lurid complaint - Reporter Blogs

Transcription

11/03i2e0a
15: 23
3102690790
KAF AND ASSOCIATES
PA13E
04/48
Keith A. Finis, Bar No. 146841
Saran E. Hernandez , Bar No. 206305
Elizabeth C. Bendana , Bar No. 241225
KEITH A. FINK & ASSOCIATES
3h 11500 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 316
OF ORIGINAL Fil D
Los Angefes Superior Court
Los Angeles, California 90064
41 Telephone: (310) 268-0780
Facsimile ; (310) 268-0790
NOV 0 3 nos
Johl) A. Clalrke r xacut
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
6 r HLATHER I)EVLTN
ivc, t:;;i,._:/Clergy:
13 )' SHA[J^y `'W SLE);
t}^puty
SUPLc RIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES- CEN'T'RAL DISTRICT
CA3E NO.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE' S FOR:
)
13 ^ TODD SHEMARYA. ARTISTS, INC., a
California corporation; TODD SHEMARYA,
14 J( an individual; and DOES I to 100, inclusive,
)
}
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
VIOLATION OF COX'ERhiMEN'T CODE
12900 , ef^ M. [Harassment Based On
Sex]
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMMENT CODE
12900, et sea . [Discrimination Based 013
Sex)
VIOLATION OF GOVERNJ^ENT CODE
§ 12900, et sea. [Retaliation]
MENT CODE
AIIOLAT ON OF DOVE
§ 12940 (k) [Failure to Prevent Harassment
and Discrimination]
WRONGFUL TERMINATION
-mac.
.
GOVERNMENTCODL § 12900, ^t s^
WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
VIOLATIONS OF LA.$OR CODS §§ 510
and 1194 et sea.-
VIOLATIONS OP LABOR CODE.§§
226.7 and 512
VIOLATION, OF LABOR CODE § 226
VJOLA.TJONS OF LABOR CODE $201, et
BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT
CONTRACT`
BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT
BY
VIOLATION OF BQ21NESS &
1nROFES9lONS CODE § 17200, At ae
F,TURY 'T'RIAL. PRAIANDED]
11 /0 3/2008 16 :27
1
No.: R700
_
R. 0041026
A.
f
I
PLAINTIFF HEATHER DEVLIN hereby alleges as follows:
1)
VENUE AND PARTIES
PLAINTIFF HEATHER DEVLIN ("PLAINTIFF" andror "DEVLIN ") is and at all tunes
1.
3
4 relevant hereto was a resident of the County of Los Angeles , State of California.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DEFENDANT TODD
2.
5
6 SHEMARYA ARTISTS, INC. ("TSA" and or "DEFENDANT") is and at all times relevant hereto was
7 a California corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles , State of California.
8
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DEFENDANT TODD
;.
9 SHEMARYA ("SHEMARYA" andror "DEFENDANT ") is, and at all times relevan, hereto was a
10 resident of the County of Los Angeles. State of California. SHEMARYA is and at a1.1-tunes relevant
1111 hereto was the owner and principal of TSA and served as PLAINTIFF' S supervisor.
13
PLAINTIFF is unaware of the true nacres and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
4.
12
associate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES i through 100 ("DOES" and/or "DEFENDANTS"),
14 inclusive, and therefore sues said Does by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF will seek leave of Court to
15 amend this Complaint to show the true narnes and capacities of such DOES when the same has been
16 ascertained.
17
5.
PLAINTIFF is infonned, believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the fictitiously
18 named Defendants are responsible to PLAINTIFF for the injuries suffered and alleged herein and are
19 subject to the jurisdiction of the Court as a necessary party for the relief herein requested.
20
21
6.
PLAINTIFF is infonned, believes, and thereupon alleges that each DOE is now and was
at all times mentioned herein the agent, principal, partner, joint venturer, employee or alter ego of the
22 remaining DEFENDANTS and that all of the acts and conduct alleged herein were performed within the
23 course and scope and in the furtherance of such agency, partnership, joint venture, employment or alter
24 ego relationship.
25
7.
PLAINTIFF is informed, believed, and on that basis specifically alleges that
26 SHEMARYA is the alter ego of TSA and that SHEMARYA and TSA commingled their funds and
27 other assets, failed +.o segregate their funds, allowed the diversion of corporate funds or assets to non28 corTorate uses, failed to maintain corporate minutes, failed to maintain adequate corporate records,
2
PLAINT[ H-'S COMPLAIN'[ FOR DAMAGES
I
failed to adhere to corporate formalities. failed to conduct transactions by and between one another at
2 arm's length, used the same offices and/or business locations, employed the same or largely the same
3
employees, and/or failed to adequately capitalize TSA.
8.
4
Venue is properly laid in this Court in that the claims and injuries alleged herein occurred
5 in the County of Los Angeles.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
C
7
9.
DEVLII; realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
8 each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 8. inclusive.
9
10.
DEVLIN is a female and as such is subject to the protections of the California Fair
10 Emnloylnent and Housing Act ("FEHA").
11.
II
TSA is a commercial talent agency that specializes in branding and print media relations.
12 TSA holds itself out as the "number-one" commercial talent agency in the world. TSA's roster at,
l3
clients includes actors Brad Pitt, Matthew McConaughey, Orlando Bloom, Adrian Brody, Leonardo
14 DiCaprio, Rob Lowe, Angelina Jolie, Djimon Hounsou, Jemmifer Aniston, Cameron Diaz, Natalie
15 Portman, Kate Bosworth, and Kate Beckinsale. TSA also represents celebrity photographers and stylists
lb such as celebrity stylist Rachel Zoe.
17
SHEMARYA AND TSA IND UCED DEVLIN TO ACCEPT A POSITION AT TSA.
18
19
12.
In 1997, DEVLIN was employed as a successful salesperson at the retail store Gucci
20 located on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, earning in excess of $100,000 per year. That year,
21
SHEMARYA persuaded DEVLIN to quit her career at Gucci to accept a job as an assistant at TSA,
22
earning about $30,000 per year. SHEMARYA induced DEVLIN into taking a massive pay-cut to work
23
for TSA by making the following representations to her:
24
a.
SHEMARYA told DEVLIN that if she took the job at TSA, she eventually would
25
become an agent at the " number one commercial talent agency" in Hollywood.
26
SHEMARYA boasted to DEVLIN that he had recently signed actor Brad Pitt and that
27
Pitt would be TSA' s "golden goose," who woUId generate enormous amounts oI moncy
28
for TSA and entice numerous other top celebrities to join TSA.
3
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
I
b.
SHEMARYA represented to DEVLIN that her employment would not be "at will" but
rather her position was secure so long as she "worked hard." Consistent with his promise
3
that she would be tenninated only "for cause," SHEMARYA promised DEVLIN' that
4
should he die, he would leave part of TSA to her in his Last Will & Testament.
5
6
13.
Relying on SHEMARYA'S representations, DEVLIN quit her lucrative job at Gucci and
accepted a position at TSA.
7
8
TSA AAD SHEMARE4 MAINTAINED AND CONDONED A WOR K EN11IROAMENT RIFE
9
WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMLNATJOA1
10
SHEMARYA created a hostile working environment .forDE!'LIN from the beginning of her
II
entple vruent by parading naked at TSA s offices and evposin. hi^nserf to her while he urinated or
-12
13
defecated at ivork.
14.
During DEVLIN' S employment with TSA, the only restroom available to DEVLIN at
14 TSA's office had no door for six years . DEVLIN had to endure the humiliation of being forced to
15 expose herself when she used the restroom at work.
16
15.
When SHEMARYA used the restroom , he forced DEVLIN to take dictation or
17 instruction and to converse with him as lie defecated or urinated . SHEMARYA further exposed his
18 penis and testicles to DEVLIN when he defecated or urinated in TSA's restroom.
19
16.
,
SHEMARYA also periodically paraded naked and disrobed himself at TSA's offices,
20 exposing himself to DEVLIN and other employees.
21
22
23
DEVLIN was also r egtrlarly erpOSG' d to rrtltGrr sexually offensive irrtages at TSA's offices. _
17.
Despite reaping huge financial benefits from his "golden goose" Brad Pitt, SHEMARYA
24
fi-equently pulled out the August 1997 edition of "Playgirl" magazine at work and showed it to DEVLIN
25
and other TSA employees. This magazine contained nude pictures of Pitt. Pitt had successfully
26 obtained an injunction and recall of this Playgirl issue because the photos therein were taken without his
27 perinission and invaded his privacy. Fully aware that his client Pitt did not want the nude pictures of
28 himself in Playgirl exposed to third parties, SHEMARYA nonetheless showed these photographs to
4
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1012 DAMAGES
I 4 DEVUN and other TSA employees so that he could ridicule the size of Pitt's penis.
DEVLIN was also exposed to numerous "hardcore" pornoirraphic images on her wort:
18.
J
computer at TSA. This began when SHEMARYA downloaded a video of a woman perfornling oral sex
4
on a horse onto DEVLINT' S work computer and made her watch it for fun . SHEMARYA otherwise
5 frequently visited pornographic websites using DEVLIN' S work computer, which websites captured
6 DEVLIN''S wort: email address via her web browser . As a result, DENJLINI' S work email account was
7 flooded with pornographic span email.
8
SHEMARYA also forced DEVLIN and her coworkers to view sexually offensive images
19.
9 by frequently ordering and playing pornographic films on the TSA office television.
10
II
Not to be outdone by SHEMARYA' s conduct ; TSA employee Sam Stone (" Stone")
20.
forced DE VLIN to view a streaming Internet video of three platinum blond women who inserted sexual
12 toys into them- vaginas and engaged in sexual intercourse . DEVLIN understood this to mean Stone was
]3
sexually interested in DEVLIN, as she is blond.
14
15
DEFEA'DANTS also created a hostile work environinent for DEVLIN by repeatedly narking sexually
16
17
offensive Comments.
SHEMARYA routinely subjected DEVLIN' to sexually offensive comments. Examples
21.
18 of these comments made by SHEMARYA include but are not limited to the following:
19
a.
SHEMARYA often referred to women as "lady vaginas" or "cunts";
20
b.
SHEMARYA yelled at a female that "You're are a cunt. Go to the minor
and all you will see is pubic hair on your face because you ' re a cunt";
21
. 22
c.
SHEMARYA constantly proclaimed his "disgust for vaginas";
23
d.
when SHEMARYA was angry with a female TSA employee, lie asked her
24
25
"did you take your cunt pills today?";
C.
SHEMARYA reprimanded the TSA female employees for the lack of
26
toilet paper in the TSA restroom by complaining that "wiping your
27
pussies is using up too nMCh toilet paper";
2.8
f.
SHEMARYA divulged that he performed oral sex on a female in high
5
PI.AINTIFI''S COMPLAIN"!' FOR DAMAGES
school and "hated it" because her "pussy like all pussies smelled like a
can of tuna left out in the desert for days";
a.
SHEMARYA referred to fonner TSA client and Academy-Award
4
nominated Latina actress Salina Hayek ("Hayek") as a "twat" [British
5
derogatory slang for "vagina") and that "she should go back to Mexico"
6
soon after Hayek terminated her business Relationship with TSA;
7
h.
SHEMARYA recalled to DEVLIN that while he was at a beach in the
b
Caribbean, he saw country recording artist K.D. Lang's "big pussy with
9
flaps that hung down to the ground and had a slit like a penis";
10
i.
II
SHEMARYA commented that K.D. Lang referred to her vagina as her
"lcibbles and bits".
12
j.
SHEMARYA frequently stated that TSA client, Academy-Award
13
nominated African actor Djimon Hounsou ("Hounsou") had a "big purple
14
penis" because he was African;
15
k.
SHEMARYA often expressed his disgust that fashion model and mogul
16
Kimora Lee Simmons was Hounsou's girlfriend and called her a "cheap
17
dirty whore";
is
1.
SHEMARYA described in detail to DEVLrN that while at a spa in Maui
19
at the TSA holiday retreat, he saw actor and comedian Jarnie Kennedy's
20
"enormous cock";
21
in.
SHEMARYA, discussed the fact that his boyfriend and subsequent TSA
22
employee Parke Steiger ("Parke") "fucked" his AA sponsor, who is HIV-
23
positive, without a condom;
24
n.
SHEMARYA divulged to DEVUN that because Parke "fucked" a mean at
25
Vicente Inn, a gay bathhouse, SHEMARYA contacted the head of the
26
Beverly Hills Police Department's Narcotics Division, Dave Perez, and
27
pleaded with him to shut down the bathhouse;
28
o.
SHEMARYA discussed various aspccts of Brad Pitt and Angelina JoIV-'s
6
PLAINTIFF'S COly PLAINT FOR DAMAGES
sexual habits;
2
SHEMARYA sent flowers to himself and lied to others, falsely claiming
p.
that recording artist George Michael had sent him the flowers;
4
q.
5
SHEMARYA called Jennifer Aniston an "ugly bitch" and refen•ed to her
frequently as "Jen-Bitch";
6
r.
because SHEMARYA was "tired of listening" to Aniston and her then-
7
husband Pitt argue in his presence, he referred to them as "the
8
Bickersons": and
9
S,
10
SHEMARYA inappropriately revealed to DEVLIN that his adoptive
mother forced him to perform oral sex on her.
II
SHEMARYA created and fostered an abusive, hostile, and unsafe atmosphere for
12 DEVLIN at TSA. SHEMARYA' S behavior produced an antagonistic and intimidating work
13 environment in which DEVLIN did not feel safe as a woman.
14
15
DEFENDANTS created a hostile working environm ent rife with racial and other discrimination by
16
continually making anti-Semitic, racist, and honcophobic comments to DEVUA^
17
23.
In addition to their steady stream of offensive and demeaning sexual comments,
18 DEFENDANTS also routinely subjected DEVLIN to other kinds of discriminatory comments, including
19 but not limited to the following:
20
a.
21
22
individuals of Japanese descent as "Nips";
b.
23
24
SHEMARYA routinely referred to TSA' s Japanese business contacts and other
SHEMARYA routinely referred to TSA's Chinese business contacts and other
individuals of Chinese descent as "Chinky";
C.
SHEMARYA routinely referred to TSA's African-American business contacts
25
and other individuals ofAfi•ican-American descent as "Niggers" or "Swuggs."
26
SHEMARYA also referred to anyone who appeared surprised regardless of their
27
race as an "astonished Nigger." In one particuliu• incident. SHEMARYA and
28
DEVLIN were driving in Santa Monica when he directed DEV1.,IN to look at the
7
PLA[Mf7TT' S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGUS
1
driver in the car beside them on the road . SHEMARYA commented that the
driver looked like an "astonished nigger";
3
d.
SHEMARYA periodically referred to Jewish clients and other individuals of
4
Jewish descent whom he perceived as difficult in negotiating deals as "cheap
5
Jews," Chizlers," and /or a "Jew canoe";
6
e.
SHEMARYA referred to celebrity. stylist and TSA client Rachel Zoe' s husband
7
Roger Bennan as a "closet fag" who "meddled " in SHEMARYA' S business
8
dealings with Rachel Zoe;
9
f.
10
SHEMARYA on occasion commented that Brad Pitt was a "fag " because he
enjoyed fine clothing and architecture: and
II
g.
12
SHEMARYA ridiculed JenniferAniston 'S yoga instructor by referring to her as
Aniston's "lesbian girlfriend."
13
14
NOT ONLYDID DEFENDANTS SUBJECT DEJILIN TO A SEXUALLY-HOSTILE WORK
15
ENVIRONMENT, THEY ALSO REFUSED TO PAY HER 0VERTIME AND FORCED HER TO
16
FORGO MEAL AND REST BREAKS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LA W.
17
24.
DEFENDANTS did not pay DEVLIN overtime for working over eight hours a day in
18 violation of California Labor Code § 510. In addition , DEFENDANTS forced DEVLIN to forgo meal
19 and rest breaks on a daily basis in violation of California Labor Code §§ 222.7 and 512.
20
21
DEVLIN WAS SUBJECTED TO A WORK ENVIRONMENT RIFE WITH
22
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
23
SHEMARYA consurlled vast quantities of illegal and legal prescription drugs at work.
24
25.
25
When SHEMARYA purchased illegal drugs , he required TSA employees to pay for Ills
illegal drugs with TSA petty cash . SHEMARYA consumed illegal drugs in the workp lace and
26 encouraged other TSA employees to do the same.
27
26.
DEVLIN also witnessed SHEMARYA tale vast quantities of legal prescription drugs
28 for which lie did not have a prescription, inciuding but not limited to Vicodin, Hiinnan Growth
8
PLAINTIF F 'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE'S
I
Hormone. Adivan, and Ambien.
7
3
4
SHEMARYA accepted gifts meant for his clients and kept thorn for himself.
27.
Despite TSA clients' contributions to SHEMARYA and TSA's success. SHEMARYA
5 frequently took gifts meant for his clients and kept them for himself. For example; film producer Yuki
6 Matsurnato gave SHEMARYA a pair of "his and hers" vintage Cartier watches meant to be his wedding
7 gift to Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston. Rather- than deliver Matsumato's wedding gift to Pitt and
8
Aniston, SHEMARYA instead gave the vintage Cartier watches to his friend Charlotte Sprintas and her
9 husband as his wedding gift to them. SHEMARYA even had them specially engraved.
10
II
28.
TSA brokered a contract between Brad Pitt and Damiani Jewelers whereby Pitt was to
receive money and merchandise, including but not limited to his engagement ring fb1 his future wife
12 Jennifer Aniston, from Dainiani Jewelers in exchange for his participation in a pant ail campaign.
13
29.
SHEMARYA stole merchandise and funds owed to Pitt for his work on the Dariiani
14 Jewelers print ad campaign . DEVLIN is informed and believes that unbeknownst to Brad Pitt or
15 Damiani Jewelers, SHEMARYA gave a substantial amount of the merchandise that he received on
16 Pitt's behalf to his own family and friends, including but not limited to Constance Schwartz
17 ("Schwartz"), a talent manager for "The Finn," a separate talent agency.
18
19
SHEMARYA regularly obtained free merchandise far himself by.falsely claiming he would deliver it
20
21
to TSA's clients
30.
Notwithstanding the millions SHEMARYA earned from TSA's clients, SHEMARYA
22 frequently obtained free merchandise from various vendors by falsely claiming he would deliver-it to his
23
clients . On one occasion, SHEMARYA obtained a free garment bag from Coach by falsely representing
24 to Coach that Pitt wanted the garment bag. Coach gave it to SHEMARYA for free based on
25
SHEMARYA' s misrepresentations . Rather- than give the garnrient.bag to Pitt, SHEMARYA gave it to
26 his boyfriend Parke as a present.
27
28
31.
On another occasion, Pitt publicly endorsed watch company TAG Hcuer ("TAG"), in
exchange for w h ich TAG gave
P i tt
fret
merchandise. Kn o%ving t h at
9
PLAIN IJ 1''S COMPLAINT I^OR DAMAGES
Pitt r eceived
free mc r- clrandise from
I
TAG, SHEMARYA took advantage of TAG's generosity and falsely claimed that Pitt had requested
2
free merchandise from TAG. When TAG delivered this merchandise , SHEMARYA took these TAG
watches for himself
4 f
5
SHEMARYA regulrtrly lied to TSA clients and claimed that the gifts he received front third patties
6
on their behalf canie frvrnt hint.
7
31
8
SHEMARYA was so unscrupulous that he accepted gifts on behalf of TSA clients and
presented them to his clients as personal gifts from himself. As early as December 2007 shortly before
9 DEVLIN was terminated , representatives from Ennenegildo Zegna ("Zegna" ) sent SHEMARYA two
40 ""solar jackets" for Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio . These jackets were professionally wrapped and
II
contained a personal handwritten note to each actor from Djordje Stefanovic , the head of Zegna's U.S.
12 marketing division . SHEMARYA removed the handwritten note ineant for Pitt, repackaged his jacket.
13
and sent it to Pitt clairning that it was a personal gift from hire. SHEMARYA then sent a fake thank-
14 you note to Zegna from Pitt "on his behalf"
15
16
SHEMARYA routinely received discounted merchandise for hintself and his friends under the false
17
pretense that the merchandise was on behalf o1 his clients.
18
33.
SHEMARYA regularly requested and received discounts on merchandise frorn vendors
19 by falsely claiming he was purchasing it on behalf of his clients. For example , in November 2007,
20 SHEMARYA instreuted DEVLIN to use Brad Pitt 's 50% discount at Prada to buy a patent leather
21
handbag at half-price. SHEMARYA did not purchase this bag for Pitt, however. -The true recipient of
22
the handbag was SHEMARYA'S friend Constance Schwartz, rnanager of rap artist Calvin - Broadus a/k/a
23
"Snoop Dogg." Schwartz in turn gave the handbag to Snoop Dogg 's wife Shame Broadus as a gift.
24
34.
Soon after this incident . DEVLTIN' refused to participate in any further purchases of fi-ce
25
or discounted merchandise under false pretenses because it violated California Penal Code § 532(a).
26
Shortly after she refused to engage in this illegal activity, SHEMARYA terminated her.
27 1l
28
10
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAIVIAGES
I
SHEMARYA subse Juently terminated DEVLIN because he feared that size would disclose his illegal
activities and abusive nature to the adoption agenq, with which he sought to adopt a child.
SHEMARYA terminated DEVLII\' because he feared that she would expose his
35.
4 misconduct, including but not limited to his drug use, sexually abusive nature, illegal conversion of
client funds and property, and other illegal activities, to the adoption agency from which he sought to
6
7
adopt a child.
This fear became evident to DEVL III' in mid October 2007, when sloe inadvertently
36.
8 discovered that SHEMARYA was seeking to adopt a child through an adoption agency.
9
In or around the middle of October 2007, DEVLIN received a call intended for
37.
10 SHEMARYA from Vista Del Mar. an adoption agency. DEVLIN relayed the inessage to Parke, II
SHEMARYA' s boyfriend and fellow TSA employee. Moments later she glanced at Parke ' s computer
12
and saw.that he had emailed SHEMARYA regardingDEVLR\T 'S message ; alerting hiln that "the,cat is
13
out of the bag."
14
38.
SHEMARYA knew that DEVNN would not lie on his behalf to the adoption agency.
15 He kaexv that if she was interviewed by the agency, she would disclose SHEMARYA'S drug use, illegal
16 activities, and abusive nature, which would prevent his adoption of a child.
17
18
DE11LIA1 WAS SUBJECTED TO SEXUAL DISCRIMIAA TION B Y AND THROUGH
19
SHEMARYA'S PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF MALE EMPLOYEES THAT HAD SEX
20
WITH HIM.
21
39.
SHEMARYA'S pattern and practice of engaging in sexual favoritism toward.
22 homosexual men who slept with him proved to be the glass ceiling to DEVLIN'S career at TSA-that she
23
24
could not shatter as a heterosexual female.
40.
On at least one occasion , SHEMARYA wrongfully terminated a homosexual male TSA
25 employee because lie would not have sex with SHEMARYA nor would lie return SHEMARYA'S
26 sexual advances. SHEMARYA expressed his sexual desire for this male; employee by ordering
27 pornographic films on the TSA office television in front of this employee for his benefit . While in Maui
28^ on TSA's holiday retreat, SHEiMAR)'A watched this employee take a shower dUring which
+
li
11
111_AINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMA{;hs
I
SHEMARYA openly stared at the employee ' s penis. A few months later , SHEMARYA took this-
2
employee crush to Paris on a TSA business trip. To his great disappointment. this employee went on a
employee
date with another- man rather than SHEMARYA while in Paris. At the end of the trip and en route to
4 the airport, SHEMARYA angn-ily told this employee that he felt "betrayed" because this employee had
5
gone out on a date with another man the previous night. Several days later, SHEMARYA telephoned
6 the employee and told him that he was henceforth terminated for the incident in Paris. SHEMARYA
7 further told this employee that he "should not dare to attempt to collect unemployment benefits" from
8 TSA.
9
41.
In stark contrast to the episode above, men who slept with SHEMARYA, such his
boyfriend, Parke, reaped enormous benefits at work.
SHEMARYA hired his-homosexual lover Parke to work at TSA notwithstanding Parke :s lack of
qualifications, lack of experience, and his longstanding inabilitt, to hold onto a job.
14
42.
Parke had dated SHEMARYA for sip; years before SHEMARYA hired him to work at
15 TSA in or around early 2007. Parke had previously been unable to hold onto steady emplo}nnent
16 because he was a dysfunctional alcoholic and drug addict. He quickly squandered the $200,000
17 inheritance from his mother on drugs after she died. For these reasons , SHEMARYA financially
18 supported Parke during their relationship. SHEMARYA paid for Parke's multiple drug rehabilitation
19 sessions, all of which were unsuccessful in weaning Parke frorrr his bad habits. SHEMARYA even paid
20 for the damages when Parke crashed into several parked cars while under the influence.
21
43.
During this time, SHEMARYA told DEVLIN and others that he would not hire Parke at
22 TSA because Parke's drug and alcoholic problems would make him an unreliable employee.
23
44.
Before.he worked for TSA, Parke was employed by Norm Marshall & Associates, Inc.
24 ("Nona Marshall"), a public relations firm. To secure this position, SHEMARYA instructed Parke to
25 lie on his resume and falsely claim that he had worked with Brad Pitt on several film production deals.
26 Not surprisingly, Parke could not handle his work responsibilities at Norm Marshall and asked
27 SI-IEMARYA for a job with TSA.
28
45.
Knowing full well that Parke would be a disaster as a TSA employee, SHEMARYA
12
PLAIN'!'!F 'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
I
nonetheless hired his boyfriend on TSA' s behalf in or around early 2007. To add insult to injury,
2
SHEMARYA promoted Parke to DEVLIN' s position after he tenninated her.
4
SHEMARYA displaved preferential treatment to Parke over DEVLIA' despite the fact that she was
5
far more qualified and had established a record of exenrplurt, perfol•nrance at TSA.
46.
As a TSA employee, Parke was notoriously known among TSA employees as "PTP,"
which stood for "Preferential Treatment Parke" because of the preferential treatment SHEMARYA gave
to Parke.
10
After SHEMARYA hired Parke, he gave Parke several coveted TSA accomits despite DE11LI11"s
11
superior qualifications and experience.
12
13
47.
Shortly after SHEMARYA.. hired Parke , he pennitted Parke to work on Rachel Zoe's.
account, a high -level account at TSA to which DEVLIN had never been assigned notwrtlistanding her
14 superior qualifications, work performance, and nine years of experience with TSA. DEVLENT was
15 particularly well qualified to work on this account because she studied fashion at the Fashion Institute of
16 Technology in New York City and she had worked for over a decade with fashion stylists at both TSA
17 and Gucci.
18
48.
Parke ' s performance on the Rachel Zoe account was at best below average. On one
19 occasion , Parke failed to send her book to numerous advertisers . As her agent , he failed to get her any
20 significant styling jobs, notwithstanding her occupation as a celebrity stylist . To cover up his mistakes,
2.1
Parke frequently complained that lie was unable to work with Rachel Zoe and that he wanted to shut her
72 husband Roger Berrnan out of their communications and business dealings.
23
49.
SHEMARYA also assigned Parke to work on world-renowned photographer Steven
24
Klein's account , again notwithstanding DEVLIN 's superior qualifications . DEVLIN had handled
25
TSA's very first photography account with Cliff Watts, who subsequently generated over a million
26 dollars
In revcnue for TSA.
DEVLIN
also
had
suc cessfully I nanagcd p hotog raph er
27 at TSA.
2s
13
PLAIN'TIFF'S COMP! AIN'T FOR DAMAGES
Suzi
Kini's account
Several inonths after hiring Parke. SHEMARYA4 denzated DEVLIA'arid f ad Parke assutne her_J'oh
2
duties at TSA.
50.
Several months after he hired Parke; SHEMARYA demoted .DEVLIN`T and replaced her
4
with Parke. Prior to her demotion, DEVLIN'S duties included but were not limited to managing her
5
own accounts, meeting with new clients, representing celebrities for commercial endorsements, taking
.6 .telephone calls on behalf of TSA clients, researching fashion and merchandise brands. extensively
researching consumer product companies worldwide to dctennine if their "brands" were a "fit" for
8
TSA's clients. SHEMARYA had Parke take over all of these duties.
51.
As part of DEVLIN's demotion, DEFENDANTS took rnost and eventually all of
DEVLIN'S accounts away from her. They instead instructed DEVLIN to assi st other TSA employees
with their own accounts, including employees who previously had been junior to her such as Parke.
SHEMARYA gave Parke a raise only a few short months after hiring hill! M,hile deriving DEVLIN a
14
raise for the first titre in nine gears.
15
52.
Shortly after Parke was hired, DEVLIN confronted SHEMARYA at work and asked hinr
lb
if and when she would receive a raise that year, which she had consistently received every year for her
17
previous eight years at TSA. SHEMARYA lied to DEVLIN and told her that she would not receive her
18
annual raise because it had been a "bad year for TSA." DEVLIN subsequently learned that
19 notwithstanding the "bad year for TSA," SHEMARYA gave Parke a raise only a few months into his
20 job.
21
22
SHEMAR YA WR ONGFULL Y TERMINA TED DE 11LIN IA' OR AR O UND LA 7E DECEWER
23
2007 I1IA EMAIL MESSAGE BECA USE HE 91ANTED HER TO PURSUE HER OTHER
24
DREAMS.
25
53.
Throughout DEVLIN's employment at TSA, she had an exemp lary performance record,
2( evidenced by the fact she received a bonus and raise every year she worked at TSA except for her last.
27 By and through her annual raises, DEVLIN'S annual salary jumped from S30,000 to over a 5100,000 in
2$ eight years. DEVLIN was never- written up for any perfor-rmance issue during her erml;;:rymcnt with
14
I
TSA. ..
54.
J
On or around December 29, 2007, during the holidays and the day before her birthday.
SHEMARYA sent DEVLIN a Iong-winded e-mail message in which he terminated her without warning
4
on behalf of TSA. A true and correct copy of this message is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5
SHEMARYA terminated DEVLIN` notwithstanding her admitted "loyalty and hard work over the
6 years... [that he] cherished," as set forth in his email message. See Exhibit A. SHEMARYA claimed
7 that he was terminating her via email because "this way [he could] clearly say that [lie] wanted" to
8
without [DEVLIN] getting defensive" and so she could "reread [the email] and not have to won-y about
9 remembering [SHEMARYA'S] words." Id. In his termination email message, SHEMARYA claimed
10 that"he was terminating-DEVLIN from TSA because he knew that she was "bored," "fe[lt] lost wIth1I]
II
[his] ever growing company [presumably a reference to Parke]," and that she had "other dreams and
12 passions [DEVLIN] need[ed] to explore and [SHEMARYA'S] business only [held Devlin] back from
i3
not only pursuing those but realizing what they are." Id. SHEMARYA further referenced his hope to
14 adopt a child, writing that he hoped that DEVLIN would remain a "part of rxiy life and my child's life."
15
Id. SHEMARYA ended the message by referencing "all [his] love" for DEVL.INT. Id.
16
17
Following Devlin's Term ination , DEFEADANTS refused to pay her severance to.force her to sig n a
18
19
confidentiality agreement regarding illegal conduct at 7SA.
55.
Less than a week after DEVLIN'S tennination on or around January 3, 2008,
20 DEFENDANTS wrote DEVLIN by and through their attorneys. In this letter, DEFENDANTS stated
21
that they would only pay DEVLIN'S severance if she signed the attached confidentiality and release
22 agreement. Under this agreement, DEVLIN would-be barred from publicly disclosing the host of illegal
23
and shocking conduct she witnessed at TSA, including but not limited to DEFENDANTS' hostile work
24 environment, SHEMARYA'S drug use and other illegal activities, and the outright contempt and
25 disdain TSA repeatedly expressed for its own clients. She would also be barred from bringing SM.L
26 against DEFENIDANTS for their misconduct.
27
56.
DEFENDANTS re Fused to pay DEVLIN all wagcs they owed to her in violation of
28 California law.
15
PLAINrIFT'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAC;ES
1
2
57.
On or around February 14, 2008, DEVLIN requested and SHEMARYA failed to
comply with DEVLI-N" S request to review and obtain copies of her employment file in TSA's
possession in violation of California law.
4
58.
DEVLIN has timel) filed administrative complaints with the Department of Fair
5
Employment and Housing ("DFEH"1 against DEFENDANTS and received corresponding right-to-sue
6
letters. As such, DEVLIN' exhausted her administrative remedies.
7
FIRST CAUSE OF .AC'T'ION
8
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12900 , et sea. [ Harassment Based On Sex]
9
(Against All Defendants and DOES 1-100)
10
1]
12
59.
DEVLIN realleges and incorporates herein by reference. as though set forth in full,
each and ever}' allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 58 inclusive.
60.
Government Code § 124900)(1) prohibits harassment based on sex.
61.
DEVLIN is a female. Thus, DEVLIN falls within the protected category of Government
14
Code § 12926(m) and § 129400), which prohibits an employer from taking any adverse employment action
15
on the basis of sex.
16
62.
The actions of SHEMARYA and TSA and each of them, in subjecting DEVLIN to a severe
17
and pervasive hostile work envirozurent based on her sex and/or widespread sexual favoritism of lesser
18
qualified homosexual males and terminating her einployrnent, constitute unlawful discrimination in
19 violation of settled law including but not limited to California Government Code § 12940 et seq. and the
20 California Constitution, Article 1, § 8.
21
63.
The conduct, statements, and acts described herein were an ongoing part of a continuing
27 scheme and course of conduct by SHEMARYA and TSA.
73
64.
DEFENDANTS knew the substance of the above-described facts and circumstances and
24 ratified the wrongs and injuries mentioned herein when it was their ability to prevent, remedy and/or con-ect
25 these wrongs. SHEMARYA and TSA further intentionally and willfully failed to ensure that their
76 employees were informed of the law relevant to their duties or to ensure that enlployecs would not be
77 required to participate in illegal conduct.
28
65.
SI4EMAIZYA and TSA have continued to ratify and have refused to remedy nr corrcc;t the
16
PLAINTIFF'S COMPI.AINT FOR DAMAGES
I
aforementioned conduct during and since DEVI IN' S employment , notwithstanding the fact that company
2 officials Icnew or reasonably should have known of the conduct and its unlawfulness.
66
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations of statute and public
4 policy, DEVLIN' has suffered and will continue to suffer:
5
a.
6
substantial reduction in past and current income, and future income potential in
sums as may be shown according to proof;
7
b.
8
A substantial injury and damage to her occupation and professional reputation in
a sum as may be shown according to proof;
9
C.
A substantial reduction in loss of work-related benefits; and
10
d.
Extreme humiliation, embarrassment; depression, sleeplessness. emotional pain,
II
emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodily injury,
12
suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other
13
losses from the date of said acts all to DEVLINT' s damage in a sum as may be
14
shown according to proof.
15
67.
The amount of DEVLIN' S damages is not presently known but she will seek leave of
16 Court to amend this Complaint when the exact amount of such damages has been ascertained or will
17 prove the same at trial.
18
68.
The above-recited actions of SHEMARYA and TSA were done with malice , fraud, or
19 oppression , and reckless disregard of DEVLIN 'S rights. SHEMARYA and TSA engaged in their
20 offensive conduct despite their awareness of the effect on DEVLIN . As a result of these and other
211 actions, DEVLIN is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
22
69.
In addition , as a proximate -result of the wrongful conduct of TSA, DEVLIN is entitled
23 to attorney ' s fees and prejudgment interest.
24
25
70.
Pursuant to California Government Code § 12965 (b), DEVLINT requests the award of
attorney's fees against TSA under this cause of action.
26
27
28
H
17
PLA]IVYMPS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
I
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12900 , et seq. [Discrimination Based On Sex]
(Against TSA and DOES 1-100)
4
71.
DEVLIN realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full. each
5 and every allegation contained in Paragraphs I through 70 inclusive.
6
72.
This cause of action is brought pursuant to FEHA, § 12940 et seta. of the Goveriunent
7 Code making it illegal for an employer to discharge a person from employment on the basis of his or her
8 sex.
9
73.
DEVLIN is a woman and thus falls within the protected category of Government Code
10 § 12940(a).
II
74.
DEVLIN was discharged fronn her employment and discriminated against on the basis
12 of her sex and/or widespread sexual favoritism of lesser qualified homosexual males.
J
At all material points described herein, DEVLl1\t was treated differently than similarly-
75.
14 situated employees, including but not limited to Parke Steiger, and.,-'Or otherwise was subjected to
15 unlawful discriminatory employment practices as prohibited by the laws of California. TSA and
16 SHEMARYA, in engaging in the aforementioned conduct, intended to discriminate against DEVLIN on
1
the basis of her sex.
18
76.
The conduct, statements, and acts described herein were an ongoing part of a continuing
19 scheme and course of conduct. TSA knew the substance of the above-described facts and circumstances
20 and ratified the wrongs and injuries mentioned herein when it was their ability to prevent, remedy
21
and/or correct these wrongs. TSA further intentionally and willfully failed to ensure that their
22 employees were infonned of the law relevant to their duties or to ensure that its employees would not be
23
24
required to participate in illegal conduct.
.
TSA has continued to ratify and has refused to reinedy or correct the aforementioned
77.
25 conduct during and since DEVLIN 's employment, notwithstanding the fact that company officials knew
26 or reasonably should have known of the conduct and its unlawfulness.
27
78.
As a direct and proximate reszllt of the aforementioned violations of statute and public
28 policy, DEVLIN
has
suffer(;d a nd will Continue
to suffer:
18
_
I
A substantial reduction in past and current income, and future income potential
a.
in sums as may be shown according to proof;
3
b.
4
a sum as may be shown according to proof,
5
C.
6
Extreme humiliation , embarrassment. df:,pression , sleeplessness, emotional pain,
7
emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodily injure,
8
suffering, mental anguish , inconvenience ; loss of enjoyment of life- and other
9
losses fi-om the date of said acts all to DEVLIN's damage in a sum as may be
10
I1
shown according to proof
79.
The amount of DEVLIN' s damages is not presently Icnown but she will seek leave of
14
80.
The above-recited actions of TSA were done with malice, fraud, or oppression; and
15 reckless disregard of DEVLfN'S rights. TSA engaged in its offensive conduct despite its awareness of
16 the effect on DEVLIN. As a result of these and other actions, DEVLIN is entitled to aii award of
17 punitive damages.
18
81.
In addition, as a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of TSA; DEVLIN is entitled
19 to attorney's fees and prejudgment interest.
20
21
82.
Pursuant to California Government Code § 12965(b), DEVLIN requests the award of
attomey's fees against TSA under this cause of action.
22
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
23
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12900, et SeMc . [Retaliation]
24
(Against All Defendants and DOES I-100)
25
83.
DEVLIN realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, each
26 and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 82 inclusive.
77
78
84.
There was no professional or business justification for subjecting DEVUN to a hostile
work environInent that
I'MILided
unwanted sexually -offensive
comments.
19
PLAINT'IFF'S COMPLAINT FOR I)ANIAGES
The stated reasons for DEVLIN' s termination as contained in SHEMARYA's
85.
2
December 29, 2007 email message were pre-textual and designed to cover up the true reasons and
illegal motivations: to wit, retaliation for DEVLIINI' S opposition to and complaints of the
4
DEFENDANTS' discriminatory preferential treatment of TSA employees on the basis of sex andiol- the
5 widespread sexual favoritism of lesser qualified homosexual finales.
6
DEFENDANTS' continued conduct towards DEVLIN and ultimately their termination
86.
7 of DEVLr was in violation of the public policy embodied in California Government Code § 12940(h),
8 which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because that employee opposes
9 any act prohibited by FEHA.
10
II
The actions of the DEFENDANTS and each of them in subjecting DEVLIN to a hostile
87.
work envirorunent, which included the aforementioned acts of retaliation, culminating in DEVLIN's
12 termination, constitute unlawful discriinination in violation of settled law including but not limited to
13
California Government Code § 12900 et Le_,. and the California Constitution, Article I, §8, and Civil
14 Code 1770 et M..
15
88.
16 policy, DEVLIN has suffered and will continue to suffer:
17
a.
18
A substantial reduction in past and current income; and future income potential
19
b.
20
a sum as may be shown according to proof,
21
c.
22
d.
Extreme-humiliation, embarrassment, depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain,
23
24
suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoy-rent of life, and other
25
losses from the date of said acts all to DEVLIN's damage in a sum as may be
26
shown according to proof
27
28
89.
Co Llrt
to Amend
The amount of DEVLIN's damages is not presently known but she ",ill Suck leave of
this Compla int
4` h m the e xact
am o unt
of s u ch
dainaps has
20
PLAtNTIFF'S CONPLA1NT FOR DAMAGES
been ascertained or
wdl
I
prove the sarne at trial.
1)
90.
The above-recited actions of DEFENDANTS were done with malice, fraud, or
3
oppression, and reckless disregard of DEVLINT 's rights. DEFENDANTS engaged in their- offensive
4
conduct despite their awareness of the effect on DEVLIN. As a result of these and other actions,
5
DEVLIN is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
6
91.
In addition, as a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of TSA. DEVLIN is entitled
to attorney' s fees and prejudganent interest.
8
Pursuant to California Government Code § 12965(6), DEVLIN' requests the award of
92.
9 attorney's fees against TSA under this cause of action.
10
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION -
I1
VIOLATION OF GO)7ERNMENT CODE § 1294D (k)
12
f Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination]
13
(Against
TSA and DOES 1-100)
25
14
15
16
93.
DEVLIN realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in fall, each
and ever}, allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 92 inclusive.
94.
At all times herein mentioned, Government Code § 12940( k) was in full force and
17
effect and binding on TSA. Government Code § 12940( k) requires TSA to take all reasonable steps
18
necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment . As alleged above, TSA violated this statutory
19 provision.
20
21
95.
DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of the unlawful conduct undertaken by it
and the remaining DEFENDANTS against DEVLIN, and failed to take reasonable steps to remedy such
22 conduct or provide DEVLIN with a workplace free from discrimination , harassment and retaliation.
23
96.
25
a.
26
27
28
in sums as may be shown according to proof,
b.
A substantial injury and damage to her occupdtion and ])rofcssiona] reputation in
a sung as may be shown according to proof,
21
PLA1NT1FF"s
C O MPLA INT FO R DAMAGPS
R
I
C.
A substantial reduction in loss of work -related benefits; and
2
d.
Extreme humiliation , embarrassment . depression. sleeplessness . emotional pain.
emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodil ) injury,
4
suffering, mental an ruish. inconvenience , loss of enjoyment of life , and other
5
losses from the date of said acts all to DEVLINI' S damage in a sum as may be
6
7
97.
The amount of DEVLIN' S damages is not presently known but she will seek leave of'
10
98.
The above-recited actions of TSA and SHEMARYA were done with malice. fraud, or
II
oppression, and reckless disregard of DEVLIN'S rights. DEFENDANTS engaged in their offensive
12
conduct despite their awareness of the effect on DEVLIN. As a result of these and .other actions,
13
DEVLIN is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
14
99.
In addition, as a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of TSA, DEVLIN is entitled
15 to attorney's fees and prejudgment interest.
16
100.
Pursuant to California Gover inient Code § 12965(b), DEVLIN requests the award of
17 attorney's fees against TSA under this cause of action.
I8
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12900, et sue.
20
21
101.
22 and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 100, inclusive.
23
102.
This cause of action is brought pursuant to IrEHA, § 12900 .e t Se q. of the Government
24 Code, which bars an employer from discharging a person from employment on the basis of his or her
25 sex.
26
27
28
1
03.
DEVLIN Is
a
wom a n and thus
falls
- OrY of Government
within the protected c atco
Code
12940(a).
104.
DEVLIN wa s d is charged
iron] her
e mployriie nt
and discrlminatcd a g ainst
22
on the basis
t
I
2
(f of her sex.
At all material points described herein , DEVL1INz was treated differently than similarly
105.
situated employees and or otherwise was subjected to unlawful discriminatory employment practices as
4 prohibited by the laws of California . TSA, in engaging in the aforementioned conduct , intended to
5
discriminate against DEVLFNT on the basis of her sex.
6
7
106.
TSA has continued to ratify and have refused to remedy or cor rect the
aforementioned conduct during and since DEVLIN'S employment, notwithstanding the fact that
111 company officials knee or reasonably should have known of the conduct and its unlawfulness.
9
The conduct, statements, and acts described herein were an origoing part of a continuing
107.
I1
and ratified the wrongs and injuries mentioned herein when it was it's ability to prevent, remedy and/or
12
correct these wrongs. TSA further intentionally and willfully failed to ensure that its employees were
13 informed of the law relevant to their duties or to ensure that employees would not be required to
14 participate in illegal conduct.
15
16
108.
TSA has continued to ratify and have refused to remedy or con ect the aforementioned
conduct during and since DEVLIN's employment, notwithstanding the fact that company officials /anew
18
109.
20
a.
21
22
b.
23
a sum as may be shown according to proof;
24
C.
A substantial reduction iii loss of work-related benefits; and
25
d.
Extreme humiliation, embarrassment, depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain,
26
27
suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of unjoyincnt of life, and other
28
losses from the elate of said acts afl, to DEV1,1N''S damage in a sure as 111031 be
23
PLAIItiTII--'S COMPLAINT FOR UAMAGI. `;
110.
The amount of DEVLIN' S damages is not presently known but she will seek leave of
Court to amend this Complaint when the exact amount of such damages has been ascertained or will
lll.
The above-recited actions of TSA were done with malice, fraud, or oppression, and
6 reckless disregard of DEVL1Nr'S rights. TSA engaged in the offensive conduct despite its awareness of
7 the effect on DEVLIN. As a result of these and other actions. DEVLIN is entitled to an award of
8 punitive damages.
9
112.
in addition; as a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the TSA, DEVLIN is
10 entitled to attorney's fees and prejudgment interest.
II
113.
Pursuant to California Government Code § 12965(b), DEVLIN requests the award of
12 attorney 's fees against TSA under this cause of action.
13
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
WRONGFUL, TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
15
16
114.
is
115.
It is the well-established policy of the State of California by and through its statutory
19 and common laws, including but not limited to Government Code § 12900 g
California
20 Constitution , Article I, § 8, Business and Professions Code § 17200 e_t se q. and Civil Code § 1770 et
21
sect, that it is intolerable and unlawful for an employer to bar or to discharge the person from
22 employment or to discriminate against the.person in compensation or in terins, conditions, or privileges
23
of employment because of such person 's sex or to retaliate against the person for opposing a
24 discriminatory practice or participating in a protected activity.
25
116.
DEVLIN is w ithin the protected category of persons within the meaning of Government
26 Code § 12900 et sc . and the aforementioned statutory and common laws because she is a female.
27
117.
In contravention of this policy, DEVLIN' is informed. believes and thereupon alleges
28 that TSA harassed, discriminated, retaliated against her, and terminated her ern the basis of her sex or
24
,
such was a motivating or determinative factor even though other factors may have contributed to TSA's
2
actions, in violation of well-established California State legislative policy.
TSA' s actions described herein above were in violation of established public policy
118.
4
5
against employment discrimination and retaliation based upon sex and opposition to discrimination.
The conduct, statements and acts described herein were an ongoing part of a continuing
119.
7
and ratified the wrongs and injuries mentioned herein when it was their ability to prevent, remedy
s
and/or correct these wrongs. TSA further intentionally and willfully failed to ensure that its employees
9 were informed of the law relevant to their duties or to ensure that employees would not be required to
10
II
participate in illegal conduct.
Furthermore, it is well - established California public policy that an employer cannot
120.
12 terminate an employee due to an employee ' s refusal to engage in an unlaW ul activity. In -contravention
13
of that policy ; DEFENDANTS terminated DEVLIN due to her refusal to engage in the unlawful activity
14 of obtaining possession of property through false pretenses embodied in California Penal Cride § 532(a).
15
121. In addition , DEFENDANTS violated the well-established public policy of the State of
16 California, which by and through the California Family Code seeks to promote and protect the health,
17 safety. and well-being of minor children in California; by tenninating DEVLIN because she might
18 disclose to an adoption agency that SHEMARYA was unfit as an .adoptive parent and would pose a
19 threat to the welfare of any child he might adopt.
20
21
122.
TSA has continued to ratify and have refused to remedy or correct the aforementioned
conduct during and since DEVLIN' S employment , notwithstanding the fact that company officials knew
23
123.
25
a.
26
27
28
b.
A substantial injury and damage to her occupation and profcssional reputation in
a sum as may he shown according to proof,
25
PLAINITIFF's CO MPLAINT FOR D AMAGES
2
C. _
d.
Extreme humiliation, embarrassment, depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain,
4
suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other
losses fi-om the date of said acts all to DEVLIINT'S damage in a sum as may be
6
7
b
124.
The amount of DEVLIN'S damages is not presently ]mown but she will seek leave of
10
I1
125.
The above-recited actions of TSA were done with malice, fraud, or oppression, and
reckless disregard of DEVLIN'S rights. TSA engaged in its offensive conduct despite its awareness of
12 the effect on DEVLIINI. As a result of these and other actions, DEVLINT is entitled to an award of
14
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
16
17
DEVLIN realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full; each
126.
18 and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 125, inclusive.
19
127.
Asset forth above, DEFENDANTS' conduct toward DEVUN was outrageous and
20 unprivileged and was done either with the intent to cause emotional distress or with reckless disregard
21
22
23
24
of the probability of causing such emotional distress,
128.
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, DEVLIN has suffered
and will continue in the future to suffer:
a.
25
26
b.
27
28
A substantial injury and damage to her occupation and professional refutation in
a suns as may he shown according to proof,
c.
A substantial reduction in loss of work-related benefit-; and
26
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE'S
I
Extreme humiliation, embarrassment. depression, sleeplessness, emotional pain,
d.
emotional distress which culminated in physical injury and bodily injure,
I
3
suffering , mental anguish, inconvenience , loss of enjoyment of life; and other
4
losses from the date of said acts all to DEVLIN' S damage in a suin as may be
5
6
129.
The amount ofDEVLIN 'S damages is not presently known but she will seek leave of
7
8
prove the same at trial.
9
130.
The above-recited actions of TSA were done with malice, fraud; or oppression, and
10 reckless disregard of DEVLIN'S rights. TSA engaged in its offensive conduct despite its awareness of
1l
the effect on DEVLIN. As a result of these and other actions , DEVLIN is entitled to an award of
13
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE §§ 510 and 1194 et sic .
15
16
131.
DEVLIN realleges and incorporates herein by reference; as though set forth in full, each
17 and every allegation contained in Paragraphs l through 130 inclusive.
18
132.
At all relevant times , the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders contained in
19 Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Wage Orders) applied to DEVLIN in her capacity as an
20
employee of Defendants . The Wage Orders provide, among other things, that for each hour in excess of
21
forty (40) hours per week and/or each hour in excess of eight (8) hours per day , DEVLIN . should receive
22 pay at not less than one and one-half ( 1 %) times her regular rate of pay . Pursuant to Labor Code § 510,
2^
24
25
an employer must pay an employee overtime when the employee works more than eight hours a day.
133.
Throughout her employment with TSA, DEVLIN was not all exempt employee under
the Wage Orders or California law. DEVL`N was neither a person employed in an administrative,
26 execrative nor professional capacity as defined in the Wage Ordcrs and California law,
27
134.
The realistic requirements of DEVLIN's position were that she would spend all her time
28 doing non- exe^npt , non-manabcrial duties.
27
135.
Throughout DEVLIN's employment with TSA , she was consistently required to. work in
excess of forty (40) hours per week and or each hour in excess of eight ( 8) hours per da) and did not
receive pay of one and one -half (1 12 ) times her regular - rate of pa) or as otherwise required by Iaw.
136.
DEVLIN brings this action to recover the balance of all unpaid wages owed to her with
interest thereon under Labor Code § 1194, et seg ., for uncompensated overtime as required under the
Wage Orders and California law. to the fullest extent permitted under the statutory time period.
137.
In addition to payment of her past wages and all applicable penalties allocable udder the
law, with interest thereon , DEVLIN' will seek attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action under
Labor- Code § 1194, et seg.
NENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONTS OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 and 512
13S.
DEVLII\T realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full, each
and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 137 inclusive.
139.
Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, no employer shall require an employee to
work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare
Commission.
140.
During her ernployrnent , DEVUN was frequently denied, the right and forced to forgo
her legally-required meal and rest breaks.
141.
As a result of the conduct of TSA and each of there, DEVLIN sustained damages and is
entitled to additional hours of pay in an amount to be detemtined at the time, of trial, and at a cninimurn,
in a combined amount in excess of the jurisdiction of the.Superior Court, and DEVLIN! is entitled to
darnages pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7.
142.
DEVLIN will seek attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action under Labor Code
1194, et se A.
11
28
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DANIAG S
I
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
I
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226
3
4
5
6
143.
DEVLIN realleges and incorporates herein bt reference, as though set fortli in full; each
and every allegation contained in Paragraphs I through 142 inclusive.
144.
Pursuant to Labor Code
226, an employer who receives an ernplovee's request to
7 inspect or copy records of that employee ' s file pursuant to subdivision (b) pertaining to tha: current or
8
former employee shall comply with the request as soon as practicable, but no later than twenty-one (21)
9 calendar days from the date of the request.
10
II
12
13
145.
TSA failed to comply with DEVLINI' s written request dated February 14, 2008, for
DEFENDANTS to hnake DEVLIN "S employment file available to her in violation of Labor Code 226.
146.
As a result of the conduct of TSA and each of thetas . DEVLIN has sustained damages in
an amount to be detennined at the time of trial, and at a minimum, it a combined amount in excess of
14 the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, and DEVLIN is further entitled to damages stemming from
15 TSA's failure to comply with Labor Code § 226.
16
17
147.
DEVLIN will seek attorneys ' fees incurred in prosecuting this action under Labor Code
§ 1194, et se .
18
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE § 201, et M.
20
21
22
23
148.
and every allegation eontaaned..in Paragraphs 1 through 147 inclusive.
149.
When TSA unlawfully terlninated DEVLIN'S employment on or around December 29,
24 2007, it failed to pay DEVLIN all wages due and owing to her, including her severance, deferred
25
26
compensation, and hourly wage and sic], pay.
150.
Pursuant to Labor Code § 201, it is unlawful for an cnhployer to willfully fail to pay an
27 employee overtinhe C011113en5atioth due at the time of termination. DEVLIN never paid the wades and
28 relinhursements. DEIILIN brings this action tender Labor Code § 203 which pr.-ovides that if an
29
PLAINT iFF'S CONII L.AIiN'I' FOR DAMAGES
I
employer willfully fails to pay any wages and benefits of an employee who is discharged or quits within
specified times, the wages of such - employee shall continue to accrue from the date thereof at the same
3
rate until paid , or until an action is commenced, up to a maximum of thirty (30) days.
4
5
151.
More than thirty (30) days have past since DEVLIN was terminated by TSA, and all of
her wages have not been . paid to her.
6
152.
As a consequence of TSA's willful failure to pay DEVLIN all wages due upon
7 tennination . DEVLIN is entitled to thirty (30) days of wages as penalty wages under Labor Code § 203,
8
together with interest thereon.
9
10
153.
DEVLIN' will seek attorney ' s fees incurred in prosecuting this action under Labor Code
x.203 ),'2 18.5, and/or 1194, et se .
I1
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
BREACH OF IMPLIED -IN-FACT CONTRACT
I3
(Against TSA and DOES 1•-100)
14
15
154.
DEVLIN re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 153 inclusive.
16
155.
TSA AND SHEMARYA have at all times acted consistently with the existence of a
17 valid contract with DEVLIN to only fire her for cause and to pay her deferred compensation . DEVLIN
18 performed her duties arising under the contract, save those obligations which were excused by
19 SHEMARYA and TSA' s breaches . TSA and SHEMARYA accepted the benefit of DEVLIN's
20
performance with full knowledge that she expected to remain an employee, she expected to only be fired
21
"for cause," and she expected to be paid as promised.
22
23
24
25
156.
DEVLIN relied on TSA and SHEMARYA' s promises by quitting a higher paying job at
Gucci of Beverly Hills and by refusing otherjob offers during the course of her employment with TSA.
157.
SHEMARYA and TSA breached the implied in fact contract by firing DEVLIN without
cause and by replacing her with Parke Steiger , an objectively inferior employee . SHEMARYA and
26 TSA further breached the implied in fact contract by not paying DEVLIN her defcrre;d compensation as
27 promised.
28
158.
DEV1-,fN's darnal es are a certain, foreseeable , ,ind measurable consequence of
30
I
BOYER' s breaches . As a direct and proximate result of said breaches , DEVLIN' has been damaged in
2
an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4
BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT
5
6
159.
DEVLIN' re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference; as though set forth in full,
7 each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 158 inclusive.
8
160.
TSA AND SHEMARYA promised to only fire DEVLIN for cause and to paY her
9 1 deferred compensation . DEVL FN performed all her duties arising under die-contract, save those
10 obligations which were excused by SHEMARYA and TSA 's breaches . TSA and SHEMARYA
11
accepted the benefit of DEVLIN's perforJnance with full knowledge that she expected to remain and
12 employee and be paid as promised.
13
161.
DEVLIN relied on TS A 's and SHEMARYA' s promises by quitting a higher paying job
14 at Gucci of Beverly Hills acid by refusing other job offers during the course of her employment at TSA,
15
162.
SHEMARYA and TSA breached their oral agreement by firing DEVLIN without cause
16 and by replacing her with an inferior employee, Parke Steiger . SHEMARYA and TSA further breached
17 the agreement by not paying DEVLIN her deferred compensation as promised.
18
163.
DEVLIN' s damages are a certain , foreseeable, and measurable consequence of
19 DEFENDANTS ' breaches . As a direct and proximate result of said breaches, DEVLIN has been
20 damaged in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.
21
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, et M.
23
24
164.
26
165.
California Business and ProfessiOns Code §17200 et sect; provides that unfair
271,1 competition slralI mean and include "all unlawful , unfair or fraudulent business act or practices and
28
unfair, clcceptivc; untrue or misleading ,:clvertisirlg."
31
PLAJNTJI'1'°S COMPLANIT FOR DAMAGE'S
166.
DEVLrN is informed and believes and thereon alleges that TSA has engaged in unfair-
competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et sec ... by maintaining a
workplace rife with harassment, discrimination, and retaliation on the basis of sex.
4
Such business practices are also a violation of California public policy, including but
167.
not limited to the following: Government Code § 12900, et spec., California Constitution, Article 1, § 8,
6 California wage and hour laws and Civil Code § 1770 et seg. The maintenance of such unfair business
7 practices allows TSA to maintain an unfair advantage over other companies which comply with FEHA
8 and the public policy of the state of California.
9
168.
TSA falls within the definition of a "business" as set forth at Business and Professions
10 Code §§ 17203 and 17506.
II
169.
The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices of TSA described above present
12
a continuing threat to Inernbers of the public in that TSA has or will soon engage.in the conduct
13
described above and members of the public are likely to be deceived when they pursue or gain
14 employment with TSA. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203; DEVUNI seeks
15
an order from this Court that:
16
a.
17
18
Provides injunctive and declaratory relief finding that TSA has violated the
provisions of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and
b.
For an order enjoining TSA and it's respective successors, agents; servants,
19
officers, directors, employees, and all other persons acting in concert with them,
20
directly or indirectly, from engaging in conduct which violates California
21
Business and Professions Code §17200 et sect
22
23 11
24 11
25
26
27
28
32
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ] OR DAMAGES
I
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF DEVLIN prays for judg rent against DEFENDANTS as follows:
1.
For general and compensatory damages, including prejudgment interest.
according to proof at trial;
4
2.
For lost salary, both front and back pay. bonuses , and any other benefits to which
DEVLI-NT would have been entitled to by reason of her employment with
6
DEFENDANTS, according to proof at trial;
7
3.
For punitive damages where permitted to be detennined at trial;
s
4.
For DEVLIN' S costs and attorneys fees where pennitted;
9
5.
For restitution and/or disgorgement of all ill -gotten gains (on the Fourteenth
10
II
Cause of Action only)
6.
12
13
For a preliminary and permanent injunction against TSA fi•orn the acts of unfair
competition as described ip the Fourteenth Cause of Action; and
7.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
14 DATED: November 3, 2008
KEITH A. FINIC & ASSOCIATES
15
16
17
18
By:
Ke'Ah A. Fink
4111
Sarah Hernandez
Elizabeth C . Bendana
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
HEATHER DEVLIN
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAIN"r FOR DAMAGES
E xhib it A
G
f
From: Todd Shemarva todd@shemarva.com
Tc: Heather heather@shemarya ,com, Heather d ndevlin007@tmo.blackberry.net,
!leather Devlin mrchowB88 @hotmail.com
Su^Dject:
Daze: 12/29."2D07 1:99:02 PM
Folder:
Dearest heather. 1 have pondered over the best way to broach this SUID3ect witn
you and obviously decided via e mail is the best way. Tn;s way I can clearly
say what I want to without you getting defensive and as well you being able
zo reread and riot nave to worry about remembering my words. Let me start by
saying on a personal level
love you to death and reel that our friendship
will become stronger. On a business level you and I both know its not working
You have been wTtn me eiant vea_s and your loyalty and
for either one of u
hard work over the years I have cherished and has peen acknowledged. I have
showr: you in every possible way 1 can. I have paid you well, treated you
well, tried to open up accounts for yo,_ to help save money, tried to give you
projects-that would inspire you, T.e alexie. Everything
could to help you
grow witr my company.( I think the saying is true that .f we aren't doing
something we are happy with and inspired by it won't pring us hapiness). The
carefree fun times in my office as you have seen are far and few between. I am
overly busv and beyond stressed . My silence with you has not been on a
personal note but more on a professional one.. Although = am so grateful for
the way my company has grown I now have to make choices which I feel are .:good
for my company as 'a whole.. I need a team o= people that are excited and
passionate; about what my company offers and that are moving in the same
direction."I'know you are bored I know that you feel lost within my ever
growing company. 1 also know you are loyal to a fault as am I. T_ know you
have ocher dreams and passions you need to explore and my business only holds
you back from not only pursuing those but realizing what they are. You don't
like change and you will stay in even the most uncomfortable situation to
avoid it. My intention over the past several months was to try to help you to
was to seperate the business and personal and help you to
realize this, it
realize that it was our friendship you cherished not our business
relationship, But as the loyal Capricorn you are you would stay in an unhappy
situation until you had mange. This is what I love and hate about you. 1 get
mad because there are so many things you can do in your life,yest life keeps
moving forward. the art world you have always wanted to explore but you won't
because your safe.
I am shifting you out of your safety zone now. I wanted
to do this very respectfully and not get the office involved in any way for it
is between you and I. I also wanted to spare you anything that would be
uncomfortable.
I have not spoken to alan as of yet for I am going to when T
get back, in the office and I plan to give you a three month severance to give
you plenty of time to revisit your true passions. The best thing is probably
for you to go by the office before the 2nd when we reopen and get whatever is
your personal stuff,
you can just leave your keys and your blackberry on the
desk for those are the only things that belong to the office. I will make sure
the 3rd you have a check for your severance . I will. let people know that you
moved on to other things I would love to sit down and have dinner with you
after the 9th and help you in any way to go to your next journey. You need to
know 1 love you very much and only wish the best for you and will help you in
any way I can. This was a hard thing for me as well as for you but I know and
you know its the best thing for everyone. You will probably be more a part of
my life and my Childs life for we will now be following the path we were meant
to. As friends. I am hoping that this one step will help you to move toward
and be all that you can be to wake up excited and passionate every morning.
All. my love Todd
SeriiL via B1acl;Berry by AT&T
Poq* 1

lurid complaint - Reporter Blogs

Transcription

Similar documents

Tax Smart Financial Strategies for Our Employees

Summer Travel Tips

October 2014 Newsletter - Tri

PDF for Planning a Photographic Holiday

May 2015 Newsletter - Tri

Owensboro AIDS Memorial Candlelight Vigil - Tri

TSA Shirt Flyer and logo2

Transportation Security Administration

Pride Picnic is June 10 - Tri