Removal to Federal Court

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 3, 2018

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S AMENDED NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PLAINTIFF OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION MELISSA M. SAMUEL (Ca Bar No. 186775) mms@kullmanlaw.com THE KULLMAN FIRM, PLC 4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 906-4250 Facsimile: (225) 906-4230 SAMUEL ZURIK III (pro hac vice application to follow) JESSICA L. MARRERO (pro hac vice application to follow) sz@kullmanlaw.com jlm@kullmanlaw.com THE KULLMAN FIRM 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70163 Telephone: (504) 524-4162 Facsimile: (504) 596-4114 Attorneys for Defendant, DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC AND HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TO: Clerk of Superior Court County of Santa Clara, California 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Counsel for Plaintiff Stacy Y. North (SBN 219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 ZOHREH “Ellen” FAZELI, Plaintiff, vs. DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC; ENTERPRISE SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 18CV327686 DEFENDANT’S AMENDED NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PLAINTIFF OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION Complaint filed: May 3, 2018 First Am. Compl. filed: May 15, 2018 Second Am. Compl. Filed: July 17, 2018 Removal filed: August 15, 2018 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 8/16/2018 9:57 AM Reviewed By: A. Hwang Case #18CV327686 Envelope: 1841539 18CV327686 Santa Clara - Civil A. Hwang 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2 of 3 DEFENDANT’S AMENDED NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Defendant DXC Technology Services LLC in the above-styled case has this date, through undersigned counsel, filed via electronic filing with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, its Amended Notice of Removal of this case. A copy of the Amended Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted this 16th day of August, 2018. THE KULLMAN FIRM By: /s/ Melissa M. Samuel MELISSA M. SAMUEL Attorney for Defendant, DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3 DEFENDANT’S AMENDED NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION PROOF OF SERVICE Case No.: 18CV327686 STATE OF LOUISIANA ) ) ss. PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE ) I am employed in the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A, Baton Rouge, LA 70809. On August 16, 2018, I caused the foregoing document(s) described as AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL to be served on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Stacy Y. North (SBN 219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 Email: snorth@pierceshearer.com Counsel for Plaintiff _X_ VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVER - FEDERAL EXPRESS Following ordinary business practices, I deposited such document(s) in a box or other facility regularly maintained by FedEx, or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver authorized by FedEx, or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver authorized by FedEx, with delivery fees paid or provided for, and addressed to the person(s) being serviced. _X VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSION Following ordinary business practices, I have e-mailed this document to the interested parties at the email addresses listed on the attached Service List. _X_ FEDERAL I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 16, 2018, at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. /s/ Grace Frantz Grace Frantz 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-O4958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 11 MELISSA M. SAMUEL (Ca Bar No. 186775) MMS@kullmanlaw.c0m THE KULLMAN FIRM, PLC 4605 Bluebonnet B1Vd., Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 906-4250 Facsimile: (225) 906-4230 SAMUEL ZURIK III (pro hac vice application t0 follow) JESSICA L. MARRERO (pro hac vice application to follow) sz@kullmanlaw.com j1m@kullmanlaw.c0m THE KULLMAN FIRM 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70163 Telephone: (504) 524-4162 Facsimile: (504) 596-41 14 Attorneys for Defendant, DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION ZOHREH “Ellen” FAZELI, Case No.2 5:18-cv-04958 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S AMENDED NOTICE OF vs. REMOVAL DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTERPRISE SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Complaint filed: May 3, 2018 Amended Complaint filed: May 15, 2018 Defendants. Second Amended Complaint filed: July l7, 201 8 TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant DXC Technology Services LLC (“DXC”) files this notice of removal pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, asserting diversity jurisdiction, pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1332, t0 effect the removal of the above-captioned action, which was DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL EXHIBIT IIAII 1 DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 commenced by Plaintiff Zohreh “Ellen” Fazeli (“Plaintiff”) in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 18-cv-327686 and states that removal is proper for the following reasons: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff filed this action against DXC and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”) in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara on May 3, 2018. On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, adding a request for punitive damages. On July 17, 2018, Plaintiff again amended her Complaint to dismiss HPE and join Enterprise Services LLC (“ES”) as a defendant.1 2. Plaintiff served the Second Amended Complaint on DXC on July 17, 2018. See Exhibit 2, Service of Process Transmittal. Upon information and belief, as of the date of this Notice of Removal, ES has not been served in this matter. Thus, it is not necessary to have ES’s consent for removal.2 3. Plaintiff alleges claims for sex discrimination, wrongful termination-sex discrimination, retaliation, violation of California Equal Pay Act, failure to pay all wages due, unlawful and unfair business practices, age discrimination, wrongful termination-age discrimination, and violation of the California Family Rights Act. See Ex. 3, First Amended Complaint.3 1 A complete copy of the record in the Santa Clara County proceeding is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 2 Case law generally requires all defendants to join or consent to the notice of removal, but an exception exists when a non-joining defendant has not been served in state court. See Community Bldg. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 8 F.2d 678 (9th Cir.1925); Lopez v. BNSF Ry. Co., 614 F.Supp.2d 1084, 1087 (E.D.Cal.2007). 3 The Second Amended Complaint solely changed the defendant parties. As such, all references to the “Complaint” reference Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 11 DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. The Santa Clara Superior Court is within the San Jose Division of the Northern District of California. See Civil L.R. 3.2(e). 5. Defendants submit this matter is removable pursuant to the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. BASIS FOR REMOVAL Diversity of Citizenship 6. Federal jurisdiction is appropriate, and this action is removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because the parties and interests are diverse, and a good faith reading of the Complaint shows that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 7. Plaintiff, as alleged in her Complaint, is a resident of California, and has lived in California since 2012. See Ex. 3, First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 8. For diversity purposes, a person is a “citizen” of the state in which he or she is domiciled. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). “A person is ‘domiciled’ in a location where he or she has established a fixed habitation or abode of a particular place, and [intends] to remain there permanently and/or indefinitely.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986). A party’s residence is prima facie evidence of his domicile. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994). 8. DXC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tysons Corner, Virginia. See Exhibit 4, Declaration of Ira Katz at ¶ 5. The Ninth Circuit has held that a limited liability company is “a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). 9. As DXC is wholly owned by DXC Technology Company, it shares citizenship with DXC Technology Company. DXC Technology Company is incorporated in Nevada and has its Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 11 DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 principal place of business in Tysons, Virginia. See Exh. 4, Katz Decl. at ¶ 6. Thus, DXC is a citizen of Delaware, Nevada and Virginia, and is completely diverse from Plaintiff. 10. ES is a Delaware limited liability company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Perspecta, Inc. Perspecta Inc. is incorporated in Nevada and maintains its principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia. See Exhibit 7, Excerpt of Perspecta Inc. May 31, 2018 Form 8-K.4 Thus, ES is a citizen of Delaware, Nevada, and Virginia, and is completely diverse from Plaintiff. See Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. 11. Plaintiff also brings his claims against various unnamed defendants. The citizenship of such defendants is irrelevant for the purposes of removal because 28 USC § 1441(b)(1) specifies that “the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.” See also Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989); Firstoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1980) (unnamed defendants are not required to join in a removal petition); California ex rel. Bates v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., No. 2:10-CV-1429, 2010 WL 2889061, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2010) (“Congress obviously reached the conclusion that the Doe defendants should not defeat diversity jurisdiction.”). Sufficient Amount in Controversy 12. The second element of diversity jurisdiction - amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 - is also plainly met. 4 See L’Garde, Inc. v. Raytheon Space and Aireborne Systems, 805 F. Supp. 2d 932 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (observing “that just as public records and government documents are generally considered ‘not to be subject to reasonable dispute,’ so too does this include ‘[p]ublic records and government documents available from reliable sources on the Internet.’”) citing Hansen Beverage Co. v. Innovation Ventures, LLC, No. 08-CV-1166, 2009 WL 6597891, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2009) (further explaining that internet pages printed off the FDA website were similarly reliable to other traditional public documents). See also Xerox Corp. v. Simply Smashing, Inc., No.1:13-CV-395, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61713, at *2-*3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2013) (court may take judicial notice of records filed with the California Secretary of State). Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 11 DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. While Defendants deny any liability as to Plaintiff’s claims, the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) over Plaintiff’s claims because Plaintiff is diverse from DXC, the only properly joined Defendant, and Plaintiff alleges claims and damages that are worth more than $75,000. In her Complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages from alleged intentional sex and age discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation, violations of the California Equal Pay Act, failure to pay wages due, unlawful and unfair business practices, and violations of the California Family Rights Act. As a result of the above referenced allegations, Plaintiff seeks back pay, general damages for pain and suffering “according to proof,” wages, liquidated damages, disgorgement of Defendant’s profits, civil penalties, attorney’s fees, prejudgment interest, and costs incurred as a result of this suit. See Ex. 3, First Amended Complaint at Prayer for Relief and ¶¶ 1-12. Accordingly, on the face of the Complaint, the amount in controversy in this action is clearly more than $75,000. 14. Under the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, Congress clarified that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to removals under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). See H.R. Rep. 112-10 at 16 (“defendants do not need to prove to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy requirement has been met.”) 15. The preponderance standard is not a “daunting” standard. Muniz v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, No. S-07-0325, 2007 WL 1302504, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2007); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (“the parties need not predict the trier of fact’s eventual award with one hundred percent accuracy”). Defendants are not obligated to “research, state, and prove the plaintiff’s claims for damages.” Behrazfar v. Unisys Corp., 687 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1004 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1204-05 (E.D. Cal. 2008)). A removing defendant must simply produce underlying facts or evidence demonstrating more likely than not the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 5 of 11 DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[D]efendant must provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds [the threshold] amount.”); see Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005) (district court properly considered damages awarded in other similar cases) (emphasis added); Rippee v. Boston Market Corp., 408 F. Supp. 2d 982, 986 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (noting that the inquiry is what amount is “put in controversy” by the plaintiff’s complaint, not what a defendant will actually owe). 16. First, although the Complaint does not identify a specific monetary amount of damages sought, Plaintiff has admitted that the amount in controversy with respect to general damages alone exceeds the $25,000 jurisdictional threshold for the state court. See Exhibit 5, State Court Civil Cover Sheet. 17. Second, it is apparent from the Complaint that Plaintiff’s lost earning capacity, which will encompass back pay, front, pay and benefits, exceeds $75,000. a. Plaintiff’s alleged employment with DXC was terminated on October 20, 2017. See Ex. 3, First Amended Complaint, at p. 4 ¶17. Prior to her discharge, Plaintiff worked as a Wintel and Virtualization Enterprise Architect earning over $115,012.98 annually (or $2,211.79 per week). Id. at p. 3, ¶ 11; see also Ex. 4, Katz Decl., at ¶ 7. Therefore, back pay from the date of Plaintiff’s alleged discharge to the date of this Notice of Removal alone equates to $97,318.67. b. Thus, assuming this case goes to trial by December 2018, a valid claim for back pay alone easily exceeds $130,000. 18. Third, Plaintiff also seeks emotional distress and punitive damages. Such damages are included in calculating the amount in controversy if they are recoverable under applicable law. Gibson v. Chrystler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 947 (9th Cir. 2001); Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 6 of 11 DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2d 1029, 1033-34 (N.D. Cal. 2002). California law allows the recovery of emotional distress and punitive damages based on claims of violations of FEHA and wrongful termination. Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167, 176 (1980); Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1033. Jury verdicts in cases involving the same or similar claims and similar alleged facts have made awards for emotional distress and punitive damages - many exceeding the jurisdictional threshold. Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1033; Landau v. County of Riverside, No. CV07-06807 DSF (OPx), 2010 WL 1648442 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2010) (awarding $1,033,500 in damages). In fact, the potential punitive damage award alone against a defendant such as DXC may satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. For example, in Aucina v. Amoco Oil Co., 871 F.Supp. 332 (S.D. Iowa 1994), the defendant-employer established that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum where the former employee asserted claims for lost wages, lost benefits, mental anguish, and punitive damages. The court noted that the defendant was a Fortune 500 Company, and that "[b]ecause the purpose of punitive damages is to capture a defendant's attention and deter others from similar conduct" the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages "might alone" exceed the jurisdictional minimum. Id. at 334. 19. Finally, Plaintiff seeks attorney fees, which are included in calculating the jurisdictional amount when the underlying statute, as here, authorizes such an award. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Assoc., 479 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 1998)). Defendant estimates that litigating this matter through trial will take a minimum of 130 hours of work, with each stage of the litigation taking the following minimum hours of work: discovery, 30 hours; dispositive motions, 20 hours; trial preparation and pretrial motions, 40 hours; and a five-day trial, 40 hours. Conrad Assocs. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1200 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (noting a defendant should “estimate the amount of time each major task will take” to demonstrate likely amount of Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 7 of 11 DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorney fees). At a hypothetical rate of $275.00 per hour,5 Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees would amount to a minimum of $35,750.00. 20. When loss of income, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees are included, there can be no doubt or dispute that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000 based on the allegations in the lawsuit. Plaintiff’s alleged back pay alone exceeds the threshold amount.6 For these reasons, and the diversity of DXC and Plaintiff, removal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). 21. Accordingly, because diversity of citizenship exists between Plaintiff and DXC, and the amount in controversy between them is in excess of $75,000, this Court has original jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1), and this action is removable under 28 U.S.C. §1441(b). Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that 5 See Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 450 (9th Cir. 2010) (civil rights litigation case finding $340.00 was reasonable hourly rate for attorney with five years of experience); Campbell v. Nat’l Passenger R.R. Corp., 718 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1099-1102 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (employment litigation case finding $265.00 an hour was reasonable hourly rate for attorney with three years of experience). 6 Should Plaintiff prevail at trial, it is more likely than not that she would recover over $75,000 in damages as there have been, in recent years, several verdicts in discrimination and harassment cases entered in favor of plaintiffs in California where the awarded damages exceeded $75,000. See, e.g., Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West, 2012 WL 767196 (E.D. Cal.) (jury award of $167,730,488 to employee alleging harassment, discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination); Noyes v. Kelly Services, Inc., 2008 WL 1808431 (E.D. Cal.) (award of $6,547,134 to employee alleging religious discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress); Paterson v. California Department of General Services, 2008 WL 2247470 (E.D. Cal.) (award of $4,965,000 to employee sexual harassment and emotional distress); Maher v. City of Fresno, 2009 WL 5248481 (E.D. Cal.) (award of $2,468,141 to employee alleging sexual harassment and gender- based discrimination) O’Quinn v. Raley's, 2007 WL 4859235 (E.D. Cal.) ($1,405,500 awarded to employee alleging race discrimination and harassment); Mitri v. Walgreen Company Inc., 2011 WL 7447636 (E.D. Cal.) (award of $1,243,000 to employee who was subjected to retaliation); Clanahan v. McFarland Unified School District, 2007 WL 6369776 (E.D. Cal.) ($668,342 awarded to employee who was subjected to sex discrimination and retaliation after she filed a written complaint of harassment). Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 8 of 11 DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “[d]istrict courts have jurisdiction in civil actions where there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”) REMOVAL IS TIMELY 22. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B), this Notice of Removal is timely because it is filed within 30 days after receipt by Defendants of the papers that provide the basis for removal of this action. See Ex. 2. 23. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint dismissed HPE and added ES as a defendant on July 17, 2018. The named defendants, DXC and ES, are completely diverse from Plaintiff.7 REMOVAL IS PROPERLY FILED 24. Removal to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California - San Jose Division, is an appropriate venue for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1441(a), and 1446(a). See also Civil L.R. 3.2(e). 25. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), Plaintiff’s Complaint may be removed to this Court because the United States District Court for the Northern District of California - San Jose Division, is the district and division embracing the place where the Complaint is currently pending. 26. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and (d), this Notice of Removal complies with the requirements concerning a short and plain statement for the grounds of removal and the filing of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon Defendant from the state court action. See Ex. 1-2. 27. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendant will, promptly after filing this Notice of Removal, give written notice of the removal to the adverse party and will file a copy of 7 This matter was previously not removable because HPE’s principal place of business is located in Palo Alto, California. See Exhibit 6, Excerpt of HPE’s June 19, 2018 Form 8-K. Thus, prior to the dismissal of HPE, the Court did not have diversity jurisdiction over this matter. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 9 of 11 DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this Notice of Removal with the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara. A copy of the Notice to State Court of Removal of Civil Action is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. WHEREFORE, Defendant gives notice that the above-captioned action, filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara on May 3, 2018, and amended on May 15, 2018 and July 17, 2018 has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Dated: August 16, 2018 THE KULLMAN FIRM /s/ Melissa M. Samuel MELISSA M. SAMUEL Attorney for Defendants DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 10 of 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-O4958 Document 2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 11 of 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Case N0.: 5:18-cv-04958 STATE OF LOUISIANA ) ) ss. PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE ) I am employed in the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party to the Within action. My business address is 4605 Bluebonnet B1Vd., Suite A, Baton Rouge, LA 70809. On August 16, 2018, I caused the foregoing document(s) described as AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL t0 be served 0n the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Stacy Y. North (SBN 219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 Email: snorth@pierceshearer.com Counselfor Plaintifl X VIA U.S. MAIL Following ordinary business practices, Iplaced the document for collection and mailing at 4605 Bluebonnet B1Vd., Suite A, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, in a sealed envelope. I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and processing 0f correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and, in the ordinary course of business, such correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service 0n the day on which it is collected at the business. X VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSION Following ordinary business practices, I have e-mailed this document t0 the interested parties at the email addresses listed on the attached Service List. X FEDERAL I declare under penalty 0f perj ury under the laws of the United States 0f America that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n August 16, 2018, at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. /s/ Grace Frantz Grace Frantz DEFENDANTS DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 1 EXHIBIT 'A' Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 86)etails Page 1 of l Case Information ?SCK/32768fi i Zehreh ?azeéi vs DXC Techmbgy vaices LLC et a: Case Nambey Cour: F%te Date 180V327686 Superior Court of Santa Clara - 05/03/201 8 Civil Case ?yge Case Status Wrongful Termination Unlimited Active (36) Pa rty Piazi Eff Aeiive Aficmey‘g v Lead Attorney North, Stacy A. Retained Fazeli, Zohreh Wafi-i ?hme 650~843~1 900 Defi‘ndam Acme Atmmevs v DXC Technology Services LLC Lead Attornéy Samuel, Melissa M. Retained Wark Phone 225-906-4250 1ttps://cmportal.scscourt.org/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 8/1 5/201 f Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 86Details Page 2 of t Defendam Acfive fixfiarneys v Hewlett Packard Enterprises Lead Attorney Samuel, Melissa M. Retained W‘ {k ?hene 225-906-4250 Events and Hearings 35.5%!2018 Summons: fssuedz’fiiw 8&3332018 Comyiaém (Ufiiérné‘ce-a} (Pee Awws‘ v Cemmeni Demand For Jury Trial 0518352018 Civil Case Csvar Shea (>5Mi35‘2i338 Pym)? 0f Service: SLEiw‘vmeas E31}? {Cému v Ccmmem Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company Omiflflms Pz‘GGf of Sawéce: Summons DLR {Cévéi} v Comment DXC Technology Services, LLC {)5f’25i23‘28 Amended (Sempiaim Féiea‘ - No Fee v Commen? First Amended Complaint Gés'941’2838 Pmof sf Samoa: Persona? v 1ttps://cmp0rta} .scscoun.org/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 8/ 1 5/20 1 E Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 86 Ccmmeni POS of FAC on Agent for Svc of HPE fl n ,am {34mins 9mm“ sf Service: Persmaé v Commem POS of FAC on Agent for Svc of DXC Tech Svcs €131 8.!20‘38 Angwer; Amefided Campiaini * Cemmanf First Amended; Atty Samuel G.?fl ’u‘ZGiB SiépuSaéion and Order v Commem Order Granting Stipulation Request to Extend Heqlett Packard Enterprise Company‘s Deadline to Respond; Good cause having been Shown, the Court hereby ORDERS that any answer or other pleading responsive t0 the First Amended Complaint submitted by Defendant, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company shall be filed on or before August 1, 201 8. IT ES SO ORDERED. per Judge Stoelker f}??? 71'28‘58 fixmandmeni v Commem Amendment to Complaint Changing Doe #1 to Enterprise Services LLC {??i‘iwzma Request D%smigsafi v Commené Panial Dismissai Without Prejudice as to Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company ONLY {>771 7/2018 Prue? of Sewése v Comma}? Proof of Service 57f18120’18 Séatemenf: C536 Managemem Conference: v Commem 8/14/18 2:15pm D13 07/1 812018 PW)? 3f aewéce: Mai! v C ommem Proof of Service 07M 9.12018 Mvaaca jw‘y fza {Nazw‘efimdabk} v lttps://cmportal.scscourt.org/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 Page 3 0f £ 8/1 5/2012 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 86Details Page 4 0f é Gamma? $150 jury fee for Plaintiff Zohreh Fazeli paid for by Atty North {5‘75’3131’253 1 8 Sfizzisrea': 1'22: Case Managerrxem Carfémnce v Cmamem Case Management Statement {E?fB‘MzmS Answer; A» awa‘ed Campiaim v Comment Answer to Second Amended Complaint. atty: Samuel 98M 4,2918 ifiimsie (Ercier {)8f14i291c”; Conference: Case Managemem v Origmat Type Conference: Case Management Judicial Officer Strickland, Elizabeth Hearing Time 2:15 PM Resuii Held 1ttps://cmportal.scscourt.org/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 8/ 1 5/20“ Service of Process Transmittal 05/08/2018 CT Log Number 533304419 TO: William Deckelman, VP Gen. Csl. & Secy. DXC Technology Company Legal Department, 1775 Tysons Boulevard 9th Floor McLean, VA 22102 RE: Process Served in California FOR: DXC Technology Services LLC (Domestic State: DE) Page 1 of 1 / AS Information displayed on this transmittal is for CT Corporation's record keeping purposes only and is provided to the recipient for quick reference. This information does not constitute a legal opinion as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any information contained in the documents themselves. Recipient is responsible for interpreting said documents and for taking appropriate action. Signatures on certified mail receipts confirm receipt of package only, not contents. ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: TITLE OF ACTION: Zohreh Fazeli, etc., Pltf. vs. DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, etc., et al., Dfts. DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: Summons, Instructions, Sheet, Attachment(s), Complaint COURT/AGENCY: Santa Clara County - Superior Court - San Jose, CA Case # 18CV327686 NATURE OF ACTION: Employee Litigation - Wrongful Termination ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED: C T Corporation System, Los Angeles, CA DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE: By Process Server on 05/08/2018 at 14:30 JURISDICTION SERVED : California APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: Within 30 days after service ATTORNEY(S) / SENDER(S): Stacy Y. North PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 650-843-1900 ACTION ITEMS: CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 05/10/2018, Expected Purge Date: 05/15/2018 Image SOP Email Notification, William Deckelman wdeckelman@csc.com Email Notification, Stacia-Ann Chambers schambers9@dxc.com Email Notification, Charles Reed charles.reed@hpe.com Email Notification, Bradley Shires bshires@dxc.com Email Notification, Manny Mathews manny.mathews@unitedlex.com SIGNED: C T Corporation System ADDRESS: 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 TELEPHONE: 213-337-4615 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 5 of 86 MAY S 20m 7,13 SUMMONS FOR COURTUSE ONLY - P (CITACION JUDICIAL) (SOLO I Electronicair ffiW CORTE) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: by Superior Court of CA, (A VISO AL DEMANDADO): County of Santa Clara, DXC Technology Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, a Delaware Corporation; on 51312018 1:31 PM and Does 1-10. inclusive Reviewed By:K Ross YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: Case #18CV327686 (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Env #1482188 Zohreh Fazeli NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to tile a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtin(o.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing tee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and properly may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.coudinfo.ca.go v/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. IA VISa' La hen demandado. Si no responde dentro do 30 dias, Is code puede decidir en su contra sin oscuchar su version. Lea la informacidn a continua c/On. none 30 DIAS DE CAL ENDAPIO despues do quo le entreguen esta citaciOn y papa/es legates Para presentar una respuesta pot escrito an esta code y hacor quo so en/rogue una copia a! demandante. Una carla a una llamada tote fOnica no Ia pm/open. Su respuesta pot escrito tiene quo estar an formato legal correcto si desea quo procosen su caso an Is code. Es posiblo quo haya un formularlo qua usted pueda usa,' Para su respuesta. Puede encontra, es/os formularios do IS code y mis in(om,aciOn an of Contra do Ayuda do las Codes do California (.sucorte.ca.gov), an Is biblioteca do (eyes do su condado o on la code quo le quede mis coma. S/no puede pagar Is cuota do presentaciOn, pida al secretario de la code quo le di un formularlo do exenciOn do papa do cuotas. S/no presonta su respuesta a tiompo, puede perder el caso pot incumplirniento y la code Is podia guitar su sue/do. dinoro y biones sin mils advedencia. Hay otros roquisitos legales. Es recomendable qua flame a un abogado inmediatamente. S/no conoce a un abogado, puede llama, a un servicio do remisiOn a abogados. Si no puede pa par a un abogado, as posible quo cumpla con los roquisitos pars obtoner son,icios legalos gratuitos do un programs do sorvicios Iegalos sin tines do lucia. Puede oncontrar ostos grupos sin tines do lucro an ci sitio web do California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalitornia.org), on el Centro de Ayuda de las Cones do California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) a poniOndose an contacto con IS code o e- cologic do abogados locales. A V/SO: Pot fey, (a code (lone derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos par importer un gravamen sobro cualquier recuperaciOn de $ 10.0006 mis do valor recibida med/ante un acuerdo 0 una concosidn do arbitraje an un caso do dotecho civiL flono quo The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direcciOn do la carte es): CASE NUMBER (NOmero del rose): 18CV327686 Santa Clara County Superior Court 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95113 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, Is direcciOn y el nOmero do telOfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Stacy North (CA State Bar #219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP, 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94061 Telephone: (650) 843-1900 DATE: 5/3/2018 1:31 PM Clerk of Court Clerk, by K Ross (For ,brobf of service of this summons, use Proof óiService of SiütüWàii((öFth POS-010).) (Para prueba do entrega do esta citaciOn use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served (SEAL) 1. as an individual defendant. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): DXC Technology Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company La on behalf of (specify): under: CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (specify): MAY i Q ' -.by personal delivery on (date): f Page lofi Form Adopted for Mandatory use SUMMONS Code of Civir Procedure ½ 412.20. 465 Judidaf Coundi of California SUM.100 (Rev. Jury i. 2009] CEi3 I Essential www.couttinto.ca.gov Fazeli, Zohreh Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 6 of 86 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET Many cases can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties without the necessity of traditional litigation, which can be expensive, time consuming, and stressful. The Court finds that it is in the best interests of the parties that they participate in alternatives to traditional litigation, including arbitration, mediation, neutral evaluation, special masters and referees, and settlement conferences. Therefore, all matters shall be referred to an appropriate form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) before they are set for trial, unless there is good cause to dispense with the ADR requirement. What is ADR? ADR is the general term for a wide variety of dispute resolution processes that are alternatives to litigation. Types of ADR processes Include mediation, arbitration, neutral evaluation, special masters and referees, and settlement conferences, among others forms. What are the advantages of choosing ADR instead of litigation? ADR can have a number of advantages over litigation: • ADR can save time. A dispute can be resolved in a matter of months, or even weeks, while litigation can take years. • ADR can save money. Attorney's fees, court costs, and expert fees can be reduced or avoided altogether. • ADR provides more participation. Parties have more opportunities with ADR to express their Interests and concerns, instead of focusing exclusively on legal rights. • ADR provides more control and flexibility. Parties can choose the ADR process that is most likely to bring a satisfactory resolution to their dispute. • ADR can reduce stress. ADR encourages cooperation and communication, while discouraging the adversarial atmosphere of litigation. Surveys of parties who have participated in an ADR process have found much greater satisfaction than with parties who have gone through litigation. What are the main forms of ADR offered by the Court? Mediation is an informal, confidential, flexible and non-binding process in the mediator helps the parties to understand the interests of everyone involved, and their practical and legal choices. The mediator helps the parties to communicate better, explore legal and practical settlement options, and reach an acceptable solution of the problem. The mediator does not decide the solution to the dispute; the parties do! Mediation may be appropriate when: • The parties want a non-adversary procedure • The parties have a continuing business or personal relationship • Communication problems are interfering with a resolution • There is an emotional element Involved • The parties are interested in an Injunction, consent decree, or other form of equitable relief Neutral evaluation, sometimes called Early Neutral Evaluation" or ENE, is an Informal process in which the evaluator, an experienced neutral lawyer, hears a compact presentation of both sides of the case, gives a non-binding assessmentof the strengths and weaknesses on each side, and predicts the likely outcome. The evaluator can help parties to identify issues, prepare stipulations, and draft discovery plans. The parties may use the neutral's evaluation to discuss settlement. Neutral evaluation may be appropriate when: • The parties are far apart in their view of the law or value of the case • The case involves a technical issue in which the evaluator has expertise • Case planning assistance would be helpful and would save legal fees and costs • The parties are interested in an injunction, consent decree, or other form of equitable relief -over- cv-sooa REV 6l2s/13 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET CIVIL DIVISION Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 7 of 86 Arbitration is a less formal process than a trial, with no jury. The arbitrator hears the evidence and arguments of the parties and then makes a written decision. The parties can agree to binding or non-binding arbitration. In binding arbitration, the arbitrators decision is final and completely resolves the case, without the opportunity for appeal. In non-binding arbitration, the arbitrators decision could resolve the case, without the opportunity for appeal, unless a party timely rejects the arbitrator's decision within 30 days and requests a trial. Private arbitrators are allowed to charge for their time. Arbitration may be appropriate when: • The action is for personal Injury, property damage, or breach of contract • Only monetary damages are sought • Witness testimony, under oath, needs to be evaluated • An advisory opinion is sought from an experienced litigator (if a non-binding arbitration) Civil Judge ADR allows parties to have a mediation or settlement conference with an experienced judge of the Superior Court. Mediation is an Informal, confidential, flexible and non-binding process in which thejudge helps the parties to understand the Interests of everyone involved, and their practical and legal choices. A settlement conference is an informal process In which thejudge meets with the parties or their attorneys, hears the facts of the dispute, helps identify issues to be resolved, and normally suggests a resolution that the parties may accept or use as a basis for further negotiations. The request for mediation or settlement conference may be made promptly by stipulation (agreement) upon the filing of the Civil complaint and the answer. There is no charge for this service. Civil Judge ADR may be appropriate when: • The parties have complex facts to review • The case involves multiple parties and problems • The courthouse surroundings would he helpful to the settlement process Special masters and referees are neutral parties who may be appointed by the court to obtain information or to make specific fact findings that may lead to a resolution of a dispute. Special masters and referees can be particularly effective In complex cases with a number of parties, like construction disputes. Settlement conferences are informal processes in which the neutral (a judge or an experienced attorney) meets with the parties or their attorneys, hears the facts of the dispute, helps identify issues to be resolved, and normally suggests a resolution that the parties may accept or use as a basis for further negotiations. Settlement conferences can be effective when the authority or expertise of thejudge or experienced attorney ma help the parties.reach a resolution. What kind of disputes can be resolved by ADR? Although some disputes must go to court, almost any dispute can be resolved through ADR. This Includes disputes involving business matters; civil rights; collections;, corporations; construction; consumer protection; contracts; copyrights; defamation; disabilities; discrimination; employment; environmental problems; fraud; harassment; health care; housing; insurance; intellectual property; labor; landlord/tenant; media; medical malpractice and other professional negligence; neighborhood problems; partnerships; patents; personal injury; probate; product liability; property damage; real estate; securities; sports; trade secret; and wrongful death, among other matters. Where can you get assistance with selecting an appropriate form of ADR and a neutral for your case, information about ADR procedures, or answers to other questions about ADR? Contact: Santa Clara County Superior Court Santa Clara County ORPA Coordinator ADR Administrator 408-792-2784 408-882-2530 cv-soos REV 6/26113 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET CIVIL DIVISION Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 8 of 86 PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO. (Optional): E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER: (Check one): EJ UNLIMITED CASE LIII LIMITED CASE (Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000 exceeds $25,000) or less) A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows: Date: Time: Dept.: Div.: Room: Address of court (if different from the address above): C Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone, by (name): INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, and the specified information must be provided. Party or parties (answer one): C This statement is submitted by party (name): This statement is submitted jointly by parties (names): 2. Complaint and cross-complaint (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only) The complaint was filed on (date): b. = The cross-complaint, if any, was filed on (date): 3. Service (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only) a. C All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served, have appeared, or have been dismissed. b. IIIIIJ The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint C have not been served (specify names and explain why not): C have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specify names): [III have had a default entered against them (specify names): c. LIIJ The following additional parties maybe added (specify names, nature of involvement in case, and dale by which they may be served): 4. Description of case a. Type of case in EI complaint 11 cross-complaint (Describe, including causes of action): Page 1 Of S FornAdopleo for Mandatory Use CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT cal. Rulesolcourt Judicial Council of California rules 3.720-3,730 CM-lb Rev. July 1. 201 11 wwwcowls CO 90Y Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 9 of 86 CM-lb PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: 4. b. Provide a brief statement of the case, including any damages. (If personal injury damages are sought, specify the injury and damages claimed, including medical expenses to date [indicate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lost earnings to date, and estimated future lost earnings. If equitable relief is sought, describe the nature of the relief) (If more space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.) 5. Jury or nonjury trial The party or parties request £J a jury trial EJ a nonjury trial. (If more than one party, provide the name of each party requesting a jury trial): 6. Trial date EIJ The trial has been set for (date): EJ No trial date has been set. This case will be ready for trial within 12 months of the date of the filing of the complaint (if not, explain): Dates on which parties or attorneys will not be available for trial (specify dates and explain reasons for unavailability): 7. Estimated length of trial The party or parties estimate that the trial will take (check one): C days (specify number): C hours (short causes) (specify): 8. Trial representation (to be answered for each party) The party or parties will be represented at trial fJ by the attorney or party listed in the Caption = by the following: Attorney: Firm: Address: Telephone number: f. Fax number: E-mail address: g. Party represented: C Additional representation is described in Attachment 8. 9. Preference C This case is entitled to preference (specify code section): 10. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) a. ADR information package. Please note that different ADR processes are available in different courts and communities; read the ADR information package provided by the court under.rule 3.221 for information about the processes available through the court and community programs in this case. For parties represented by counsel: Counsel C has C has not provided the ADR information package identified in rule 3.221 to the client and reviewed ADR options with the client. For self-repiesented parties: Party C has C has not reviewed the ADR information package identified in rule 3.221. b. Referral to judicial arbitration or civil action mediation (if available). This matter is subject to mandatory judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.11 or to civil action mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775.3 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory limit. C Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.11. C This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 3.811 of the California Rules of Court or from civil action mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775 et seq. (specify exemption): cM.11olnev.July I, 2011) CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 2o1 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 10 of 86 CM-lb - PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: 10. C. Indicate the ADR processor processes that the party or parties are willing to participate in, have agreed to participate in, or have already participated in (check all that apply and provide the specified information): The party or parties completing If the party or parties completing this form in the case have agreed to this form are willing to participate in or have already completed an ADR process or processes, participate in the following ADR indicate the status of the processes (attach a copy of the parties' ADR processes (check all that apply): stipulation): C Mediation session not yet scheduled C Mediation session scheduled for (date): Mediation LI Agreed to complete mediation by (dale): C Mediation completed on (date): c: Settlement conference not yet scheduled Settlement LJ EJ Settlement conference scheduled for (date): conference Agreed to complete settlement conference by (date): C Settlement conference completed on (date): Neutral evaluation not yet scheduled EJ Neutral evaluation scheduled for (date): Neutral evaluation Agreed to complete neutral evaluation by (date): c: Neutral evaluation completed on (dale): Judicial arbitration not yet scheduled Nonbinding judicial EJ Judicial arbitration scheduled for (date): arbitration Agreed to complete judicial arbitration by (date): LJ Judicial arbitration completed on (date): C Private arbitration not yet scheduled Binding private C Private arbitration scheduled for (date): arbitration . C Agreed to complete private arbitration by (date): C Private arbitration completed on (date): J ADR session not yet scheduled EJ ADR session scheduled for (date): Other (specify): C Agreed to complete ADR session by (date): J ADR completed on (date): CM.l;o(Rev. July i. 20II1 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 11 of 86 CM-lip - PLAINTIFF/PETIT;ONER: CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: 11. Insurance LJ Insurance carrier, if any, for party filing this statement (name): Reservation of rights: EIJJ Yes C No c. C Coverage issues will significantly affect resolution of this case (explain): 12. Jurisdiction Indicate any matters that may affect the court's jurisdiction or processing of this case and describe the status. IIJ Bankruptcy C Other (specify): Status: 13. Related cases, consolidation, and coordination a. C There are companion, underlying, or related cases. Name of case: Name of court: Case number: Status: EEl Additional cases are described in Attachment 13a. b. C A motion to C consolidate C coordinate will be filed by (name party): 14. Bifurcation EEl The party or parties intend to file a motion for an order bifurcating, severing, or coordinating the following issues or causes of action (specify moving party, type of motion, and reasons): 15. Other motions IEJ The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issues): 16. Discovery EJ The party or parties have completed all discovery. C The following discovery will be completed by the date specified (describe all anticipated discovery): Party Description Date C The following discovery issues, including issues regarding the discovery of electronically stored information, are anticipated (specify): K cM.nolnev. July 1, 20111 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT - Page 4015 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 12 of 86 CM-110 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: 17. Economic litigation E1J This is a limited civil case (i.e., the amount demanded is $25000 or less) and the economic litigation procedures in Code of Civil Procedure sections 90-98 will apply to this case. LJ This is a limited civil case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic litigation procedures or for additional discovery will be filed (if checked, explain specifically why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trial should not apply to this case): 18. Other issues LJ The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference (specify): 19. Meet and confer EJ The party or parties have met and conferred with all parties on all subjects required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Court (if not, explain): After meeting and conferring as required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Court, the parties agree on the following (specify): 20. Total number of pages attached (if any): I am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and alternative dispute resolution, as well as other issues raised by this statement, and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time of the case management conference, including the written authority of the party where required. Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) Additional signatures are attached. CM.IIO(Rev. July I, 20111 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 5015 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 13 of 86 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): _Stacy North (SM 219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City CA 94061 TELEPHONENO.: (950) 843-1900 FAXNO.: (650) 843-1999 ArrORNEYFOR(Name): Plaintiff Zohreh Fazeli SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Santa Clara STREETADDRESS:lSl N. First Street WILING ADDRESS: CITYMDZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 95113 BRANCH NAME: Unlimited Civil CASENAME: Fazeli v. DXC Technology Services LLC CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET I Complex Case Designation ZI Unlimited LI Limited I Counter E3 Joinder (Amount (Amount I demanded demanded is I Filed with first appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) I (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) FOR CtrOfliCally Filed Superior Court of CA, unty of Santa Clara, 5/3/2018 1:31 PM viewed By: K Ross se #18CV327686 velone: 1482188 cflV57686 JUDGE: DEPT.: case case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation ] Auto (22) Broach of contract/warranty (06) . Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) AntitrusUTrade regulation (03) -Other-PliPDlWD(Personarinjury/Proporty- - Other collectlons (09) Constrypj9j!!p_cj(1Q)._ - -- -. -- - Damagerongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) Massiort (40) Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) Product liability (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) LI Eminent domain/Inverse Insurance Coverage claims arising from the Other PI/PDIWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case tunn4 td1 Non-PIJPDIWD (Other) Tort Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Civil rights (08) Defamation (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual property (19) Professional negligence (25) Other non-PI/PDmD.tort (35) Employment a Wrongful termination (36) Other employment (15) L.J Wrongful eviction (33) J Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment J Enforcement of judgment (20) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Residential (32) RICO (27) a Drugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Ei Petition to: arbitration award (ii) Other petition (not specified above) (43) Writ of mandate (02) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case J is M is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: Large number of separately represented parties d. Q Large number of witnesses Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court LI Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. E3 Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. M monetary b. LU nonnionetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. La punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): Nine (9) 5. This case L3 is QJ is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case.. (You may use form CM-OW.) Date: 5/2/2018 (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed In the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to tile may result in sanctions. • File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. Cal. Standards of judldélAcmfnislrauçp V. S-lu Fflptedforpan9ato Use CEB1 Essential CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET cal. Rules ol Courl rules 230 3220 aAOo.3.403 3.90; Ju y i.2xr91 I sipw.xurnào.ca.gov Fazeli, Zohreh Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 14 of 86 CM-010 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. lithe case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item I, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties In Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of Interest and attorneys fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only,' parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that F case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto.Tort-_- -' , '.'-'-- - - Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property - Contract - Breach ftontracQWarranty(O8) -- Damage/Wrongful Death Breach of Rental/Lease Uninsured Motorist (46) '(If the Contract (not unlawful defamer case Involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) motorist claim subject to , Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller , arbitration, check this item Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Instead of Auto) Negligent Breach of Contract! Warranty Other PIIPD/WD (Personal Injury! Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Property Damage/Wrongful Death) collections (e.g., money owed, open Tort ' book accounts) (09) Asbestos (04) Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Asbestos Property Damage Other Promissory Note/Collections Asbestos Personal Injury/ Case Wrongful Death insurance Coverage (not provisionally Product Liability (not asbestos or complex) (18) toxic/environmenlel) (24) Auto Subrogation Medical Malpractice (45) Other Coverage Medical Malpractice- Other Contract (37) Physicians & Surgeons Contractual Fraud Other Professional Health Care Other Contract Dispute Malpractice Real Property Other PI/PD/WD (23) Eminent Domain/Inverse Premises Liability (e.g., slip Condemnation (14) and fall) Wrongful Eviction (33) Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WD Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26) (e.g., assault, vandalism) Writ of Possession of Real Property Intentional infliction of Mortgage Foreclosure Emotional Distress Quiet Title Negligent Infliction of Other Real Property (not eminent Emotional Distress domain, landlord/tenant, or Other PI/PD/WD foreclosure) Non-PIIPDJWD (Other) Tort ' Unlawful Detalner Business Tort/Unfair Business Commercial (31) Practice (07) Residential (32) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, Drugs (38) (if the case Involves illegal false arrest) (not civil drugs, check this item; otherwise, harassment) (08) report as Commercial or Residential) Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) Judicial Review Fraud (16) Asset Forfeiture (05) Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Professional Negligence (25) Writ of Mandate (02) Legal Malpractice Writ-Administrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Other Professional Malpractice Case Matter (not medical or legal) Writ-Other Limited Court Case Other Non-PI/PO/WD Tort (35) ' Review Employment Other Judicial Review (39) - '--Provisionally Complex'Civil'Utlgation'(Cal: Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tortlnon-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief from Late Claim Other Civil Petition Wrongful Termination (38) Review of Health Officer Order Other Employment (15) Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals cM-ololRov. July l.2007I CEB' Essential CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET PegoZof 2 cocom J1Forms E'azeli, Zohreh Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 15 of 86 '0 0 cl, U 5t 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Attorneys for Plaintiff ZOHREH FAZELI Stacy Y. North (SBN 219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 Phone: (650) 843-1900 Fax: (650) 843-1999 Email: snortli@piereeshearer.com 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E-FILED 5/3/2018 1:31 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 18CV327686 Reviewed By: K Ross Case No. 18CV327686 COMPLAINT FOR: SEX DISCRIMINATION WRONGFUL TERMINATION- SEX DISCRIMINATION RETALIATION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AGE DISCRIMINATION WRONGFUL TERMINATION- AGE DISCRIMINATION VIOLATION OF CFRA DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ZOHREH FAZELI, an individual, Plaintiff, V. DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 1 COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 16 of 86 a So - 2 0 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Zohreh Fazeli ("Fazeli" or "Plaintiff'), by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby complains against the above-named Defendants, as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION Plaintiff Fazeli is a female and a former employee of Defendant DXC Technology Services LLC and Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. Plaintiff is an individual and a resident of San Mateo County, State of California and, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendants in Santa Clara County. Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (hereinafter "HPE") is a corporation organized under the laws of State of Delaware that conducts business globally, including in Santa Clara County, California and with its headquarter in 3000 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, California. Defendant DXC Technology Services LLC (hereinafter 'DXC Technology') is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware that conducts business globally, including in Santa Clara County, California and headquartered in Tysons Corner, Virginia. HPE and DXC Technology are referred to collectively herein as the "Defendants." Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise of the defendants sued herein as Does 1-25, inclusive and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by the conduct of the aforementioned defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that at all relevant times each of the defendants was the agent and/or principal of the other and acted within the course and scope of such agency or employment. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each and every wrongful act by Defendants complained of herein was done with 2 COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 17 of 86 '0 0 ui,c 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the approval, express or implied, of each of the other Defendants, and each Defendant has ratified and approved the acts and omissions of each of the others. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION In 2005, Defendant Hewlett Packard ("HP") hired Plaintiff Fazeli as an Enterprise Architect working in the Toronto, Canada office. Before being brought on as a fuiltirne employee, Fazeli was a contractor for 1-1P. She was 40 when she began her working relationship with HP. In 2012, Fazeli transferred to the Bay Area. At some point after 2012, Fazeli began working for HP subsidiary, HPE. In or around April 2017, HPE formed DXC, and Fazeli began working for DXC Technology. II. Most recently, she worked as a Wintel and Virtualization Enterprise Architect with DXC Technology. Fazeli was an outstanding employee. She consistently received an "Exceeding performance" rating on her annual performance reviews. On her last year's review, Fazeli was rated "Accelerating / Key Player" - the highest rating in the review. She was a billable employee who oversaw a more than $14 million project. Despite being an outstanding employee, Fazeli was paid significantly less than her male counterparts. In or around late 2015, Fazeli began reporting to Sanjoy Mitra (hereinafter "Mitra"), a man in his forties. Fazeli was in her fifties. Mitra made numerous derogatory remarks about Fazeli's age, including that she was "over-the-hill" and an "ancient dinosaur." He showed a preference for younger employees. Mitra also showed a preference for males, providing them better opportunities for advancement than he gave to Fazeli and other females. For example, in 2016, Mitra denied Fazeli's request to attend a technical seminar in Las Vegas, but he allowed Fazeli's male counterpart, Alan Wu, to go. Wu also attend a seminar in Boston. Mitra also denied Fazeli's request to attend a course for Enterprise Architects, TOGAF training. Mitra claimed 3 I COM1LA!NT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 18 of 86 1 there was no budget for it. Yet, two of Fazeli's male peers attended the training. In addition, 2 Mitra ignored Fazeli's numerous requests for a well-deserved raise, although her male 3 counterparts were paid more than she was. 4 16. On September 18, 2017, Fazeli suffered a concussion and was forced to take 5 leave pursuant to the FMLA and CFRA. She was scheduled to return on October 16, at which 6 point she was supposed to work part-time. However, the company listed Fazeli as out until 7 November 7, 2017. 8 17. On October 19, 2017, while she was still on protected leave, the Companies 9 notified Fazeli that her employment was being terminated the following day. She received '0 0 a' <0' c' - a' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 less than one day's notice after twelve years of ftilltirne employment. The purported reason for termination was a reduction in force. Fazeli made the Defendants a significant amount of money. Her team grew substantially with a mix of newly hired fulitime employees and contractors. After receiving her layoff letter, Fazeli transitioned her role to five of her male peers. The Defendants hired a male into Fazeli's role two weeks after terminating her. The Companies offered Fazeli six weeks of severance pay. Yet, Fazeli worked in Canada for seven years. Per Canadian rules, the Companies should have paid Fazeli 4 weeks per year for each year of employment. Oddly, her Canadian work history was completely ignored. Moreover, the Companies terminated Fazeli just a few months before she turned 55 to avoid paying early retirement, which would equate to roughly $1,500 per month. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTiON SEX DISCRIMINATION [Government Code § 129401 Plaintiff against All Defendants and Does 1-10 The allegations set forth in all proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth again herein. By its acts and omissions alleged above, Defendants intentionally deprived Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities, and otherwise adversely affected her status as an El I COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 19 of 86 '0 0 0 43 0 0 (.4 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 employees on the basis of Plaintiffs sex in violation of California Government Code § 12940 2 let seq. In acting as alleged above, Defendant acted maliciously, fraudulently, despicably, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an 'improper motive amounting to malice, and in.conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in amounts to be proved at trial. As a result of Defendant's acts of discrimination as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit as provided for by California Government Code § 12965(b). Plaintiff received a right to sue letter from filing a timely charge with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Plaintiff therefore prays for relief as set forth below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION - PUBLIC POLICY iSex Discrimination, California Constitution, Article I, Section 81 Plaintiff against All Defendants and Does 1-10 The allegations set forth in all proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth again herein. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, generally physical, mental and psychological damages in the form of extreme and enduring worry, suffering, pain, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress, all to her damage in amounts within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, to be proved at trial. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been injured in that she have suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of wages and salary, bonuses, compensation, employment benefits, career path opportunities, and 'expenses in amounts to be proved at trial. S COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 20 of 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 0 0' 14 *3 15 "t 16 17 HI 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 At all times mentioned herein, the public policy of the State of California, as set forth in the California Constitution, Article I, Section 8, is and was to forbid employment practices consisting of sexual discrimination and harassment. By their acts and omissions alleged above, Defendants intentionally deprived Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities, and otherwise adversely affected her status as an employee on the basis of Plaintiff's sex in violation of the public policy of the State of California as expressed in the statutory provisions of Article I, Section 8 of the California Constitution. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants' wrongful termination in violation of public policy, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, generally physical, mental and psychological damages in the form of extreme and enduring worry, suffering, pain, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress, all to her damage in amounts within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, to be proved at trial. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been injured in that she have suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of wages and salary, compensation, employment benefits, career path opportunities, and expenses in amounts to be proved at trial. The conduct of Defendants as alleged above, was malicious, fraudulent, despicable, and oppressive and was done with the wrongful intent of injuring Plaintiff; thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in amounts to be proved at trial. Plaintiff therefore prays for relief as set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION (Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5) Plaintiff against All Defendants and Does 1-10 The allegations set forth in all proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth again herein. COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 21 of 86 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 •0 0 iI ctt 0 Cl)! 8o 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Because Plaintiff protested and complained about gender discrimination against her, she was retaliated against by Defendants. Defendants engaged in the above-alleged actions with the intent of retaliating against Plaintiff on account of her protected activity of complaining of violations under the Fair Employment and 1-lousing Act, Government Code Section 12940, et seq. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been injured in that she has suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of wages and salary, bonuses, compensation, stock, stock options, employment benefits, career path opportunities, in amounts to be proved at trial. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants' misconduct, Plaintiff has. suffered, and will continue to suffer, general physical, mental and psychological damages in the form of extreme and enduring worry, suffering, pain, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts, alleged herein maliciously, despicably, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. Because the wrongful conduct was committed by managerial employees acting in the course and scope of their employment and because Defendants, and each of them, authorized, ratified and condoned the actions and omissions of each and every other Defendant, Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof. Pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), Plaintiff requests an award of attorney's fees against Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff therefore prays for relief as set forth below. I- /I '- VA COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 22 of 86 '0 0 cct 0 (OS 'C rfl . 0 N 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTI?:N VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT, (As Amended Cal. Labor Code §§ 1197.5, 1194.5) Plaintiff against All Defendants and Does 1-10 The allegations set forth in all proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth again herein. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of California Labor Code §1197.5 by paying its female employees at wage rates less than the wage rates paid to male employees for substantially equal or similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, throughout Plaintiffs employment. Defendants willfully violated California Labor Code § 1197.5 by intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately paying women less than men for substantially equal or similar work throughout Plaintiff's employment. As a result of Defendants' conduct, violation of California Labor Code §1197.5, and/or Defendants' willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits, and other financial loss, as well as non-economic damages. Plaintiff therefore prays for relief as set forth below. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE (Cal. Labor Code § 201, et seq.) Plaintiff against All Defendants and Does 1-10 The allegations set forth in all proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth again herein. California Labor Code § 201 requires employers to pay all wages owed to employees on the employees' termination date. California Labor Code § 201 mandates that if an employer discharges an employee, the employee's wages accrued and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately. COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 23 of 86 'a 0 -r In t a U) S a -7 S 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Labor Code § 203 provides that, if an employer willfully fails to pay wages in accordance with Labor Code § 201, the wages of the employees shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof up to a maximum of 30 days' wages. By intentionally and deliberately paying Plaintiff lower wages than wages paid to their male counterparts for performing substantially equal or similar work, Defendants willfully failed and continues to fail to pay all accrued wages due to Plaintiff, in violation of Labor Code § 201. As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions and omissions, Plaintiff is entitled to all available statutory penalties, including the waiting time penalties provided in California Labor Code §203, together with interest thereon, as well as other available remedies. Plaintiff therefore prays for relief as set forth below. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, c/ seq.) Plaintiff against All Defendants and Does 1-10 The allegations set forth in all proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth again herein. California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (the "UCL") prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. An "unlawful" business practice includes any violation of the law. Defendants' policies and/or practices of paying female employees less than male employees for substantially equal or similar work performed and of failing to timely pay female employees who are discharged or who quit all wages earned and due constitute business practices because Defendants' acts and omissions as alleged herein have been done repeatedly over a significant period of time, and in a systematic manner, to the detriment of plaintiff. Defendants' acts and omissions, as alleged herein, violate the California Equal Pay Act, as amended, Labor Code § 1197.5, and California Labor Code §201, and 203, and COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 24 of 86 therefore constitute unlawful business practices prohibited by Business & Professions Code § 2 17200 et seq. 58. Defendants' acts and omissions, as alleged herein, constitute unfair business - '0 - 0 I practices prohibited by Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq. Defendants' business practice of paying women less than men for substantially equal or similar work caused harm to Plaintiff that outweighs any reason Defendants may have for doing so. Defendants' business practice as alleged herein is also immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and offensive to the established public policies of ensuring women and men are paid equally for 9 performing substantially equal or similar work, as reflected in both the California Equal Pay 10 Act, Cal. Labor Code § 1197.5, and the federal Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §206(d), and Ii 12 ensuring women are not discriminated against in the workplace, as reflected in both the 13 California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 12940 et seq., and Title VII 14 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 15 59. As a result of its unlawful and/or unfair business practices, Defendants have 16 and continue to reap unfair and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff. Accordingly, 17 Defendants should be disgorged of its illegal profits, and Plaintiff is entitled to restitution with 18 interest of such ill-gotten profits in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, 19 60. Defendants' unlawful and/or unfair business practices entitle Plaintiff to 20 II preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and other equitable relief available under law. 21 61. Plaintiff therefore prays for relief as set forth below. 22 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 AGE DISCRIMINATION [Government Code § 12940) 24 Plaintiff against All Defendants and Does 1-10 25 62. The allegations set forth in all proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint are 26 hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth again herein. 27 63. By its acts and omissions alleged above, Defendants intentionally deprived 28 Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities, and otherwise adversely affected her status as an 10 COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 25 of 86 0 0 çfl. C CM 0 0' 0' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 employee on the basis of Plaintiffs age in violation of California Government Code § 12940 2 et seq. 3 64. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants' unlawful discrimination, Ell Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, generally physical, mental and psychological damages in the form of extreme and enduring worry, suffering, pain, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress, all to her damage in amounts within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, to be proved at trial. 65. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, despicably, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in amounts to be proved at trial. As a result of Defendants' acts of discrimination as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit as provided for by California Government Code §12965(b). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants as set forth below. EIGTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION -PUBLIC POLICY (Age Discrimination, Government Code § 12940, el seq.) Plaintiff against All Defendants and Does 1-10 The allegations set forth in all proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by this reference as if frilly set forth again herein. As set forth herein, Defendants wrongfully terminated the employment of Plaintiff in violation of various fundamental public policies of the State of California. The Plaintiff has been injured in that she has suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of wages and salary, bonuses, compensation, employment benefits, career path opportunities, and expenses in amounts to be proved at trial. 66. In acting as alleged above, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, 11 COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 26 of 86 fundamental public policies are embodied in: California Government Code § 12940 et seq. and various other statutes of the State of California and the United States. Among other things, such fundamental public policies prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of age. 71. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants' wrongful termination in and salary, compensation, employment benefits, career path opportunities, and expenses in amounts to be proved at trial. The conduct of Defendants as alleged above, was malicious, fraudulent, despicable, and oppressive and was done with the wrongful intent of injuring Plaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in amounts to be proved at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants as set forth below. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT - RETALIATION (California Gov't Code § 12945, el seq.) (Plaintiff against All Defendants and Does 1-10) The allegations set forth in all proceeding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth again herein. California Gov't Code § 12945, ci seq. (CFRA) prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee for exercising any tight under CFRA. By their acts and omissions alleged above, Defehdants violated CFRA by terminating Plaintiffs employment for, inter alia,.exereising her right to CFRA. 10 ii 12 13 14 - 15 Ec( t 16 03 tj. 17 18 19 0 C. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 violation of public policy, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, generally physical, mental and psychological damages in the form of extreme and enduring worry, suffering, pain, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress, all to her damage in amounts within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, to be proved at trial. 72. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been injured in that she has suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of wages 12 COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 27 of 86 0 a cro. IL. Zo cn . u B' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 77. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants' retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, generally physical, mental and psychological damages in the form of extreme and enduring worry, suffering, pain, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress, all to her damage in amounts within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, to be proved at trial. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been injured in that he has suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of wages and salary, compensation, employment benefits, career path opportunities, and expenses in amounts to be proved at trial. The conduct of Defendants as alleged above, was malicious, fraudulent, despicable, and oppressive and was done with the wrongful intent of injuring Plaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in amounts to be proved at trial. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: An award of special damages, including back pay with prejudgment interest according to proof in an amount to be proved at trial; An award of general damages for pain and suffering according to proof in an amount to be proved at trial; For all wages due pursuant to California Labor Code § 1197.5(g) in an amount to be ascertained at trial; For liquidated damages pursuant to California Labor Code § 1197.5(h); For restitution of all monies due to Plaintiff, as well as disgorgement of Defendants' profits from its unlawful and/or unfair business practices; For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from violating California Labor Code § 1197.5 by paying its female employees lower wage rates than those paid to their male counterparts for substantially similar work, and from engaging in the unfair and unlawful business practices complained of herein; 7. For all statutory obligations and penalties to the extent permitted by law; 13 COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 28 of 86 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 Ii 12 13 14 15 0 16 ILlS 17 S 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 For all civil penalties to the extent permitted by law; For pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate pursuant to, among -others, Labor Code § 218.6; For attorneys' fees and costs; For costs of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. Dated: (S/ /i ' PIERCE & SHEARER LLP By: Stacy North Attorneys for Plaintiff ZOHREH FAZELI DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereb demands ajury trial on all of the issues in this case. Dated: 5 / A PIERCE & SHEARER LLP By: Attorneys for Plaintiff ZOI-IREH FAZELI 14 COMPLAINT Case No. Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 29 of 86 ATTACHMENT CV-5012 CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara 1 8CV327686 191 North First St., San José, CA 95113 CASE NUMBER: PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE FORM PLAINTIFF (the person suing): Within 60 days after filing the lawsuit, you must serve each Defendant with the Complaint, Summons, an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Sheet, and a copy of this Civil Lawsuit Notice, and you must tile written proof of such service. DEFENDANT (The person sued): You must do each of the following to protect your rights: You must file a written response to the Complaint, using the proper legal form or format, in the Clerks Office of the Court, within 30 days of the date you were served with the Summons and Complaint; You must serve by mail a copy of your written response on the Plaintiffs attorney or on the Plaintiff if Plaintiff has no attorney (to 'serve by mail' means to have an adult other than yourself mail a copy); and You must attend the first Case Management Conference. Warning: If you, as the Defendant, do not follow these instructions, you may automatically lose this case, RULES AND FORMS: You must follow the California Rules of Court and the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara Local Civil Rules and use proper forms. You can obtain legal ir g o,tthe rules and receive forms, free of charge, from the Self-Help Center at 201 North First Street, San José (408-882-2900 x'2926). State Rules and Judicial Council Forms: www.courtinfo.ca.ciov/forms and v,ww.courtinfo.ca.ciov/rules Local Rules and Forms: http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/civil/ruleltoc.htm CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CMC): You must meet with the other parties and discuss the case, in person or by telephone at least 30 calendar days before the CMC. You must also fill out, file and serve a Case Management Statement (Judicial Council form CM-1 10) at least 15 calendar days before the CMC. You or your attorney must appear at the CMC. You may ask to appear by telephone - see Local Civil Rule 8. Your Case Management Judge is: Stoelker, James L Department: 13 The tat CMC Is scheduled for: (Completed by Clerk of Court) Date: 08/14/2018 Time: 2:15pm in Department: 13 The next CMC is scheduled for: (Completed by party if the 1st CMC was continued or has passed) Date: Time: in Department: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR): If all parties have appeared and filed a completed ADR Stipulation Form (local form CV-5008) at least 15 days before the CMC, the Court will cancel the CMC and mail notice of an ADR Status Conference. Visit the Court's website at www.sccsuneriorcourt.org/civil/ADR/ or call the ADR Administrator (408-882-2100 x-2530) for a list of ADR providers and their qualifications, services, and fees. WARNING: Sanctions may be imposed if you do not follow the California Rules of Court or the Local Rules of Court. CV-5012 REV 08/01/16 CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE Page loll CEB I Essential ceb.con, Fazeli, Zohreh Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 30 of 86 Service of Process Transmittal 05/17/2018 CT Log Number 533359690 TO: William Deckelman, VP Gen. Csl. & Secy. DXC Technology Company Legal Department, 1775 Tysons Boulevard 9th Floor McLean, VA 22102 RE: Process Served in California FOR: DXC Technology Services LLC (Domestic State: DE) Page 1 of 2 / AS Information displayed on this transmittal is for CT Corporation's record keeping purposes only and is provided to the recipient for quick reference. This information does not constitute a legal opinion as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any information contained in the documents themselves. Recipient is responsible for interpreting said documents and for taking appropriate action. Signatures on certified mail receipts confirm receipt of package only, not contents. ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: TITLE OF ACTION: Zohreh Fazeli, etc., Pltf. vs. DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, etc., et al., Dfts. DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: Summons, Instructions, Sheet, Attachment(s), Complaint COURT/AGENCY: Santa Clara County - Superior Court - San Jose, CA Case # 18CV327686 NATURE OF ACTION: Employee Litigation - Wrongful Termination ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED: C T Corporation System, Los Angeles, CA DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE: By Process Server on 05/17/2018 at 14:23 JURISDICTION SERVED : California APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: Within 30 days after service ATTORNEY(S) / SENDER(S): Stacy Y. North PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 650-843-1900 ACTION ITEMS: CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 05/18/2018, Expected Purge Date: 05/23/2018 Image SOP Email Notification, William Deckelman wdeckelman@csc.com Email Notification, Stacia-Ann Chambers schambers9@dxc.com Email Notification, Charles Reed charles.reed@hpe.com Email Notification, Bradley Shires bshires@dxc.com Email Notification, Manny Mathews manny.mathews@unitedlex.com Email Notification, Dino Cieri dcieri@csc.com SIGNED: C T Corporation System ADDRESS: 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 31 of 86 Service of Process Transmittal 05/17/2018 CT Log Number 533359690 TO: William Deckelman, VP Gen. Csl. & Secy. DXC Technology Company Legal Department, 1775 Tysons Boulevard 9th Floor McLean, VA 22102 RE: Process Served in California FOR: DXC Technology Services LLC (Domestic State: DE) Page 2 of 2 / AS Information displayed on this transmittal is for CT Corporation's record keeping purposes only and is provided to the recipient for quick reference. This information does not constitute a legal opinion as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any information contained in the documents themselves. Recipient is responsible for interpreting said documents and for taking appropriate action. Signatures on certified mail receipts confirm receipt of package only, not contents. TELEPHONE: 213-337-4615 DOCKET HISTORY: DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE: TO: CT LOG NUMBER: Summons, Instructions, Sheet, Attachment(s), Complaint By Process Server on 05/08/2018 at 14:30 William Deckelman, VP Gen. Csl. & Secy. DXC Technology Company 533304419 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 32 of 86 MAy ; 2' Stacy Y. North (SBN 219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 Phone: (650) 843-1900 Fax: (650) 843-1999 Email: snorth@pierceshearer.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ZOHREH FAZELI ZOHREH FAZELI, an individual, Plaintiff, I?' Delaware limited liability company; HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/15/2018 4:08 PM Reviewed By: K Ross Case #18CV327686 Envelope: 1520944 Case No. I8CV327686 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: I) SEX DISCRIMINATION WRONGFUL TERMINATION- SEX DISCRIMINATION RETALIATION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AGE DISCRIMINATION WRONGFUL TERMINATION- AGE DISCRIMINATION VIOLATION OF CFRA DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 C 13 14 15 t 16 C (IDE 17 18 19 C 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 18CV327686 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 33 of 86 'C C (TYPE‘OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PAHTY OR ATTORNEY) D Additional signatures are attached. cwnmmwwwtmfll CASEMANAGEMENTSTATEMENT wams EB“ Essenflal cguom aw Fazeli, Zohreh Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 67 of 86 MC-025 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER; -Fazeli V. DXC Technology Services LLC 18CV327686 ATTACHMENT (Number): 4 .b. (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) In 2005, Hewlett Packard hired Zohreh Fazeli as an Enterprise Architect working in the Toronto, Canada office. Before being brought on a fulltime employee, Fazeli was a contractor for HP. She was 4O when she began her working relationship with HP. In 2012, Ms. Fazeli transferred to the Bay Area office. Most recently, she worked as a Wintel and Virtualization Enterprise Architect. Fazeli was an outstanding employee. She consistently received an "Exceeding performance" rating on her annual performance reviews. On her last year's review, Fazeli was rated "Accelerating I Key Player" fl the highest rating in the review. She was a billable employee who oversaw a more than $14 million project. Despite being an outstanding employee, Fazeli was paid significantly less than her male counterparts. Her most recent salary was $109,000 per year. The male employees at. her level~ Master with M29 grade - in HPE/DXC received $135,000 per year. In or around late 2015, Fazeli began reporting to Sanjoy Mitra, a man in his forties. Fazeli was in her fifties. He made numerous derogatory remarks about Fazeli's age, including that she was “over-the-hill" and an “ancient dinosaur." He seemed to prefer younger employees. Mitra also showed a preference for males, providing them better opportunities for advancement than he gave to Fazeli and other females. For example, in 2016, Mitra denied Fazeli' s request to attend a technical seminar in Las Vegas, but he allowed Fazeli' s male counterpart, Alan Wu, to go. Wu also attend a seminar in Boston. Mitra also denied Fazeli's request to attend a course for Enterprise Architects, TOGAF training. Mitra claimed there was no budget for it. Yet, two of Fazeli' s male peers attended the training. In addition, Mitra ignored Fazeli' s numerous requests for a well-deserved raise, although her male counterparts were paid more than she was. On September 18, 2017, Fazeli suffered a concussion and was forced to take leave pursuant to the FMLA and CFRA. She was scheduled to return on October 16, at which point she was supposed to work part-time. However, the company listed Fazeli as out until November 7, 2017. On October 19, 2017, while she was still on protected leave, the Companies notified Fazeli that her employment was being terminated the following day. She received less than one day's notice after twelve years of fulltime employment. The purported reason for termination was a reduction in force. This reason defies logic. Fazeli was extremely profitable for the Companies. Fazeli's team grew by about 20% Since August 2016 with a mix of newly hired fulltime employees and contractors. Fazeli transitioned her role to five of her male peers after receiving her layoff letter. And the Companies hired a male into Fazeli's role two weeks after terminating her. (If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty ofperjury, a/I statements in this Page l_ of J- Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) (Add pages as required) Form Approved for Optiona‘ Use ATTACH M ENT www.cmmr'nlawgov Judicial Council of California . I _MC ozslnev. mm, 2009] to Judlmal Council Form Fazeli, ZohrehCEB cebmm ,a Formsw Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/18/2018 5:22 PM Reviewed By: A. Rodriguez Case #18CV327686 Envelope: 1739078 18CV327686 Santa Clara - CivilCase 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 68 of 86 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 69 of 86 PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suiw 110, Redwood City, CA 94061 PHONE (650) 84341 900 - FAX (650) 843-1 999 H QUI-PUJN N NNNNNNNHHHHHp-AHt-AHH PROOF 0F SERVICE I, Siraj Shabber, declare: I am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California, in the office of a member of the bar of this Court, at whose direction the service was made. My business address is 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110, Redwood City, California 94061. On the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of: o PLAINTIFF'S CASE MANAGMENT STATEMENT (X) (BY MAIL) - by placing such copy in a sealed envelope, first-class postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Postal Service for collection and mailing this day in accordance with ordinary business practices at PIERCE & SHEARER LLP. (X) (BY E-SERVICE) - by electronically serving the document(s) listed above, which were e-filed with the Santa Clara County Superior Court and e-served Via Green Filing, to the email address(es) of the party(ies) designated below in accordance with the Santa Clara County Superior Court Local Rules. I served the above document(s) on the following person(s): Jessica L. Marrero, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM Melissa M. Samuel, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM, PLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1600 4605 Bluebonnet B1Vd., Suite A NSW Orleans, LA 70163-1600 Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Tel: (504) 596-4137 Tel: (225) 906-4250 Fax: (504) 596-4114 Fax: (225) 906-4230 Email: JLM@KullmanLaw.com Email: MMS@kullmanlaw.c0m 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Redwood City, California on July 18, 2018. £0?) Siraj Shabber PROOF OF SERVICE Case N0. 18CV327686 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -~ 13 0 ~ ~ p., [) 8: 14 :-J.~~ :-J.u ~ ~"' 00 g s 15 ~~ ~ tl ~ 16 "" . '" =~~ 00 0 g ·3 - 17 ~ V) ~ ""11' ~ u 0 0 18 p::: ~ ~ 0 ~ es~ ~ p., ~ ii: 19 •o ~ 0 20 N 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stacy Y. North (SBN 219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 Phone: (650) 843-1900 Fax: (650) 843-1999 Email: snorth@pierceshearer.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ZOHREH FAZELI SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ZOHREH FAZELI, an individual, Case No. 18CV327686 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF ZOHREH FAZELl'S NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES v. DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Zohreh Fazeli posted jury fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §631. 1 NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES Case No. 18CV327686 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 70 of 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ;;; 0 .... "' 13 ~ iJ ~ 14 ..:i • "' ,., -...J .:: ,..!, u ..,. cq ~ 15 "'1 .. s;: ci:: ~ "' .,, ~ < " >< 0:: < 16 "'1 • "-0 • :c: = 0 rJ1 l,! g ~ ·:; '7 17 C/l M "'1 -d' :; "'~ u 0 0 18 ci:: 0:: :2 "~ ~ ~ ~ - '8 0 ~ 0 if. 19 ~ :::: 0 "' 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: July 19, 2018 NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES PIERCE & SHEARER LLP By: 2 ~ . __ ~ .,....,,.,,.....__~~~~~~~~~~ Stacy North Attorneys for Plaintiff ZOHREH F AZELI Case No. 18CV327686 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 71 of 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 '° 13 0 v ~ I'< Ci g; 14 ~_e: ~ i-J. ..... J.. ~~ ~ 15 ~ 0 0 .::: ~ ~ ~ ~ 16 ~o" Lr.. =- . - 0 00. .B §:: ·s - 17 ~(/) ~ >'I 'li ~ u 0 0 18 ~ IZ :fl . ~ >'! ~ ~ 5:: ~ ~ 19 ~ ~ 0 N 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Christina Yanacek, declare: I am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California, in the office of a member of the bar of this Court, at whose direction the service was made. My business address is 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110, Redwood City, California 94061. On the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of: • PLAINTIFF ZOHREH FAZELl'S NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES (X) () () () () (X) (BY MAIL) - by placing such copy in a sealed envelope, first-class postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Postal Service for collection and mailing this day in accordance with ordinary business practices at PIERCE & SHEARER LLP. (BY PERSONAL) - by hand delivery on the date set forth below. (BY FACSIMILE) - by transmitting via facsimile from facsimile number (650) 843-1999 the documents(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below, or as stated on the attached service list, on this date. A statement that this document was successfully transmitted without error is hereby attached to this Proof of Service. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) - by delivering to an express mail service for guaranteed next day delivery to the party(ies) indicated. (BY E-MAIL) - by electronically mailing a true and correct copy through Pierce & Shearer LLP's electronic mail system to the e-mail address( es) set forth below, or as stated in the attached service list per the parties agreement. (BYE-SERVICE) - by electronically serving the document(s) listed above, which were e-filed with the Santa Clara County Superior Court and e-served via Green Filing, to the email address( es) of the party(1es) designated below in accordance with the Santa Clara County Superior Court Local Rules. I served the above document( s) on the following person: Jessica L. Marrero, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163-1600 Tel: (504) 596-4137 Fax: (504) 596-4114 Email: JLM@KullmanLaw.com NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES 3 Melissa M. Samuel, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM, PLC 4605 Blueboilllet Blvd., Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Tel: (225) 906-4250 Fax: (225) 906-4230 Email: MMS@kullmanlaw.com Case No. 18CV327686 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 72 of 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ;o 0 .... 13 "' ~ c5 ~ 14 ..J i- ~ ..J ·- ~ u .... " 8 ~ 15 ~ > ~ " ~ "' < "il x 0: < 16 ~ • u. 0 • ::c = 0 (J'J ~ ~ ~ ·:; '7 17 Vl ,... ~ -d' ;:!; "'~ u oo 18 " 0: :3 e3 ~ ~ "' z ~ "8 ~ 19 ~ 0.. ..... ..... 0 20 "' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Redwood City, California on July 19, 2018. 4 NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES Case No. 18CV327686 '· Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 73 of 86 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/30/2018 1:26 PM Reviewed By: L. Wang Case #18CV327686 Envelope: 1778450 18CV327686 Santa Clara - Civil L. Wang Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 74 of 86 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 75 of 86 CM-110 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DXC Technoiogy Services LLC PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: ZOhfeh Fazeli CASE NUMBER: 1 8CV327686 4. 10, b. Provide a brief statement of the case, including any damages. (prersonal injury damages are sought, specifi/ the injury and damages claimed, including medical expenses to date [indicate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lost earnings to date, and estimated future lost earnings. If equitable relief is sought, describe the nature of the relief.) Defendant denies that plaintiff was discriminated against in any way and further denies that she is entitled to any relief. (If more space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.) Jury or nonjury trial The pady or panies request a jury trial E] a nonjury trial. (lfmore than one party, provide the name ofeach party requesting a jury trial): Trial date ’ a, E] The trial has been set for (date): b. No trial date has been set. This case will be ready for trial within 12 months of the date of the fiIing of the complaint (if not, explain): c. Dates on which parties or attorneys will not be available for trial (specify dates and explain reasons for unavailability): Estimated length of trial The party or parties estimate that the trial will take (check one): a. days (specify number): 5‘7 days b. E hours (short causes) (specify): Trial representation (to be answered for each party) The party or parties will be represented at tria! by the attorney or party listed in the caption m by the foliowing: a. Attorney: b Firm. c Address: d~ Telephone number: f, Fax number: e E-mail address: g‘ Party represented:E Additional representation is described in Attachment 8. Preference E3 This case is entitled to preference (specIfy code section): Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) a. ADR information package. Please note that different ADR processes are availabie in different courts and communities; read the ADR information package provided by the court under rule 3.221 for information about the processes available through the court and community programs in this case. (1) For parties represented by counsel: Counsel has E has not provided the ADR information package identified in rule 3.221 to the client and reviewed ADR options with the client. (2) For seIf-represented parties: Party E has E has not reviewed the ADR information package identified in rule 3.221. b. Referral to judicial arbitration or civil action mediation (if available). (1) E This matter is sub’ect to mandatory judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141 .11 or to civil action mediation under ode of Civfi Procedure section 1775.3 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory limit, (2) D Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1141 ,1 1. (3) D This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 3.811 of the California Rules of Courtor from civil action mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775 et seq. (specify exemption): CM711olRevv July 1, 2011] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page20f5 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 76 of 86 CM-110 W PLAINTIFF/PETITIONERI Zohreh Fazeli DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTI DXC Technology Services LLC CASE NUMBER: 1BCV327686 10. c. Indicate the ADR process or processes that the pady or parties are willing to parficipate in, have agreed to participate in, or have already panickpated in (Check all that apply and provide the specified information): The party or parties completing this form are willing to participate in the following ADR processes (check all that apply): If the party or parties completing this form in the case have agreed to participate in or have already compieted an ADR process or processes, indicate the status of the processes (attach a copy ofthe parties'ADR stipulahbn): (1) Mediation Mediation session not yet scheduled Mediation session scheduled for (dafe): Agreed to compfete mediafion by (date): Mediation completed on (date): (2) Settlement conference Setttement conference not yet scheduled Settlement conference scheduled for (date): Agreed to complete settlement conference by (date): Settlement conference completed on (date): (3) Neutral evaluation Neutral evaluation not yet scheduled Neuaral evaluation scheduled for (date): Agreed to complete neutrai evaluation by (date): Neutral evaluation completed on (date): (4) Nonbinding judicial arbitration Judicial arbitration not yet scheduted Judicial arbitration scheduled for (date): Agreed to complete judicial arbitration by (dale): Judicial arbitration completed on (date): (5) Binding private arbitration Private arbitration not yet scheduled Private arbitration scheduled for (date): Agreed to complete private arbitration by (date): Private arbitration completed on (date): (6) Other (specim: DUDE DUDE DUDE! DUDE DUDE] DUDE ADR session not yet scheduied ADR session scheduled for (date): Agreed to complete ADR session by (date): ADR completed on (date): cum 1o [Rem July 1,2011] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 3 of 5 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 77 of 86 CMAJQ PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Zohreh Fazeli CASE NUMBER: - . 180V327686 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DXC Technobgy Services LLC 11. Insurance a. E Insurance carrier) if any, for party filing this statement (name): b. Reservation of rights: Cl Yes E No c. E] Coverage issues will significantly affect resolution of this case (explain): 12. Jurisdiction Indicate any matters that may affect the court’s jurisdiction or processing of this case and describe the status.E Bankruptcy [j Other (specifil): Status: 13. Related cases, consolidation, and coordination a. [:3 There are companion, underiying, or reiated cases. (1) Name of case: (2) Name of court (3) Case number: (4) Status:E Additional cases are described in Attachment 13a. b, E3 Amotion to m consolidate D coordinate will be filed by {name party): 14. BifurcationE The party or parties intend to fiIe a motion for an order bifurcating, severing, or coordinating the following issues or causes of action (specify moving party, type of motion, and reasons): 15. Other motions The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issues): Defendant anticipates filing a Motion for Summary Judgment following discovery. 16. Discovery a, [:1 The pany or parties have completed all discovery. b. The following discovery will be completed by the date specified (describe al/ anticipated discovery): Part1 Description Date DBfGndant Piaintiff deposition Undetermined Defendant Written discovery to Plaintiff Undetermined c, E The following discovery issues, including issues regarding the discovery of electronicany stored information, are anticipated (special): CM410 [Rem July 1, 201 1] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 4 o! 6 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 78 of 86 CM-1 10 PLAINTIFF/PEFITIONER: Zohreh Fazeli CASE NUMBER: ¥ . 1 80V327586 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DXC Te°hn°|09y Services LLC 17. Economic litigation a, E This is a limited civi! case (i.e‘, the amount demanded is $25,000 or less) and the economic litigation procedures in Code of Civil Procedure sections 90-98 wilI apply to this case. b, D This is a limited civil case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic litigation procedures or for additional discovery will be filed (if checked, explain specifically why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trial should not apply to this case): 18, Other issuesE The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference (specify): 19. Meet and confer a. The party or parties have met and conferred with all parties on all subjects required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Court (if not, explain): b. After meeting and conferring as required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Court, the parties agree on the following (specify): 20. Total number of pages attached (ifany): 2 | am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and alternative dispute resolution, as well as other issues raised by this statement, and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time of the case management conference, including the written authority of the party where required Date: July 30, 2018 Melissa M. Samuel (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE 0F PARTY 0R ATTORNEY)E Additional signatures are attached. CM41°IREV-Mvt2°m CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT “9m” Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 79 of 86 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF LOUISIANA ) ) PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE ) I am employed with The Kullman Law Firm, in East Baton Rouge, State 0f Louisiana. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 4605 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Suite A, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809. On July 30, 2018, I caused the foregoing document(s) described as CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT to be served 0n the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: STACY NORTH Pierce & Shearer LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 Attorneyfor Plaintiff )_(_ VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - FEDERAL EXPRESS I deposited such document(s) in a box or other facility regularly maintained by FedEx, or delivered such document(s) to a courier 0r driver authorized by FedEx, or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver authorized by FedEx, with delivery fees paid or provided for, and addressed to the person(s) being serviced. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 30, 2018, at Baton Rouge, LA. ML GRACE N. FRANTZ Defendant’s Case Management Statement Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/31/2018 2:41 PM Reviewed By: E. Fang Case #18CV327686 Envelope: 1784193 18CV327686 Santa Clara - Civil E. Fang Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 80 of 86 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 81 of 86 OONONM-hUJNb-A 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 43 1 .30, DXC denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE OR OTHER DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1. One or more 0f Plaintiffs claims against DXC fails to state facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. DXC denies that Plaintiff has sustained any damages as a result of the conduct alleged in the complaint. Notwithstanding its denial of liability, DXC avers that Plaintiff has failed and/or neglected to use reasonable care to minimize and mitigate her alleged injuries and damages, if any, and therefore her damages are limited 01' should be reduced and/or DXC is entitled to set off. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part, 0n the grounds that DXC’s actions as they may have affected Plaintiff were undertaken for lawful, substantial, and justifiable business reasons and were a legitimate exercise of DXC’s business judgment. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. Although having previously denied that Plaintiff is entitled to damages or any relief whatsoever, Defendants affirmatively plead that Plaintiffs Complaint fails t0 allege facts 0r circumstances sufficient t0 support an award of punitive 0r any other damages under any applicable law. Further, any claim by Plaintiff for punitive or exemplary damages is barred by DXC’s good-faith effort to comply with the law and/or because the damages sought are unconstitutional, not properly pled, not in conformity with or allowable by federal and/or State law, and/or the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to meet the requirements of California Civil Code § 3294. Page 2 0f 7 DEFENDANT DXC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES T0 PLAmmF’s FIRST AWNDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 82 of 86 QWNO'NUIhWNr-d NNNNNNNNNt-HHHHHHHHH OONQkfl-bWNr-‘OKOOOfloUl-PWNMO FIFTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. Some or all of Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctfine of unclean hands t0 the extent Plaintiff’s actions were inequitable and/or in bad faith. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in Whole 0r in part, to the extent they were asserted outside of the applicable statutes of limitations. Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 335.1, 338; Cal. Labor Code § 1197.50), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208; and Gov’t Code § 12900, et seq. (including, but not limited t0, the applicable one year 0f liability statute of limitations set forth therein). SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. To the extent Plaintiff and/or other persons and entities other than DXC have acted in bad faith with respect t0 matters alleged in the Complaint, or are otherwise at fault, Plaintiffs right of recovery from DXC, if any, should be reduced by that amount Which the negligence, bad faith, and/or fault 0f persons and/or entities other than DXC, including Plaintiff, contributed to any injury or damages. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. DXC alleges that the acts 0r omissions, if any, 0f DXC were not the cause in fact of any harm or loss actually suffered by Plaintiff. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. DXC is relieved 0f any liability as to Plaintiff” s claims because any unlawful conduct alleged against DXC’s current and/or former employees, which conduct DXC denies, would have occurred outside the course and scope of their employment. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Plaintiff cannot meet the prima facie case requirements and/or establish necessary elements on some 0r all of her claims. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. DXC did not retaliate against Plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; any employment-related actions 0r omissions affecting Plaintiff were taken for non-retaiiatory reasons, legitimate business reasons, and/or reasonable factors other than unlawful retaliation. In Page 3 of 7 DEFENDANT DXC’S ANSWERAND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES To PLAJNTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 83 of 86 \OOONONUi#UJ[\)>-I NMNNNNNNMHHHHHMHHHr-l OONGNUI-hWNHOKOOOQQUI-hWNb-‘O the alternative, the same actions 0r omissions would have occurred absent any impermissible factors or motive. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Any alleged wrongful conduct by DXC does not constitute conduct in contravention of the public policy 0f the State 0f California or in contravention of the laws of the State 0f California 0r the United States. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. T0 the extent Plaintiff must have first exhausted administrative remedies, the failure to do so requires dismissal of the cause of action, including on the basis of statute of limitations. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Plaintiff s claims are barred in whoie or in pan because the claims are not included in and/or exceed the scope 0f Plaintiff’s administrative charge. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Plaintiff was an at-will employee subj ect to discharge with or without cause at any time for any lawful reason. Cal. Labor Code § 2922. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Plaintiffs claims for physical 0r emotional injuries suffered as a result of her employment and/or resignation are barred, in whole 0r in part, because the sole and exclusive remedy for such injuries is governed by the Caiifomia Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code §§ 3200 et seq. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because DXC exercised reasonable care to prevent and properly correct any discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory behavior, and Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. No act or omission which can be attributable t0 DXC constitutes conduct rising to the required level of outrageousness to support a claim for intentional infliction 0f emotional Page 4 of 7 DEFENDANT DXC’s ANSWERAND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAJNTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 84 of 86 \DOOflQUl-h-WNr-d NNNNNNNNNI-‘Hn-ar-‘Hi-‘y-AHp-‘p-x OO\]O\U1-hUJN>-‘O\OOOQO\U‘-I>UJNHO distress. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. DXC is not liable for conduct as alleged by Plaintiff, of which it had no knowledge, actual 0r constructive, and against Which it maintains an express policy prohibiting discrimination, and other conduct alleged by Plaintiff, that is effectively disseminated to all employees. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. At all times relevant t0 Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff was treated fairly and in good faith, and all actions taken by DXC as to Plaintiff were taken for lawful business reasons and in good faith. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. DXC has not willfully failed t0 pay any compensation allegedly owed to Plaintiff, and therefore is not liable for penalties, including but not limited to waiting time penalties. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. DXC’s business practices were not unfair, unlawful, fiaudulent or deceptive Within the meaning 0f California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23. DXC hereby gives notice that it intends t0 rely upon any other defense that may become available 0r appear during discovery or other proceedings in this case and that because the Complaint is couched in vague and conclusory terms, DXC cannot fully anticipate all defenses that may be applicable t0 the claims assened. Accordingly, DXC hereby reserves the right to amend its Answer and/or aSSert additional defenses. Page 5 of 7 DEFENDANT DXC’S ANSWERAND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES To PLAmTLFF’s FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 85 of 86 OWNOU‘I-PUJNI-A NNNNNNNNNHMP-IHy-IHHHHp-A OONQUI-PUJNwooman‘l-lkWNHO WHEREFORE, DXC prays that this Answer be deemed good and sufficient; that judgment be entered in its favor after due proceedings, dismissing the First Amended Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice; that DXC be awarded all costs of litigation including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and that DXC be awarded any other relief to which the Court finds that it is entitled. Dated: July 31, 2018 THE KULLMAN FIRM By: /s/ Melissa M Samuel Melissa M. Samuel Page 6 of 7 DEFENDANT DXC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES To PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 86 of 86 OONONUIAUJNr-d 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF 0F SERVICE STATE OF LOUISIANA ) ) ss. PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE ) I am employed in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. I am over the age of 18 and not a pafiy to the within action. My business address is 4605 Bluebonnet B1vd., Suite A, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809. On July 31, 2018, I caused the foregoing document(s) described as DEFENDANT DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT to be served on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Counselfor Plaintifi’ Stacy Y. North PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 snorth@pierceshearer.com X VIA U.S. MAIL Following ordinary business practices, I placed the document for collection and maiiing at 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1600, New Orleans, Louisiana 70163, in a sealed envelope. I am readily familiar With the business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and, in the ordinary course of business, such correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the day 0n Which it is collected at the business. X VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSION Following ordinary business practices, I have e-mailed this document t0 the interested panics at the email addresses listed on the attached Service List. X FEDERAL I declare under penalty of peljury under the laws of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 31, 2018, at New Orleans, Louisiana. ace N. Frantz Page 7 of 7 DEFENDANT DXC’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES To PLAINTIFF” s FLRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Case No. 18CV327686 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PI E R C E & S H E A R E R L L P 20 55 W oo ds id e R oa d, S ui te 1 10 , R ed w oo d C ity , C A 9 40 61 PH O N E (6 50 ) 8 43 -1 90 0 • F A X (6 50 ) 8 43 -1 99 9 Stacy Y. North (SBN 219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 Phone: (650) 843-1900 Fax: (650) 843-1999 Email: snorth@pierceshearer.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ZOHREH FAZELI SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ZOHREH FAZELI, an individual, Plaintiff, v. DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 18CV327686 PROOF OF SERVICE Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/17/2018 2:08 PM Reviewed By: C. Pinacate Case #18CV327686 Envelope: 1732441 18CV327686 Santa Clara - Civil C. Pinacate Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 6 2 PROOF OF SERVICE Case No. 18CV327686 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PI E R C E & S H E A R E R L L P 20 55 W oo ds id e R oa d, S ui te 1 10 , R ed w oo d C ity , C A 9 40 61 PH O N E (6 50 ) 8 43 -1 90 0 • F A X (6 50 ) 8 43 -1 99 9 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Jennifer Baker, declare: I am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California, in the office of a member of the bar of this Court, at whose direction the service was made. My business address is 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110, Redwood City, California 94061. On the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of: • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY ONLY • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (FICTITIOUS/INCORRECT NAME) () (BY MAIL) - by placing such copy in a sealed envelope, first-class postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Postal Service for collection and mailing this day in accordance with ordinary business practices at PIERCE & SHEARER LLP. () (BY PERSONAL) - by hand delivery on the date set forth below. () (BY FACSIMILE) - by transmitting via facsimile from facsimile number (650) 843-1999 the documents(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below, or as stated on the attached service list, on this date. A statement that this document was successfully transmitted without error is hereby attached to this Proof of Service. () (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) - by delivering to an express mail service for guaranteed next day delivery to the party(ies) indicated. () (BY E-MAIL) - by electronically mailing a true and correct copy through Pierce & Shearer LLP’s electronic mail system to the e-mail address(es) set forth below, or as stated in the attached service list per the parties agreement. (X) (BY E-SERVICE) - by electronically serving the document(s) listed above, which were e-filed with the Santa Clara County Superior Court and e-served via Green Filing, to the email address(es) of the party(ies) designated below in accordance with the Santa Clara County Superior Court Local Rules. I served the above document(s) on the following person(s): // // // Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 6 3 PROOF OF SERVICE Case No. 18CV327686 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PI E R C E & S H E A R E R L L P 20 55 W oo ds id e R oa d, S ui te 1 10 , R ed w oo d C ity , C A 9 40 61 PH O N E (6 50 ) 8 43 -1 90 0 • F A X (6 50 ) 8 43 -1 99 9 Jessica L. Marrero, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163-1600 Tel: (504) 596-4137 Fax: (504) 596-4114 Email: JLM@KullmanLaw.com Melissa M. Samuel, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM, PLC 4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Tel: (225) 906-4250 Fax: (225) 906-4230 Email: MMS@kullmanlaw.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Redwood City, California on July 17, 2018. Jennifer Baker Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 6 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): RESERVED FOR CLERK'S FILE STAMP Stacy North SBN 219034 PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road , Sui te 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 snorth@pi erceshearer . com TELEPHONE NO.. ( 6 5 0 ) 843 - 1900 FAX NO.: ( 650) 843- 1999 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): plaint i ff Zohreh Fazeli SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFSanta Clara 191 N. First Street San Jose , CA 95113 PLAINTIFF: Zohreh Fazeli DEFENDANT: DXC Technology Services LLC , et al. AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT CASE NUMBER: (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) 18CV327686 IX) FICTITIOUS NAME (No order required) Upon the fil ing of the complaint, the plaintiff, being ignorant of the true name of the defendant and having designated the defendant in the complaint by the fictitious name of: I FICTITIOUS NAME . Doe Number 1 and having discovered the true name of the defendant to be: I TRUE NAME Enterprise Services LLC amends the complaint by substituting the true name for the fictitious name wherever it appears in the complaint. DATE 7/17/2018 TYPE OR PR INT AME Stac North D INCORRECT NAME (Order required) The plaintiff, having designated a defendant in the complaint by the incorrect name of: I INCORRECT NAME and having discovered the true name of the defendant to be: TRUE NAME amends the complaint by substituting the true name for the incorrect name wherever it appears in the complaint. DATE TYPE OR PRINT NAME ORDER THE COURT ORDERS the amendment approved and filed. Dated NONJC-157 IRev. 7/112015) CEB' j i:ssen tia! ceb.com .0Forms AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (Fictitious / Incorrect Name) SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY JUDICIAL OFFICER Faze li , Zo hrel-i Code Civ. Proc .. §§ 471 .5, 472, 473, 474 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/17/2018 2:08 PM Reviewed By: C. Pinacate Case #18CV327686 Envelope: 1732441 18CV327686 Santa Clara - CivilCase 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 6 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Stacy North SBN 219034 PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City , CA 94061 TELEPHONE NO.: (650) 843-1900 FAA NO . (Optional ): (650) 843- 1999 E-MA1LADDREss 1optiona1J: snorth@pierceshearer . com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff Zohreh Fazeli SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San ta Clara STREET ADDRESS: 191 N. First Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 95113 BRANCH NAME: Unlimited Civil PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : Zohreh Fazeli DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DXC Technology Services LLC , et al. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL CASE NUMBER : 18CV327686 A conformed copy will not be returned by the clerk unless a method of return is provided with the document. This form may not be used for dismissal of a derivative action or a class action or of any party or cause of action in a class action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.760 and 3.770.) 1. TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows: a. (1) D With prejudice (2) 1XJ Without prejudice b. (1) D Complaint (2) D Petition (3) D Cross-complaint filed by (name): (4) D Cross-complaint filed by (name): (5) D Entire action of all parties and all causes of action on (date): on (date): (6) IXJ Other (specify):* as to Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterpri se Company ONLY 2. (Complete in all cases except family law cases.) The court 0did IX)did not waive court fees and costs for a party in this case. (This information may be obtained from the clerk. If court fees and costs were waived, the declaration on the back of this form must be completed). Date: 7I16I2018 S.tac.y .. No.r.th ....................... ......... ... ...... .. .................. . (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF !XI ATTORNEY D PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) ~ ~ CIV-110 • If dismissal requested is of specified parties only, of specified causes of action only, or of specified cross-complaints only, so state and identify the parties. causes of action, or cross-complaints to be dismissed. Attorney or party without attorney for: Zohreh Faze li 3. TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.** Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF D ATTORNEYD PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) •• If a cross-complaint - or ResRonse (Family Law) seeking affirmative relief - is on file, the attorney for the cross-complainant (respondent) must sign this consent if required by Code of Civil Procedure section 581 (i) or 0). (To be completed by clerk) 4 . D Dismissal entered as requested on (date): IXJ Plaintiff/Petitioner D DefendanURespondent D Cross-Complainant (SIGNATURE) Attorney or party without attorney for: D Plaintiff/Petitioner D DefendanURespondent D Cross-Complainant 5. D Dismissal entered on (date): as to only (name): 6. D Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reasons (specify): D Attorney or party without attorney notified on (date): 7. a. b. D Attorney or party without attorney not notified. Filing party failed to provide D a copy to be conformed D means to return conformed copy Date: Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Jud icial Council of California C IV-110 [Rev. Jan. 1, 2013) ([B" Essential ceb.com ; J:JForms· Clerk, by REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL Fa zeli, Code of Civil Procedure, § 581 et seq.; Gov. Code,§ 68637(c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1390 www.courts.ca.gov Zohreh Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/17/2018 2:08 PM Reviewed By: C. Pinacate Case #18CV327686 Envelope: 1732441 X X 7/17/2018 7/17/2018 7/17/2018 C. Pinacate Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 5 of 6 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Zohreh Fazeli DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DXC Technology Services LLC, et al. CASE NUMBER: 18CV327686 COURT'S RECOVERY OF WAIVED COURT FEES AND COSTS If a party whose court fees and costs were initially waived has recovered or will recover $10,000 or more in value by way of settlement, compromise, arbitration award, mediation settlement, or other means, the court has a statutory lien on that recovery. The court may refuse to dismiss the case until the lien is satisfied. (Gov. Code,§ 68637.) Declaration Concerning Waived Court Fees 1. The court waived fees and costs in this action for (name): 2. The person in item 1 is (check one below): a. D not recovering anything of value by this action. b. D recovering less than $10,000 in value by this action. c. D recovering $10,000 or more in value by this action. (If item 2c is checked, item 3 must be completed.) CIV-110 3. D All court fees and costs that were waived in this action have been paid to the court (check one): D Yes D No I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information above is true and correct. Date:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF D ATTORNEY D PARTY MAKING DECLARATION) (SIGNATURE) CIV-110 [Rev. January 1, 2013] f~~ I ~E;~':. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL Page2 of2 Fazeli, Zohreh Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-2 Filed 08/16/18 Page 6 of 6 Service of Process Transmittal 05/17/2018 CT Log Number 533359690 TO: William Deckelman, VP Gen. Csl. & Secy. DXC Technology Company Legal Department, 1775 Tysons Boulevard 9th Floor McLean, VA 22102 RE: Process Served in California FOR: DXC Technology Services LLC (Domestic State: DE) Page 1 of 2 / AS Information displayed on this transmittal is for CT Corporation's record keeping purposes only and is provided to the recipient for quick reference. This information does not constitute a legal opinion as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any information contained in the documents themselves. Recipient is responsible for interpreting said documents and for taking appropriate action. Signatures on certified mail receipts confirm receipt of package only, not contents. ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: TITLE OF ACTION: Zohreh Fazeli, etc., Pltf. vs. DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, etc., et al., Dfts. DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: Summons, Instructions, Sheet, Attachment(s), Complaint COURT/AGENCY: Santa Clara County - Superior Court - San Jose, CA Case # 18CV327686 NATURE OF ACTION: Employee Litigation - Wrongful Termination ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED: C T Corporation System, Los Angeles, CA DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE: By Process Server on 05/17/2018 at 14:23 JURISDICTION SERVED : California APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: Within 30 days after service ATTORNEY(S) / SENDER(S): Stacy Y. North PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 650-843-1900 ACTION ITEMS: CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 05/18/2018, Expected Purge Date: 05/23/2018 Image SOP Email Notification, William Deckelman wdeckelman@csc.com Email Notification, Stacia-Ann Chambers schambers9@dxc.com Email Notification, Charles Reed charles.reed@hpe.com Email Notification, Bradley Shires bshires@dxc.com Email Notification, Manny Mathews manny.mathews@unitedlex.com Email Notification, Dino Cieri dcieri@csc.com SIGNED: C T Corporation System ADDRESS: 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-3 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 16 Service of Process Transmittal 05/17/2018 CT Log Number 533359690 TO: William Deckelman, VP Gen. Csl. & Secy. DXC Technology Company Legal Department, 1775 Tysons Boulevard 9th Floor McLean, VA 22102 RE: Process Served in California FOR: DXC Technology Services LLC (Domestic State: DE) Page 2 of 2 / AS Information displayed on this transmittal is for CT Corporation's record keeping purposes only and is provided to the recipient for quick reference. This information does not constitute a legal opinion as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any information contained in the documents themselves. Recipient is responsible for interpreting said documents and for taking appropriate action. Signatures on certified mail receipts confirm receipt of package only, not contents. TELEPHONE: 213-337-4615 DOCKET HISTORY: DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE: TO: CT LOG NUMBER: Summons, Instructions, Sheet, Attachment(s), Complaint By Process Server on 05/08/2018 at 14:30 William Deckelman, VP Gen. Csl. & Secy. DXC Technology Company 533304419 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-3 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 16 MAy ; 2' Stacy Y. North (SBN 219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Redwood City, CA 94061 Phone: (650) 843-1900 Fax: (650) 843-1999 Email: snorth@pierceshearer.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ZOHREH FAZELI ZOHREH FAZELI, an individual, Plaintiff, I?' Delaware limited liability company; HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/15/2018 4:08 PM Reviewed By: K Ross Case #18CV327686 Envelope: 1520944 Case No. I8CV327686 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: I) SEX DISCRIMINATION WRONGFUL TERMINATION- SEX DISCRIMINATION RETALIATION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AGE DISCRIMINATION WRONGFUL TERMINATION- AGE DISCRIMINATION VIOLATION OF CFRA DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 C 13 14 15 t 16 C (IDE 17 18 19 C 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 18CV327686 Case 5:18-cv-04958 Document 2-3 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 16 'C C