such as Matt Maddox). 44. On or around February 15, 2018, a member of Defendants? in-house legal counsel and another individual gathered on duty Salon employees into the Salon break room and handed out business cards with the phone numbers of the Nevada Gaming Control Board and Massachusetts Gaming Commission. They said that Salon employees (including Plaintiffs) that these were the only people they (the employees) should be talking to. This made the Salon employees fear retaliation if they dared to report their complaints or past bad experiences with Steve to anyone else or to the media. 45. In March 2018, Resorts began scheduling certain Salon employees for mandatory meetings with Resorts? ?investigatory counsel? (Gibson, Dunn), the second law ?rm (according to media accounts read by Plaintiffs) retained by Resorts? Board of Directors to investigate. Without sensitivity to the situation and the turmoil in the workplace, these meetings were arranged and coordinated (booked) by Claude Baruk, Salon Director, long-time personal of Steve Wynn?s wife Andrea Wynn, personal friend of Steve and Andrea and believed to be in daily contact with Steve Wynn. No one asked the employees if they would like to be interviewed. The interviews were conducted at the property itself (in the Tower Suites at The Wynn) so that who was being interviewed became common knowledge in the workplace. These requests and Baruk?s involvement scared employees, Plaintiffs included, and these interviews took Salon employees away from paying customers and impacted their earnings. 46. From Plaintiffs? perspective, very little was done to protect the employees being summoned from possible retribution. Gibson Dunn attorneys gave employees nothing in writing assuring them or proving the legitimacy and independence of the Gibson Dunn inquiry. It is believed that some employees did provide information about Steve Wynn?s sexual harassment of employees and that for many years, high level executives who knew about it did nothing or very little or covered it up. This outside investigation was poorly perceived, making Salon employees feel even more uncomfortable. They were worried that they were being punished or retaliated against for being Steve Wynn?s victims. Some Plaintiffs were interviewed, some were not when they disclosed they were represented by counsel. 47. On or around March 14, 2018, Resorts called still another meeting with Salon employees, this one conducted by Resorts CEO Matt Maddox, known to have been operating the empire with Steve himself and long-time General Counsel Kim Sinatra for the past few years. Mr. Maddox said he was ?taking over,? and asked ?How can we help you?? This made many Salon employees very uneasy, because Mr. Maddox, widely perceived as Steve Wynn?s hand-picked successor, was part of the problem of enabling or covering up Steve Wynn?s past abusive and harassing conduct in the workplace. 48. Then, on or around March 23, 2018, Patricia Mulroyl issued a letter addressed to employees which was posted on the Salon bulletin board. It stated that anyone had information At the time, the only female Resorts Board member, believed by most to have recruited by Steve Wynn. 10 regarding sexual harassment allegations at the Wynn, they should report the information to the Board of Directors? investigators. Certain Salon employees (including Plaintiffs) were put off by this letter, rightfully concerned that the Board?s investigation was not suf?ciently independent because of Ms. Mulroy?s connections with Steve Wynn. Salon employees also learned from media accounts that the ?rm conducting the investigation, Gibson Dunn, was the former law ?rm of General Counsel Kim Sinatra, known to be a close con?dante and enabler of Steve Wynn. This made Salon employees fear this investigation was not going to be independent, fair or honest, and that this was still another way of identifying and getting rid of ?troublesome? employees ones who, through no fault of their own, became victims of Steve Wynn?s sexual harassment. 49. Salon employees, including Plaintiffs, believed that Resorts singled out the Salon employees by making them all acknowledge on the computerized employee portal that they had read Ms. Mulroy?s March 23, 2018 letter. The Salon employees (including Plaintiffs) were disturbed that Resorts was forcing this letter on them, and it led to them being afraid of being targeted and/or their employment terminated or adversely affected if they declined to read it. 50. On April 26, 2018, Steve ?led a defamation lawsuit against former Salon Director orgen Nielsen, a suit which received media attention. Mr. Nielsen was the named and quoted source of information in the Wall Street Journal article. Plaintiffs and others who have spoken out against Steve fear that the extraordinarily wealthy Steve Will sue them too, even if they are speaking the truth. At that time, Defendants did nothing to distances themselves from Steve Wynn?s use of litigation to intimidate others from coming forward and telling the truth about his misconduct. 52. In 2018, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and the Nevada Gaming Control Board conducted extensive investigations into Resorts, its Board members, and executives. Eventually, Steve sued the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and its Director of Investigation, sending another message to all who dare speak out against him. 53. On or around May 8, 2018, Resorts conducted another meeting with Salon employees, this one featuring Resorts CEO Matt Maddox. Salon employees felt uncomfortable in this meeting because of their reasonable perception that Mr. Maddox was so high up and closely ll Nn?t allied with Steve that he knew or should have known of Steve Wynn?s misconduct. 54. Based on a complaint issued earlier, or around February 26, 2019, the Nevada Gaming Control Board ?ned Resorts $20 million, the highest ?ne ever assessed by Nevada gaming regulators, for Resorts? failure to investigate claims from numerous women that they had been sexually harassed in the workplace by Steve Wynn, and the handling of those matters. 55. On March I 5, 2019, after a investigation involving many past and present hi gh- level Resorts executives and victims of Steve Wynn?s workplace misconduct, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission released its ?Investigative Report Regarding Ongoing Suitability of MA, (?Investigative Report?). 56. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission?s Investigative Report found that over a course of years, ?a limited group of executives and employees in positions of authority at [Wynn Resorts], including in the legal division, disregarded Company policies when it came to certain allegations of sexual misconduct against [Steve] involving employees.? 57. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission?s Investigative Report found that ?certain executives, with the assistance of outside counsel, took measures to conceal allegations against [Steve Wynn] that came to their attention,? and these ?efforts at secrecy made it exceedingly dif?cult, if not impossible, for gaming regulators to detect this potentially derogatory information through typical regulatory means, which rely heavily on robust self-disclosures by the applicant/licensee.? 58. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission?s Investigative Report found Resorts? corporate failures are ?signi?cant, repetitive, and re?ective of the Company?s historical governance practices,? as there was a ?culture where employees were reluctant to report allegations against [Steve] to management.? 59. On April 2, 3, and 4, 2019, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission conducted Adjudicatory Hearings about these matters. On April 2, 2019,during Resorts opening statement, President and CEO Matt Maddox testi?ed to the following under oath to explain how he ?rst supported Steve and only later came to believe the truth about Steve Wynn?s conduct: ?As those investigations began, the denial changed and I began to realize that there were many victims and those victims felt powerless, and for that I'm deeply remorseful. They felt they 12 didn't have a voice, that if they were to speak up, they would be retaliated against, or if they did it, it wouldn't be investigated, and for that I'm truly sorry.? Mass Gaming Commission Adjudicatory Hearing Transcript, 4/2/19, 2925-12 60. On April 4, 2019, President and CEO Matt Maddox testi?ed. Resorts had indicated that it had allegedly implemented a new and ?enhanced? sexual harassment policy in which eight areas were enhanced. When asked to name just two or three of those enhancements, Mr. Maddox was unable to articulate any. Thus, it appears that Resorts still has not provided adequate or effective training about the new ?enhanced? sexual harassment policy to high level Resorts employees. 61. In or around April 8, 2019, Resorts submitted its Post-Hearing Brief to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission regarding the ongoing suitability of Resorts, which included many admissions. 62. Resorts admitted to being ?responsible for those mistakes?, admitting to the lack of proper response to sexual harassment complaints against Steve Wynn. 63. Resorts admitted to taking ?full responsibility? for the ?failures of several former executives to respond appropriately to complaints against [Steve] Wynn,? which le? ?many of the victims . . . powerless and without a voice.? 64. On April 30, 2019, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission released its ?Decision and Order? regarding the suitability of Resorts and its high-level executives to maintain gaming licenses. 65. While the Massachusetts Gaming Commission ultimately determined that (a Steve- Wynn-less) Resorts remained suitable to operate a Massachusetts casino, they imposed a $35 million ?ne on Resorts, and levied an additional $500,000 ?ne on Matt Maddox individually, and imposed certain conditions imposed on Resorts, its Board of Directors, and Matt Maddox. These conditions included the implementation of and compliance with human resources policies better addressing sexual harassment. 66. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission expressed its unanimous concern that President and CEO Matt Maddox ?routinely failed to exercise the proper diligence, express the 13 requisite level of concern, [nor did he] understand the magnitude of the risk and legal implications associated with much of the information of which he was, or should have been, aware.? 67. High-level Resorts executives and Board members have continued to use the services of Salon employees (including Plaintiffs) and in doing so, have made startlingly inquiries to those same employees about their experiences which employees, including Plaintiffs, ?nd unnerving. 68. Defendants have not constructed a way to remedy and pay for the harm these years of abuse, misconduct and corporate cover up have in?icted on many Resorts employees, past and present, Plaintiffs included, ruining many lives, livelihoods and reputations. Defendants? inaction in relation to the victims forced the resort to media by some to tell the story, and that inaction (by Defendants) is forcing victims, who wish to remain out of public view and humiliation, to ?le lawsuits to secure appropriate remedies and compensation. This is probably not one of the ?best practices? President and CEO Matt Maddox promised the Massachusetts Gaming Commission the was undertaking to show ?leadership? on this issue. Speci?c Allegations Relating to Each Judy Doe Plaintiff 69. All Plaintiffs are currently employed by Resorts. Judy Doc No. 1 has been employed by Resorts since 2004; Judy Doe No. 2 since 2006; Judy Doc No. 3 since 2006, Judy Doe No. 4 since 2005, Judy Doe No. 5 since 2008; Judy Doe No. 6 since 2005; Judy Doc No. 7 since 2006; Judy Doe No. 8 since 2005; and Judy Doe No. 9 since 2005. 70. The Plaintiffs, as Salon employees, understood they were employed in what is considered perhaps the ?nest salon in Las Vegas, with good compensation, a gorgeous workplace setting, and good bene?ts. 71. The Plaintiffs, all female, are employed by Defendants as manicurists and makeup artists. They are licensed professionals, experienced, and highly quali?ed. All provide exceptional and highly competent, well-regarded personal services through their employment at the Salon and Encore Salon, either in the Salon setting, or (as offered by Salon) as in-room services. 72. These Judy Doe Plaintiffs are suing using pseudonyms to protect themselves, their families, their jobs and their own well-being. Providing more detail, about themselves or the 14 misconduct and illegal discrimination to which they have been subjected, would lead to the public disclosure of their identities. This public disclosure is not necessary for this suit because the Defendants-employers know exactly who they are, and have copies of each of their EEOC Charges of Discrimination. 73. During their employment, the Plaintiffs saw, surmised, heard about and suspected misconduct by Steve Wynn. They were aware that female co-workers being selected or called for by him (via Cindy Mitchum and others), they saw or learned that female co-workers had returned from giving him salon services and were in obviously in extreme distress, heard about his unwelcome sexual advances to other female employees, heard or experienced his exposure of his genitals and his penchant for being scantily clothed during services, his inappropriate invading space, touching and rubbing employees doing his services, his talking about sex or making inquiries into their personal (and sex) lives, his promises of better work or money if they would have sex with him, his insistence on having services at his private villa or his of?ce at The (often arranged by his personal secretary/assistant, Cindy Mitchum, mother of HR Director Troy Mitchum), the presence and his sole control over his scary guard dogs, and having heard the even uglier rumors of his impregnating, sexually assaulting or raping female employees. 74. Plaintiffs observed, along with their co-workers, that Steve seemed to focus and prey upon on certain Salon employees as his favorite for a while, and when he seemed to tire of them (perhaps their having rejected his sexual advances), he moved on to his next female employee-victim. With a few exceptions (a color stylist), Steve insisted on having female employees provide Salon services to him. Thus for years, Plaintiffs and many of their female Salon co-workers lived in fear of catching Steve Wynn?s attention and becoming the requested Salon service provider sent to do his services. 75. Additionally, and importantly for this suit, each of the individual Judy Doe Plaintiffs also suffered similar but individualized acts of sexual harassment and personal degradation by Steve Wynn, over a period of time, but at different times, with different durations and under different (and unique) circumstances and consequences for each female plaintiff. 76. In their Charge of Discrimination, which the EEOC provided to Resorts more 15 than a year ago, each of the Plaintiffs provided wrenching and detailed accounts of their interactions with Steve himself from 2004 (for some) to and through 2018 and the disgusting acts of predation he committed against them, why they didn?t report it, and why they felt humiliated, shamed and retaliated against by Resorts actions a?er the ?rst Wall Street Journal article was published on January 26, 2018. 77. The Plaintiffs feared that they might lose their jobs back when Steve was abusing them or in 2018 when the news stories appeared, con?rming their own experiences and their suspicions of horrendous stories about their co-workers and the knowledge, complicity and cover-up of Steve Wynn?s misconduct by executives, including but not limited to past president Marc Schorr, Hotel president Doreen Whennen, General Counsel Kim Sinatra, president Maurice Wooden, VP Brian Gullbrants, HR VP Troy Mitchum, Salon Director Claud Baruk, and others. All feared that being identi?ed as one of Steve Wynn?s many victims, then and now, would subject them to additional humiliation, public and on the job, and would most likely subject them to retribution on the job during the period of time that Defendant Resorts, through its of?cials such as Mr. Wooden and Mr. Mitchum, were claiming support of Steve Wynn. 78. Similarly, none of the Plaintiffs wish to jeopardize their personal safety, solitude, privacy and reputation or to subject themselves further to the public humiliation of being known as a victim of Steve Wynn, nor to expose themselves to his meritless suits for defamation, which is why they resorted to the con?dential EEOC administrative process. 79. Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, Resorts manipulated and exploited that process, and in doing so, managed to avoid a full EEOC investigation, to these Plaintiffs? detriment and harm. For example, Resorts failed to submit position papers. Resorts failed to provide the EEOC with the (professionally gathered facts) in the 3/15/19 Mass Gaming Commission Investigative Report. Resorts failed to provide the EEOC with the Gibson Dunn investigative report. Both would corroborate Plaintiffs? individualized stories and Defendants? Title VII liability. No doubt those reports would have provided the understaffed and poorly funded EEOC more than enough evidentiary support for an EEOC ?nding of discrimination and retaliation. 80. Instead, and worst of all for the nine Judy Doe Plaintiffs, in the EEOC matters, l6. Resorts is believed to have entered into a secret conciliation/ settlement agreement with the EEOC, believed to be based on Wynn?s promise to do better in the future, but which ignores the victims of past discrimination and does not address the obligation of Resorts to remedy (pay for) that past discrimination, as required by Title VII and Nevada anti-discrimination law. 8 . Plaintiffs are being forced to ?le this public suit as a last resort, because their employer, Resorts has failed to ?ll?ll its obligations under Title VII to remedy discrimination which has occurred, make victims whole and prevent future occurrences. 82. To salvage its gaming licenses, Resorts conceded and admitted to Steve Wynn?s misconduct and that of past executives (and board members) loyal and beholden to him by the massive ?nes Resorts has now paid to Massachusetts and Nevada gaming enforcement agencies but Defendants did nothing to compensate victims or make them whole. 83. Resorts commissioned the Gibson Dunn investigative report and submitted it, is believed, to Massachusetts gaming authorities. Coupled with its other submissions and testimony, Defendants are ?illy aware of the massive weight of corroborative evidence proving them liable for Plaintiffs? claims as asserted herein. 84. If the Defendant-employers seek dismissal of this suit based on or if Defendants challenge the legal suf?ciency of the factual assertions in this Complaint, or attempts to so on an individual basis for any plaintiff, Plaintiffs are willing to provide the information (information Defendants already have) in a con?dential way which might minimize further harm being inflicted on them by their employer?s handling of these matters. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Discrimination Based on Sex in Violation of State and Federal Statutes Sexual Harassment 85. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein and incorporate the same by reference. 86. Plaintiffs are members of the class of persons protected by state and federal statutes prohibiting discrimination based on sex, and sexual harassment is a form of illegal sex discrimination. 87. Plaintiffs were all quali?ed for their respective positions at the Salon at Resorts 17 and were performing their job tasks competently. 88. Defendants qualify as employers subject to all Nevada and federal statutes prohibiting discrimination, NRS 613.330 et seq. and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq. as amended, and thus, Defendants have a legal obligation to provide Plaintiffs and all employees a workplace free of unlawful discrimination and to investigate and then to remedy the situation if discrimination occurs. 89. Defendants failed to take reasonably adequate steps to prevent discrimination against Plaintiffs by failing to prevent years of Steve Wynn?s rampant sexual harassment (predation) of female employees. Additionally, the widespread nature of this predation also created a hostile work environment which was compounded by Defendants? high level executives tolerating and ratifying his misconduct. Over a number of years, key high level executives and legal counsel were aware that huge payments were made on a number of occasions to female employees who made claims about Steve Wynn?s wrong?Jl, sexually-based conduct; and some complaining employees or employees injured by Steve Wynn?s conduct were let go, acted against, or even ?red for pretextual reasons, or simply disappeared from the workplace. 90. With a few exceptions, Steve insisted that female Salon and Spa employees provide his services and Defendants knew of that propensity, which might have been legitimate under other circumstances or for someone else (privacy interests for personal services), Steve Wynn?s sexual advances and misconduct towards his female employees was widely known. For years, Plaintiffs and many of their female Salon co?workers lived in fear of catching Steve Wynn?s attention and becoming the requested Salon service provider sent to do his services. 91 . Plaintiffs were subjected to offensive verbal or physical conduct based on their gender, female. 92. Plaintiffs did not welcome Steve Wynn?s objectively offensive verbal or physical conduct but felt helpless and without ways to make it stop without suffering adverse consequences in their workplace. 93. The objectively offensive, unwelcome verbal and physical conduct by Steve against each Plaintiff, and their knowledge that some of their female co-workers were also being abused by him was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs? 18 employment and thereby created an abusively hostile work environment. 94. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs through the actions of high level executives who knew or should have known of Steve Wynn?s misconduct, who failed to prevent it, who failed to properly investigate complaints made regarding Steve Wynn?s inappropriate workplace misconduct, and which was (at times) open and obvious, and as a result, Defendants are deemed to have ratified it, all of which created an illegal and hostile work environment for each of the Plaintiffs for many years. This also constitutes a pattern and practice of illegal sex discrimination by Defendants over many years. 95. Defendants, as employers, are not entitled to assert the af?rmative defense that the Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to use their employer?s complaint procedure (also known as the Burlington/Faragher af?rmative defense). Defendants? policies and complaint procedure did not work. Thus, Plaintiffs were reasonable in their belief that the usual rules and the alleged ?zero tolerance? of sexual harassment did not apply to misconduct by Steve Wynn, and that going to human resources would be useless and possibly dangerous. 96. Additionally, it was well-known that high level executives had been complained to or alerted to Steve Wynn?s misconduct, or that his misconduct (sexually preying on his female employees, especially those called upon to provide'personal Salon or Spa services) was so blatant and obvious that it was known to all. Some high level executives promised from time to time to make him stop, but it didn?t and Plaintiffs observed that women who had complained about or were seriously harmed by his misconduct were ?red or disappeared from the workplace through the actions and tacit approval of human resources. This frightened Plaintiffs into silence and shame, which was the intended effect. This also constitutes a pattern and practice of illegal sex discrimination by Defendants over many years. 97. Defendants? actions, including unequivocal expressions of support for Steve Wynn, upon the January, 2018 media publications continued and magnified the illegal hostile environment in Plaintiffs? Resorts workplace in many ways, including but not limited, creating fear, anger and turmoil in that workplace. 98. Each of the Plaintiffs was embarrassed, humiliated, frightened, angered, and I9 discouraged by these discriminatory actions (Steve Wynn?s misconduct and the hostile work environment) in their workplace, Defendants? enabling, toleration and rati?cation of same. As a direct and proximate cause of this illegal conduct, each of them has suffered compensable economic losses and emotional distress over many years. Pursuant to 1991 Amendments to Title VII, in addition to any economic losses Plaintiffs may be entitled to recover under Title VII, Plaintiffs are entitled to be compensated for emotional distress caused by this discrimination. 99. Pursuant to 1991 Amendments to Title VII, each of the Plaintiffs is also entitled to recover punitive damages for Defendants? malicious, intentional, and repeated violations of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. An employer of the size, reputation, and expertise of Defendants should have prevented the blatant and systemic disregard of anti-discrimination laws by founder/owner/operator Steve and then the enabling toleration and rati?cation by Resorts executives, attorneys and perhaps, it appears, even Board members. Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount suf?cient to punish Defendants for this illegal conduct and to deter other employers from engaging in such conduct in an amount to be determined by the jury deemed suf?cient to do so. 100. Under applicable federal law, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover all of their attorneys? fees and costs, and to secure the injunctive relief pled more speci?cally below. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Retaliation in Violation of State and Federal Statutes 101. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint as though ?illy set forth herein and incorporate the same by reference. 102. In violation of NRS 613.340 and 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq., Defendants retaliated against each of the Plaintiffs by failing to investigate and acknowledge Steve Wynn?s misconduct, and continuing the complicity of company executives chosen and beholden to Steve to deny and continue to cover up years of Steve Wynn?s misconduct and the havoc he wreaked on his employee-victims through his power and authority in workplace. 103. Plaintiffs (as employees) were punished and retaliated against as a whole following the publication of articles exposing Steve Wynn?s conduct as a long time workplace sexual predator. 20 104. Defendants explicitly and implicitly discouraged Plaintiffs from expressing their concerns about discrimination and thereafter intimidated Plaintiffs with many meetings, allowing Steve to present himself along with security and supportive hi gh-level executives, and issuing memos signaling corporate support for Steve Wynn. Examples of Resorts? retaliatory conduct includes but is not limited to: 105. The January 17, 2018 pre-shift meeting featuring Maurice Wooden and Troy Mitchum, where they made it clear that Resorts did not want employees speaking up about their workplace experiences; The January 31, 2018 Memo by Las Vegas President Maurice Wooden, was, in the opinion of Plaintiffs and their co-workers, threatening and thereby retaliatory, designed to sti?e the speech of any Resorts employees (including Plaintiffs) who had been subjected to abusive conduct by Steve in years past and/or knew or suspected that many of their Salon or Spa co-workers had been his victims as well. The January 31, 2018 Country Club meeting conducted by Steve and Maurice Wooden, where Salon employees were forced to attend and endure Steve Wynn?s ridiculing of employees who had spoken about his misconduct to the media or who had corroborated the accounts of others; The February 1, 2018 Salon birthday celebration, personally attended by Steve (not a usual occurrence) with a camera crew, where he joked about the misconduct allegations against him, kissed a female employee, hugged other employees without their consent, and where Salon Director Claude Baruk told Salon employees that they ?needed? to record a statement saying Steve never harassed them; Even after Steve alleged gave up some of his power in the workplace, workplace, the retaliation continued for Plaintiffs, exempli?ed but not limited to: The February 15, 2018 pre-shift meeting, where two executives told Salon employees they should only Speak to Massachusetts Gaming Commission or the Nevada Gaming Control Board about misconduct and no one else; The two town hall meetings conducted by Steve prot?g? and enabler Matt 21 Maddox, on March 14, 2018 and then later on May 8, 2018; 0 Surprise and forced interviews with Gibson Dunn investigators retained by Resorts? Board of Directors, as arranged by Salon Director Claude Baruk who was understood by Salon employees to be in constant contact with Steve Wynn, who was still residing in his private villa at the hotel; and 0 Continued visits from Resorts executives, attorneys and Board members to the Salon, where some questioned Salon employees (including Plaintiffs) about their experiences. 106. The 1/31/18 issuance and posting of Las Vegas President Maurice Wooden?s memo was especially threatening and thus retaliatory. It was designed to chill and sti?e the speech of Resorts employees (including Plaintiffs) who had experienced abusive conduct by Steve and/or knew or suspected that some of their Salon or Spa co-workers had been his victims as well. 107. Plaintiffs engaged in protected conduct when they accessed the EEOC process. Some plaintiffs, and others, were then questioned by Resorts HR personnel about their ?lings, HR personnel who were perceived as being people who had knowledge of past misconduct and the termination/payoffs to Steve victims, all employed in an HR department headed by Troy Mitchum, the son of Steve Wynn?s long-time personal assistant (a person believed to have had contact with Plaintiffs and other female employees booked to provide Steve services.) 108. Defendants? aforementioned actions and conduct would reasonably chill and deter the Plaintiffs and other employees from raising concerns about discrimination or otherwise engaging in protected conduct. Thus, the cumulative effect of Defendants? actions constitutes illegal retaliation which is prohibited by federal and state statutes. 109. Defendants? conduct, through the actions and omissions of its high-level executives and Board members, also constitutes retaliatory harassment and the creation of an illegally hostile retaliatory work environment which banned these Plaintiffs, even to the present time. 1 10. In the Massachusetts gaming enforcement action, to salvage its licensing status, Resorts admitted to taking ??ill responsibility? for the ?failures of several former executives to respond appropriately to complaints against [Steve] Wynn,? which left ?many of the victims . . . 22 powerless and without a voice.? Taking responsibility? apparently did not include Defendants fully complying with Title VII by making the victims of Defendants? discrimination whole and compensating victims for their economic and compensatory damages. This was made clear in the Massachusetts gaming proceedings where Defendants only promised future actions, never mentioning remedying the past. Defendants? failure to do so constitutes retaliation against those victims, ?rst forcing them to be part of an ineffective EEOC process, then settling in secret with the EEOC, and now forcing these current employees to ?le a public suit to secure their statutory remedies. 1 11. There may be more detrimental acts about which Plaintiffs are unaware which may also constitute retaliation in that it harmed the Plaintiffs in their workplace. 1 12. Plaintiffs continue to fear retribution and retaliation from Defendants, who, they feel, have not done enough to assure them that Steve was wrong; they, truthful complaining victims, will be protected in the future, including from possible actions by Steve and his powerful allies in the gaming and hotel industry; 113. Additional acts of retaliation include the following: Defendants? failure to craft a remedial mechanism to evaluate, and compensate the plaintiffs for unlaw?il discrimination in a respectful, digni?ed, private way, as requested by Plaintiffs, and forcing Plaintiffs to secure the remedy they are entitled to under Title VII by having to ?le this public lawsuit with the possibility of their identities and lurid accounts of the abuse they suffered being publicly disclosed. 114. Additional, as yet unknown acts of retaliation may also exist, as evidenced by the revelations and admissions during the Massachusetts Gaming Commission hearings on April 2, 3 and 4, 2019, that back in 2018, some Salon employees were secretly surveilled by Defendants. This has caused anxiety and fear in Plaintiffs that they were the target. 1 15. Plaintiffs have been seriously harmed by this unlaw?il retaliation and they are entitled to be ?illy compensated and made whole, including any and all economic damages they may have suffered when Defendants? actions (meetings, etc.) reduced the amounts they were able to earn and compensatory damages for emotional distress and disturbance (under Title VII). 116. As more ?illy set forth in their injunctive relief claim, Plaintiffs also seek relief and the necessary workplace evaluation for the implementation of effective anti-discrimination measures 23 ensure the safety and protection of all employees, and that Defendants follow lawful employment practices and that Plaintiffs are protected from retaliation in the future. 1 17. Under applicable federal law, Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover all of their attorneys? fees and costs, and to secure the injunctive relief pled more speci?cally below. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention of High-Level Executives and Human Resources Personnel 1 18. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein and incorporate the same by reference. 1 19. Defendants owed Plaintiffs, and each of their employees, a duty to hire, train, supervise, and retain only those individuals who were and remained ?t and competent to perform their job. 120. Defendants failed to do so by hiring incompetent, unquali?ed, poorly trained executives and human resources personnel, who failed to prevent Steve Wynn?s sexual harassment, who failed to investigate and remedy it after numerous occurrences, and who put each of the Plaintiffs and their female co?workers at risk. 121. Further evidence of Defendants? negligence is found in the Massachusetts Gaming Commission Investigative Report, and in the evidence submitted by Defendants, from which the Commission expressed its unanimous concern that, among failures to act by others, that Matt Maddox ?routinely failed to exercise the proper diligence, express the requisite level of concern, and understands the magnitude of the risk and legal implications associated with much of the information of which he was, or should have been, aware.? 122. Defendants were responsible for the well-being of Salon employees (including Plaintiffs) while they were working and to ensure, among other things, that anti-discrimination laws were obeyed and enforced. 123. Defendants, as sophisticated employers, were negligent in hiring, training, and supervising human resources staff and high-level executives who created or allowed complaints or observations by others about Steve Wynn?s sexually harassing and predatory conduct towards 24 employees to go uninvestigated and not remedied for many years, and then happen again (and again.) 124. Defendants allowed Steve to use his power and authority to staff these positions with persons who would insulate and protect him from the consequences of his misconduct, or turn those matters over to him and his personal attorneys to pay off and conceal, as disclosed in the 3/15/19 Massachusetts Gaming Commission Investigative Report. 125. Defendants? negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention of high level and human resources staff constitutes a failure and breach of their employer duty. This includes, but is not limited to, allowing Steve to have unfettered access to female employees, either at the Salon or in the privacy of his office or villa, by failing to recognize the pattern of his sexual predation over many years, by failing to act to prevent it from recurring and then by making public proclamations of support for Steve (in letters, memos and in meetings) in response to the media reports of his misconduct. 126. Defendants? negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention of its high level and human resources staff also includes their awareness and collective failure to act on the dangerous situation arising when Resorts employees were required to provide in-room services for hotel guests. With the Salon earning double the fees for in-room services, Defendants breached their duty by placing Salon employees in vulnerable and unsafe situations where they were being subjected to abusive guests, including those who were using or offering drugs, who were in various states of nudity, and who engaged in sexual acts during their services or propositioned Salon employees. 127. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? aforementioned negligent actions, Plaintiffs have sustained injuries, including mental anguish, in a sum in excess of $1 5,000.00. 128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? actions, Plaintiffs have had to engage the services of an attorney, incurring attomey?s fees and costs to bring this action, which they should be entitled to recover. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress 129. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein and incorporate the same by reference. 25 130. In allowing the years of sexual predation by founder/owner/operator Steve Wynn, Defendants, as employers, conducted their business in an extreme and outrageously dangerous manner with either the intention of, or reckless disregard for, causing emotional distress injury to many employees, when those employees were either his direct victims, the fear and anxiety his actions instilled that they might be his next victim, or having to witness the effect of his misconduct on their co-workers. 131. It was extreme and outrageous for Defendants to tolerate Steve Wynn?s misconduct (sexual predation) for so long, and then when it is exposed in the national media, to initially deny it (without a factual basis for doing so), to proclaim corporate support for Steve Wynn, to allow him to conduct and lead meetings with Salon employees, and to allow him to intimidate them from speaking the truth about the sexual harassment they were subjected to by him, all of which was enabled by Defendants. 132. It was extreme and outrageous for Defendants to have Matt Maddux conducting town hall meetings with the Salon employees both during and a?er the time that Maddox was personally under investigation for his failure to recognize and rectify the hostile and illegal work environment created by years of Steve Wynn?s misconduct. 133. It was extreme and outrageous for Resorts to allow Steve to attend an employee birthday party and bring a camera crew, and use this occasion to intimidate Salon employees, to allow Salon Director Claude Baruk to pressure Salon employees into recording laudatory comments from Salon employees (many of whom are direct victims of Steve Wynn?s sexual abuse and misconduct), or force them to make positive statements about Steve and claim that Steve has never assaulted or harassed them. 134. It was extreme and outrageous to force Salon employees to be interviewed on hotel property, allow it to be arranged by their Salon Director Claude Baruk, a close ally of Steve Wynn, and alerting them (Baruk and Wynn) as possible victims and then subjecting them to interrogation about their experiences as victims of Steve Wynn?s abuse without taking adequate and enforceable step to guarantee their safety and protection. 135. Defendants either intended, or acted with reckless disregard, about whether their 26 actions would cause emotional distress to Plaintiffs. 136. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? extreme and outrageous conduct, each of the Plaintiffs did suffer severe or extreme emotional distress in a sum in excess of $1 5,000.00. 137. Additionally, Defendants? actions are so highly offensive to a reasonable person, suggestive of an intent to impede legitimate claims to be made by Plaintiffs and others, obstructing gaming enforcement investigations, so to be outrageous and malicious, entitling Plaintiffs to recover punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial suf?cient to punish and deter Defendants. 138. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? actions, Plaintiffs have had to engage the services of an attorney, incurring attomey?s fees and costs to bring this action, which they should be entitled to recover. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Invasion of Privacy 139. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 140. Plaintiffs had an actual and reasonable expectation of seclusion and some privacy in their workplace, and the protection of information they had disclosed to Defendants as their employer. 141. Defendants, as employers who necessarily collect some private information about employees, allowed or gave Steve access to private information about employees, including but not limited to their private cell phone numbers and work schedules (allowing him, for example, to schedule his salon services with his next victim.) 142. The meetings which Defendants convened after the publications of the Wall Street Journal articles which Defendants required Salon employees, including Plaintiffs, to sit through intruded on their seclusion and thus constitutes an invasion of their privacy. 143. The February 1, 2018 ?lming incident in the Salon was coercive and personally invasive, making Salon employees feel like if they said no to being ?lmed, they would suffer consequences or be punished. It seemed to some employees that Salon Director and Steve Wynn-ally Claude Baruk was targeting speci?c Salon employees, suggesting he knew which of them were most likely to have been Steve Wynn?s victims. 144. The February 1, 2018 ?lming incident also invaded the privacy of Salon employees 27 desire to have their image recorded for Resorts? use, nor have them cast in a false light by making it seem that they were supporting Steve and vouching that he had not done the things being reported in the media. Defendants invaded their privacy by forcing some employees to provide an on-camera interviews (showing faces and disclosing their identities) claiming that?Steve never assaulted or harassed them, which for some was simply not true. 145. Plaintiffs? expectation of seclusion and some level of privacy in the workplace was objectively reasonable. 146. Defendants intentionally intruded upon Plaintiffs? seclusion and expectation of privacy by pressuring Salon employees to make an on-camera statements in support of Steve Wynn, knowing this would be used to potentially aid Resorts and/or Steve in future litigation or the ongoing gaming enforcement investigations. 147. Additional invasions of privacy may also have occurred. During the Massachusetts Gaming Commission hearings on April 2, 3 and 4, 2019, Defendants disclosed that that back in 2018, some Salon employees, past and present, were secretly surveilled by Defendants. This has caused anxiety and fear in Plaintiffs that they, or persons in whom they confided, were the target. 148. Defendants? actions are highly offensive to a reasonable person because of their intrusive nature, the context in which those actions were undertaken, with intentional or reckless disregard so as to indicate that Defendants? motives were to circumvent a proper investigation by Massachusetts and Nevada gaming enforcement authorities and to unfairly secure defensive but deceptively false evidence for use in ?1ture litigation. 149. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? actions, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including mental anguish, in a sum in excess of $1 5,000.00. 150. Additionally, Defendants? actions are so highly offensive to a reasonable person, suggestive of an intent to impede legitimate claims to be made by Plaintiffs and others, obstructing gaming enforcement investigation and so to be outrageous and malicious, entitling Plaintiffs to recover punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial sufficient to punish and deter Defendants. 151. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? actions Plaintiffs have had to engage 28 the services of an attorney, incurring attorney?s fees and costs to bring this action, which they should be entitled to recover. REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Injunctive Relief under State and Federal Anti-Discrimination Statutes 152. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint as through ?illy set forth herein and incorporate the same by reference. 153. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 20006 et seq. and Nevada law, Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief requiring Defendants to immediately correct all discriminatory and retaliatory practices and take all appropriate steps to ensure that Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated are afforded a workplace ?'ee of all forms of unlaw?il discrimination of any kind. 154. Some of the Plaintiffs watched, listened to or have now read reports of the representations of corrections to the workplace made by Defendants in the Massachusetts Gaming Commission hearings on April 2, 3, and 4, 2019. They have seen some of these corrective actions unfold in their workplace, and ?nd most of them to be ineffective, including those related to making complaints, those about providing Salon services to executives and those concerning in- room services to guests and because some of the key people remain in control of these processes, especially in human resources. They believe not enough attention was paid to their perspective, as front-line employees who were or saw years of sexual predation by Steve Wynn, facilitated, tolerated, paid for and covered up by Defendants? high level executives and human resources. 155. As a large and allegedly sophisticated employer which has now been shown to have tolerated years of sexual harassment of female employees by its founder and owner, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants be required to engage the services of outside, independent, highly competent, quali?ed expert consultants to fully study the workplace culture which led to this injurious and hostile situation and allowed it to fester and continue for so many years, and which, in each Plaintiff?s individual Opinion, has not been fully remedied. 156. Thereafter, Defendants should then be required to create and implement an effective anti-harassment and anti-discrimination program, including policies, training (prevention) and complaint procedures which work and do not in?ict further damage on victims. Additionally, 29 NJGN Defendants should then develop a means by which to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures and adjust and adapt where needed or advisable to fully protect employees. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs JUDY DOE NO. 1, JUDY DOE NO. 2, JUDY DOE NO. 3, JUDY DOE NO. 4, JUDY DOE NO. 5, JUDY DOE NO. 6, JUDY DOE NO. 7, JUDY DOE NO. 8, AND JUDY DOE NO. 9 pray forjudgment against Defendants, and each ofthem, as follows: 1. For all damages Plaintiffs are entitled to recover under Title VII and the Nevada anti- discrimination statutes; 2. For general damages sustained by each Plaintiffin an amount in excess 3. For special damages sustained by each Plaintiffin an amount in excess 4. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 5. For injunctive relief as set forth above; 6. For reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of suit; 7. For interest at the statutory rate, and 8. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED this 30th day of September, 2019. Respectfully submitted, LB RT ENGLAND LAW IRM 610 South Nintl Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 JASON R. MAIER, ESQ., NV BAR NO. 8557 JOSEPH A. GUTIERREZ, ESQ., NV Bar No. 9046 DANIELLE J. BARRAZA, ESQ., NV BAR No. 13822 MAIER GUTIERREZ ASSOCIATES 8816 Spanish Ridge Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Plaintg'?fs Judy Doc No. 1, Judy Doe N0. 2, Judy D06 N0. 3. Judy Doc No. 4, Judy Doe N0. 5, Judy Doe N0. 6, Judy Doe N0. 7, Judy Doc No. 8 and Judy Doc No. 9 30 EXHIBIT LAS VEGAS ssexgagfnatassmeat a?ioj strategy led by .14