Removal to Federal Court

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 18, 2020

459824 KOOOQQU‘I-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tt-Ar-tr-tt-tr-tr-Kt-tr-tr-t OOQONM-bUJNHOKOOOflQUl-hUJNF-‘O 200V363623 Santa Clara - Civil GLENN L. BRIGGS (SBN 174497) Electronically Filed Email: bri kaDdin bri s.com b Superior Court of CA,KYMBRL R -HSIAO (SBN2405Q§éunty ofSanta cuara, Ema11: kdh kadingbri s.com on 4,30,2020 12:15 pMBRIANNA .FRAZI SBN 297354 . . . Email: bfrazier kadin braggs.corn ) Rev'ewed By' L' QuaCh'MarceH‘ KADING BRI GS LLfig Case #2ocv363623 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800 Envelope! 4293523 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: g949) 450-8040 Facmmile. ( 49) 450-8033 Attome s for Defendant OLYM US CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAMELA HENRY, an individual, CASE NO. 20CV363623 Plaintiff, Assigned t0 the Hon. Socrates P. Manoukian, Dept. 20 VS. DEFENDANT OLYMPUS OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS’ THE AMERICAS dba NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF OLYMPUS AMERICA, INC.; REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO RANDSTAD US, L.P. dba UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RANDSTAD US: LLC dba PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 AND RANDSTAD; and DOES 1 -25 1441 (DIVERSITY) inclusive, Complaint Filed: February 18, 2020 Defendants. 1 Ina OLYMPUS’ NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT 1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT a Notice 0f Removal 0f this action was 2 filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California 0n 3 April 30, 2020. A copy 0f said Notice 0f Removal and supporting exhibits are 4 attached t0 this Notice and are served and filed herewith. 5 6 DATED: April 30, 2020 KADING BRIGGS LLP GLENN L. BRIGGS 7 KYMBERLEIGH DAMRON-HSIAO 8 BRIANNA L. FRAZIER 9 x. 10 W BRIANNA L. FRAZIER 1 1 1 2 Attorneys for Defendant OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE 13 AMERICAS 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 459824 2 OLYMPUS’ NOTICE T0 ADVERSE PARTY 0F REMOVAL 0F ACTION T0 U.s. DISTRICT COURT 460124 \OOOQONUl-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHb-HHb-Hr-t OONONM¥WNHOCWQCNL11¥UJNHO Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 78 GLENN L. BRIGGS (SBN 174497) Email. kadin bri s.com KYMB%R§§I DA§/IR -HSIAO (SBN 240508) Email: kdh kadingbrl s.com BRIANNA .FRAZI (SBN 297354) Email: bfrazier kadin%br1ggs com KADING BRI GS LL 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800 Irvinep California 92618 Telephone: g949) 450-8040 Facs1mile: ( 49) 450-8033 Attorne s for Defendant OLYM US CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PAMELA HENRY, an individual, CASE NO. Plaintiff, Santa Clara Su erior Court vs. ase No.2 20C 363623] OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF DEFENDANT OLYMPUS THE AMERICAS dba CORPORATION OF THE OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.; AMERICAS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL RANDSTAD US, L.P. dba OF ACTION TO UNITED STATES RANDSTAD Us: LLC dba DISTRICT COURT PURSUANT TO RANDSTAD; and DOES 1 -25 28 U.S.C. .Y)]§§ 1332 AND 1441 inclusive, (DIVERS Defendants. 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQLI‘I-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 78 TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Olympus Corporation of the Americas (“Olympus”) hereby removes the state court action described below.1 THE STATE COURT ACTION 1. On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff Pamela Henry (“Plaintiff”) commenced an action against Olympus and defendant Randstad US, LLC (“Randstad”)2 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, entitled Pamela Henry v. Olympus Corporation 0fthe Americas et al. , as case number 20CV363623. A true and correct copy of the Complaint (“Complaint”) and Civil Case Cover Sheet is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of the corresponding Summons, filed 0n February 18, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2. On March 16, 2020, Olympus’ counsel received a copy 0f the Summons and Complaint With a Notice and Acknowledgment 0f Receipt from 1 Defendant Randstad US, LLC joins in this Notice ofRemoval. A true and correct copy 0f Randstad’s Joinder in Notice of Removal 0f Action is attached hereto as Exhibit H and Will be promptly filed upon the assignment 0f a United States District Court case number for this action. 2 Plaintiff erroneously sued Randstad as “Randstad US, L.P. dba Randstad US, LLC dba Randstad.” Randstad US, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, was converted t0 Randstad US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, effective January 1, 2017-over 2 years prior t0 the relevant time pefiod in this action. See Exhibit A, fl 19 (“Plaintiffwas an employee With Defendants from approximately August 26, 2019 t0 October 28, 2019.”). A true and correct copy 0f the Certificate of Conversion of Randstad, US, L.P. is attached as Exhibit D to the contemporaneously-filed Request for Judicial Notice. 2 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 78 Plaintiff’ s counsel. A true and correct copy 0f the Notice and Acknowledgment 0f Receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 3. Olympus’ counsel executed and returned the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt on behalf ofOlympus on April 1, 2020. Service on Olympus was therefore deemed complete as 0f April 1, 2020. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30(c) (“[s]ervice of a summons pursuant to this section is deemed complete on the date a written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is executed, if such acknowledgment thereafter is returned t0 the sender”). 4. Plaintiff also served Randstad pursuant to California Code 0f Civil Procedure Section 415.30. Randstad executed and returned the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt 0n April 17, 2020. Service on Randstad was therefore deemed complete as of April 17, 2020. 5. On April 24, 2020, Randstad filed its Answer t0 the Complaint-well in advance 0f its 30-day deadline to file a responsive pleading. On April 29, 2020, Olympus filed its Answer t0 the Complaint-in advance 0f its 30-day deadline t0 file a responsive pleading. True and correct copies 0f the Answers filed With the Superior Court of the State 0f California for the County 0f Santa Clara are attached hereto as Exhibits F and G.3 6. This Notice 0f Removal is filed within 30 days from the date upon which Olympus was served with the C0mp1aint-i.e., April 1, 2020-and is within the time for removal provided by law. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a); see also Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 201 1) (holding that “each defendant is entitled to thirty days to exercise his removal rights after being served”). 3 Due to limited Court operations as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Clerk of the Santa Clara Superior Court advised counsel for Randstad and Olympus that conformed copies 0f the Answers Will not be available for approximately 2-3 weeks. 3 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 78 DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 7. This is a civil action ofwhich this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, and is one Which may be removed t0 this Court by Olympus pursuant t0 the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, in that it is an action in which the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the sum 0f $75,000.00, exclusive 0f interest and costs, and Plaintiff, Olympus, and Randstad are each citizens of different states.4 8. Olympus requests that this matter be assigned to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California because the state court in Which the action was filed is Within this judicial distfict. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Plaintiffls a Citizen 0f California 9. For diversity purposes, citizenship 0f an individual is determined by the individual’s domicile at the time that the lawsuit is filed. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986). A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain 0r t0 which she intends to return.” Kaneter v. Warner-Lambert Ca, 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). As the Ninth Circuit observed in Lew, determining an individual’s domicile “involves a number of factors,” including current residence, place 0femployment, and other factors such as voting registration and voting practices, location of personal and real property, location of brokerage and bank accounts, location of spouse and family, membership in unions and other organizations, driver’s license and automobile registration, and payment 0f taxes. Lew, 797 F.2d at 750 (emphases added). 10. Plaintiff alleges that “[a]t all pertinent times mentioned in the complaint, Plaintiff is, and was a resident 0f the County 0f Santa Clara, State of 4 Olympus and Randstad are the only named defendants and the citizenship 0f fictitious “Doe” defendants is disregarded for removal purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). 4 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 5 of 78 California” and that “Plaintiffwas and is, at all times relevant herein, jointly employed by Defendant Olympus . . . and Randstad” and “worked at Olympus’ San Jose location, located at 2400 Ringwood Avenue, San Jose, CA 95 13 1 .” Exhibit A, 1W 1-3 (emphases added). Plaintiff maintains a residence in San Jose, California and possesses a California Driver’s License. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has demonstrated an intent t0 remain in the State 0f California, Plaintiff is domiciled in the State of California. Olvmpus Is a Citizen ofNew York and Pennsylvania and Not a Citizen 0fCalifornia 11. For the purpose of diversity, a corporation shall be deemed t0 be a citizen 0f “every State and foreign state by Which it has been incorporated and 0f the State 0r foreign state Where it has its principal place 0f business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 3 32(c)( 1 ). 12. To determine a corporation’s principal place ofbusiness, federal courts must utilize the “nerve center” test. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1183 (2010). Under the “nerve center” test, a corporation’s principal place of business is “the place Where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Id. Per the United States Supreme Court, a corporation’s nerve center “should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters-provided that the headquarters is the actual center 0f direction, control, and coordination.” Id. 13. Olympus maintains its headquarters in Center Valley, Pennsylvania. A11 of Olympus’ executive officers maintain offices at its Pennsylvania headquarters. Olympus’ operations, such as marketing, human resources, finance, and legal, are centralized at its Pennsylvania headquarters. In addition, policy decisions are made and activities are coordinated at Olympus’ Pennsylvania 5 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 78 headquarters. Accordingly, under the nerve center test, Olympus’ principal place of business is Pennsylvania. See Hertz, 130 S. Ct. at 1183. 14. Olympus is incorporated under the laws ofNew York. 15. Accordingly, Olympus is a citizen of both Pennsylvania and New York. Randstad is a Citizen 0fGeorgia and Delaware and Not a Citizen 0fCalifornia 16. For diversity purposes, “an LLC is a citizen 0f every state 0f Which its owners/members are citizens.” 3123 SMB LLC v. Horn, 880 F.3d 461, 465 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted). The members of Randstad are Randstad North America, Inc. (“Randstad North America”) and Randstad General Partner (US), LLC (“Randstad General Partner”). Randstad General Partner’s sole member is Randstad North America. As such, Randstad is a citizen 0f each states 0fWhich Randstad North America is a citizen. Id. 17. Randstad North America maintains its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, where its high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities. Accordingly, under the nerve center test, Randstad North America’s principal place 0f business is Georgia. See Hertz, 130 S. Ct. at 1183. 18. Randstad North America is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. 19. Accordingly, Randstad North America and Randstad General Partner are citizens of both Georgia and Delaware. See 3123 SMB LLC, 880 F.3d at 465. 20. As Randstad’s members are citizens ofboth Georgia and Delaware, Randstad is a citizen 0f both Georgia and Delaware. Complete Diversitv Exists between Plaintiffand Defendants 21. Because Plaintiff is a citizen 0f California, Olympus is a citizen 0f Pennsylvania and New York, and Ranstad is a citizen 0f Georgia and Delaware, 6 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 7 of 78 complete diversity exists. The Amount in Controversv Exceeds $75,000 22. An action may be removed if the defendant establishes that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Abrego v. Dow Chemical C0., 443 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). Where, as here, a complaint does not state the amount in controversy, the defendant’s notice 0fremoval may do s0 through plausible allegations, consistent With Fed. R. CiV. P. 8(a). Dart Cherokee Basin Operating C0., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014). Evidentiary submissions are not required unless and until the defendant’s allegations are contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court. Id. at 554; Langston v. T-Mobile US, Ina, N0. LACV1801972JAKASX, 2018 WL 2382464, *4 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (applying the plausible allegations standard to a single-plaintiff diversity case). For purposes of assessing the amount in controversy, “the Court accepts the allegations contained in the complaint as true and assumes the jury Will return a verdict in the plaintiff s favor 0n every claim.” Henry v Central Freight Lines, Ina, 692 F. App’x 806, 807 (9th Cir. 2017) (emphases added). 23. At the outset, and in a conversation with Plaintiff” s counsel regarding potential early resolution, Plaintiff’ s counsel communicated a demand t0 settle well in excess 0f the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, thereby necessarily placing more than $75,000 in controversy. 24. Moreover, through her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for: (i) race and color discrimination in Violation of Cal. GOV’t Code sections 12900 et seq.; (ii) age discrimination in Violation of Cal. Gov’t Code sections 12900 et seq.; (iii) retaliation in Violation 0f Cal. Gov’t Code sections 12900 et seq; (iv) failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation in Violation of Cal. GOV’t Code sections 12900 et seq.; and (V) wrongful termination in Violation 0f public policy. See 7 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 8 of 78 Exhibit A. T0 that end, Plaintiff prays for economic damages, non-economic (emotional distress) damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1H] 32- 34, 39-41, 46-48, 54-56, 61-63, and p. 11, Prayer for Relief. As such, the sum 0f the following components constitutes the amount in controversy in this case: 25. Compensatory Damages. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages in the form 0f lost wages, fixture wages, and employment benefits. See Exhibit A, 1W 32, 39, 47, 54, 61, and p. 11, Prayer for Relief. At the time 0f the termination of her employment assignment with Olympus 0n 0r about October 25, 2019, Plaintiff was a Customer Service Representative, With an annualized income of approximately $38,480 (based on a 40-hour workweek and a $18.50 hourly wage). See Exhibit A, fl 19. Accordingly, it is reasonable to estimate Plaintiff s potential lost wages over the 27-week period between October 25, 2019 and the instant Notice of Removal, Which equals approximately $19,980.5 See, e.g., Simmons v. PCR Tech, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (calculating plaintiff’ s wage loss from termination until removal for amount in controversy purposes). After accounting for lost employee benefits, Which are generally worth 30% 0f an employee’s pay, this figure increases toW5 See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp, 506 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating employee benefits must be included in calculating the amount of lost income in controversy). Moreover, given Court closures and delays as a result 0f the Covid-19 pandemic, this action is unlikely t0 go t0 trial until May 202 1, at which point Plaintiff” s lost wages would equal approximately $75,036 (inclusive 0fbenefits)-a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum.7 5 27 weeks X 40 h0urs/week X $18.50/h0ur = $19,980. 6 ($19,980 X 0.3) + $19,980 = $25,974. 7 78 weeks ofunemployment as ofMay 2021 X 40 hours/Week X $18.50/hour = $57,720. $57,720 + ($57,720 X 0.3) = $75,036. 8 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 9 of 78 26. Emotional Distress. Next, Plaintiff seeks t0 recover general and special damages for emotional distress. See Exhibit A, 1H] 32, 39, 47, 54, 61, and p. 11, Prayer for Relief. Calculations of amounts in controversy routinely include these types 0f damages. Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp, 432 F.3d 976, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2005). “In order t0 establish the amount 0f emotional distress damages in controversy, a defendant may introduce evidence ofjury verdicts in cases [with] analogous facts.” Rivera v. Costco Wholesale Corp, 2008 WL 2740399, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 27. “[E]moti0na1 distress damages in a successful employment discrimination case may be substantial” and frequently exceed the $75,000 by themselves. Simmons v. PCR Tech, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1034 (ND. Cal. 2002); Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Ca, 897 F. Supp. 447, 450 (SD. Cal. 1995) (same). Notably, in an age discrimination case with only $55,000 in alleged 10st wages, the Ninth Circuit approved a $25,000 amount in controversy purely for emotional distress. Kroske, 432 F.3d at 980. Accordingly, like the defendant in Kroske, Olympus conservatively estimatesm in emotional distress damages. 28. Punitive Damages. Plaintiff also seeks to recover punitive damages from Olympus. See Exhibit A,W 34, 41, 48, 56, 63, and p. 11, Prayer for Relief. It is “well established that punitive damages are part of the amount in controversy in a civil action.” Gibson v. Chrysler Corp, 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001) (“It is well established that punitive damages are part of the amount in controversy in a civil action.”); see also Simmons., 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1033 QLD. Cal. 2002) (stating “the potential for large punitive damage awards in employment discrimination cases” satisfies the $75,000 requirement); Chambers v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp, No. 1:1 1-CV-00381 LJO, 2011 WL 1459155, *4 (E.D. Cal. April 15, 201 1) (finding that amount in controversy was satisfied because “punitive damages in employment matters may be substantial”); Haase v. Aerodynamics, Ina, No. 2:09- CV-0175 l-MCE-GG, 2009 WL 3368519, *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2009) (denying 9 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 10 of 78 remand in FEHA action as “even a minimum award 0f punitive damages would satisfy the jurisdictional requirement”). 29. Although there is no bright-line rule, the Supreme Court has allowed punitive damages to be set at one, two, three, 0r four times the sum of the recovered compensatory and emotional distress damages 0n the grounds that “[s]ingle-digit multipliers are more likely t0 comport With due process.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C0. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 403, 425 (2003). Based 0n this approach and using the foregoing lost wages and emotional distress estimates, a 1:1 ratio still yieldsW in punitive damages alone ($25,974 for lost wages through removal only + $25,000 for emotional distress), for a total 0f $101,948 in lost wages and noneconomic damages. 30. Attorneys’ Fees. Plaintiff also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees. See Exhibit A, 1W 33, 40, 46, 55, and p. 11, Prayer for Relief. When attorneys’ fees are recoverable by statute, they are also factored into the amount in controversy. See, e.g., Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass ’n, 479 F.3d 994. 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]here the underlying statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either With mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy”), overruled 0n other grounds as recognized by Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Serv. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, should Plaintiff prevail on any of her alleged FEHA claims (including race discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, and failure t0 prevent), she Will be entitled t0 recover attorneys’ fees. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965(b). 3 1. Under California law, courts calculate an award of attorneys’ fees by determining a lodestar figure, Which represents “the reasonable hours spent, multiplied by the hourly prevailing rate for private attorneys” of similar skill and experience “in the community conducting noncontingent litigation of the same type.” Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1132-1 133 (2001); see also PLCM 10 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 11 of 78 Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095 (2000).8 Here, Olympus may estimate at leastW of attorneys’ fees to be in controversy based on a judicially-supported “conservative” estimate 0f 100 hours at a rate 0f $300 per hour (based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s approximately 30 years 0f experience in the San Francisco Bay Area). See Sasso v. Noble Utah Long Beach, LLC, N0. CV 14- 09154-AB (AJWX), 2015 WL 898468, *6 (CD. Cal. March 3, 2015) (noting “100 hours is an approximate conservative estimate” for attorneys’ fees in employment litigation and finding that, with attorneys’ fees, the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000); In re Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions, 222 F. Supp. 3d 813, 839 (ED. Cal. 2016) (collecting numerous authorities finding rates of $300-$400/h0ur reasonable in employment litigation for counsel with twenty 0r more years of experience); Bratton v. FCA US LLC, N0. 17-CV-01458-JCS, 2018 WL 5270581, *5 (ND. Cal. Oct. 22, 2018) (“As judges in this District have observed, the prevailing rates charged in the San Francisco legal market are among the highest in the state . . .”) (emphasis added). 32. Finally, t0 establish the amount in controversy, a removing defendant “may introduce evidence ofjury verdicts in cases involving analogous facts.” Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1033-34 (N.D. Cal. 2002). The following jury verdicts awarding noneconomic damages alone in excess 0f $75,000 are illustrative: a. Newton v. Equilon Enterprises L.L. C., United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California, Case No. 4: 17CV03961 (December 20, 2018) (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, J.). The jury awarded Newton $475,000 for past and future emotional distress arising out 0f her FEHA claims for harassment and failure to prevent harassment. See Request for Judicial Notice 11 1. 8 The Ninth Circuit applies state law in determining the method 0f calculating fees When the right t0 recover fees arises under state law. Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Util. Comm ’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). 1 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 12 of 78 b. Baghumz'an v. County ofLos Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC645040 (May 11, 2018) (Maureen Duffy-Lewis, J.). Baghumian sued his former employer for disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination 0r retaliation under the FEHA. The jury found in Baghumian’s favor 0n all counts, awarding him $175,000 for past and future noneconomic damages and emotional distress. See Request for Judicial Notice 1] 2. c. Creswell v. City ofMontebello, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case N0. BC522038 (July 1, 2015) (Elizabeth Allen White, J.). The jury found in favor 0f the employer 0n Creswell’s racial discrimination claim, but found in favor of Creswell 0n his FEHA claims for racial harassment and retaliation, awarding him $750,000 in past and future noneconomic damages alone. See Request for Judicial Notice 11 3. 33. Although not identical in every respect t0 the case at bar, the foregoing cases are sufficiently similar for the purpose of establishing the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. See Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1035 (noting the “fact that the cited cases involve distinguishable facts is not dispositive” and finding said cases “amply demonstrate the potential for large punitive [and emotional distress] damage awards”); Kallen v. Tillamook County Creamery Ass ’n, N0. 2: 14-CV- O4997-ODW, 2014 WL 43 84708, *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) (finding cases cited by defendant to establish amount-in-controversy threshold were “analogous” because “they include awards based 0n the very same FEHA Violations that make up [plaintiffs] claims”). 34. As is clear from the foregoing, the amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. PROCESS, PLEADINGS AND ORDERS 35. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy 0f the Complaint and Civil Case Cover Sheet, filed With the Superior Court 0f the State of California, County 0f 12 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 460124 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 13 of 78 Santa Clara, 0n February 18, 2020. 36. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Summons, filed With the Superior Court 0f the State 0f California, County 0f Santa Clara, 0n February 18, 2020. 37. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Notice and Acknowledgment 0f Receipt - Civil received by Olympus’ counsel on or about March 16, 2020. 38. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy 0f the Civil Lawsuit Notice served 0n Olympus effective April 1, 2020. Seefl 2, 3. 39. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Santa Clara County Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Information Sheet served on Olympus effective April 1, 2020. Seefl 2, 3. 40. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Randstad’s Answer, Which was filed With the Superior Court of the State 0f California, County of Santa Clara, on April 24, 2020. 41. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Olympus’s Answer, Which was filed With the Superior Court of the State 0f California, County of Santa Clara, 0n April 29, 2020. 42. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Randstad’s Joinder in Notice 0f Removal of Action, which will be promptly filed upon the assignment 0f a United States District Court case number for this action. Olympus is informed and believes that Exhibits A through G constitute all process, pleadings, and orders filed and received by Olympus in this action. On this or no later than the next business day, notice of this removal is being given to both Plaintiff and t0 the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Superior Court. True and correct copies of these notice are attached hereto as Exhibits I and J, respectively. The proof 0f service of the Notice to Adverse Party 0f Removal Will be filed With this Court immediately after the Notice is served on Plaintiff and the 13 NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 14 of 78 1 Superior Court filing is accomplished. 2 3 DATED: April 30, 2020 KADING BRIGGS LLP GLENN L. BRIGGS 4 KYMBERLEIGH DAMRON-HSIAO 5 BRIANNA L. FRAZIER 6 x 7 By BRIANNA L. FRAZIER 8 9 Attorneys for Defendant OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE 10 AMERICAS 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 460124 14 NOTICE 0F REMOVAL EXHIBIT “A” EXHIBIT “A” Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 15 of 78 COSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 xoooxlOKu-gwmy-a. NNNHHHHHHHHp-dr-t Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 16 of 78 E-FILED 2/1 8/2020 2:48 PM Clerk of Court LORI J. COSTANZO, SBN 142633 'SU‘perlor Court of CA. ANDREA JUSTO, SBN 310122 County 0f Santa Clara COSTANZO LAW FIRM, APC 200Y363623 _ 111 W. St. John Street,‘#700 ReVIewed By: D Hams San Jose, CA 951 13 Phone: 408.993.8493 Fax: 408.993.8496 Email: Lori costanzo-law.com Andrea.iusto@costanzo-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Pamela Henry SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAMELA HENRY, an individual, Case No; 20CV363623 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES vs. 1. RACE AND COLOR DISCRINHNATION IN VIOLATION OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE 0F CAL. GOV. CODE 12900 ET AMERICAS dba OLYMPUS AMERICA, SEQ. INC.; RANDSTAD US, L.P. dba RANDSTAD 2. AGE DISCRIMINATION IN US, LLC dba RANDSTAD; and DOES 1-25, VIOLATION 0F CAL. GOV. CODE inclusive, 12900 ET SEQ. 3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF Defendants. CAL. GOV. CODE 12900 ET SEQ. 4. FAILURE T0 PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND/OR RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE 12900 ET SEQ. 5. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW Plaintiff, PAMELA HENRY, (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’ or “Ms. Henry”), by and through her attorneys of record herein, who bring this Complaint against the above-named Defendants, and in support thereof allege the following: 1 COMPLAINTFORDAMAGES COSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \DOOQO\UI-PWNH N Np-IHr-fip-Ir-Ir-AHHr-dn-t N 00 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 17 of 78 PARTIES . At all pertinent times mentioned in the complaint, Plaintiff is, and was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. Plaintiff is a forty-nine (49) year 01d African American female. . Plaintiff was and is, at all times relevant herein, jointly employed by Defendant Olympus Corporation ofAmericas dba Olympus America, Inc. (hereinafier “Olympus”) and Randstad US, L.P. dba Randstad US, LLC dba Randstad (hereinafter “Randstad”). . Plaintiff worked at Olympus’ San Jose location, located at 2400 Ringwood Avenue, San Jose, CA95131. . Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant Olympus, a Pennsylvania corporation, does business in California. . Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant Randstad, a Georgia corporation, does business in California. . Defendant Olympus is, and was at all times material hereto, a business, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Defendant Olympus is an “employer” as that term is defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and under the California - Labor Code. . Defendant Randstad is, and was at all times material hereto, a business, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State Of California. Defendant Randstad is an “employer” as that term is defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and under the California Labor Code. . Olympus and Randstad (collectively “Defendants”), and each ofthem, are now and/or at all times mentioned in this Complaint were the agents, employees, managing agents, supervisors, coconspirators, masters, servants, parent corporation, operating subsidiaries, fiduciaries, represéntatives, dual employers, joint employers, alter ego, and/or jointlventures of each of the remaining Defendants. The_Defendants, and each of them, in doing the things alleged herein, wére acting within the course and scope of such relationships with the authority, permission, consent, approval, control, influence, or ratification of each of the remaining Defendants. 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SAN JOSE, CA 95113 COSTANZO LAW FIRM _111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700 \OWQQmAwNH N NNNNt-b-Ih-dr-Ar-dr-IHHy-Ir-i " '9. 10. 11 12. 13. 14. Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 18 of 78 I Plaintiff 'is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, ' were Plaintiffs joint employers, or dual employers, at all times relevant hereto. DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are uhknown to Plaintiff. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint by inserting their true names and capacities herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those Defendants. Each reference in this complaint to “Defendant,” “Defendants,” or to a specifically named Defendant, refers also to all Defendants sued under fictitious names. JURISDICTION AND VENUE . 'This Court hasjurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 410.10 and California Constitution Article VI, Section 5. The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $25,000‘00. Plaintiff, at all relevant times, was and is a resident of the County of Santa Clara. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the named Defendants are entities in the County of Santa Clara. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that DOES 1-25 were and are California entities or individuals authorized to do, and who did business in the County of Santa Clara. ' This Court'ilas jurisdiction over Defendant Olympus as a, business entity that does sufficient business, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, and/or othqrwise intentionally avails itself of the California market, through the sale, marketing, and use of its products in California, to render the exercise ofjurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. . This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant Randstad as a business entity that does sufficient business, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, and/or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market, through the sale, marketing, and use of its products in California, to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 3 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES SAN JOSE, CA 95113 COSTAde LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700 \OOONJQM-hUJNH N NHHs-Ar-tr-tHn-Ar-no-ar-d 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 19 of 78 Venue 'is proper pursuant to CCP § 395(3) 'in that Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, among other things that the acts, omissions, damages, injury, and obligations herein sued upon arose, occurred, happened and were and now are due, owing and payable from Defendants to Plaintiff in the above-entitledjudicial district in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. EXHAUSTION 0F ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies necessary to bring this action. Plaintiff filed a Charge-of-Discrimination with the’United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and was issued a Right-to-Sue letter on November 22, 2019. A true and correct copy of Ms. Henry’s right-to-sue letter and complaint are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “A”. Plaintiff filed charges of discrimination with the Department of Fair Empldyment Housing (“DFEH”). She received a right-to-sue notice from the DFEH on February 8, 2020. True and correct copies of Plaintiff’s DFEH complaint and right-to-sue fiotice are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “B”. ‘ FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff was an employee With Defendants from approximately August 26, 2019 to October 28, 2019. She performed the responsibilities of a customer solutions representative. The traditional labor law ddctrine of“dual employers,” states that both the agency, Randstad, and the agency’s client, Olympus, are employers and subject to liability under FEHA. Mathieu v. Norrell Corp, 115 Cal. App. 4th 1174, 1183 (2004). Here, both the agency and Defendant had certain powers of control over Plaintiff, thus qualifying them as dual employers. Id. Wfiile employed with Defendants, Plaintiff reported to managers Scott Palmer (hereinafter “Palmer”), who is Caucasian and approximately 49 years old, and Ann Bowie (hereinafter V “‘Bowie”), who is Caucasian and under 50 years old. 22. 23. During Plaintiff’s employment With Defendants, she performed her duties to expectations, frequently receiving compliments from her peers that she was getting up to speed very quickly and that she was doing very well in the role. Despite the numerous accolades, Plaintiffwas subjected to pervasive harassment by Palmer. For example, Plaintiff was the only individual ,subjected to micromanagement. Plaintiff was 4 _ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES COSTANZO LAW FIRM 111W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700, SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \OOOHONLII-PUJNH NNNNMan-IMHHu-th-dn-I 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. /// /// /// /// Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 20 of 78 micromanaged by Palmer every day, about three (3) to five (5) times a day, over a span ofthree (3) weeks. Palmer subjected Plaintiff to micromanagement where he would inquire, “Why’are you on'ACW (After Call Work) time?,” “What are you doing,” “How long will it take you? Hurry up!” Plaintiffwas aware that she had betterACW time than eight (8) other permanent employees, but she was the only individual who was subjected to this sort 0f treatment. Palmer also segregated the work area, grouping customer solutions representatives by their race, and national origin. Plaintiff was instructed by Palmer to only go to certain individuals ifshe needed help. Plaintiff was told she could only seek help from Palmer, Karen Tullis and Danielle Applet. No one else was instructed to d0 the same. Plaintiff complained to Bowie around October 11, 2019 or October 18, 2019. She informed Bowie about the disparate treatment, the harassment, including Palmer following Plaintiff to the bathroom, stalking her during her breaks and lunches, and that Palmer made her feel extremely uncomfortable. Bowie told Plaintiffthat her metrics were great, t0 keep doing what she was doing and that she will talk to Palmer. Thereafter, Palmer was sent to the east coast. When Palmer returned, on October 28, 2019, Plaintiff was notified by Randstad that her employment with. Olympus was terminated because Palmer said she was not retaining her training. This was a complete shock to Plaintiff because it was not too long before this that Palmer said he was fileased with her work and that Vshe was performing “Great.” Additionally, Plaintiff’s other colleagues, such as Renado Fernando, also recently said that Plaintiff was doing good work. i Several witnesses including, Jasmine Kennedy, Monica Castaneda, Marcel Nessmith, and Gwén Relf saw Bowie run out to the parking lot to try and find Plaintiff afier she found out that Palmer had fired her. 5 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES COSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 NNNNNr-HI-ip-Ir-nr-AHHi-Ir-t Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 21 of 78 FIRST CAUSE 0F ACTION RACE AND COLOR DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION 0F GOV’T CODE § 12940, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations s_et forth in this Complaint. 29. At all relevant times to this Complaint, CA Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq. and its implementing regulations were in full force and effect and were fully binding upon Defendants. Specifically, § 12940(a) prohibits an employer from discriminating an employee on the basis of her race and/or color. . Based on the aforementioned facts, Plaintiff is informed and believes that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race/skin color (African American/Black). . The actions of Palmer, and other aforementioned employees, toward Plaintiff, and Defendants’ failure to prevent and remediate their actions, created a hostile work environment which materially altered Plaintiffs working conditions, and which constitutes harassment on the basis 0f race and/or color in violation of Gov’t Code § 1294OG)(1). . As a direct and proximate result ofDefendants’ wrongfill conduct, Plaintiffhas suffered damages‘ including, but not limited to, loss of income and benefits, emotional distress, and other general damages. .As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has been forced to hire attorneys to prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected to continue to incur attorney fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs under CA Gov’t Code §12965(b). . The conduct of Defendants and/or their agents/employees as described herein, was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendants and/or their agents/employees 0r supervisors authorized, condoned and ratified the unlawful conduct of the remaining employees and agents. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants according to proof. 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES COSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \DOO‘JO\U’I#UJNv-a NNNNHHHHHHr-lt-At-tr-I Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 22 of 78 35. Defendants are directly liable for the conduct of its owners, managers, directors, supervisors and ' other employees and agents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. SECOND CAUSE 0F ACTION AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV’T CODE § 12940, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations set forth in this Complaint. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. At all relevant times to this Complaint, CA Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq. and its implementing regulations were in full force and effect and were fully binding upon Defendants. Specifically, § 12940(a) prohibits an employer from discriminating an employee on the basis ofher age. Based on the aforementioned facts, Plaintiff is informed and believes that she was discriminated against on the basis ofher age (49). The actions of Palmer, and other aforementioned employees, toward Plaintiff, and Defendants’ failure to prevent and remediate their actions, created a hostile work environment which materially altered Plaintiff’s working conditions, and Which constitutes harassment on the basis of age in violation of Gov’t Code § 1294OG)(1). As a direct and proximate result ofDefendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffhas suffered damages including, but not limited to, loss of income and benefits, emotional distress, and other general damages. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has been forced to hire attorneys to prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected to continue to incur attorney fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs under CA Gov’t Code §12965(b). The conduct of Defendants and/or their agents/employees as described herein, was malicious, and/or opprgssive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendants and/or their_ agents/employees or supervisors authorized, condoned and ratified the unlawful conduct of the remaining 7 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES COSTANzo LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \Oooqoxm-bwme NNHHr-an-tI-Ih-AHHr-In-A 42. Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 23 of 78 employees and agents. Consequently, Plaintiff’is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants according t0 proof. Defendant is directly liable for the conduct of its owners, managers, directors, supervisors and other employees and agents. WI-IEREFORE,_ Plaintiffprays forjudgment as set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION IN VIOLATION 0F GOV’T CODE § 12940, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations set forth in this Complaint. 43‘. At all times mentioned herein, California Government Code §12940 et seq. was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants and each of their employees. Specifically, § 12940(h) prohibits an employer or covered entity from retaliating against an employee who has engaged in protected activity by opposing any discriminatory practice or because that person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under the FEHA. .Plaintiff is informed and believes that she was retaliated against afier engaging in protected activity where she made several complaints about discriminatory treatment. Adverse actions include but are not limited to ah increase in criticisms of her work performance, criticisms not given to similarly situated employees who are not African American over forty (40) years of age. .Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she complained and opposed discriminatory treatmentrby Palmer and other employees by reporting such treatment to management and HR representatives. Plaintiff subsequently received unwarranted reprimand. .As a proximate result of the wrongful acts 0f Defendants, Plaintiff has been forced to hire attorneys to prosecute her claims herein and has incurred and is expected to continue to incur attorney fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs under CA Gov’t Code §12965(b). 8 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES COSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95 113 \OOO‘JQUI-PUJNH N NNI-Ar-AHr-ar-Ab-IHHo-‘u-a 47. 48. 49. Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 24 of 78 As a direct and proximate result ofDefendants" wrongful conduct, Pla'intiff'has suffered damages including, but not limited t0, a loss 0f income and benefits, and has further'suffered emotional distress, and other general damages. The conduct 0f Defendants and/or their agents/employees as deécribed herein, was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendants and/or their agents/employees or supervisors authorized, condoned and ratified the unlawful conduct of the remaining employees and agents. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants accordingto proof. Defendants are directly liable for the conduct of its owners, managers, directors, supervisors and other employees and agents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. FOURTH CAUSE 0F ACTION FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT DISCRINIINATION AND HARASSlWENT IN VIOLATION 0F GOV’T CODE §12940(k) (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations set forth in this Complaint. 50. 51. 52. At all times relevant to this Complaint, CA Gov’t Code §12900 et seq. and its implementing regulations were in full force and effect. Specifically, § 12940(k) provides that it is unlawful for any employer or covered entity to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination from occurring. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were aware of the racial and age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, to Which Plaintiffwas subjected. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination on the basis of race and/or color, and age from occurring. Among other things, Defendants failed to train and adequately supervise its employees in order to ensure that these employees were not violating the FEHA in their treatment of other employees. Defendants further failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent retaliation against Plaintiff for having engaged in protected activity 9 COMPLAINTFORDAMAGES COSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 OOOQQ‘JIAUJNr-i NNNNNNHHI-‘r-AHI-Ir-Au-twu- Case 5:20-cv-02962 Docu’ment 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 25 of 78 when she reported and complained of discrimination on the basis of her race/color, and age. Defendants failed to adequately respond and prevent retaliation against Plaintiffwhen it failed to discipline harassing employees. 53. In committing these actions, Defendants and Defendants’ employees, violated the FEHA. 54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages including, but not limited to, loss‘n'of income and benefits, and emotional distress, and other general damages. 55. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has been forced to hire attorneys to prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected to continue to incur attorney fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and V costs under CA Gov’t Code §12965(b). ~ 56. The conduct of Defendants and/or their agents/employees as described herein, was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendahts’ actions. Defendants and/or their agents/employees or éupewisors authorized, condoned and ratified the unlawful conduct of the remaining employees. and agents. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants accérding to proof. 57. Defendants are directly liable for the conduct of its owners, managers, directors, supervisors and other employees and agents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION 0F PUBLIC POLICY (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations set forth in this Complaint. 58. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that California Government Code Section 12940 expresses a fundamental public policy against discrimination based on race and age and further alleges that termination of an employee because of the employee’s race, color, and age over 40 years old constitutes a Vio'lation of public policy. 10 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES SAN JOSE, CA 95113 COSTANzo LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 700 \OOONONLh-PUJNb-d NNNNNNNHHv-lr-IHHHHHH ggmthNF-‘OOWNQMhWNHO 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 26 of 78 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race/skin color (African American/Black) and her age (49). In terminating Plaintiff for these reasons, and under the circumstances alleged herein, Defendants violated the fundamental public policies embodied in the laws and regulations identified in this Complaint. _ As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result ofDefendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages including, but not limited to, loss of income and benefits, and emotional distress, and other general damages. ‘ As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has been forced t0 hire attorneys to prosecute her claims herein, and has incurred and is expected to continue to incur attorney fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is Entitled to recover attorney fees and costs under CA Gov’t Code §12965(b). The conduct of Defendants and/or their agents/employees as described herein, was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendants and/or their agents/employees or supervisors authorized, condoned and ratified the unlawful conduct of the remaining employees and agents. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants according to proof. . Defendants are directly liable for the conduct of its owners, managers, directors, supervisors and other employees and agents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for relief as set forth below. PRAYER FOR RELIEF H For general damages, according to proof, on each cause of action for which such damages are available; E" For special damages, according to proof, on each cause of action for which such damages are available; DJ For punitive damages, according to proof, for each cause of action for which such damages are available; 1 1 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES COSTANZO LAW FIRM 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET, 7oo SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \OWNQMAUJNp-x HHHHj-tp-Lr-AHHH fififififigwwqoxmgwwpdo NON NM 00% Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 27 of 78 4. For declaratory relief to declare Defendant’s conduct to be in violation of” Plaintiff’s rights; 5. For injunctive reljef to enjoin Defendant from engaging in such conduct; 6. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interests according to law; 7. For reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action on those causes of action for which such fees are recoverable under applicable law; 8. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and 9. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffhereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action alleged herein in the Complaint for Damages. Dated: February 18, 2020 l2 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES Respectfully submitted, 4W 04m Lori J. Costatfl Andrea Justo Attorneys for Plaintiff PAMELA HENRY - - - - - -- -- - I ! Exhibit "A" Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 28 of 78 xhibit “A” Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 29 of 78 EEOC Form 5 (11109) CHARGE 0F DISCRI MINATION Charge Presented To: figfgfy‘ies’ Charge This form Is affected by the Privacy Act o! 1974. See enclosed Privacy Act D FEPAStatement and other informatlon before completing this furm‘ Eeoc 556-2020-00107 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT G: HOUSING and EEoc State orlocalAgency. lfany . V. . . =7 I m., - Name (indicate Mn, M5., Mrs.) Horne Phone Year of Birth M5. PAMELA HENRY , 7 REDAWEP 1970 Street Address City. State and ZIP Code ‘ ' ' REDACTED Named ls the Employer. Labor Organization, Employment Agency Apprenticeship Cbhirhlttee, or State or Local Government Agency That l Believe Dlscrimlnated Against Me or Others. (Ifmore than two list under PARTICULARS below.) Name No. Employees. Members Phone N6. m OLYMPUS AMERICA 1s . 1oo (434) 896-5000 Street Address City. scare and ZIP Code ' 2400 RINGWOOD AVENUE, SAN JOSE. CA 95131 Name k No. Employus, Members Phone No. Street Address Clty, State and ZIP Code DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate aaxiesl.) DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE Earliest Latestm RACE D COLOR D sex D RELIGION D NATIONAL ORIGIN 08-25.2019 10.28-2019E nErALIA'nou m AGE D 035mm? D GENETICINFORMATIOND OTHER (special) D CONTINUING Acnou THE PARTICULARS ARE (Ifaddmanalpaper i: needed. attach extra sheetlsll: l WAS A CONTRACTOR WITH THE ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENT FROM APPROXIMATELY AUGUST 26. 2019 T0 OCTOBER 28. 3019. I PERFORMED RESPONSIBILITIES 0F A CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS REPRESENTATIVE. WHICH \ENRASS A CONTRACT-T ~HIRE POSI110N. l REPORTED T0 SCOTT PAIMER AND ANN BOWIE. MANAG ‘LLLDJJR[NGI‘MYLCONIRACIJMIHi'BESEQNDENT;.ZIZBEBEORMEDMXDUJIESEIQEXEEQFAIIQNS;iEBEQUENTLYJ'; 15.; RECEMNG COMPLIMENTS FROM MY PEERS THAT [WAS GETTING UP’TO' SPEED VERY'QUICKLYAND THAT l WAS DOING VERY WELL IN THE ROLE. DESPITE THE ACCOLADES, I WAS SUBJECTED TO PERVASIVE HARASSMENT BY PALMER. FOR EXAMPLE. IWAS THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTED TO MICROMANAGEMENT: FOR EVERY DAY. ABOUTTHREE T0 FIVE “MES A DAY, OVER A SPAN OF THREE WEE“. PALMER SUBJECTED ME TO MICROMANAGEMENT WHERE HE WOULD INQUIRE. 'WHY ARE YOU ON ACW ('AFTER CALL WORK') TlME?’ 'WHAT ARE YOU DOING?‘ 'HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE YOU? HURRY UPI'I AM AWARE THATI HAD BEITERACW TIME THAN EIGHT OTHER PERMANENT EMPLOYEES. BUT I WAS THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL WAS SUBJECTED TO THIS SORT OF TREATMENT. PALMER ALSO SEGREGATED THE l want thls charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency. NOTARY- When nice“!!! 15'5““ Ind localAyenry RWu/Nméflfs if any. I wlll advise the agencies If I change my address or phone number and I will cooperate fully with them In the processing of my charge In “COMB“EQWIW the" Pr°F°d'-"°5- I swear or affirm that I haVé riead' the above charge and that Vlt' I declare under penalty or perjury that the above ls true and correct. Is true to me best of my knowledge. information and belief. SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE (monm, day, yea!) . Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 30 of 78 EEOC Form 5 (11/03) CHARGE 0F DISCRIMINATION Charge Presented To: figfsfify‘ms’ Charge This form i5 affected by the Privacy Act of 1974. See enclosed Privacy Act D FEPAStatement and other information before completing this form. EEoc' 556-2020-00107 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING and EEOC State or localAgency, ifany WORK AREA, GROUPING OTHER CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS REPRESENTATIVES BY THEIR RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN. l WAS INSTRUCTED TO ONLY GO T0 CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS IF l NEEDED HELP. NO ONE ELSE WAS INSTRUCTED TO D0 THE SAME. l COMPLAINED TO BOWIE AROUND OCTOBER 11. 2019 OR OCTOBER 18, 2019. I INFORMED BOWIE ABOUT THE DISPARATE TREATMENT. THE HARASSMENT. iNCLUDING BEING FOLLOWED TO BATHROOM, AROUND DURING MY BREAKS AND LUNCHES, AND THAT PALMER MADE ME FEEL EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE. BOWIE TOLD ME THAT MY METRICS WERE GREAT, T0 KEEP DOING WHAT l WAS DOING AND THAT SHE WILL TALK T0 PALMER. THEREAFTER. PALMER WAS SENT TO THE EAST COAST. WHEN PALMER RETURNED, | WAS NOTIFIED BY RANDSTAD STAFFING AGENCYTHAT MY CONTRACT WITH RESPONDENT WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE I WAS NOT RETAINING MYTRAINING. I BELIEVE THAT RESPONDENT'S REASONING IS PREI'EXT FOR DISCRiMINATION AND REI'ALIATION BECAUSE RANDSTAD STAFFING AGENCY INFORMED ME THAT WEEE PRIOR, PALMER INFORMED IT THAT! WAS PERFORMING 'GREAT.‘ , I BELIEVE THATI HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF MY RACE. BLACK/AFRICAN- AMERICAN, IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. AS AMENDED. l WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF MY AGE, 49 YEARS. IN VIOLATION OF THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967. AS AMENDED. {ALSO BELIEVE THAT I WAS REFALIATED AGAINST FOR ENGAGING IN PROTECTED ACTIVITY, IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI! OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. AS AMENDED, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE ADE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967. AS AMENDED. I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, NOTARY - When HGCESSBW for State and lOCBIAgem‘Y ReqUiremmts if any. twill advise the agencies if l change my address or phone number and I will cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge In accordance With the" pmcedures' I swear or affirm that l have read the above charge and that it l declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. is true to the best of my knowledge. Information and belief. SIGNATURE or COMPLAINANT SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T0 BEFORE ME THIS DATE (month, day, yea!) Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 31 of 78 EEOO Farmaunm) H.517 UAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM(‘ ‘ ilDN DtsMISSAL AND NOTICE 0F RIGHTS To: Pamela Henry Fromr San JoseLocaIOHIca REDACTED , 96 NOIth Third Stteat ' Suite 250 San Jose, GA 95112 D camel!«poms;mthmmmmms FID 9 CF 1W1. .- _ EEOC CI'II'DO No. EEOC Repmunllfivo “Manhone Nu. Margamt E. Ly, 558-2020-00107 Investtgltor (408) 291-2625 THE EEOC I8 CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: The facts alleged In the charge fail lo dale a darm under any oflhe statutes enforced by the EEOC. ' Your allegations did ml involve a disability as defined by the American: With Dhabllittel Act. The Respordenlomploys lass than tho reqmd number ofemplopa: or is nol chemisemud by Iho statutes. Your dllme was no! firmly filed wlh EEOC: in other worda, you waited too bug nfler the dale“) of the nllegad discrinlnationlo flla your charge m EEOC issues the following determination: Baud wan El: bnvufignllom the EEOC Is unable Io eondudo hat the hlompflon obtllnodntahllsm violation: ofthe Ihlulea. Thin don mt'conlfy thll me mpundlnl in in commune with Ihe statutes. No finding ls undo as to any other lumen mat might ho construed as having hem mind bythls chime. The EEOC has adopled Ina findings of the stale or locat Mt employment pmctlces Iyency lhlt Investmted Ihla chamo. [JD EDDDD Other (bmny stale) - NOTICE 0F SUIT RIGHTS - (Seemmammalianmama:m roan.) Tlllo VII, the Amnr‘lclnl with Disabilities Act, III» Genetic (nfomatlon Nondiscrimination Act. or tho Ag. Discrimination In Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right ta sue thatwe will sand you. You may file a Iawsult against the respondent‘s) underfederal law baud on this chats: h federal or state court. Your lawsuit mustvbe flledW of yourtecelpt of this notice; or your rbht to sua based on this charge will belost. (The time llrrdt for filiru wt ba on a claim under state hw may be different.) Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suih must ha filed in federal or slate court within 2 years (3 yours for willful violations) of the alleged EPA undemayment. Tm means Untbaekpay dun for any violation. that occurred Infor- you file suit may not bu collnctible. On behalf of the Commission , November 22. 2019 'dmmt" ha’MJalmr. (0mm Dlnctor m George Fl'glmoa Human Rocoumoa {Dinctorl OLYMPUS AMERICA INC 2400 Rimmed Av... Sun Jute. CA 95131 Exhibit "B" Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 32 of 78 xhibit “B” J ,1 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 33 of 78 1¢E::\ O C F0 s' ass Co su er Serv‘ces an Housin A encv GAVIN NEWQM GOVEENQR I EVrN KI .D N, I DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING K SH RECTORfi a 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA1 95758 (800) 884-1684 (Voice) .l (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711 ¢-_:/ http:llwww-.dfeh;ca;govl Email: contactcenter@dfeh.ca.gov February 8, 2020 Andrea Justo 111 W. St. John Street, Suite 700, 700 San Jose, California 951 13 RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney DFEH Matter Number: 202002-09205708 Right to Sue: Henry / Randstad US, L.P. et al. Dear Andrea Justo: Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue. Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for information regarding fiiing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience. Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it meets procedural or statutory requirements. Sincereiy, Department of Fair Employment and Housing Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 34 of 78WWW 6W DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEV'NK'SH-DREW 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove | CA I 95758 (BOO) 584-1684 (Voice) l (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California's Relay Service at 711 http:/Iwww:.dfeh.ca.govl 'Email: contact.center@dfeh.oa.gov February 8, 2020 RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint DFEH Matter Number: 202002-09205708 Right to Sue: Henry/ Randstad US, L.P. et al. To All Respondent(s): Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the‘ complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records. Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact information. No response to DFEH is requested or required. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 35 of 78 ; I ; z ‘ :A :'s;:. 0 : u: e i ::: 1|! .IIusin ‘vsL GAVIN NEMOM SQVERNQB DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING “5“" K'SH-DRECT0R 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 l Efk Grove | CA l 95758 (BOO) 884-1684 (Voice) | (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | Caiifornia's Relay Service at 711 htip://www.dfeh;ca-.gov | Email:-contact.center@dfeh;ca.gov February 8, 2020 Pamela Henry REDACTED RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 202002-09205708 Rightto Sue: Henry/ Randstad US, L.P. et al. Dear Pamela Henry, This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective February 8, 2020 because an immediate Right to' Sue noticé was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint. This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing NNNNNNNNNAAAAaAAAAA m‘lmmthfiOtomVOUI-FOJN-i O(Dm‘lmo'l-hOON-i Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20) Page 36 of 78 COMPLAINT 0F EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) ln the Matter of the Complaint of Pamela Henry DFEH No. 202002-09205708 Complainant, vs. Randstad US, L.P. 2001 Gateway Pl, Suite 120 San Jose, California 951 10 Randstad 3625 Cumberland Blvd Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Randstad'US, LLC 3625 Cumberland Blvd, Suite 600 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Olympus America, Inc. 3500 Corporate Parkway Center Valley, Pennsylvania 18034 Olympus Corporation of the Americas 3500 Corporate Parkway Center Valley, Pennsylvania 18034 Scott Palmer 2400 Ringwood Avenue San Jose, California 95131 Anna Bowie 2400 Ringwood Avenue San Jose, California 95131 Respondents v1- Compiaint- DFEH No. 202002-09205708 Date Filed: February 8, 2020 (0 m N O3 01 A (JO N 3-: NNN‘NNNNNNAA-x-s-xAA-x".a_s mfi®m$wNAO©mN®thNAO Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 37 of 78 . 1... Respondent Randstad US, .L.P1 is_ a_n employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). 2. Complainant Pamela Henry, resides in the City of San Jose State of California. 3. Complainant alleges that on or about October 28, 2019, respondent took the following adverse actions: Complainant was harassed because of complainant's race, color, age (40 and over). Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's race, color, age (4O and over) and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied work opportunities or assignments. Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment, participated as a witness in a discrimination or harassment complaint and as a result was terminated, denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, denied any employment benefit or privilege. Additional Complaint Details: Pamela Henry is an employee of Randstad North America, Inc. (“Randstad”) and a temporary employee with Olympus Corporation of the Americas (“Olympus”) on August 26, 2019 until her termination on October 28, 2019. While employed with Olympus, Ms. Henry performed the responsibilities of a customer solutions representative. While employed with Randstad and Olympus, Ms. Henry reported to managers Scott Palmer (hereinafter “Palmer”), who is Caucasian and approximately 49 years old, and Ann Bowie, (hereinafter “Bowie”), who is Caucasian and under 50 years old. During Ms. Henry’s contract with Randstad and Olympus, she performed her duties to expectations, frequently receiving compliments from her peers that she was getting up to speed very quickly and that she was doing very well in the role. Despite the numerous accolades, Ms. Henry was subjected to pervasive harassment by Palmer. Ms. Henry was micromanaged by Palmer every day, about three (3) to five (5) times a day, over a span of three (3) weeks. He would often inquire, “Why are you on ACW (After Call Work) time?,” “What are you doing,” “How long will it take you? Hurry up!” No other Caucasian employee under the age of 40 eXperienced similar discriminatory treatment. Furthermore, Ms. Henry was aware that she had _2_ Complaint- DFEH NO. 202002-09205708 Date Filed: February 8, 2020 ‘A QmNQUT-hoom NNNNNNNNAAAAAAA-LA-x gNO‘th’N-‘OQmNmthN-‘O r Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 38 of 78 ., better ACW time than eight (.8) other permanent employees, but she was the only ' individual who was subjected to this sort of treatment. Palmer also segregated the work area, grouping customer solutions representatives by their race and national origin. ' Ms. Henrywas instructed by Palmerto only go to certain individuals if she needed help. Ms. Henry was told she could only seek help from Palmer, Karen Tullis and Danielle Appler. No one else was instructed to do the same. Ms. Henry complained to Bowie around October 1 1, 2019 or October 18, 2019. She informed Bowie about the disparate treatment, the harassment, including Palmer following Ms. Henryto the bathroom, stalking herduring her breaks and lunches, and that Palmer made her feel extremely uncomfortable. Bowie told Ms. Henry that her metrics were great, to keep doing what she was doing and that she will talk to Palmer. Thereafter, Palmer was sent to the east coast. When Palmer returned, on October 28, 2019, Ms. Henry was notified by Desiree \Mon from Randstad that her employment with Olympus was terminated because Palmer said she was not retaining her training. This was a complete shock to Ms. Henry because it was not ltoo long before this that Palmer said he was pleased with her work and 'that she was performing “Great.” Additionally, Ms. Henry’s other colleagues, such as Renado Fernando, also recently said that Ms. Henry was doing good work. Had Randstad been more involved with Ms. Henry’s employment with Olympus, none of this would have occurred. Randstad failed to regularly check in with Ms. Henry and give her the opportunity to share her experience with Olympus. Randstad did not prepare any safeguards to prevent this type of situation from occurring in the first place. Furthermore, not only did Randstad fail to remedy the situation after Ms. Henry’s termination, but it was the one to actually give her the termination notice. Several witnesses including, Jasmine Kennedy, Monica Casteneda, Marcel Nessmith, and Gwen Relf saw Bowie run out to the parking lot to try and find Ms. Henry after she found out that Palmer had fired her. -3- Complaint- DFEH No. 202002-09205708 Date Filed: February 8, 2020 FOR COURT USE ONLY (CITACION JUDICIAL) rE-V ILED(SOLOPARA USODELACORTE) NOTICE To DEFENDANT: 2/1 0020 2343 PM (AVIso AL DEMANDADO): Cl rk 9f Court OLYMPUS CORPORATION 0F THE AMERICAS dba OLYMPUS AMERICA, INc.; RANDSTASu enor Court of CA, us, LP. dba RANDSTAD us, LLc dba RANDSTAD; and DOES 1-25, inclusive Co nty of Santa Clara YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: ‘ 20 V363623 (Lo ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Re iewed By: D Harris PAMELA HENRY, an individual En elope: 4042444 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 sewed on you to file 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 Couns Online Self-Help Center (WWW.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp). your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, 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 property may be taken without further warning from the coun. , There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. lf 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.Iawhelpcalifornia.org). the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/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. ,‘A V/SO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, Ia corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versién. Lea Ia infonnacién a continuacién. Tiene 30 DI'AS DE CALENDARIO después de que Ie entreguen esta citacién y papeles Iegales para presenter una respuesta por escrito en esta corte yhacer que se entregue una copia aI demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefénica no Io protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulan’o que ustedpuede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos fonnularios de Ia corte y més informacién en el Centre de Ayuda de Ias Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de [eyes de su condado o en Ia corte que Ie quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagarla cuota de presentacién, pida aI secretario de Ia cone que Ie dé un formularlo de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso porincumplimiento y Ia cone Ie podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin més advertencia. Hay otros requisites Iegales. Es recomendable que [lame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogada, puede llamar a un servicio de remisién a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abagado, es posible que cumpla con Ios requisites para obtener semicios Iegales gratuitos de un programa de servicios Iegales sin fines de Iucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de Iucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhemcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de Ias Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, Ia corte tiene derecho a reclamar Ias cuotas y los costos exentos por impaner un gravamen sabre cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 é més de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesién de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de Ia corte antes de que Ia corte pueda desechar el caso. The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER: (Namero del Caso): (El nombre y direccién de Ia corte es): Santa Clara County Superior Court ZOCV363623 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, Ia direccién yel namero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Lori J. Costanzo; Costanzo Law Firm, APC; 111 W. St. John St. #700, San Jose, CA 951 13; (408) 993-8493 DATE: CI kl b I 'Deputy (Fecha) 2/18/2020 2:48 PM Clerk of Court (szgretayrio) D Hams (Munro) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-01 0).) NOTICE T0 THE PERSON SERVED: You are sewed 1. E as an individual defendant. 2. E as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3. on behalf of (specify): Olympus Corporation ofthe Americas dba Olympus America, Inc. under:D CCP 416.10 (corporation) E CCP 416.60 (minor)E CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) E CCP 416.70 (conservatee)E CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person)E other (specify): 4. E by personal delivery on (date) Pa e 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465 Judicial Council of Callfomia www.courts.ca.gov SUM-1OO [Rev. July 1. 2009] EXHIBIT “C” EXHIBIT “C” Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 44 of 78 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 45 of 78 POS-o15 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR No: 142633 NAME: Lori J. Costanzo FIRM NAME: Costanzo Law Firm, APC STREET ADDRESS: 111 W. St. John Street, Suite 700 CITY; San Jose STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 951 13 TELEPHONE No.: (408) 993-8493 FAX No.: (408) 993-8496 E.MAIL ADDRESS: lori@costanzo-law.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name); Plaintiff Pamela Henry SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Santa Clara STREET ADDRESS: 191 N. First Street MAILING ADDRESS: 191 N. First Street CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, 951 13 BRANCH NAME: Civil FOR COURT USE ONLY PIaintiff/Petitioner: Pamela Henry Defendant/Respondent: Olympus Corporation of the Americas; Randstad US, LP; et al. CASE NUMBER: NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT-CIVIL 200V363623 TO (insert name ofparty being served): Olympus Corporation of the Americas dba Olympus America, Inc. NOTICE The summons and other documents identified below are being served pursuant to section 415.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Your failure to complete this form and return it within 20 days from the date of mailing shown below may subject you (or the party on whose behalf you are being served) to liability for the payment of any expenses incurred in serving a summons on you in any other manner permitted by law. If you are being served on behalf of a corporation, an unincorporated association (including a partnership). or other entity. this form must be signed by you in the name of such entity or by a person authorized to receive service of process on behalf of such entity. ln all other cases, this form must be signed by you personally or by a person authorized by you to acknowledge receipt of summons. If you return this form to the sender, service of a summons is deemed compIete on the day you sign the acknowledgment of receipt below. Date of mailing: 3/12/2020 Jeremy Dvorak ’ Wpwmé (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE O&ENDERIMUST NOT BE A PARTY lN THIS CASE) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT This acknowledges receipt of (to be completed by sender before mailing): ‘v 1. E A copy of the summons and of the complaint. 2. E Other (specify): Civil Lawsuit Notice Civil Case Cover Sheet Santa Clara County ADR Information Sheet (To be completed by recipient): Date this form is sigrie‘d: (TYPE OR PRINT YOUR NAME AND NAME OF ENTITY. IF ANY, (SIGNATURE OF PERSON ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT, WITH TITLE IF . ON WHOSE BEHALF THIS FORM IS SIGNED) ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS MADE ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON OR ENTITY) Page 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT_ CIVIL ' Code of Civil Procedure, Judicial Council of California §§ 41 5.30, 417.10 POS-015 [Rev. January 1, 2005] www.coum'nfo.ca.gov Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 46 of 78 EXHIBIT “D” EXHIBIT “D” Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 47 of 78 200V363623 Santa Clara - Civil ATTACHMENT CV-50123 Harris 200V363623CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara CASE NUMBER: 191‘ North First St., San José, CA 95113 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 file 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 properlegal form or format, in the Clerk’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 <_CountyName_> Local Civil Rules and use proper forms. You can obtain legal information, view the rules and receive forms, free‘ of charge, from the SeIf-Help Center at 201 North First Street, San José (408-882-2900 x-2926). State Rules and Judicial Council Forms: www.courtinfo.ca.qov/forms and www.courtinfo.ca.qov/rules - Local Rules and Forms: httpzllwww.sccsugeriorcoun.0rg/civillrule1toc.htm CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CMCZ: 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-110) at least 15 calendar days before the CMC. You oryour attorney must appear at the CMC. You may ask to appear by telephone - see Local Civil Rule 8. Manoukian, Socrates P Your Case Management Judge is: Department: The 15‘ CMC is scheduled for: (Completed by Clerk of Court) Date: 06/23/2020 Time: 3:00 pm in Department: 20 The next CMC is scheduled for: (Completed by party if the 1st CMC was continued or has passed) Date: Time: in Department: ALTERNA TIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADRz: 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.sccsuperiorcourt.orq/civi|/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. ov-5012 REV 08/01/16 CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE Page 1 of1 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 48 of 78 EXHIBIT “E” EXHIBIT “E” Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 49 of 78 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: o ADR can save time. A dispute can be resolved in a matter of months. or even weeks, while litigation can take years. o ADR can save money. Attorney’s fees, court costs, and expert fees can be reduced or avoided altogether. o ADR provides more participation. Parties have more opportunities with ADR to express their interests and concerns, instead of focusing exclusively on legal rights. o ADR provides more control and flexibility. Parties can choose the ADR process that is most likely to bring a satisfactory resolution to their dispute. o 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 ofADR 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 ofthe problem. The mediator does not decide the solution to the dispute; the parties do. Mediation may be appropriate when: o The parties want a non-adversary procedure o The parties have a continuing business or personal relationship o Communication problems are interfering with a resolution o There is an emotional element involved o 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 ofthe case, gives a non-binding assessment of 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: o The parties are far apart in their view of the law or value of the case o The case involves a technical issue in which the evaluator has expertise o Case planning assistance would be helpful and would save legal fees and costs o The partiesare interested in an injunction, consent decree. or other form of equitable relief -over- cv-soos REV 6/26/13 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET CIVIL DIVISION Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 50 of 78 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 arbitrator's decision is final and completely resolves the case, without the opportunity for appeal. In non-binding arbitration, the arbitrator’s decision could resolve the case, without the opportunity for appeal, unless a party timely rejects the arbitrator's decision within 3O days and requests a trial. Private arbitrators are allowed to charge for their time. ' Arbitration may be appropriate when: a The action is for personal injury, property damage, or breach of contract o Only monetary damages are sought o Witness testimony, under oath, needs to be evaluated c An advisory opinion is sought from an experienced litigator (if a nonebinding arbitration) Civil Judge ADR allows parties to have a mediation or settlement conference with an experienced judge ofthe Superior Court. Mediation is an informal, confidential, flexible and non-binding process in which thejudge helps the patties 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: o The parties have complex facts to review o The case involves multiple parties and prob|ems o 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 infomation 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 may help the parties reach a resolution. What kind of disputes can be resolved byADR? 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 prob|ems; fraud; harassment; health care; housing; insurance; intellectual property; labor; landlord/tenant; media; medical malpractice and other professional negligence; neighborhood prob|ems; 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 ofADR and a neutral for your case, information aboutADR procedures, or answers to other questions about ADR? Contact: , Santa Clara County Superior Court Santa Clara County DRPA Coordinator ADR Administrator ‘ ' 408-792-2784 408-882-2530 CV-5003 REV 6/26/13 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET CIVIL DIVISION Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 51 of 78 EXHIBIT “F” EXHIBIT “F” Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 52 of 78 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Lindsay S. Fitch (SBN 238227) lfitch se farth.com 400-Capital Mall, Suite 2350, r ‘ ‘ Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Kiran S. Lopez (SBN 252467) klopezwzseyfarthcom 560 Mission Street, 3 1 st Floor San Francisco, California 941 05 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Attorneys for Defendant RANDSTAD US, LLC (erroneously sued as Randstad US, L.P. dba ‘ Randstad US, LLC dba Randstad) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAMELA HENRY, an individual, 'Case No. 20CV353523 Plaintiff; - V \ ‘ " r ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RANDSTAD ‘ ' ' ' '~ ‘ ’ US, LLC TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA v. HENRY’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE Complaint Filed: February J8, 2020 AMERICAS dba OLYMPUS AMERICA, INC; Trial Date: None. RANDSTAD US, L.P.dba RANDSTAD US, LLC dba RANDSTAD; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. Defendant Randstad US, LLC (erroneously sued as Rafidstad US, L.P. dba Randstad US, LLC dba Randstad) (hereinafter, “Defendant”), hereby answers, on its own behalf only, the unverified complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Pamela Henry (“Plaintiff”) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions 0f California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), Defendant; denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation, statement, matter, and each purported cause of action contained in the Complaint, and further denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any amount or ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 6341 1290v.1 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 53 of 78 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2'2 23 24 25 26 27 28 at all, by reason of any acts or omissions ofDefendant, or by any act 0r omission by any agent or employee of Defendant. Defendant further generally denies that Plaintiff is entitled t0 any relief whatsoever. SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES In further answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant alleges the following separate and distinct additional defenses t0 each and every cause 0f action therein. In asserting these defenses, Defendant does not assume the burden 0f proof as to matters that, pursuant t0 law, are Plaintiffs burden t0 prove. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State a Cause 0f Action) 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause 0f action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause 0f action or claim for relief against Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute 0f Limitations) 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred by the applicable statute 0f limitations for each cause 0f action contained therein, t0 the extent that the allegations occurred outside ofthe statutory period, including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340 and California Government Code Sections 12960(d) and 12965(b). THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 3. Plaintiff‘s Complaint, and each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred in- whole 0r in part t0 the extent she failed to exhaust required administrative procedures or remediesor otherwise failed to complete, in a timely manner, those steps that are a necessary prerequisite under thé law t0 the filing of the Complaint, including but not limited t0 the deadlines under California Government Code Section 12940, et seq. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 4. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred By the doctrine 0f unclean hands. 2 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 6341 l290v.] Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 54 of 78 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 5. Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine 0f estoppel from pursuing her Complaint and each purported cause 0f action contained therein. Plaintiff, by her own conduct/ and actions, is estopped, as a matter 0f law, from pursuing each of her claims. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 6. Plaintiffhas waived her right to assert the purported claims contained in the Complaint and each purported cause of action therein against Defendant. Plaintiff, by her own conduct and actions, has waived the right, if any, to assert the claims in the Complaint. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ConSent) 7. Plaintiff” s Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, is barred because Plaintiff consented t0 Defendant’s conduct. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Ratification) 8. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause 0f action alleged therein, is barred to the . extent that Plaintiff ratified Defendant’s alleged actions. 1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 9. Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of laches from pursuing the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein because Plaintiff exercised inexcusable delay in commencing this action. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE v (Lack 0f Standing) \ 10. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each cause 0f action contained therein, is barred t0 the extent that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert any 0f the causes of action contained in the Complaint because 3 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 634] 1290v.l Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 55 of 78 10 ‘12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff has not suffered any injury-in-fact. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack 0f Causation) 11. Plaintiff” s alleged injuries and/or damages, if any, were not proximately caused by the acts or omissions of Defendant, and any injury and/or damagesvthat Plaintiff alleges she suffered, if any, resulted from a cause 0r causes not legally 0r proximately related to any act 0r omission of Defendant. Further, t0 the extent Plaintiff suffered any symptoms 0f emotional distress 0r injury, they were the result of a pre-existing psychological disorder or alternative concurrent cause, and not the result 0f any act Qr omission 0f Defendant. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Contribution By Plaintiff’s Own Acts) 12. If the injuries and/or alleged damages in the Complaint occurred at all (which Defendant denies), such injuries and/or alleged damages were proximately caused by and/or contributed to by Plaintiff’s own acts, omissions, and/or failures t0 act. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (At-Will Employment) 13. Plaintiff was an at-will employee. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Workers’ Compensation Act Preemption) 14. To the extent Plaintiff‘s Complaint, or any purported cause of action therein, alleges emotional or physical injury, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and any recovery is barred by the exclusivity 0f remedy under the California Workers’ Compensation Act, California Labor Code Sections 132a and 3200, et seq. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failurg t0 Comply With The Employer’s Directions) 15. Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred to the extent that she failed t0 comply with the directions 0f Defendant concerning the service for which she was engaged and such obedience t0 Defendant’s 4 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 634] l290v.1 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 56 of 78 OO\10\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 directions was neither impossible nor unlawful and would not impose new and unrealistic burdens. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Take Advantage 0f Preventive / Corrective Opportunities / Avoidable Consequences) 16. Defendant exercised reasonable care t0 prevent and/or correct any discriminatory or retaliatory workplace conduct allegedly experienced by Plaintiff. Plaintiff unreasonably failed t0 take advantage 0f any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by Defendant or to avoid harrh otherwise, and thus Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred, or, alternatively, her relief is limited. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 17. Plaintiff is barred from recovering any compensatory damages, and/or any recovery for compensatory damages must be reduced, to the extent that she failed t0 exercise reasonable diligence t0 mitigate her alleged damages. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Outside Course and Scope of Agency 0r Employment) 18. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred because any unlawful 0r wrongful acts, to the extent they exist, taken by Defendant’s agents or employees" were outside the course and scope of their authority and such acts, if any, were not authorized, ratified, or condoned by Defendant, nor did Defendant know nor should have Defendant known 0f such acts. Thus, Defendant is not liable for any such conduct, if it occurred. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mixed Motive / Same Decision) 19. T0 the extent that Plaintiff demonstrates that her alleged protected status 0r conduct was a motivating factor for any challenged employment action, Defendant would have taken the same action in the absence of such an impermissible motivating factor. Any monetary recovery 0n Plaintiff” s Complaint, or any purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because assuming arguena’o that discriminatory 0r retaliatory reasons had been a motivating factor in any decisions toward Plaintiff, which Defendant 5 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 6341 1290v.1 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 57 of 78 OWNON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 expressly denies, Defendant would have made the same decisions toward Plaintiff in any case for legitimate, independent, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory business reasons. See Harris v. City OfSanté Monica, 56 Cal. App. 4th 203 (2013). TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Managerial Discretion) r 20. Any and all conduct of which Plaintiff complains, or which is attributable t0 Defendant and/or its agents 0r employees, was a just and proper exercise of managerial discretion, at all times privileged andjustified, undertaken for fair and honest business reasons or belief, in good faith and without malice, and cannot fonn the basis 0f a valid damages claim. I TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Prompt Remedial Action) ‘ 21. To the extent that Plaintiff complained 0f any unlawful conduct, prompt remedial action was taken by Defendant. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Legitimate Business Reason) 22. Defendant had a legitimate business reason that was n0n~discriminatory and n0n-; retaliatory for all actions taken with respect to Plaintiff’s employment. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good-Faith Belief in Actions Taken) 23. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred in whole or in part because Defendant had an honest, reasonable, and good-faith belief in the facts on which it based its acts, omissions, and conduct taken with respect t0 Plaintiff. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Bad Faith and/or Frivolous Claims) 24. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant is informed and believes that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiff’s claims are, unreasonable, were filed in bad faith, and/or are frivolous and, for such reasons, justify an award of, 6 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 634] 1290v.] Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 58 of 78 OONQ \D 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff and/or her attorneys pursuant to California law including, but not limited to California Code 0f Civil Procedure Sections 128.5 and/or 128.7. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Offset) 26. Any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any purported cause 0f action alleged thereifi, is barred in whole or in part because Defendant is entitled to an offset for any monies Plaintiff received frorri any source after Plaintiff ceased to be employed under the doctrine prohibiting double recovery set forth by Witt v. Jackson, 57 Cal. 2d 57 (1961) and its progeny. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Arbitration) 27. By Virtue 0f the fact that Plaintiff entered into an agreement t0 arbitrate that encompasses: all claims alleged in the Complaint, her claims are barred by her contractual agreement to arbitrate. Plaintiff’s failure to submit her claims to arbitration bars the present action. Defendant expressly reserves and does not waive the right to compel arbitration. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (After-Acquired Evidence) 28. Plaintiff‘s claims are barred t0 the extent she engaged in misconduct which would haveil justified any adverse action by Defendant even if Defendant was unaware 0f the conduct. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Punitive'Damages for Good Faith Conduct) 29. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any punitive damages for decisions 0r actions that are or were contrary t0 the policies that her employer instituted in good faith against wrongful or unlawful conduct. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure T0 State A Claim For Relief For Punitive Damages) 30. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any punitive, double or exemplary damages against Defendant, and any allegations with respect thereto should be stricken because Plaintiffhas failed t0 plead 7 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC T0 PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 634] 1290v.l Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 59 of 78 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and cannot prove facts sufficient to support allegations of oppression, fraud and/or malice pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294(a). THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Award of Punitive Damages is Unconstitutional) 31. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks punitive 0r exemplary damages in her Complaint, she violates the right 0f Defendant to protection from “excessive fines” as provided in the Eighth Amendment t0 the United States Constitution and in Article I, Section 17 0fthe Constitution ofthe State of California, and the rights of Defendant to procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the Constitution of the State of California. I I RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge 0r information on which to form a belief as t0 whether it may have additional, unstated defenses available to it. Defendant thus reserves the right t0 assert additional defenses in the event discovery and further investigation indicate they would be appropriate. PRAYER Wherefore, Defendant prays fofjudgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of the Complaint; 2. Thatjudgment be entered in favor ofDefendant and against Plaintiffon all causes of action; 3. That Defendant be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees according to proof; r 4. That Defendant be awarded costs of suit incurred herein; and 5. That Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. DATED: April 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP By: R‘Kw-awa Lindsay S. Fitch Kiran S. Lopez Attorneys for Defendant Randstad US, LLC 8 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 6341 1290v.1 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 60 of 78 MANN OONQ I6 l7 l9 20 21 23 24 25 26 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am a resident ofthe State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party t0 the within action. My business address is 560 Mission Street, 3lst Floor, San Francisco, California 94105. On April 24, 2020, l served the within document(s): ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California, addressed as set forth below. D by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forthbelow. by placing the document(s) listed above, together with an unsigned copy ofthis declaration, in aD sealed envelope 0r package provided by an overnight delivery carrier with postage paid 0n account and deposited for collection with the overnight carrier at San Francisco, California, addressed as set forth below. by transmitting the document(s) listed above, electronically, via the e-mail addresses set Forth below. Counsel for Plaintiff Pamela Henry: Counsel for Defendant Olympus: Lori J Costanzo Kymberleigh Damron-Hsiao Costanzo Law Firm Brianna Frazier ll] W. St John St #700 Kading Briggs LLP San Jose, CA 95 l l3 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800, lori((Qcostanzo-law.com Irvine, California 92618 , kdh(a;kadingbriggscom BFrazier@kad i ngbri ggs.com I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service 0n that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that 0n motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after date ofdeposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State 0f California that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office ofa member 0f the bar of‘this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed 0n April 24, 2020, at San Francisco, California. I,/ / ,‘r y “iga‘éya/K k >’//S/i.c,z¢fld/Q / C/ KéTKWTT'I‘uesdale PROOF OF SERVICE Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 61 of 78 EXHIBIT “G” EXHIBIT “G” 459817 \OOOQONUl-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHb-HHb-Hr-t OONONM¥WNHOCWQCNL11¥UJNHO Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 62 of 78 GLENN L. BRIGGS (SBN 174497) Email: gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com KYMBERLEIGH DAMRON-HSIAO (SBN 240508) Email: kdh@kadingbriggs.com BRIANNA L. FRAZIER (SBN 297354) Email: bfrazier@kadingbriggs.com KADING BRIGGS LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 450-8040 Facmmile: (949) 450-8033 Attorneys for Defendant OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAMELA HENRY, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS dba OLYMPUS AMERICA, INC; RANDSTAD US, L.P. dba RANDSTAD US, LLC dba RANDSTAD; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. 20CV363623 Assigned t0 the Hon. Socrates P. Manoukian, Dept. 20 DEFENDANT OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S COMPLAINT Complaint Filed: February 18, 2020 OLYMPUS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 459817 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 63 of 78 Defendant Olympus Corporation 0f the Americas (“Defendant”) answers the Complaint of Plaintiff Pamela Henry (“Plaintiff”) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to California Code 0f Civil Procedure Section 43 1 .30(d), Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant further denies, generally and specifically, that Plaintiff is entitled t0 the relief requested, or that Plaintiff has been 0r Will be damaged in any sum, or at all, by reason 0f any act 0r omission 0n the part of Defendant, or any of its past or present agents, representatives, 0r employees, acting in the course and scope 0f their employment. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action contained therein, fails t0 state facts sufficient t0 constitute any claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited t0, California Code 0f Civil Procedure Sections 338 and 343 and California Government Code Sections 12960 and 12965. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every purported cause 0f action contained therein, fails to state a cause of action against Defendant because Defendant was not Plaintiff s employer. 2 OLYMPUS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 459817 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 64 of 78 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because the exclusive remedy for the damages alleged by Plaintiff is provided by the California Workers’ Compensation Act, California Labor Code Section 3200, et seq. Defendant is also entitled t0 set-off any recovery Plaintiff may receive from any Workers’ Compensation action. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. Plaintiff has failed t0 mitigate her damages, if any, and therefore any damages awarded t0 her must be reduced 0r eliminated t0 the extent t0 which such damages could have been avoided by a reasonable effort t0 mitigate the same. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every purported cause 0f action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, in Whole or in part, because Plaintiff consented t0 the conduct for which she seeks relief. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. Plaintiff is estopped by her conduct from asserting each 0f the purported causes of action upon which she seeks relief. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. Plaintiff is barred, in part or total, from the recovery of any damages based upon the doctrine of after-acquired evidence. 3 OLYMPUS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 459817 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 65 of 78 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Plaintiff is barred, in part or total, from the recovery 0f any damages pursuant to the doctrine of avoidable consequences. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. Plaintiff is not entitled t0 recover punitive 0r exemplary damages against Defendant because: (a) Plaintiff has failed t0 plead facts sufficient t0 support allegations 0f malice or reckless indifference for the rights of Plaintiff 0r that Defendant was motivated by evil motive 0r intent; (b) neither Defendant nor any managerial agent of Defendant committed any alleged malicious 0r reckless act, authorized 0r ratified such an act, 0r had advance knowledge of the unfitness, if any, 0f any employee 0r employees who allegedly committed such an act, or employed any such employee or employees With a reckless indifference towards the rights 0r safety 0f others, and (c) an award 0f punitive 0r exemplary damages under the circumstances alleged would Violate the due process clauses 0f the United States and California Constitutions. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Plaintiff’s causes of action arising under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”) are barred because Plaintiff did not timely exhaust the administrative remedies as required and/or otherwise failed to comply With all the statutory prerequisites t0 bring suit pursuant t0 the FEHA. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12900 et seq. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant had an honest, good faith belief that all decisions with respect t0 Plaintiff’ s employment were made solely for legitimate, business-related reasons and were reasonably based upon the facts as Defendant understood them. 4 OLYMPUS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 459817 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 66 of 78 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Defendant cannot be liable for any alleged injury, as any allegedly unlawful conduct was outside the course and scope of employment of the employee(s) involved. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Defendant did not authorize, direct, or participate in any alleged wrongful conduct. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory, injunctive, 0r other equitable relief is barred because Plaintiff has an adequate and complete remedy at law. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Defendant denies that it discriminated 0r retaliated against Plaintiff. However, if Plaintiff proves Defendant’s acts were discriminatory or retaliatory, Plaintiff is not entitled t0 damages because Defendant would have made the same decision regardless 0f alleged discriminatory 0r retaliatory grounds. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. Plaintiff is barred from recovering punitive damages because Defendant had in place a policy to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, and made good- faith efforts t0 implement and enforce that policy. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. By her conduct, Plaintiff has waived some or all 0f the causes 0f action asserted in her Complaint. 5 OLYMPUS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 459817 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 67 of 78 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. Defendant reserves the right t0 assert additional affirmative defenses as discovery proceeds and it becomes aware 0f additional facts and circumstances that provide the basis for additional affirmative defenses. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of her Complaint; 2. That Plaintiff s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety With prejudice; 3. That Defendant be awarded its costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees, incurred herein; and 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: April 29, 2020 KADING BRIGGS LLP GLENN L. BRIGGS KYMBERLEIGH DAMRON-HSIAO BRIANNA L. FRAZIER BRIANNA L. FRAZIER By: Attorneys for Defendant OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS 6 OLYMPUS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 68 of 78 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss: 3 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 4 I am emplo ed in the County of Oran e, State of California. I am over the age of 18, andY . . g . . . not a party to the w1th1n action. My busmess address ls Kadmg Brlggs LLP, 100 Spectrum Center 5 Drive, Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92618. 6 On April 29, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: 7 DEFENDANT OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF PAMELA HENRY’S COMPLAINT 8 on the interested parties in this action by the method indicated below and to the following 9 addresses: 10 Lori J- Costanzo Attorneys for PlaintiffPAMELA HENRY Andrea Justo 11 COSTANZO LAW FIRM Telephone: (408) 993-8493 111 W. St. John Street, #700 . . . 12 San Jose CA 951 13 FaCSImlle. (408) 993-8496 , ' Email: Lorngcostanzo-lawcom 13 ' Email: andrea.iusto(a)costanzo-law.com 14 BY MAIL: I caused such envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States mail at Irvine, California. I am readily familiar with the practice of 15 Kading Briggs LLP for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day 16 with postage thereon fully prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal 17 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 18 U BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE THROUGH NATIONWIDE LEGAL: Pursuant to 19 C.R.C. 2.25 1, I caused a copy of the foregoing document(s) to bc uploaded to Nationwide Legal for electronic service on the above-referenced individuals. 20 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE THROUGH ONE LEGAL ONLINE COURT 21 SERVICES: Pursuant to C.R.C. 2.25 1, Icaused a copy of the foregoing document(s) to be uploaded to One Legal Online Court Services for electronic service Von the above- 22 referenced individuals. 23 D BY FACSIMILE: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted to a facsimile machine maintained by the office of the addressee(s) at the facsimile machine number(s) '24 indicated. Said facsimile number(s) are the most recent numbers appearing on documents filed and served by the addressee(s). I received electronic confirmation from 25 the facsimile machine that said document was successfully transmitted without error. A copy of said electronic confirmation is maintained in this office. 26 D BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: 1 am readily familiar with the practice of Kading Briggs LLP for the collection and processing of correspondence for overnight delivery 27 and know that the document(s) described herein will be deposited in a box or other 28 facility regularly maintained by the overnight delivery carrier. 459817 7 PROOF 0F SERVLE Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 69 of 78 BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I caused said document(s) to be personally delivered by a process server employed by Nationwide Legal. D STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 29, 2020, at Irvine, California. We‘lfdy Garcia l \DOOQQUI-PUJN NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o 459817 8 PROOF OF SERVICE Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 70 of 78 EXHIBIT “H” EXHIBIT “H” Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 71 of 78 AWN \DOONQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Lindsa S. Fitch (SBN 238227) lfitchésayfarthfiom ‘ aplta a , ulte 2350 Sacramento, CA 958 14 Telephone: é916; 448-0159 Facmmile: 916 558-4839 Kiran S. Lopez (SBN 252467) klo ez se farth.com 15319n treat, st Floor San Franmsco, Cahforma 94105 Telephone: 415 397-2823 Facsmnle: 415 397-8549 Attorne s for Defendant RAND TAD US LLC fierroneouw sued as Randstad US, L.P. dba andstad S, LLC dba Randstad) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PAMELA HENRY, an individual, Case No. Plaintiff, DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC’S JOINDER IN NOTICE OF V. REMOVAL OF ACTION OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE Santa Clara Su erior Court AMERICAS dba OLYMPUS AMERICA, Case No. 20C 363623 INC; RANDSTAD US, L.P. dba RANDSTAD US, LLCdba RANDSTAD; bConcurrently filed with the and DOES 1-25, Incluswe, eclarations of Karen Lubrano and Kiran S. Lopez] Defendants. ComplaintFiled: February I8, 2020 Removal Filed A ril 30, 2020 Trial Date: Ngne. TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD: ‘ ' PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Randstad US, LLC (erroneously sued as Randstad US, LP dba Randstad US, LLC dba Randstad) hereby joins in Defendant Olympus Corporation of the Americas dba Olympus America, Inc.’s (hereinafter, DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC’S JOINDER IN NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION 63494644v.1 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 72 of 78 kWh) \Dooflc‘xm 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Olympus”) removal of the above-captioned action from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. As set forth more fully‘ in the Notice ofRemoval filed by Olympus (D.E. 1), removal of the entire action is proper, and this Coufl has jurisdiction over Plaintiff Pamela Henry’s (“Plaintiff") action pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §1332 because Plaintiff is a citizen of California and Olympus and Randstad US, LLC are not. See concurrently filed Declaration of Karen Lubrano at 11111-9 regarding Randstad US, LLC’s and Plaintiff’s diverse citizenship. Randstad US, LLC joins in Olympus’ removal with a full reservation of its defenses to Plaintiff’s claims. Randstad was served with Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint, Summons, Santa Clara County Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Information Sheet, Civil Case Cover Sheet, and Civil Lawsuit Notice Via Notice and Acknowledgement 0f Receipt-Civil on April 17, 2020. See accompanying Declaration of Kiran S. Lopez (“Lopez Decl.”) at 114. Randstad’s responsive pleading deadline is May 18, 2020. Id. r Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 (a) copies 0f all processes, pleadings, and orders served upon Randstad in this action are attached hereto at Exhibit A. See Lopez Decl. at 115. Randstad’s Answer to the Complaint, Which was filed in Santa Clara Superior Court on April 24, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Id. at 116. DATED: April 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP By: /s/Kiran S. Lopez Lindsa S. Fitch Kiran . Lopez Attorneys for Defendant Randstad US, LLC 2 DEFENDANT RANDSTAD US, LLC’S JOINDER IN NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION 63494644v.1 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 73 of 78 EXHIBIT “I” EXHIBIT “I” 459824 \OOOQONUl-bUJNH NNNNNNNNHHHHb-Hr-AHHH NOM¥WNHOCWQ©UI¥UJNHO 28 Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 74 of 78 GLENN L. BRIGGS (SBN 174497) Email. kadin bri s.com KYMB%R§§I DA§/IR -HSIAO (SBN 240508) Email: kdh kadingbrl s.com BRIANNA .FRAZI (SBN 297354) Email: bfrazier kadin%br1ggs com KADING BRI GS LL 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800 Irvinep California 92618 Telephone: g949) 450-8040 Facs1mile: ( 49) 450-8033 Attorne s for Defendant OLYM US CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAMELA HENRY, an individual, CASE NO. 20CV363623 Plaintiff, Assigned t0 the Hon. Socrates P. Manoukian, Dept. 20 vs. DEFENDANT OLYMPUS OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS’ THE AMERICAS dba NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.; REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO RANDSTAD US, L.P. dba UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RANDSTAD Us: LLC dba PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 AND RANDSTAD; and DOES 1 -25 1441 (DIVERSITY) inclusive, Complaint Filed: February 18, 2020 Defendants. 1 OLYMPUS’ NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 75 of 78 1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT a Notice of Removal 0f this action was 2 filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on 3 April 30, 2020. A copy 0f said Notice 0f Removal and supporting exhibits are 4 attached t0 this Notice and are served and filed herewith. 5 6 DATED: April 30, 2020 KADING BRIGGS LLP GLENN L. BRIGGS 7 KYMBERLEIGH DAMRON-HSIAO 8 BRIANNA L. FRAZIER 9 10 By: - BRIANNA L. FRAZIER 1 1 1 2 Attorneys for Defendant OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE 13 AMERICAS 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 459824 2 OLYMPUS’ NOTICE T0 ADVERSE PARTY 0F REMOVAL 0F ACTION T0 U.s. DISTRICT COURT Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 76 of 78 EXHIBIT “J” EXHIBIT “J” 459821 \OOOQONUl-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHb-HHb-Hr-t OONONM¥WNHOCWQCNL11¥UJNHO Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 77 of 78 GLENN L. BRIGGS (SBN 174497) Email. kadin bri s.com KYMB%R§§I DA§/IR -HSIAO (SBN 240508) Email: kdh kadingbrl s.com BRIANNA .FRAZI (SBN 297354) Email: bfrazier kadin%br1ggs com KADING BRI GS LL 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800 Irvinep California 92618 Telephone: g949) 450-8040 Facs1mile: ( 49) 450-8033 Attorne s for Defendant OLYM US CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAMELA HENRY, an individual, CASE NO. 20CV363623 Plaintiff, Assigned t0 the Hon. Socrates P. Manoukian, Dept. 20 vs. DEFENDANT OLYMPUS OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS’ THE AMERICAS dba NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.; REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO RANDSTAD US, L.P. dba UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RANDSTAD Us: LLC dba PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 AND RANDSTAD; and DOES 1 -25 1441 (DIVERSITY) inclusive, Complaint Filed: February 18, 2020 Defendants. 1 OLYMPUS’ NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT 459821 \DOOQQUI-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-IHHr-IHHr-IH WNQM-PWNF-‘OQOONONU‘IgWNF-‘o Case 5:20-cv-02962 Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 78 of 78 TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy 0f the Notice t0 Adverse Party of Removal of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California. The original Notice of Removal 0f Civil Action to the United States District Court was filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California With the attached exhibits on April 30, 2020. The filing 0f said Notice of Removal effects the removal of the above- entitled action from this Court. DATED: April 30, 2020 KADING BRIGGS LLP GLENN L. BRIGGS KYMBERLEIGH DAMRON-HSIAO BRIANNA L. FRAZIER Byfi/xk BRIANNA L. FRAZIER Attorneys for Defendant OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS 2 OLYMPUS’ NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT KOOOQQU‘I-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tt-Ar-tr-tt-tr-tr-Kt-tr-tr-t OOQONM-bUJNHOKOOOflQUl-hUJNF-‘O PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age 0f 18, and not a party t0 the within action. My business address is Kading Briggs LLP, 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92618. On April 30, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: DEFENDANT OLYMPUS CORPORATION 0F THE AMERICAS’ NOTICE T0 ADVERSE PARTY 0F NOTICE 0F REMOVAL 0F ACTION T0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PURSUANT T0 28 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1332 AND 1441 (DIVERSITY) 0n the interested parties in this action by the method indicated below and t0 the following addresses: Lori J. Costanzo Attorneys for PlaintiffPAMELA HENRY Jeremy Dvorak COSTANZO LAW FIRM Telephone: (408) 993-8493 111 W. St. John Street, #700 F . .1 . 408 993 8496San Jose, CA 951 13 309ml e' ( . ) ' Ema11: L0r1@costanzo-law.com Email: Jeremy.Dvorak@costanzo-law.com Kiran S. Lopez Attorneys for Defendant SEYFARTH SHAW LtLP RANDSTAD US, LLC gig gigslféfigtrgzagill 015310“ Telephone: (415) 397-2823 ’ Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: klopez@seyfarth.com lfitch@seyfarth.com BY MAIL: I caused such envelope, With postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States mail at Irvine, California. I am readily familiar with the practice of Kading Briggs LLP for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited With the United States Postal Service 0n that same day With postage thereon fillly prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course 0f business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. D BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE THROUGH NATIONWIDE LEGAL: Pursuant to C.R.C. 2.25 1 , I caused a copy of the foregoing document(s) t0 be uploaded t0 Nationwide Legal for electronic service on the above-referenced individuals. D BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE THROUGH ONE LEGAL ONLINE COURT SERVICES: Pursuant t0 C.R.C. 2.251, I caused a copy 0f the foregoing document(s) to be uploaded t0 One Legal Online Court Services for electronic service on the above- referenced individuals. PROOF OF SERVICE KOOOQQU‘I-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tt-Ar-tr-tt-tr-tr-Kt-tr-tr-t OOQONM-bUJNHOKOOOflQUl-hUJNF-‘O BY FACSIMILE: I caused said document(s) t0 be transmitted t0 a facsimile machine maintained by the office 0f the addressee(s) at the facsimile machine number(s) indicated. Said facsimile number(s) are the most recent numbers appearing on documents filed and served by the addressee(s). Ireceived electronic confirmation from the facsimile machine that said document was successfillly transmitted Without error. A copy of said electronic confirmation is maintained in this office. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I am readily familiar With the practice 0f Kading Briggs LLP for the collection and processing 0f correspondence for overnight delivery and know that the document(s) described herein Will be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the overnight delivery carrier. BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I caused said document(s) to be personally delivered by a process server employed by Nationwide Legal. STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 30, 2020, at Irvine, California. -2- PROOF OF SERVICE