Lucas 2021-01-15 Complaint -

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

1 Alan F. Cohen (State Bar No. 194075) LAW OFFICES OF ALAN F. COHEN 2 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 ELECTRONICALLY 3 415.984.1943 (tel.) FILED 415.984.1953 (fax) Superior Court of California, 4 [email protected] County of San Francisco Attorneys for Plaintiff 02/02/2021 5 Samantha Lucas Clerk of the Court BY: KALENE APOLONIO 6 Deputy Clerk 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 8 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 9 10 CGC-21-589589 SAMANTHA LUCAS, an individual, Case No. 11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: 12 1) SEXUAL HARASSMENT; v. 13 2) SEX DISCRIMINATION; INSTABASE, INC., a corporation; 3) RETALIATION – FEHA; 14 SCOTT CLARK, an individual; ANANT BHARDWAJ, an individual; and DOES 1 4) FAILURE TO PREVENT AND 15 through 100 inclusive, REMEDY DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT; 16 Defendants. 5) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN 17 VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; 18 6) DEFAMATION PER SE; 7) INVASION OF PRIVACY; 19 8) UNFAIR COMPETITION (BUS. & 20 PROF. CODE § 17200) 21 22 Plaintiff Samantha Lucas alleges: NATURE OF THE ACTION 23 1. Samantha Lucas is suing Defendant Scott Clark for sexually harassing her while he 24 was her supervisor at her former employer, Instabase, Inc.. Ms. Lucas is suing Instabase for its 25 responsibility for the harassment and its failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sex harassment. 26 2. Ms. Lucas is also suing Instabase for firing her in retaliation for her complaints of 27 and opposition to discrimination and calls for Instabase to adopt anti-racist policies in the aftermath 28 1 COMPLAINT 1 of the murder of George Floyd. 2 3. Instabase also defamed Ms. Lucas and violated her privacy rights when, among other 3 things, its chief Human Resources employee falsely told employees in a company-wide meeting that 4 Ms. Lucas was fired for poor performance to cover up the unlawful reason for her termination. 5 4. Ms. Lucas asks the Court to order Defendants to abide by the law and to take active 6 steps to prevent and remedy unlawful discrimination and harassment. She seeks compensation for 7 her lost wages and benefits, damage to her career, and other economic damages; general damages, 8 including compensation for pain, suffering, and emotional distress; an award of punitive damages to 9 deter Defendants from continuing to break the law; attorneys’ fees and costs incurred; and all other 10 appropriate remedies. 11 THE PARTIES 12 5. Plaintiff Samantha Lucas is a resident of San Francisco, California. At the time of her 13 termination from Instabase she was 27 years old. 14 6. Defendant Instabase, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco. 15 Instabase regularly does business in California. 16 7. On information and belief, Defendant Scott Clark is a resident of Contra Costa 17 County, California. At all times material to the complaint, Defendant Clark was a supervisory 18 employee and managing agent with Defendant Instabase. 19 8. On information and belief, Defendant Anant Bhardwaj is a resident of San Francisco 20 County, California. At all times material to the complaint, Defendant Bhardwaj was a supervisory 21 employee and managing agent with Defendant Instabase. 22 9. Defendants Does 1-100 are sued under fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil 23 Procedure § 474. On information and belief, each defendant sued under a fictitious name is in some 24 manner responsible for the wrongs and damages alleged in this complaint. In so acting, each 25 defendant named herein was functioning as the agent, servant, partner, joint employer, integrated 26 enterprise, and/or employee of the other defendants, and throughout the events alleged in this 27 complaint was acting within the course and scope of his or her authority as such agent, servant, 28 2 COMPLAINT 1 partner and/or employee with the permission and consent of the other defendants. Further, on 2 information and belief, the acts alleged herein were authorized and/or ratified by each and every 3 other defendant. Defendants Instabase, Clark, Bhardwaj, and Does 1-100 may be referred to herein 4 as “Defendants.” 5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil 7 Procedure § 410.10 and Govt. Code § 12965(b). This Court has personal jurisdiction over the 8 Defendants because they maintain their principal places of business or personal residences in 9 California and all Defendants have systematically and continually conducted business in the State of 10 California. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Govt. Code § 12965(b) because San Francisco 11 County is where Plaintiff worked, where some of the unlawful acts were committed, and where 12 Plaintiff would have continued to work but for Defendants’ retaliation and other unlawful practices. 13 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 14 11. Ms. Lucas began working for Defendant in or around April 2019. Her title was 15 “Office Operations Coordinator” but, in typical early company form, her job functions shifted to 16 meet a wide variety of administrative and office needs. She reported to a number of senior 17 managers, including the Company’s CEO, Anant Bhardwaj and, later, Defendant Clark. 18 12. On information and belief, Ms. Lucas was the lowest-paid employee in the 19 Company. 20 13. Ms. Lucas received considerable praise for her performance from a wide variety of 21 Instabase employees. Among other tangible rewards for good performance, Ms. Lucas received a 22 bonus and a significant raise in March 2020. She never received a negative performance review or 23 significant performance criticism. 24 14. In or around October 2019, Defendant Clark joined Instabase as Head of Finance 25 and immediately became one of Ms. Lucas’ principal managers. She began reporting to him on 26 various tasks from the beginning of his employment. 27 15. Mr. Clark communicated with his subordinate, Ms. Lucas, by email, text, and other 28 3 COMPLAINT oubt you e en ha e one on no ha e a o n blanket it’s best to be nake to kee armer Messages Scott Clark s this real life ou are texting me nake 1 messaging platforms to discuss work developments. Quickly, though, a marked pattern developed in 2 o my crisis last night as cu my frien claime this guy ho ha e sorta their text exchanges. Mr. Clark ha ing pushed continually itty banter theirithconversations lol ono ’m slo in a takes me afollows way that hile toclassic feel if 3 feel it or not Messages“grooming” Scott Clark in sex harassment cases: 4 oo ’m al ays nake if ’m in my room an ha en’t ust alke in from 16. Mr. Clark’s textsork became more personal, then physical, then sexual. He linked 5 himself to Ms. Lucas’ financial and professional development. He urged That’s her tothe keepoint their of texts the robe 6 private. He fantasized about her and other women. He continually ut he in ite me o er an pushed the envelope and began ante to go but she oul a been so u set 7 Messages Scott Clark fml ut she sai think he ef likes Sam but like him in front of me pressing her for nude picturesLol and sex. my a ga e the baby scotch Hahhaa Then he goes Sam lo e it as an another one of our frien s Like tf no can’t o anything or ’ll iss 8 a chil someone reat off thanks o amn a it Then bro goes a on’t o that gi en her 17. Ms. Lucas tried to deflect his attention, until she had to tell him, repeatedly, that she arents history My a goes scott thought they ere heroin a icts not 9 alcoholics Jesus mas at the LucasSo resiust ence lol home like an ol la y was not interested in having an affair. Nevertheless, he persisted. staye 10 18. hang ou shoul Someoutof ith thehim messages Mr. Clark sent Ms. Lucas include: o kno here get it 11 Lolirl ill fin another one 12 He bo y is like a 9 9 ah she’s like ha ing a har time 13 ust one ol er bro Har a toyou seeare anything nake rong 14 mg hat are u a family of giants ot sure lo e her face as much tho n she like really likes him 15 Wtf he’s taller ho is that ossible ou ha e cuter face Lot no hite oo 16 What they ut inHaha ya as ur milk it’sanice ki ut ’m clearly ust not aoesn’t blon ifehe guyin ite you o er lit 17 ut he ro th hormone coul a use some of that 18 So much color lol she’s retty beautiful oo n sooo chill ait’sbutostill e s he marrie 19 Lol She yes her hair think iono ooe noareThe HoLottall hite cooo ur rents 20 ns iring right So fun ’m not goo ithntheiono make ho u shit feel ’m 6’3 an he is 6’6 lit 21 ro n ni s through hite shirt are ef hot Sooumuch an her can go nu e in myHe’s color hot cute tub he’s chill af he gets along ith my frien s but take my time a is 6’2 mom is ’10 22 like flo ers so hen can’t go outsi e an ’m ra ing ha e mucho hat’srolly Lolou his ha story e a better bo y clothing than most le oul think Lol eo ire to ins ou she’s ear cool ’m comfortable ith her 23 clothes that on’t o it ustice So ’m sure eo le are o e hen they o actually see it nake Must be uite a sight haright ns iring en’t eci WellSo e fun to ba 24 ro n ni s through hite shirt areooef ur hotfam is so tall esus that’s so nice u can reach ha e the to shirt black shelflol 25 ha e to climb on the counter sooo annoying kno you like sho ing off the like ni sflot’sers so hen can’t go outsi e an ’m ra ing ha e mucho freeing Page 3 4 of 6 3 26 clothing to ins ire Ho much ol er is ur bro 27 19. As is common in such cases, Mr. Clark a butcontinually sho em linked off in black cu to himself that’s hat o Page Ms. Lucas’ n 177 of 6 3 Well to ba 28 financial andblack Like soli professional development. so you only ant eo leSoon after to see the joining sha e orInstabase, Mr. Clark offered to be is their like lace or sheer for you to gi e eo le a little more ha e black shirt lol 4 kno you like sho ing off the ni s t’s freeing COMPLAINT Lol iono it’s in multi le/most of my shirts lol Page 3 9 of 6 3 a but sho em offWhate in blackercu’mthat’s hat earing thato ay n We ha e a business to run Ps e eryone looks better in their natural habitat uh ut like ill u tell What’s me hen urs oosomething u ha e ib hoto rong ha a rofessional shoot taken at a re ious com any asn’t informe Like he on’t ant to be blin si e 1 Ms.SoLucas’ mentor. they are retty One legit month into his tenure as her supervisor, Mr. Clark started sending ut boring That’s messages ainful 2 of Too howbusinessy he had the power to bring her professional and financial success. Mr. Clark texted messages ’ rather run 3 about “making Sam a millionaire” at least eight times. For example, on January 10, 2020, Mr. Clark 4 Like sorry ’m not a co ar but like ne er ante cor orate to begin texted: ith so ’ ant to be re are it’s not fun to be fire 5 s long as your illing to artner ith me then ’ll kee you ha y an 6 ho efully a millionaire 7 20. on’t at Mr. Clark knew that Ms. Lucas was the lowest-paid employee antInstabase, to aste myandtime also 8 knew that she was concerned about her income and job security. ut He like inevitably Ull tell me mixed these if it’s not right ight 9 messages about making Ms. Lucas a millionaire or conferring other benefits on her in message Messages Scott Clark 10 chains whereithhe nant speculated about what ’ll meet hen he is back in she was wearing erson orboar et him on about her personal life. ith the raise 11 21. For example, on November 19,su2019, ono ho ’m oseMr. to Clark o ur initiated art Likean exchange iono in which u o that’s he stuff haha 12 So far my thoughts are you get shit one an are su er hel ful to speculated e eryone about what Ms. Lucasemmstabase was wearing,is asked to see her robe, asked when she was last in a lea by l choose if they ant to but it’s su er roun 13 table an so e all gi e in ut that’s easier for me Cheater Heymian ust sna e one refuse to be on ebsite for like 3 relationship, asked how she characterized her sexuality – all while mixing in conversations about little messy months because kne ’ look horrible 14 work. Out of the blue, he texted: still oul n’t lea ut it’s a goo hotlol 15 ou got any mo eling coming u s ear you coul be on billboar s Like maybe for meun ies’ bran ou kno it n ur finance gotta ha Physical e the button u messy 16 Someone’s Hahahah omg gotta make no ’m tryna rib rocess o some rofessional oice o messy lol er gigs 17 a ’m22. trying to makelater Then, it rain in the same text chain texted again: Pays tells can learn is someone mucho me 18 We nee to make you a millionaire got shit make one ucoming as gou an n that’s got t hat’s o client ieces makes ue lol annant me scare ha en’t on’t 19 starte like that one Whoo late nights for Sam coming u 20 23. As is apparent in the above exchange, Ms. Lucas made continualHaha haha to attempts Correct’ humor ne of my frien s ust mo el for the uraflame com any So she is on ut seriously 21 Mr.boxes Clarkforand firedeflect logs Lol the sexual nature of his texts and change the subject with almost audible, ou’re a il car 22 uncomfortable laughter. Here, he responded with the not-so-subtle message of how he held the h that’s sick What is mulle ine 23 power to grant her financial security. buy that hen go cam ing like lame car cam ing cu in the backPage 79 of 6 3 country u on’t care that cra 24 24. Mr. Clark mixed in messages amplifying his role in protecting Ms. Lucas in the That’s sick 25 company with inappropriate communications that he constantly moved toward sexuality. For Page 12 of 6 3 ma take a ic next time see it in the grocery store an ask if it’s her 26 example, in January, 2020, in the wake of another long-time employee’s firing, Ms. Lucas asked haha 27 Mr. Clark if he would warn her if her job performance was ever lacking. He responded to her r him 28 expression of vulnerability by linking her success and riches to being “willing to partner with me” her 5 When u on acay u better un lug no uter no hone for ork COMPLAINT ’ll try my best not to burn anything o n lol no romises tho That’s literally ho to ruin e erything n ’ e ne er ha a threesome 1 ut from so many of my frien s ha ing those ith frien s lol it’s sorta and told her he would personally meet eir with after Instabase’s lol CEO to get his support for a raise for her. 2 25. Ms. Lucas tried to deflect Mr. Clark’s comments and derail sexually-charged ut really y big boobs 3 comments to safer topics many times. She made it clear she was not interested inho Like any big sexual or r u talkin 4 romantic relationship on’t kno with him. His responses were often hy ust hat she ants on’t kno directly aimed at her financial hat si e 5 Messagesvulnerability. Scott C ark For example, she responded to some of his more direct sexual comments by saying: ou ha e like hat seems to be erfect an normal si e So ’m 6 guessing it oul ha e to be bigger Sorry your out of luck Messages Scott C ark 7 Lol Wo so not intereste n slee ing ith marrie r my boss l 8 i that once turne out ba y ob ious y an ou ne er or my it again boss 9 er 10 To which Mr. Clark responded:i that once turne out ba y ob ious y an ou ne er o it again Learne my fucking essoner Page 303 of 6 3 11 gree but one ay e may not be co orkers Learne my fucking esson 12 13 our thinking gree shortayterm but one hatnot e may habe ens hen buy a yacht after e P co orkers our nake bo y i certain y make its ay into it ’m sure 14 our thinking short term hat ha ens hen buy a yacht after e P our 26. nake bo Noty only was Mr. i certain Clark y make itstrying it ’mLo to make ay into anyaend sure butrunon’t antMs. around to s Lucas’ ee ith marrie objections in 15 this exchange, he was not subtle about flaunting his personal wealth Lo ya but on’tandant power to tryith to s ee tomarrie pressure Sorryher 16 to give in. He continually sent her texts fantasizing about her, all while knowing he held ’mone ofSorry not intothe it 17 highest positions in the Company n and thatinto ’m not shegirwas not only s Pro his direct s to Tara subordinate for trying ’ e a rea but that y trie ’m it she not asheld intoso it 18 gross on’t anna to o it again tbh one of the lowest positions in the Company. 19 n ’m not into gir s Pro s to Tara for trying ’ e a rea y trie it as so a u ike gross on’t omen anna torea oy itthought it’s a efu again tbh ante out imme iate y 27. One of the key methods predators use to groom potential victims is to lay on the 20 Likea if uwith positive reinforcement, often mixed cike omen osebenefits my eyesreaan the y thought it’sas forgot itcan predator a aefu ante a y an provide. Mr. out ere they Clark imme iate his y oing mixed 21 things to me ok fine but the other ay aroun omg no n i n’t ike inappropriate communicationskissing Like the fe my withif messages c ose ha e Ms. eyes telling eryLucas an once in forgot a ashi ithow aeawas she got y an runk theyan special ma ere and e he oing how ur 22 ith girto things s me ike okfee finebabutcu the ’m not into other it but chicks ay aroun omg nokiss nifferent y an i n’t ike i “You n’t ike could help her with her career:kissing theit fe are any just offun hathee totimes eryto. talk once in ainteresting Most hi e gotperson runk an I’vema evere met. ur 23 ith gir s ike fee ba cu ’m not into it but chicks kiss ifferent y an i n’t I’m fascinated. . . . You are a special ne ike it any timeperson. this . of chick. . the knetimes You are thehsstar from sa . .me . .I’ll at take a gayyou barto es the next level.” o ike gay 24 bars an ha e a ot of gay frien s so mean ing oman them She 28. Mr. Clark tried to initiate comes ne u this time a chick a so sexual relationship this as ri e hswith at from kne as Ms. sa some atLucas. fucke u He a gay tried es to straight bar oget omme ikeher in to gay 25 abars bushanan haent e aback ot ofingay the frien bar os so She’s ike ’ eingike oman mean u for so many them She send him nude pictures, sentyears her revealing comes This u aissophotos so asofathimself, a esome this that sent ri eur gay her as soext messages thingu kno fucke with himomme she’s straight fantasizing kissing in 26 a bush me an anust ro entebackithinitthe an bar o feShe’s then t ike aike iece ’ e of ikeshit u for cuso ha many about sex, and made her indulge hisThis years omme fantasies is so2aof maybe minfemale esome coworkers rior that ur gay and ext other thing women in Ms. kno she’s Lucas’ kissing 27 me an ust ro e ith it an then fe t ike a iece of shit cu ha life as sex objects. The record omme alsoo shows e that s maybe Ms. min Lucas sti 2frien tho did srior ot her surebest tokno if she deflect s ’mhisstraight advances ando or not 28 Hahaha o s e sti frien s tho ot sure if she kno s ’m straight or not o 6 Hahaha COMPLAINT hat about t o guys hat about t o guys i ing or things ike that Hahah ok ’ brainstorm other things o Hahha tf Maybe she’s ike afrai of ike getting in troub e 1 never ou allowed me us anything to other maybe one happenthebetween first time them. She told him “I have no interest in u. . . . [I don’t 2 know] how many times I’ve said meanI’met’s notbe interested rea ’ e inefmarried ppl.”nake an it’s funny but a so e been caught 3 i e in sf u kno it’s chi 29. In his messages to Ms. Lucas, Mr. Clark fetishized her and other women at 4 e it’s chi Instabase. He fantasized about seeing her and other women naked. He continually steered the 5 Haha say u t o shou ust o it on’t nee to o er think it conversation toward her body, her clothing, nudity, revealing clothing, and sex. And he pressured 6 Ur atand her to send him revealing pictures a fancy then resort hat oonly more. After u think two smonths the orst they can oforLike at Instabase, they example, 7 ant u as their guest so they not ganna thro u out he tried to persuade Ms. Lucas to “secretively” come to his house alone in Lake Tahoe and get in 8 U might a a itt e sco ing but it’s a honeymoon ’m sure be nake a the hot tub naked with him. She the refused time and tried to deflect his attentions: 9 might nee to go to Tahoe a one to ea ith some things su ose 10 bringing you secreti e y ou be risky but otentia Hot tub ou be best s ot 11 Lo a one 12 am not going to o anything ba ust hang Lo ’m not a home recker 13 o oo e ust frien s 14 ea ing 30. ith fixing u my o he fantasized Undeterred, ace to rentabout n y bringing chance toa go mightand camera be awanting to sit with her naked ri ay 15 in a hot tub or a “banya” (sauna). Despite his efforts, Ms. Lucas never went to Lake Tahoe, to a 16 ef no recking ust fun hangs “banya,” or anywhere else with Mr. Clark. 17 e are on same age ust frien s 31. Mr. Clark tried to get Ms. Lucas to send naked or revealing pictures of herself: 18 Haha fasho “Your fans want to see the nip” “You practice your white shirt pic yet?” “What’s under the jacket? 19 Hot tub ou be easy tho Fun surprise?” “No need for all buttons, give a reason for the boys to be frustrated and want more.” 20 “Gawd are you naked?” “Let’s see this booty dress.” He speculated about her body constantly and 21 pushed her to wear revealing clothes at work. 22 32. Normalizing inappropriate conduct, and creating a special “private” relationship are Page 14 of 6 3 23 among the tools harassers use to groom potential victims. So is pushing the boundaries of 24 acceptable social behavior to expand what the other person believes is safe and “normal.” For 25 example, Mr. Clark wrote: 26 27 28 7 COMPLAINT Like e’ e hel back as like u change my life can s oo u a rank Lol They like ee mama get a free s eatshirt Haha 1 Sooooo ’m oing ust fine hite man We’ e talke about a lot of things 2 Lol i n’t say you nee e to change ut ’m ust saying ’ll hook you uJust comfortable ith you too 3 on’t We bufeel s like e’ e crosse anything 4 ou are fun to be aroun a it’s a safe s ace on’t orry 5 our ahar Work cool chick 6 reat soul Ur a cool hite man 7 Lol 8 33. ust me Mr.the og also Clark the tree an some fantasized aboutineother women in and out of the workplace to 9 Ms. Lucas.Why got to ut He ranked me in them byaphysical box attributes and which ones he desired most, and compared 10 their bodies to Ms. Lucas’. Hahahah Hahha 11 34. Mr. Clark also pressured Ms. Lucas to connect him to other women inside and’m ki ing lol 12 outside the company. On information and belief, he tried to “slide into the DMs” of other female Ur a cool oo 13 coworkers. ou Hethink pressured Ms. Lucas you’ll marry hite touget e a friend of hers to send him a naked picture (which 14 Ms. Lucas refused to do). When he contacted her friend directly, he wrote to Ms. Lucas, “She is very U al ays gi e me o ortunities to make fun of u can’t hel it 15 revealing on IG. Didn’t think it would be a big deal.” And when he finally realized that Ms. Lucas Pretty sure laugh at you more 16 was not going to get involved with him, he turned his fetishizing to others, writing “You had your Lol ell isn’t like girl marry their a s My a s a hite man 17 chance. Moving on.” ou are funny 18 35. On information and belief, Defendant Instabase failed to take all reasonable steps ah ’m laughing 19 required by law to prevent harassment and discrimination. really like ikings 20 36. Instabase has long had significant disparities in hiring women and people of color, o ’m curious hat that ress looks like closer u i n’t seem that 21 particularly into senior positions. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the explosion of booby Just a glim se of skin 22 support for the Black Lives Matter movement, Instabase employees, including Ms. Lucas, 23 complained about discriminatory hiring practices and confronted Instabase’s managing agents in Page 2 24 forums like company-wide “Ask Me Anything” (“AMA”) meetings. Employees directly questioned Page 3 25 CEO Bhardwaj and senior management about the Company’s hiring practices and pushed 26 management to explore neglected sources of talent such as Black Girls In Tech bootcamps and 27 female coding organizations and initiatives. 28 37. During the search for a Chief Revenue Officer, for example, the company on 8 COMPLAINT 1 information and belief considered only one female candidate. When confronted by employees about 2 this, CEO Anant Bhardwaj excused the failure to interview more women with words to the effect 3 that there were few women available and qualified for that role but that when the Company 4 searched for a Chief Marketing Officer (a more stereotypically female role), the Company planned to 5 look at more female candidates. 6 38. Instabase managing agents, including CEO Bhardwaj, reacted defensively to 7 employee complaints of discrimination. For example, in response to complaints that the company 8 lacked racial diversity, CEO Bhardwaj took it upon himself to deduce each employee’s 9 ethnicity/national origin and create a pie chart that he showed to employees and recruits to support 10 his position that the Company was ethnically diverse. On information and belief, the sole source for 11 information in this pie chart was Mr. Bhardwaj’s subjective assessment of employees’ skin color, 12 appearance and names. 13 39. After George Floyd’s murder in late May 2020 and the national protests for civil 14 rights that followed, Instabase employees, including Ms. Lucas, increased pressure on management 15 to address discrimination in hiring, anti-racism, and diversity. 16 40. CEO Bhardwaj’s initial response to the George Floyd murder and subsequent Black 17 Lives Matter public sentiment was to publish a blog post that stated words to the effect that 18 Instabase would not comment or take a stance, characterizing racism as a “political” issue. 19 41. The internal reaction to Mr. Bhardwaj’s blog post was intensely negative. Employees 20 voiced a belief that racism was not a political issue at all but a systematic injustice that was against 21 the law and not an issue about which Instabase could remain neutral. Employees criticized 22 management at company-wide meetings, saying that taking no stance was equivalent to endorsing 23 the discriminatory status quo. Mr. Bhardwaj characterized the meetings as attacks on leadership. On 24 information and belief, employees experienced a backlash to their critiques and grew fearful of 25 retaliation. 26 42. When Mr. Bhardwaj discussed the AMA’s and other internal communications with 27 Ms. Lucas, he criticized her for her role in conveying employee complaints. He also pressured 28 9 COMPLAINT 1 Ms. Lucas until she admitted to having made an anonymous posting herself. 2 43. Employees, including Ms. Lucas, took collective action to organize efforts to address 3 discrimination in hiring at Instabase and increase diversity. They objected not only to overt 4 discrimination but also facially-neutral policies at Instabase that had a disparate impact on minorities 5 and women, such as emphasizing certain types of school backgrounds that perpetuate racism in 6 hiring criteria. 7 44. Employees, including Ms. Lucas, created a “Social Action” group in or around 8 June 2020 that studied approaches to addressing racism and diversity and made specific 9 recommendations to end discrimination and a lack of equal opportunity for Black employees, other 10 employees of color, and female employees within the Company. These included creating 11 accountability metrics to ensure that a diverse candidate set is interviewed for open positions; 12 sourcing candidates from non-traditional backgrounds rather than elite universities; building explicit 13 partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities and women-only colleges and 14 universities; and auditing hiring practices to ensure these were based on functional criteria rather 15 than biases. These recommendations and others were listed in “Recommendations for Instabase on 16 George Floyd Protest Response.” Ms. Lucas was one of five employees who signed her name to this 17 document. Only one of these five employees remains with the Company. 18 45. The Social Action group created an “Activism Hour” (akin to many other non-work 19 affinity groups at Instabase) to read, study, and plan anti-racism action. Other such groups had 20 operated with Company approval and endorsement. The Activism Hour was not in any way 21 disruptive to the Company; in its initial meeting, for example, interested employees watched the 22 documentary “13th,” did some reading, and engaged in discussion with the goals of educating 23 themselves. Because of growing interest in the Company, a decision was made to post the Activism 24 Hour invite to the Company-wide calendar. 25 46. Managing Company-wide calendar entries, particularly on social or affinity group 26 activities, was one of Ms. Lucas’ job duties. On or about July 6, 2020, Ms. Lucas posted a company- 27 wide calendar invite for the new Activism Hour. 28 10 COMPLAINT 1 47. Management reaction was immediate and negative. Mr. Bhardwaj and Mr. Clark told 2 Ms. Lucas to remove the calendar invite, which she did. The next day, July 7, Mr. Bhardwaj called 3 Ms. Lucas in for an unusual one-on-one meeting. The meeting was not pleasant. Mr. Bhardwaj 4 blamed Ms. Lucas for being the “voice of the resistance” and accused her of pushing a partisan 5 radical leftist political agenda that was creating political discord. He accused Ms. Lucas of being part 6 of a Democratic party internal Instabase group (which she was not). 7 48. On information and belief, Mr. Bhardwaj blamed Ms. Lucas not only for her own 8 activism but also for the widespread employee concern and concerted action complaining about lack 9 of diversity, lack of equal opportunity for Black and female employees, and discrimination. 10 49. The next day, July 8, 2020, Ms. Lucas went to the Company office (employees were 11 mostly working from home because of the pandemic) to take apart furniture for an office move but 12 was told there was a meeting going on with Mr. Bhardwaj and other management and that she had 13 to leave. On information and belief, management was meeting to plan Ms. Lucas’ termination. 14 50. Instabase fired Ms. Lucas, without warning, the next day, July 9, 2020. Since 15 Ms. Lucas had never been told her job was in jeopardy or received a negative performance 16 evaluation, she asked for the reason for her termination. She was told that it was for performance 17 reasons, though the explanations managers gave her were very vague. 18 51. At the time she was terminated, Ms. Lucas was working 60-70 hours per week for 19 Instabase. The timing of Ms. Lucas’ termination, the dearth of previous performance criticism, and 20 the lack of a believable business-related reason for terminating someone who had had too much 21 work on her plate to complete in regular working hours leaves little doubt that Instabase fired her 22 for complaining about discrimination. She was terminated two days after the company’s CEO 23 personally lambasted her for being the “voice of the resistance” for seeking greater racial diversity 24 and an end to discrimination at Instabase. 25 52. On information and belief, Defendants terminated Ms. Lucas to punish her for 26 acting collectively with other employees and for opposing discrimination. Defendants also intended 27 her termination to have a chilling effect on internal complaints of discrimination. 28 11 COMPLAINT 1 53. After Defendants terminated Ms. Lucas, they announced the termination at a 2 company-wide meeting. Defendants published statements to employees to the effect that Ms. Lucas 3 performed her job poorly, that she had been given an opportunity to correct her performance but 4 did not do so, and that the company terminated Ms. Lucas because of her poor performance. 5 54. On information and belief, these statements to the effect that Ms. Lucas was 6 terminated for poor performance were false when made and were made, authorized, and/or ratified 7 by Company managing agents, including Defendant Bhardwaj and the Company’s senior HR 8 manager. 9 55. On information and belief, Defendants’ employees and managing agents published 10 these and other statements to persons unknown falsely attributing poor job performance to Plaintiff. 11 On information and belief, Defendants, including the Doe Defendants, have published false 12 statements about Ms. Lucas to persons both within and outside the Company. On information and 13 belief, the named Defendants and Doe Defendants have caused these false statements to be 14 republished to members of Ms. Lucas’ professional and personal community. 15 56. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff filed complaints against Defendants with 16 the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, alleging discrimination, harassment, 17 retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of the FEHA, among other facts, and received 18 corresponding “right to sue” notices in full compliance with the law cited in this complaint. 19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 20 Sex Harassment – Gov’t. Code § 12940(j) 21 (Against Defendants Clark and Instabase) 22 57. At all times material to this complaint, Govt. Code § 12940 (the Fair Employment 23 and Housing Act, or “FEHA”) was in full force and effect and binding on Defendants. Among 24 other things, the FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice to harass an employee on the 25 basis of her sex. 26 58. As alleged above, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Instabase. 27 59. Mr. Clark’s conduct created an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment 28 12 COMPLAINT 1 for Plaintiff. In addition, Mr. Clark used or attempted to use his position to coerce Ms. Lucas into 2 engaging in a sexual relationship with him. On information and belief, Mr. Clark retaliated against 3 Ms. Lucas for her refusal to engage in such a relationship. 4 60. Mr. Clark’s conduct was harassing, severe and/or pervasive, and based on her sex. A 5 reasonable woman in Ms. Lucas’ circumstances would have considered the work environment to be 6 hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive and Ms. Lucas did consider it to be so. 7 61. Defendant Instabase is strictly liable for Defendant Clark’s conduct because at all 8 times material to the complaint, Defendant Clark was acting as an agent or supervisor of Defendant 9 Instabase. 10 62. Alternatively, Defendant Instabase is liable for Defendant Clark’s conduct because 11 the company knew or should have known of the sexual harassment and failed to take immediate and 12 appropriate corrective action. 13 63. Instabase is also independently liable because it failed to take all reasonable steps 14 necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. 15 64. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harassment 16 and discrimination against Plaintiff, she has sustained economic losses, humiliation, emotional 17 distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish in an amount subject to proof. 18 65. On information and belief, the persons who committed the unlawful acts described 19 herein were officers, directors, and/or managing agents of Defendants acting within the scope of 20 their employment. Moreover, Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced the 21 commission of this harassment. The unlawful acts described herein were committed with 22 oppression, fraud and/or malice and were authorized, ratified or both by such officers, directors, 23 and/or managing agents. In light of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harassment 24 against Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according 25 to proof. 26 66. Due to Defendants’ harassment and discrimination, Plaintiff has incurred and 27 continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 28 13 COMPLAINT 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Sex Discrimination - Gov’t. Code §§ 12940(a) 3 (Against Defendant Instabase) 4 67. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 66 are realleged and incorporated 5 herein by reference. 6 68. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code § 12940 et seq. was in full force and 7 effect and was binding on Defendants. The FEHA required Defendants to refrain from 8 discriminating against any employee, including Plaintiff, because of sex. Further, the FEHA 9 required Defendants to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent such discrimination from 10 occurring. 11 69. As alleged above, Defendants violated these provisions by failing to take all 12 reasonable steps necessary to prevent sex discrimination against Plaintiff from occurring. To the 13 contrary, Defendants knowingly and intentionally took steps to discriminate against Ms. Lucas as 14 described above. 15 70. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that her sex was, at least, a 16 significant factor in Defendants’ mistreatment. Such discrimination is in violation of Government 17 Code §§ 12940 et seq. and has resulted in damage and injury to Plaintiff as alleged herein. 18 71. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination 19 against Plaintiff, she has sustained economic losses, humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and 20 physical pain and anguish in an amount subject to proof. 21 72. On information and belief, the persons who committed the unlawful acts described 22 herein were officers, directors, and/or managing agents of Defendants acting within the scope of 23 their employment. Moreover, Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced the 24 commission of this harassment. The unlawful acts described herein were committed with 25 oppression, fraud and/or malice and were authorized, ratified or both by such officers, directors, 26 and/or managing agents. In light of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination 27 against Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according 28 14 COMPLAINT 1 to proof. 2 73. Due to Defendants’ discrimination, Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal 3 expenses and attorneys’ fees, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 4 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 5 Retaliation for Engaging in Activities Protected Under the FEHA (Govt. Code § 12940(h)) 6 (Against Defendant Instabase) 7 74. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 are realleged and incorporated 8 herein by reference. 9 75. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code § 12940 et seq. (the Fair 10 Employment and Housing Act, or “FEHA”) was in full force and effect and was binding on 11 Defendants. The FEHA required Defendants to refrain from retaliating against any employee, 12 including Plaintiff, because they engaged in activity protected by the FEHA, or because they 13 protested employment actions made unlawful by the FEHA. 14 76. As alleged above, Defendants violated these provisions by retaliating against 15 Ms. Lucas for, among other things, complaining about and opposing discrimination. 16 77. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that her opposition to 17 discriminatory practices forbidden under the FEHA was, at least, a significant factor in Defendants’ 18 mistreatment and her termination. Such retaliation is in violation of Government Code §§ 12940 et 19 seq. and has resulted in damage and injury to Plaintiff as alleged herein. 20 78. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retaliation 21 against Plaintiff, she has sustained economic losses, humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and 22 physical pain and anguish in an amount subject to proof. 23 79. On information and belief, the persons who committed the unlawful acts described 24 herein were officers, directors, and/or managing agents of Defendants acting within the scope of 25 their employment. Moreover, Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced the 26 commission of this discrimination. The unlawful acts described herein were committed with 27 oppression, fraud and/or malice and were authorized, ratified or both by such officers, directors, 28 15 COMPLAINT 1 and/or managing agents. In light of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retaliation against 2 Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to 3 proof. 4 80. Due to Defendants’ retaliation, Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal 5 expenses and attorneys’ fees, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 Failure to Prevent and Remedy Discrimination and Harassment – 8 Govt. Code § 12940(k) 9 (Against Defendant Instabase) 10 81. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 80 are realleged and incorporated 11 herein by reference. 12 82. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code § 12940(k) was in full force and 13 effect and was binding on Defendants. This section makes it an unlawful employment practice for 14 an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and 15 retaliation from occurring. 16 83. Notwithstanding notice of its obligation to prevent and remedy discrimination, 17 harassment, and retaliation, Defendants failed to take adequate steps to do so. For example, on 18 information and belief, Defendants did not implement the training and procedures required under 19 California law to respond to complaints and prevent and remedy harassment. 20 84. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional failures to 21 prevent and remedy unlawful behavior, Plaintiff has sustained economic losses, humiliation, 22 emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish in an amount subject to proof. 23 85. On information and belief, the persons who committed the unlawful acts described 24 herein were officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendants acting within the scope of their 25 employment. Moreover, Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced the 26 commission of this harassment and discrimination. The unlawful acts described herein were 27 committed with oppression, fraud and/or malice and were authorized, ratified, or both by such 28 16 COMPLAINT 1 officers, directors, or managing agents. In light of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional 2 failures to comply with the law, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages in an amount according 3 to proof. 4 86. Due to Defendant’s unlawful actions and failures to act, Plaintiff has incurred and 5 continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 6 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 8 (Against Defendant Instabase) 9 87. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 86 are realleged and incorporated 10 herein by reference. 11 88. At all times mentioned in this complaint, the Fair Employment and Housing Act 12 (“FEHA”) was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants. Among other things, the 13 FEHA required Defendants to refrain from discharging or in any manner discriminating against any 14 employee because of the employee’s sex or because the employee opposed any practices forbidden 15 under the FEHA. 16 89. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Labor Code § 1101 was in full force and 17 effect and was binding on Defendants. Section 1101 makes unlawful for an employer to make, 18 adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) forbidding or preventing employees from 19 engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office, or (b) controlling 20 or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. 21 90. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Labor Code § 1102 was in full force and 22 effect and was binding on Defendants. Section 1102 provides that no employer shall coerce or 23 influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of 24 discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any 25 particular course or line of political action or political activity. 26 91. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that her sex and opposition to unlawful 27 practices under the FEHA, political activities, affiliations, engaging or participating in politics, 28 17 COMPLAINT 1 and/or her political action or political activity were, at minimum, a substantial motivating factor in 2 Defendants’ decision to terminate her employment. 3 92. In terminating Plaintiff for these reasons and under the circumstances alleged herein, 4 Defendants violated the fundamental public policies embodied in the above-referenced laws and 5 regulations. 6 93. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional wrongful 7 termination of Plaintiff, she has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings, 8 losses in other employment benefits, humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain 9 and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 10 94. On information and belief, the persons who committed the unlawful acts described 11 herein were officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendants acting within the scope of their 12 employment. Moreover, Defendants and their officers, directors, or managing agents aided, abetted, 13 incited, compelled, or coerced the commission of these unlawful acts. The unlawful acts described 14 herein were committed with oppression, fraud and/or malice. In light of Defendants’ willful, 15 knowing, and intentional acts against Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary 16 damages in an amount according to proof. 17 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Defamation Per Se 19 (Against Defendants Instabase and Bhardwaj) 20 95. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained 21 in paragraphs 1 through 94 above as though fully set forth herein. 22 96. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants conspired to, and in fact did, 23 negligently, recklessly, intentionally, and maliciously, cause external publications of defamation, of 24 and concerning Plaintiff, within the Defendants’ companies, to third persons and to the broader 25 community. 26 97. The defamatory publications consisted of oral and written false communications, 27 tending directly to injure Ms. Lucas’ personal and professional reputation. These false and 28 18 COMPLAINT 1 defamatory statements included statements falsely impugning Plaintiff’s capacity, competence, and 2 character to perform her job. The defamatory statements were understood as assertions of fact, and 3 not as opinion. 4 98. The defamatory statements made by Defendants concerning Plaintiff included, but 5 are not limited to, the statements alleging poor performance, that Ms. Lucas failed to correct her 6 performance after being given an opportunity to do so, and that Ms. Lucas was terminated because 7 of her poor performance. On information and belief, the defamatory statements have been 8 published and republished many times. 9 99. On information and belief, the persons to whom Defendants made these 10 publications included numerous employees of Defendants and other members of Plaintiff’s business 11 and professional community. 12 100. None of the defamatory publications against Ms. Lucas is true. 13 101. The defamatory meaning of these false statements and their reference to Ms. Lucas 14 were understood by the above recipients and other members of the community who are known to 15 Defendants but unknown to Plaintiff at this time. The statements were defamatory both on their 16 face and in light of the extrinsic circumstances. 17 102. Plaintiff is informed and believed that Defendants will continue to publish these 18 false and defamatory per se statements and that the statements will be republished by their recipients 19 to the ongoing harm and injury to Plaintiff’s business, professional, and personal reputation. 20 Defendants knew or had reason to believe that there was a reasonable and foreseeable likelihood 21 that these statements would be republished by their recipients. Plaintiff seeks redress in this action 22 for all foreseeable republications, including her own compelled self-publication of these defamatory 23 statements. 24 103. Defendants knew or had reason to believe that Plaintiff would be under a strong 25 compulsion or duty to disclose the contents of the defamatory statements to third persons, such as 26 potential employers, former and future coworkers, business associates, and family members, after 27 having read or been informed of the defamatory contents of the statement. 28 19 COMPLAINT 1 104. Defendants published and republished the defamatory statements negligently, 2 recklessly, and intentionally, in a manner equaling and revealing malice and a conscious disregard of 3 the truth. Defendants made the defamatory publications with hatred or ill will, with an intent to vex, 4 injure, and annoy, with knowledge of their falsity and without belief in their truth, and after no 5 investigation of the truth or an investigation that, under the circumstances, was grossly inadequate. 6 Defendants excessively, negligently, and recklessly published these statements to individuals with no 7 need to know, and who made no inquiry, and who had a mere general or idle curiosity about this 8 information. 9 105. As a proximate result of Defendants’ negligent, reckless, willful, knowing, 10 intentional, and malicious defamation against Plaintiff, she has sustained economic losses, 11 humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish in an amount subject to 12 proof. 13 106. Because Defendants’ defamatory statements concern and were understood by both 14 Defendants and the recipients of the defamatory communications to concern Ms. Lucas’ character, 15 and the statements are antithetical to Ms. Lucas’ ability, fitness, and character for carrying on her 16 profession, the statements were defamatory per se and damages are presumed. 17 107. On information and belief, the persons who committed the unlawful acts described 18 herein were officers, directors, and/or managing agents of Defendants acting within the scope of 19 their employment. Moreover, Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced the 20 commission of these acts. The unlawful acts described herein were committed with oppression, 21 fraud and/or malice and were authorized, ratified, or both by such officers, directors, and/or 22 managing agents. In light of Defendants’ willful, knowing, reckless, and intentional defamation, 23 Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. 24 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 Invasion of Privacy 26 (Against Defendant Instabase) 27 108. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 107 are realleged and incorporated 28 20 COMPLAINT 1 herein by reference. 2 109. As alleged, in part, above, Defendants used private information about Plaintiff’s 3 employment, including, without limitation, information about her job performance and the 4 termination of her employment and other private employment information and disclosed that 5 information to third parties, including her former coworkers, who did not have a need to know or 6 right to access that information. 7 110. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in information about her job 8 performance, termination, and other private details about her employment at Instabase. 9 111. As alleged in part above, Defendants willfully, knowingly, and intentionally intruded 10 on her privacy by disclosing this information to third parties. 11 112. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional disclosure of 12 private information, Plaintiff has sustained economic losses, humiliation, emotional distress, and 13 mental and physical pain and anguish in an amount subject to proof. 14 113. On information and belief, the persons who committed the unlawful acts described 15 herein were officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendants acting within the scope of their 16 employment. Moreover, Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced the 17 disclosures. The unlawful acts described herein were committed with oppression, fraud and/or 18 malice and were authorized, ratified, or both by such officers, directors, or managing agents. In light 19 of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional disclosure of private information, Plaintiff seeks an 20 award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 21 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 Unfair Competition Law – Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 23 (Against Defendant Instabase) 24 114. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 113 are realleged and incorporated 25 herein by reference. 26 115. At all times material to this complaint, Business & Professions Code § 17200 has 27 been in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants. 28 21 COMPLAINT 1 116. Section 17200 makes it unlawful for any business to engage in any unlawful or unfair 2 business practices. 3 117. As a result of Defendants’ discrimination and other unlawful and unfair business 4 practices alleged herein, Plaintiff has been harmed. 5 118. Defendants’ acts constitute a continuing and ongoing unfair and unlawful activity 6 prohibited by Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., and justify the issuance of an 7 injunction, restitution and other equitable relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17203. 8 All remedies are cumulative pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17205. 9 119. Defendants’ actions and failures to act alleged above, including, without limitation, 10 Defendants’ discrimination and wrongful termination, were unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent within 11 the meaning of the UCL. 12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 13 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an award against Defendants as follows: 15 1. For compensatory (special) damages, on the applicable Causes of Action; 16 2. For general damages including, without limitation, for physical harm and mental and emotional 17 distress according to proof, on the applicable Causes of Action; 18 3. For punitive damages, on the applicable Causes of Action; 19 4. For injunctive relief; 20 21 5. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; 22 6. For an award of attorneys’ fees; 23 7. For costs of suit incurred; and 24 8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 25 26 27 28 22 COMPLAINT 1 DATED: February 1, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF ALAN F. COHEN 2 3 By: 4 ALAN F. COHEN Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 Samantha Lucas 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 COMPLAINT 1 2 JURY DEMAND 3 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues. 4 5 DATED: February 1, 2021 6 LAW OFFICES OF ALAN F. COHEN 7 8 By: ALAN F. COHEN 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Samantha Lucas 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24 COMPLAINT