BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Daniel Feder (SBN 130867) LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER 332 Pine Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 391-9476 Facsimily: (415) 391-9432 Attorneys for Plaintiff KRISTEN BARGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTEN BARGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DHR INTERNATIONAL, and DOES 1
THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES FOR:
1. Discrimination in Violation of California
Government Code § 12940 et seq. (Sex)
2. Discrimination in Violation of California
Government Code § 12940 et seq. (Race)
3. Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy
4. Breach of Contract 5. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing 6. Violation of California Labor Code
(Failure to Pay Overtime Wages) 7. Violation of California Labor Code
(Willful Failure to Pay Wages Upon Separation)
8. Violation of California Labor Code (Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements and to Maintain Adequate Records)
9. Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. DEMAND FOR JURY TRYAL
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Plaintiff Kristen Barge (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page1 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is a diversity action and the Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1332.
2. Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to and under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §§ 12900, et seq. (hereinafter
referred to as FEHA); California Constitution, Article I, §1; and other common and statutory
laws, as well as various provisions of the California Labor Code.
3. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this action
occurred within this District.
4. At all times relevant herein, Defendant DHR INTERNATIONAL, INC. and/or
DOES 1-25, and each of them, employed five (5) or more employees for each working day in each
of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year and is otherwise subject
to the provisions of FEHA and other applicable laws.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Kristen Barge (“Plaintiff”) was at all times relevant herein a resident of
San Jose, California.
6. Defendant DHR INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“DHR”) is an Illinois corporation
doing business currently and at all relevant times in the complaint in San Francisco, California.
DHR is a retained executive search firm that conduct senior-level executive search assignments
and recruits candidates at the board of directors, C-level and functional vice president levels in
all industries and functions.
7. In addition to the Defendant named above, Plaintiff sues fictitiously Defendants
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, because their names, capacities, status, or facts showing them to be
liable are not presently known. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of
the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged,
and such Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged. Plaintiff will amend
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page2 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this complaint to show their true names and capacities, together with appropriate charging
language, when such information has been ascertained.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant, and/or
DOES 1-25, and each of them, was at all times relevant herein the agent, servant, employee, and/or
representative of each of the other Defendants, and in doing the acts and things alleged in this
complaint was acting within the course and scope of such agency, service, employment and/or
representation. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant, and/or
DOES 1-25, and each of them, are the employers of the managers and supervisors herein
complained of, and supervising over Plaintiff, and therefore Defendant, and/or DOES 1-25, and
each of them, are jointly and severally responsible and liable to Plaintiffs for the damages
hereinafter alleged.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
9. Plaintiff filed a timely charge of discrimination with the California Department of
Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). The DFEH issued a Right-To-Sue notice on or about
January 29, 2015.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10. DHR was established in 1989, and is is one of the largest retained executive search
firms in the world, with more than 50 offices around the globe. DHR conducts search assignments
at the board of directors, C-level and functional vice president levels. DHR's consultants specialize
in all industries and functions in order to provide senior-level executive search, management
assessment and succession planning services tailored to the unique qualities and specifications of its
select client base.
11. On or about December 21, 2012, DHR offered Plaintiff a job as a DHR Principal,
with a base salary of $100,000 paid biweekly and subject to deductions and holdings.
12. Plaintiff’s compensation also included 20% commissions on professional cash
search fees for assignments that she generated and that were collected by DHR, to be paid quarterly.
In addition to her salary, plaintiff was to receive life insurance, long-term disability, and two weeks
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page3 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
paid vacation.
13. Plaintiff was contracted to work primarily with Pravesh Mehra (“Mehra”) and Adam
Charlson (“Charlson”), and reporting directly to Marissa Martin (“Martin”), Vice President, Global
Research. Her direct duties and responsibilities were to focus on sourcing candidates for various
assignments across industries and geographies, development of candidates, timely and accurate
recording and entry of data in DHR’s system, continuous monitoring of assigned engagements, and
timely and accurate communications with the Director of Research and Consultants.
14. Plaintiff performed her services for DHR in an exemplary manner, and was
consequently able to generate a huge amount of professional cash search fees for assignments she
worked on. The fees earned from January 14, 2014 through March 31, 2014 were outstanding by
any measure. In addition, by working side-by-side with Adam Charlson, Mr. Charlson generated
millions of dollars worth of professional placements.
15. Plaintiff initially worked with Mehra on two searches. However, Mehra stopped
working with Plaintiff and told her that she would have a hard time in the consulting market
because she was a Caucasian female without an MBA.
16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DHR had a practice of
withholding employee wages and using said wages as a “float” to operate its business. DHR did
this without regard to the California Labor Code, and without regard to Labor Code provisions
requiring interest at the legal rate (10%) be paid on all outstanding wages that are not timely paid.
DHR maintained this unlawful scheme to the detriment of its employees and competitors.
17. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that DHR has a long-standing practice of
acting to avoid paying earned commissions and bonuses. Specifically, principles are routinely
terminated after they have generated earned commissions and before the commissions have been
paid out.
18. In early January 2014, DHR notified Charlson that he might not be receiving his
bonus in April 2014, which was at that time worth over one million dollars. DHR also stopped
supporting Administrative Hiring and support efforts on West Coast.
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page4 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19. Plaintiff was set to receive her yearly bonus and her paycheck from DHR on April
11, 2014.
20. On the afternoon of April 5th,
2014, Plaintiff noticed that her company Iphone was
completely wiped and removed of all content. She was able to restart her phone but could not send
DHR corporate email through the phone. Her corporate email also did not work on her laptop.
21. On April 6, 2014, Charlson informed Plaintiff that he had been told that his
employment with DHR was terminated. Plaintiff immediately called her direct supervisor Marissa
Martin and Priya Patel at HR to get clarification on what was happening. When she reached
Martin, Plaintiff asked if she still had a job. Martin responded “no.” Plaintiff asked if she had done
anything to cause her termination, and Martin again responded “no.” Martin told Plaintiff that she
had good standing with DHR and that she would serve as a reference for Plaintiff in the future.
Martin also told Plaintiff that she would continue to be employed through April 11, 2014.
22. As of April 11, 2014, Plaintiff was owed in excess of $35,000 for earned
commissions. She was also entitled to payment for paid time off in the amount of approximately
$8000, plus her final two weeks of salary and approved expenses spent on submitted wages.
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that after she was terminated,
DHR continued to collect on invoices for which she was entitled to commissions.
24. On or about April 9, 2014, Plaintiff contacted Priya Patel (“Patel”) from DHR’s HR.
Patel told Plaintiff that DHR would not pay her the remaining salary, bonus, commissions and
expenses that she was owed. Patel told Plaintiff to contact DHR’s legal counsel Ed Ruberry for
further information. Plaintiff called Ruberry and was transferred to his Associate, James Berdelle,
to whom she requested her final payout. Berdelle promised to get back to her with a response, but
thereafter never contacted her.
25. At all times relevant herein, Defendant DHR employed, and continues to employ,
persons in California and is subject to California’s wage and hour regulations that are provided in
the California Labor Code and its regulations.
26. California Labor Code section 200(a) defines “Wages” as including “all amounts for
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page5 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by
the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation.
27. California Labor Code section 200(b) defines “Labor” as including “labor, work, or
service whether rendered or performed under contract, subcontract, partnership station plan, or
other agreement if the labor to be paid for is performed personally by the person demanding
payment.”
28. At all times relevant herein, all money owing per the contract of employment
between Plaintiff and DHR fits into the category of “wages” earned via her “labor” as defined in
Labor Code sections 200(a) & (b).
29. Labor Code section 204 provides that “All wages... [with few exceptions none of
which are applicable here] earned by any person in any employment are due and payable twice
during each calendar month.
30. Throughout the course of her employment DHR misclassified Plaintiff as an exempt
employee even though she spent less than 50% of her time performing managerial related activities.
31. Plaintiff worked on average 60-70 hours each week. Despite her right to be paid for
her overtime hours, DHR failed to pay Plaintiff for overtime, and failed to create and maintain
accurate records of her work time, as required by law. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation
for all overtime hours worked and additionally to a penalty compensation for not being provided
with meal and rest periods.
32. Similarly, DHR failed to provide its employees, including Plaintiff, with accurate
paystubs, informing them of gross and net wages owed, their number of hours worked, and at which
hourly rate.
33. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17071 and 17075, the failure of
Defendants to pay all wages as articulated throughout this complaint, is admissible as evidence of
Defendant DHR’s intent to violate the California Unfair Business Practices Act.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
CODE § 12940, ET SEQ. [SEX]
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page6 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Against DHR and DOE Defendants]
34. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-33 as though fully set
forth herein.
35. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant DHR qualified as an “employer” within the
meaning of the FEHA in that it regularly employed five or more workers.
36. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and received a Right to Sue Notice.
37. At all times during Plaintiff’s tenure with Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff performed
her duties in an acceptable manner.
38. California’s FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
discriminate against an employee in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment, including
altering the working conditions or discharging an employee because of her sex.
39. Defendant DHR made decisions based on Plaintiff’s sex which adversely affected Plaintiff
in regards to the terms and conditions and privileges of her employment. Such actions included, but
were not limited to ceasing Plaintiff’s work with Pravesh Mehra because she was a “Caucasian
Female.”
40. As a direct and proximate result of the above violations of her rights under FEHA, Plaintiff
has suffered damages in the form of past and future wage loss, other pecuniary losses, loss of
potential promotion and pay increase, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem, grief, stress, anxiety,
mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of
this Court, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
41. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks compensatory
damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
42. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts herein alleged with malice, fraud and
oppression, with willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and with the wrongful intention
and motive of injuring Plaintiff, and therefore an award of exemplary and punitive damages is
justified. The actions directed at Plaintiff were done by supervising employees acting in a deliberate,
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page7 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
callous and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth
below.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
CODE § 12940, ET SEQ. [RACE] [Against DHR and DOE Defendants]
43. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-42 as though fully set
forth herein.
44. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant DHR qualified as an “employer” within the
meaning of the FEHA in that it regularly employed five or more workers.
45. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and received a Right to Sue Notice.
46. At all times during Plaintiff’s tenure with Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff performed
her duties in an acceptable manner.
47. California’s FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
discriminate against an employee in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment, including
altering the working conditions or discharging an employee because of her race.
48. Defendant DHR made decisions based on Plaintiff’s race, which adversely affected Plaintiff
in regards to the terms and conditions and privileges of her employment. Such actions included, but
were not limited to ceasing Plaintiff’s work with Pravesh Mehra because she was a “Caucasian
Female.”
49. As a direct and proximate result of the above violations of her rights under FEHA, Plaintiff
has suffered damages in the form of past and future wage loss, other pecuniary losses, loss of
potential promotion and pay increase, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem, grief, stress, anxiety,
mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of
this Court, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
50. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks compensatory
damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page8 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
51. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts herein alleged with malice, fraud and
oppression, with willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and with the wrongful intention
and motive of injuring Plaintiff, and therefore an award of exemplary and punitive damages is
justified. The actions directed at Plaintiff were done by supervising employees acting in a deliberate,
callous and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth
below.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY [CALIFORNIA
LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5] [Against DHR and Doe Defendants]
52. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-51, as though fully set
forth herein.
53. Defendant DHR terminated Plaintiff because of her status as a “Caucasian Female.”
54. Defendants’ actions in terminating Plaintiff under the circumstances alleged herein violate
the fundamental policies of the State of California embodied, among elsewhere, in the California
Constitution, Art. 1, §8; California Government code §12940 et seq.
55. Defendants’ conduct in terminating Plaintiff under these circumstances constitutes a
wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
56. As a direct and proximate result of the above violations of her rights, Plaintiff has suffered
damages in the form of past and future wage loss, other pecuniary losses, loss of potential promotion
and pay increase, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem, grief, stress, anxiety, mental anguish, and
loss of enjoyment of life in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of this Court, the exact
amount of which will be proven at trial.
57. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks compensatory
damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
58. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts herein alleged with malice, fraud and
oppression, with willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and with the wrongful intention
and motive of injuring Plaintiff, and therefore an award of exemplary and punitive damages is
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page9 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
justified. The actions directed at Plaintiff were done by supervising employees acting in a deliberate,
callous and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT
[Against DHR and DOE Defendants]
59. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-58 as though fully set
forth herein.
60. Defendant DHR and Plaintiff entered into an employment agreement. Under that
employment agreement DHR agreed to pay Plaintiff wages, commissions and bonuses, and to
reimburse her for expenditures she made on behalf of DHR.
61. Plaintiff performed all of her job duties under the employment agreement.
62. Defendant DHR breached its agreement by failing to pay her wages, commissions and
bonuses earned, and failing to reimburse her for expenditures she made on behalf of DHR.
63. Defendant DHR’s breach caused Plaintiff economic harm in an amount to be proven at trial,
but which, together with Plaintiff’s other claims are in excess of the amount required for the diversity
jurisdiction of this court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as more fully set forth below.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
[Against DHR and DOE Defendants]
64. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-63 as though fully set
forth herein.
65. Defendant DHR and Plaintiff entered into an employment agreement. Under that
employment relationship and as compensation for DHR, Plaintiff was entitled to wages, commissions
and bonuses for her performance.
66. Plaintiff performed her job duties under the employment relationship, earning all
compensation for wages, commissions and bonuses pursuant to the employment agreement.
67. Defendant DHR terminated Plaintiff’s employment in order to avoid paying Plaintiff her
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page10 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
wages, commissions and bonuses.
68. Defendant DHR’s conduct was a failure to act fairly and in good faith.
69. Defendant DHR’s failure to act fairly and in good faith caused Plaintiff economic harm in
an amount to be proven at trial, but which, together with Plaintiff’s other claims are in excess of the
amount required for the diversity jurisdiction of this court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as more fully set forth below.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 510(A), 201,
11010-11130, 1160, ¶3(A), IWC 5-2001 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES
[Against DHR and DOE Defendants]
70. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-69 as though fully set
forth herein.
71. Plaintiff was employed by and performed work for DHR. DHR intentionally misclassified
Plaintiff as exempt and willfully did not pay Plaintiff for all hours worked. DHR owes Plaintiff
wages under the terms of her employment, in an amount to be proven at trial.
72. DHR’s Status as an Employer. Section 2 of the applicable Wage Order defines “employer”
as any person who “directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or
exercised control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person.” California Labor
Code § 350 defines “employing” as “hiring, or in any way contracting for, the services of an
employee.” DHR meets this definition with respect to Plaintiff who performed services for DHR.
73. DHR effectively controlled the employment of Plaintiff and knows or should have known
that Plaintiff had been and continued to be routinely underpaid for her labor.
74. During all relevant time periods during her employment, Plaintiff spent less than 50% of her
time performing managerial related activities.
75. California Labor Code §§ 11010-111430, 1160, ¶3(A) and the applicable Wage Orders
provide that nonexempt employees must receive: “(a) One and one half (1 ½) times [her] regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours up to and including twelve (12) hours in any
workday, and for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh (7th
) consecutive day of work in a
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page11 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
workweek; and (b) Double [her] regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 12 hours in any
workday and for all hours wo9rked in excess of eight (8) hours on the seventh (7th
) consecutive day
of work in a workweek.”
76. At all times relevant, Defendant was aware of and was under a duty to comply with various
provisions of the California Labor Code and/or Wage Orders issued by the IWC.
77. By refusing to compensate Plaintiff for all wages earned, Defendants violated those
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order provisions, cited herein. Defendants’ violations of
those California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order provisions were willful.
78. As a result of DHR’s misclassification of Plaintiff as exempt, DHR failed to provide
Plaintiff with overtime and compensation in amounts to be determined at trial, and she is therefore
entitled to recover of such amounts, plus interest thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under California
Labor Code § 1194.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as more fully set forth below.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 201, 202, 203, 218, 1194
WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES UPON SEPARATION [Against DHR and DOE Defendants]
79. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-78 as though fully set
forth herein.
80. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant DHR, performed work for Defendant DHR, and as
detailed herein was not paid all wages due. Plaintiff was terminated on or about April 6, 2014. Since
that time Defendant DHR has willfully continued to fail to pay Plaintiff for all wages owed her, and
consequently, owe Plaintiff thirty days of pay in an amount to be provent at trial.
81. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant’s failure to pay all wages upon separation
was willful. As a consequence of Defendant DHR’s willful failure to pay all wages upon separation,
Defendants are subject to civil and statutory penalties for its conduct directed at Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as more fully set forth below.
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page12 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
§§ 226 & 1174 and WAGE ORDER 5-2001 FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE
STATEMENTS AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE RECORDS [Against DHR and DOE Defendants]
82. Plaintiff realleges and hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-81 as though fully set
forth herein.
83. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226 and 1174, and the recordkeeping provisions of Wage Order
5-2001, DHR is required to maintain an accurate record of each employee’s hours of work s each
workday for a period of at least three (3) years, and provide each employee with accurate, period
wage payment sin writing setting forth, amount other things: (a) the dates of labor for which payment
of wages is made; (b) the total hours worked for a pay period; (c) the applicable rates of pay for all
hours worked; (d) gross and net wages paid, as well as authorized deductions from those wages; and
(e) the name and address of the employer.
84. DHR has knowingly failed to comply with California Labor Code §§ 226 and 1174 by,
among other things, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing all
applicable rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at
each hourly rate by Plaintiff; (b) failing to show the dates of labor for which payments are or were
being made; (c) failing to provide complete and/or accurate information concerning deductions that
are or have been taking from Plaintiff’s wages.
85. As a result of DHR’s failure to comply with California Labor Code § 226(a), and pursuant
to California Labor Code § 226(e), Plaintiff is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or
fifty dollars ($50) for the initial period in which a violation occurred, and on hundred dollars ($100)
for each violation in each subsequent pay period, not exceed8ing an aggregate penalty of four
thousand dollars ($4,000).
86. Plaintiff is further entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to
California Labor Code §§ 226(e) and (g).
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page13 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.
[Against DHR and DOE Defendants]
87. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-86 as though fully set
forth herein.
88. The Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code § 17200, provides
that “unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any at prohibited by” the False
Advertising Act, Business and Professions Code § 17500. The Unfair Competition Law provides
that a Court may order injunctive relief and restitution as remedies for any violation of the act.
89. Defendant’s business practices and acts, in violating the California Labor Code and IWC
Wage Order provisions as described above, constitute an unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent
business practice in violation of the Unfair Competition Law in that Defendants conducted business
activities while failing to comply with their obligations under California law.
90. Defendant’s knowing failure to adopt policies in accordance with an/or adhere to these laws,
all of which are binding upon and burdensome to Defendant’s competitors, engenders an unfair
competitive advantage for C&H, thereby constituting an unfair business practices, as set froth in
Business and Professions Code §§ 17200-17208.
91. Defendant’s business practices are unlawful in that Defendant DHR unlawfully retains its
employee’s earned compensation and uses it as a “float” to pay for its ongoing business expenses in
violation of Labor Code §§ 204 and 218.6.
92. Defendant DHR’s actions further constitute unfair business practices because they seek to
cause Plaintiff to forfeit wages, bonuses and commissions that she earned, as well as expenses that
she incurred on behalf of DHR.
93. In committing the unfair and unlawful business practices described above, Defendant DHR
has been unjustly enriched and should be disgorged of its unjustly acquired gainst pursuant to
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page14 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Business and Professions Code § 17203, in an amount to be determined at trial.
94. Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact and an economic loss by the withholding of wages
due under the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. Accordingly, the Court must issue an
injunction restraining DHR from engaging in the acts and practices alleged above. Plaintiff further
requests an order restoring to Plaintiff any money or property which has been lost by means of
Defendant’s unfair and deceptive business practices.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set
forth below.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. For general, special, actual, and compensatory damages against Defendants in an
amount to be determined at trial;
2. For statutory penalties purusant to California Labor Code § 1030 et seq.,
3. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial sufficient to punish,
penalize and/or deter Defendants and others from engaging in the conduct described herein;
4. For back and front pay and other benefits Plaintiff would have been afforded but-for
Defendants’ unlawful conduct;
5. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendant DHR violated the overtime
provisions of the California Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders.
6. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendant willfully violated their duties
under the California Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders.
7. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Plaintiff was at all times relevant hereto
to be paid overtime for work beyond 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week and that the amounts
to which Plaintiff is entitled to be doubled as liquidated damages and issue and award thereto;
8. That Defendants be enjoined from engaging in the acts described in violation of the
California Labor Code, the IWC Wage Orders, and California Business and Professions 17200 et
seq.;
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page15 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Business
and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. by failing to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation,
“waiting time” penalties, and/or failing to provide accurate itemized statements;
10. That the Court make an award to Plaintiff of “waiting time” penalties/wages pursuant to
California Labor Code § 203;
11. That the Court order Defendants pay restitution to Plaintiff due to Defendants’ unlawful,
unfair and/or fraudulent activities, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §§
17200-17208
12. For costs and expenses of this litigation;
13. For reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 218.5 and/or 1194,
and/or California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and/or California Government Code §
12965.
14. For pre and post-judgment interest on all damages and other relief awarded herein from
all entities against whom such relief may be properly awarded; and,
15. For all such other and further relief as the nature of the case may require and the court
deems appropriate and just.
16. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs Kristen Barge hereby demand a trial by jury for each and every claim for which
she has a right to jury trial.
DATED: March 12, 2015 Law Offices of Daniel Feder
By: __________/s/______________________ Daniel Feder Attorneys for Plaintiff Kristen Barge
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page16 of 17
BARGE V. DHR, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. __________
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case3:15-cv-01183-EDL Document1 Filed03/12/15 Page17 of 17