Barge v DHR International

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



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




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




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.




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




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]




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,




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]


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.






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






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.









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



WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT



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



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




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.


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



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




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.


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]


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.





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]


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).




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.


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




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.;




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




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


Documents

Barge v DHR International