Upload
cmeprivat
View
1.181
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Angela M. Alioto, (SBN 130328)Emily St John Cohen, (SBN 239674)LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. ALIOTOAND ANGELA ALIOTO
700 Montgomery StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111 -2104Telephone: (415) 434 -8700Facsimile: (415) 438 -4638
Sandra L. Ribero, (SBN 236769)RIBERA. LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation807 Montgomery StreetSan Francisco, CA 94133Telephone: ( 415) 576 -1600Facsimile: ( 415) 842 -0321
Attorneys for Plaintiff Juliet Kniley
LEDSAN MATCB COUNTY
AUG 0 2012
Ciet parlor court
E
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN MATEO COUNTY
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
QWJULIET KNILEY, )
Plaintiff, )
VS. )
GENENTECH, INC., and }
DOES 1 -20, )
Defendant(s). )
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1. Whistleblower Retaliation (Cal. Lab.Code § 1102.5(c))
2. Retaliation in Violation ofFEHA3. Harassment in Violation ofFEHA4. Failure to Prevent Retaliation and
Harassment in Violation ofFEHA
5. Wrongful Termination in Violationof Public Policy
6. Wrongful Demotion in Violation ofPublic Policy
7. Intentional Infliction of EmotionalDistress
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Kniaay v. Gcmnwk inn at al.cam*iathr.Damum 1
1 PlaintiffJULWT KNILEY (or "Plaintiffs for her Complaint against Defendant
2 GENENTECH, INC. ( "Genentech" or "Defendant'), hereby alleges as follows:3
NATURE OF THE ACTION
4
51. This is an action for damages for Defendant'swhistleblower retaliation in violation of
s
California Labor Code § 1102(c), retaliation in violation of FEHA, harassment in violation of
FEHA, failure to prevent retaliation in violation ofpublic policy, wrongful termination in8
9 violation ofpublic policy, wron& demotion in violation ofpublic policy, and intentional
10 infliction of emotional distress. The action arises out ofPlaintiffs employment with
11 Defendant
12
JURISDICTION AND VENUE13
14 2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by California Code ofCivil Procedure § 410.10.
15 3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code ofCivil Procedure § 395.
16 PARTIES
174. At all pertinent times mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiffwas a resident ofthe County of
18
San'Francisco, State of California.19
205. Defendant Genentech, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of
21 Delaware, but has had its headquarters in South San Francisco in the State ofCalifornia ever
22 since its founding in 1976.
236. Defendant Genentech, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, and employs approximately eleven
24
thousand, five hundred (11,500) employees in the United States.25
7. In March of 2009, Defendant Genentech, Inc. and the Roche Group combined their26
27 pharmaceutical operations and Defendant became an independent center within the Roche
28 Group.
Kzu* v. GemnteA Inc. et al.2Complaint for Damages
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
8. From approximately December 5, 2005 to August 30, 2011, Plaintiffwas employed by
Defendant. Plaintiffs official job site for Defendant was located at 1 DNA Way, South San
Francisco, California, 94080.
9. At all the pertinent times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendant acted with the intent to
a tortious effect on the Plaintiffwithin the State of California.
10. Corporate Defendant is directly liable to Plaintiff for the harassing conduct of their
supervisors, managers, division heads, other employees and agents.
11. Corporate Defendant is directly liable for the conduct of its division heads, managers,
supervisors, employees and agents as described herein. At all times pertinent in this Complaint
the employees ofDefendant were acting as agents ofDefendant and also were within the scope
oftheir employment.
12. Plaintiff is ignorant ofthe true names or capacities of the Defendants sued here under the
fictitious names DOES 1 through DOES 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each DOE
Defendant was responsible in some manner for the occurrences and injuries alleged in this
Complaint.
13. At all times mentioned in the causes ofaction into which this paragraph is incorporated by
reference, each and every individual Defendant was the agent or employee of each and every
other Defendant. In doing the things alleged in the causes ofaction into which this paragraph is
incorporated by reference, each and every Defendant was acting within the course and scope of
this agency or employment and was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of
each remaining Defendant. All actions of each Defendant alleged in the causes ofaction into
which this paragraph is incorporated by reference were ratified and approved by the officers or
the managing agents ofevery other Defendant.
Knft v. C4meawA Ine. et aL
C=PWM far Damages 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
2'6
27
28
EXHAUSTION OF ADPAMSTRATM REMEDIES
14. Plainti ffhas fully exhausted all applicable administrative remedies. Plaintiff has received a
Right- to-Sue Notice from the California Department ofFair Employment and Housing on
October 5, 2011.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
15. Plaintiff Juliet Kniley is a female.
16. Plaintiff lives in San Francisco, California.
17. On December 5, 2005, Plaintiffwas hired by Defendant as an Associate [Clinical] Operations
Team Leader with an annual base salary of $115,000.00.
18. From December 2005 to August 2009, Plaintiff received only excellent performance reviews,
as is evidenced by her multiple promotions.
19. In July of2007, Plaintiff was promoted to hold the Operational Leadership role in the Pi3
Kinase Program due to her excellent performance reviews. According to Defendant'ssenior -
executives and "All Hands Meetings," the Pi3 Kinase Program was the most important
program at the company.
20. In and around August of2008, Plaintiffwas promoted to the role ofSenior Clinical Program
Manager with an annual base salary of $133,375.00.
21. Plaintif''s status and her work environment began to change, however, in October of2008
after Plaintiff, carrying out her duties as listed in her position description, informed
Defendant'sDevelopment Sub Team Leader (DSTL), Wla Deryack, M.D., that the first-in-
human clinical trial must be followed as written. Plaintiff complained to Defendant's
management that instead of following written protocol, Defendant'sPi3 Kinase Program Team
Knft V. GCWVWb, Inc. et al.Complaint ft Damages 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
was engaging in illegal and unethical conduct in relation to the clinical trials. The laws and
regulations that Defendant violated included, but were not limited to: (1) 21 Code ofFederal
Regulations (C.F.R.) §'312.30, which requires that a sponsor "submit a protocol amendment
describing any change in a Phase I protocol that significantly affects the safety of subjects "; (2;
21 CRR_ 312.5 which indicates that
1
sponsors (Defendant) are responsible for ensuring that
investigations are conducted in accordance with the protocol; (3) International Conference of
Harmonisation (I.C.H.) E6 § 4.5.2, which indicates that the investigator should not implement
any deviation from, or changes of the protocol without approval of the Institutional Ethics
Committee, and (4) I.C.H E8 § 3.2.3, which indicates that adherence to the protocol is
essential. The International Conference ofHarmonisation Guidelines, which is advocated by
the FDA, sets an international standard ofthe highest scientific and ethical quality for clinical
studies that are conducted in human subjects; and other FDA Standards regarding good clinical
practices in FDA- regulated clinical trials.
22. Throughout October and November of2008, Plaintiff complained ton multiple occasions to
Defendant'sDSTL Mika Derynck, M.D., and Defendant's Clinical Sub -Team Leader (CSTL)
Scott Holden, M.D. that Defendant'spremature and inappropriate safety testing in humans for
certain clinical studies-in Defendant'sPi3 Kinase Program violated several laws and
regulations that were designed to protect the safety of the patients on whom the tests were
being conducted.
23. On or about December 17, 2008, Plaintiff complained to Defendant'smanagement about the
behavior ofDr. Holder being inconsistent with Defendant'scorporate values and ofhis
insistence on violating federal regulations and international directives. After this meeting, Dr. I
Holden began to verbally abuse, harass, and retaliate against Plaintiff.. Dr. Holden confronted
Complaint fir Damages 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffmultiple times, in which he yelled, pounded his fists on a table, angrily pointed his
finger at her, and belittled her. Additionally, Dr. Holden began to exclude Plaintiff from
meetings that were held to discuss topics under Plaintiff'sdirect area ofaccountability. As a
result, Plaintiffwas prevented from obtaining all information necessary for her to fully
function in her role as Senior Clinical Program Manager of the Pi3 Kinase Program.
24. Plainhfftold Defendant'smanagement about Dr. Holden's harassment and retaliation, and
specifically sought assistance from her manager, Mark Bradley, and Mr. Bradley's supervisor,
Tricia Moore. Plaintiffobjected to proceeding with these clinical trials and tests on humans
due to the absence ofDefendant's adherence to the rules and regulations promulgated to
protect the subjects. Despite Plaintiffs objections, Plaintiffs supervisors consistently
Plaintiffs objections and permitted the clinical trial violations. Defendant'sconduct was
unethical and illegal, and was in violation of (1) Federal Regulations; (2) Defendant's Good
Operating Procedures; (3) Defendant'sStandard Operating Procedures (SOPS); and (4) the
International Conference ofHarmonisation Guidelines. Such violations put the lives of the
subjects ofDefendant'sPia Kinase Program clinical trials at unnecessary risk ofdeath and
injury.
25. On January 7, 2009, Plaintiff complained to Defendant'sVice President Stuart Lutzker, MD
via Defendant'smulti-rater feedback foam that Dr. Derynck was making clinical trial
in the area ofprotocol compliance that were putting the relationship with the clinical
investigator above the best interests of the human trial subjects.
26. On April 28, 2009, Plaintiff further complained that she would not be a party to presenting
unrealistic clinical trial timelines to Defendant'sSenior Management, which could have a
significant negative impact on Defendant'sbusiness and could put trial subjects' fives in
Kaft V. amxn ak loo. et BLComplain kr Deungw 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
jeopardy as a result of shortcuts taken to achieve such unrealistic timelines. Despite the
accuracy of the timelines Plaintiff did present to Drs. Derynck and Holden, Plaintiff was
continuously ridiculed and disparaged by them in public forums. Plaintiffwas told by Dr.
Derynck during two separate team meetings #hat "Roche will take this molecule away from us
if they see these timelines."
27. Following a presentation on July 9, 2009, Plaintiff again indicated to Dr. Derynck that -
the timelines for certain clinical trials were unrealistic. and not supported by Clinical
Operations.
28. On July 29 and August 3, 2009, Plaintiff was repeatedly instructed by Drs. Derynck and
Holden to allow a clinical trial to go forward without the necessary approvals required under
the law. Because it was the responsibility ofClinical Operations to ensure the adequacy of the
regulatory documentation, Plaintiff complained to her supervisors, including her current
manager Lenny Kimball, that she was not willing to initiate the clinical trial without sufficient
information to identify the protocol. Lenny Kimball failed to alleviate or even respond to
Plaintiff's complaints about Defendant's illegal conduct Ms. Kimball, as well as other
members of Defendant'smanagement, failed to investigate the merits ofPlaintiffs reports of
illegal and unethical conduct, and instead retaliated against Plaintiff for raising concems to
management about the lack of adherence to safety laws and regulations by demoting Plaintiff
and removing her from the Pi3 Kinase Program even though she had held her position with the
program since July 9, 2007 and received a promotion from Clinical Program Manager to Sr.
Clinical Program Manager in August of2008.
Way v. GmanwkI= at aLOMPIRW iar DawAga 7
1
2
3
4
M
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29. In August of2009, following her complaints about illegal and unethical conduct, Plaintiff was
removed from the Pi3 Kinase Program, a demotion, something that was done only when a
Clinical Program Manager demonstrated consistently poor performance or improper behavior.
30. As Senior Clinical Program Leader, Plaintiffwas exclusively charged with "ensuring that all
programs under her oversight were instituted according to ethical, regulatory and legal
requirements" Plaintiffwas demoted for performing the functions ofher job, a job with duties
that she was uniquely qualified to carry out. This was pure retaliation, and such blatant, .
wrongful, and baseless conduct by management tended to and did in fact defame Plaintiff's
reputation with others at the company as a top notch Senior Clinical Program Leader.
31. Team members ofthe Pi3 Kinase Program, including the Development Sub team Leader and
the Vice President ofDevelopment Oncology, repeatedly told Plaintiff that she was a needed
and valued participant on the investigational product Pi3 Kinase Program Other team
members from another Program for which Plaintiff simultaneously worked as a Senior Clinic
Program Manager provided the same positive feedback about Plaintiff.
32. Being removed from the Pi3 Kinase Program caused severe damage to Plaintiffs reputation
amongst her coworkers and around the community. The Pi3 Kinase Program was a highly
valued Program at the company.
33. Plaintiff set up and implemented the Pi3 Kinase Program based on her operational strategies
and expertise. This required a workload ofbetween 5 -10 fold higher than Plaintiffs
colleagues. The Manager who replaced Plaintiff in the P13 Kinase Program reaped the benefi
from the success ofPlaintiffs work. Defendant'smanagement then promoted Plaintiffs
replacement to be a Clinical Program Group Leader, a higher position than Plaintiffhad
previously had as Senior Clinical Program Leader. Both Defendant'sDevelopment Sub team
UftV. Gmewnk Ina. ct aLCamplaiai %r Dma 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Leader and the Clinical Sub team Leader of the Pi3 Kinase Program also received promotions
based on Plaintiffs work shortly after Plaintiff was removed from the Pia Kinase Program.
34. On January 12, 2010, Plaintiff again' complained to her supervisors about the harassing and
retaliatory work environment she experienced while working under Drs. Derynck and Holden
in the Pi3 Kinase Program.
35. On January 31, 2010, Plaintiffwas further retaliated against with her first negative
performance review relating to her performance in 2009. The review was inaccurate and
unwarranted given Plaintiffs performance. Based on Plaintiffs negative performance review,
Plaintiffwas also denied a Long Term Incentive ( "LTr) bonus as well as a merit -based salary
bonus and a salary increase, despite successfully initiating at least eight clinical trials for the
Pia Kinase Program in one year, which was five to ten tunes the output and workload of a
typical Senior Clinical Program Leader.
36. On March 16, 2010, Plaintiff complained to one ofher supervisors, Tricia Moore, about the
unwarranted performance review she had received. Instead of attempting to investigate
Plaintiffs complaints, Ms. Moore mocked Plaintiff for her strict adherence to standard
operating procedures.
37. In or around March 2010, Plaintiff complained to Human Resources and Employee Relations
about her inaccurate performance review relating to her performance in 2009. Defendant
assigned James Deslonde, Senior Manager ofEmployee Relations, to undertake an
investigation into Plaintiffs complaints.
38. On April 21, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a formal written complaint to Sean Bohm, Vice
President of Genentech Early Development to again voice her concerns regarding the illegal
and unethical acts of the Pia Kinase Team and management'songoing retaliatory acts. Plaintifq
Utleyv. Cleoenmk Inc. at aL
phial for Damages 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
also sent a carbon copy of the formal written complaint to the following employees of _
Defendant: Christopher Brown, ChiefHealthcare Compliance Officer, James Deslonde, Senior
Manager ofEmployee Relations; Ann Lee- Karlon, Vice President of Portfolio Management
and Operations; Michael Li Associate General Counsel of Development •meat LawP
Michelle Rohrer, Vice President of Regulatory; Richard Scheller, Executive Vice President of
Research and Early Development; Denise Smith -Hams, Vice President ofHuman Resources;
and Philippe Van der Auwera, Global Head of Safety.
39. In an April 26, 2010 meeting, Mr. Deslonde told Plaintiff that the performance review was
unfair and unwarranted, but there was h̀otting he could do"
40. Plaintiff continued to be subjected to retaliation throughout the remainder of2010 as a result o
her continuous whistle blowing about the Pi3 Kinase Team's illegal and unethical conduct.
41. Plaintiffs mid -year 2010 review, which Plaintiff received in July of2010, was once again
filled with gross misstatements regarding her performance. Defendant informed Plaintiff in a
spiteful that her meritbased salary increase, annual bonus, and LTIs were lower than
her colleagues, despite her consistently exceptional performance on programs ofgreat
importance to Defendant'sbusiness.
42. Furthermore,. Defendant'smanagement subsequently and repeatedly damaged Plaintiffs
ability for lateral and promotional moves in the company for which she was exceedingly
qualified-
43. Throughout 2010, Ms. Kimball, Plaintiffs supervisor, continuously harassed and besieged
Plaintiffwith accusatory, hypercritical, capricious and duplicitous lectures without allowing
Plaintiffto speak, or ridiculing Plaintiff s explanation of alleged incidents. Ms. Kimball also
Km1ey v. Qeneaftek Ino. et al.Cmnplafat Ox Damages 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
imposed expectations and cumbersome and gratuitous tasks that were not imposed on others at -
Plaintiffs job leveL
44. In or around late January of2011, Plaintiff received another unwarranted negative
performance review and was again denied a merit based salary-increase, an annual bonus, and
LTIs commensurate with her'performance. ,
45. On or about February 14, 2011, Plaintiffmade another formal complaint to Defendant's
management regarding her demotion, depial of bonuses and salary increases, and unwarranted
performance reviews and ratings that all resulted from her ongoing complaints that the Pi3
Kinase team was violating laws and regulations. Plaintiff further complained at this time that
her management had consistently ignored her previous complaints, and had instead retaliated
against and harassed her.
46. After Plaintiffs February 2011 complaint, Defendant undertook another investigation into
Defendant'shostile and retaliatory conduct
47. In early March of2011, Plaintiff interviewed for a lateral position in the Product Development
Group at Genentech. Her interviews went well, but she was informed that any offer or
determination ofwho would fill the position was still contingent on the employee's latest
performance review.
48. On or about March 4, 2011, Plaintiff again complained about the most recent unwarranted
performance review to Guy Zuzovsky in Human Resources. Plaintiff explained to Mr.
Zuzovsky that she was particularly concerned about the inaccurate performance review
because she was attempting to transfer to a new department within Genentech where she woul
no longer be subjected to the retaliatory and harassing conduct ofher manager, Ms. Kimball.
Kniky v. (IonenWA Im at al. -Complaint for Damages 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
49. On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff complained to Egiployee Relations about not being selected for
numerous positions for which she was qualified and her concern that unsubstantiated
comments in her prior performance reviews were'the reason why. Plaintiff failed to be selected
for these positions.
50. On April 27, 2011, Mr. Zuzovsky informed Plaintiff that the 2011 formal investigation
regarding the retaliation and harassment upon Plaintiff was completed. Even though Plaintiff
was still being retaliated against and harassed frequently, Defendant took no action to remedy
the hostile and retaliatory actions.
51. On or about May 23, 2011, Ms. Kimball wrote Plaintiffup based on false accusations in a
document entitled "Performance Counseling."
52. Despite meeting the expectations of the Performance Counseling document, on July 15, 2011,
Ms. Kimball placed Plaintiff on an unwarranted and unfair Performance Improvement Plan
CTIP'J, in further retaliation against Plaintiff for her whistle blowing and complaints about
Ms. Kimball. This was Plaintiffs first and only PIP.
53. On August 30, 2011, Plaintiffwas wrongfully terminated.
54. At the time ofher termination, Plaintiff had been making a base salary ofapproximately
135,775.00a year.
55. Plaintiffs terminati was without merit, without fair warning, wrongful in administration,
and not equitable in consideration ofher total performance. Rather, the justifications used by
Defendant were pretexts to hide the disapproval and retaliation that ensued as a result of
Plaintiffs complaints and the exposure of the Defendant'sviolations.
Kailey v. Owmte* Im et all,e mplabd trnun es 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
F1i
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Whistleblower Retaliationin Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5
As to Defendant Genentech, Inc. and Does 1 -50)
56. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through
55 supra with the same force and effect as if fully pleaded at length herein.
57. California Labor Code § 1102.5(c) prohibits retaliation by an employer against an employee
who refuses to participate in an activity that would result in violation ofa state or federal
statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. The
California Legislature enacted Labor Code § 1102.5(c) with - the express intent, "to protect
employees who refuse to act at the direction of their employer or refuse to participate in
activities ofan employer that would result in a violation of law."
58. It is the fundamental public policy of this State that no employer retaliate against an employee
who refuses to engage in an activity that would result in a violation of law, as provided by
California'sWhistleblower statute, Labor Code § 1102.5(c). As more fully set forth in the
preceding paragraphs ofthis Complaint, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and is therefore
protected by the mandates ofLabor Code § 11025(c). Starting in or around October of2008,
Plaintiff raised objections to management and her supervisors regarding the Pi3 Kinase
plan to proceed with a phase of the First -In -Human safety trials because it violated several
laws and Federal Regulations.
59. Following Plaintiff's objections to participation ofand proceeding with the Pia Kinaw
Program Team's planned actions, Defendant knowingly and intentionally retaliated against
Plaintiff in several ways, including but not limited to: providing unwarranted negative
performance reviews for 2009, 2010, and 2011; failing to give her appropriate or deserving
28 11 LTIs, merit -based salary increases, bonuses, and other raises; demoting Plaintiffby removingKniley V. Genentech, r= et aLComplaint fbr Damages 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
vim
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
her from her coveted and esteemed role on the Pi3 Kinase Team; subjecting Plaintiff to
increased scrutiny of her work that others in a similar position were not subjected to; falsely
accusing Plaintiff ofmaking mistakes she had not made; harassing Plaintiff and treating
Plaintiff in an abusive manner that other employees in a similar position were not subjected to;
refusing to investigate and address Plaintiffs complaints about being targeted because ofher
refusal to engage in illegal activity; refusing to take corrective action in response to Plaintiffs
complaints ofretaliation; putting Plaintiff on an unwarranted performance improvement plan;
and by terminating Plaintiff in August of2011.
60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful retaliation against plaintiff in
violation ofLabor Code § 1102.5(c), Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer substantial
losses in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, future earnings, and other employment
benefits. Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution ofany loss ofbenefits,. including
pension and other compensation she otherwise would have been entitled such as merit -based
salary bonuses, salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages for
these losses and hereby demands an award ofdamages against Defendant in an amount
according to proof at trial.
61. Furthermore, Plaintiff experienced and continues to experience indignation as a result of the
retaliation. She was and still is deprived of the right to work without fear of reprisal for
refusing to participate in activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff also suffe
from extreme emotional distress, including, but not limited to: mental anguish, outrage,
frustration, severe anxiety about her future, fear of harm to her employability, anxiety about
the damage to her reputation, embaaassme among her. friends and colleagues, and the
disruption ofher personal life: Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages for these losses and
Kmlcy v. Oeneatech. I= et al.CMVbkW Ibr Dwmw 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hereby demands an award of damages against Defendant in an amount according to proof at
trial.
62. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with
wrongful intent to harm Plain= from an evil motive amounting to malice, and with a
conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be free from retaliation for refusing to participate in
activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive
damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from Defendant
in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from engaging mi
such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof,
63. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(f), Defendant is liable for a civil penalty for each violation of
Labor Code § 1102.5(c). As more fully set forth above, Plaintiff provided notice ofher
intention to seek recovery ofcivil penalties for Defendant'sviolations ofLabor Code §
1102.5(c). Upon the expiration of thirty -three (33) days from the date of Plaintiffs notice,
Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to assert a claim for civil penalties against
Defendant.
64. Pursuant to California Code Cty. Proc. § 1021.5, a court may award attorneys' fees tO a
successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which: (1) has resulted in
the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest; (2) a significant benefit has
been conferred on the general public or a large class ofpersons; and (3) the necessity and
financial burden ofprivate enforcement renders the award appropriate. Under Jaramillo v
County ofOrange (2011) 200 Ca1.AppAth 811, 829, protecting whistleblowers from retaliation
is a strong public interest that confers a significant benefit on the general public — namely,
empowering people to step forward to expose fraud, corruption, and other wrongdoing.
Kniley v. oenwtwi, Inc. at aL -
Complemt for Damages 1 S
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
Plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of statutory attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and
requests recovery of her attorney's fees and costs of suit in an amount according to proof.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONRetaliation in Violation of FEHA
As to Defendant Genentech, Inc. and Does 1 -50)
65. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through
64 supra with the same force and effect as if fully pleaded at length herein.
66. California Government Code § 12940(h) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an
employer to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person
has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a
complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding within the Code.
67. As more fully set forth in the preceding paragraphs ofthis Complaint, Plaintiff reported
violations of laws and regulations designed to ensure public safety and the safety of individuals
upon whom experimental drugs were being tested. Plaintiff also objected to performing illegal
activity in violation ofFederal Regulations that placed human subjects at unnecessary risk of
injury and/or death. In October of2008, Plaintiff raised objections regarding the Pi3 Kinase
Team's plan to proceed with a phase of the First -In -Human safety trials because it violated
several laws and was a threat to public safety.
68. Following Plaintiffs objections to participation ofand proceeding with the Pi3 Kinase
Program Team's planned actions, Defendant knowingly and intentionally retaliated against
Plaintiff in several ways, including but not limited to: providing unwarranted negative
performance reviews for 2009, 2010, and 2011; failing to give her appropriate or deserving
LTIs, merit -based salary increases, bonuses, and other raises; demoting Plaintiff by removing
her from her coveted and esteemed role on the Pi3 Kmase Team; subjecting Plaintiff to
increased scrutiny of her work that others in a similar position were not 'subjected to; falselyKn1W v. oene twk Inc. a al.C=pWM ms DameM 16
I
2,
3
4
5
6
7
8191
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accusing Plaintiff ofmaking mistakes she had not made; harassing Plaintiff and treating
Plaintiff in an abusive manner that other employees in a similar position were not subjected to;
refusing to investigate and address Plaintiffs complaints about being targeted because ofher
refusal to engage in illegal activity; refusing to take corrective action in response to Plaintiff's
complaints of retaliation; putting Plaintiff on an unwarranted performance improvement plan;
and by terminating Plaintiff in August of2011.
1 69. Defendant'sretaliatory actions against Plaintiff were of such a severe and pervasive nature so
as to create a hostile work environment that adversely affected the terms and conditions of
Plaintiff's employment with Defendant. Other employees in Plaintiffs department were not
subjected to Defendant'sretaliatory adverse employment actions or hostile work environment.
Rather, the retaliatory conduct began only after Plaintiff complained about Defendant'sillegal
and unethical conduct. Plaintiff was singled out and subjected to Defendants' retaliatory acts
and hostile work environment because ofher refusal to engage in illegal and unethical
170. Defendant was aware of and/or had full knowledge of the retaliatory actions taken against
Plainfiff by its employees and agents, including Plaintiffs supervisor, Ms. Kimball, and
knowingly permitted, condoned and/or otherwise authorized this retaliation against Plaintiff.
Defendant was also aware of and had knowledge of the extent and pervasiveness of the hostile
work environment that Plaintiff was subjected to, and knowingly permitted, condoned and/or
otherwise authorized it.
171. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job for
which she had been hired.
72. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant'sunlawful acts, Plaintiff suffered and continues
to suffer substantial losses in earnings, future earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, and
Kn&yv. Bach. Im et aLcomVI&WftDumWo 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
other forms ofcompensation in an amount which is currently unascertained. As a result of
Defendant'swrongful acts, Plaintiff faces substantial diminution of future earning capacities in
an amount, which is currently unascertained. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer the indignation of .retaliation; the deprivation ofthe right to work without fear of reprisal
for refusing to participate in activities that would result in a violation of law, as well as extreme
emotional distress, includingbut not limited to: mental anguish, outrage, fivstration, severe
anxiety about her future, fear of harm to employability, anxiety over the damage to her
reputatign, embarrassment among her friends and colleagues, and the disruption ofher personal
life. Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensatory damages for these losses and hereby demands
an award of compensatory damages against Defendant in an amount according to proof at trial.
73. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with a
wrongful intent to harm plaintiff, from an evil motive amounting to malice, and with a
conscious disregard for plaintiffs rights to be free from retaliation for refusing to participate in
activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive damages
from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from Defendant in an
amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from engaging in such
unlawful employment, practices, in an amount according to proof
74. In bringing this action, Plaintiffhas been required to retain the services ofcounsel. Pursuant to
California Government Code § 12965, she is entitled to an award ofattorney's fees.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONHarassment in Violation ofFEHA
As to Defendant Genentech, Inc. and Does 1 -50)
75. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through
74 supra with the same force and effect as if fully pleaded at length herein.
Way v. owAaW4 Inc. et aLCompWM fa Damages 18
0
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
76. California Government Code § 129400) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an
employee to be subjected to harassment and an employer's agents or supervisors know or
should have known ofthis harassing conduct, yet fail to take immediate and appropriate
corrective action.
77. As more fully set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff reported
violations oflaws and regulations designed to ensure public safety and the safety of individuals
upon whom experimental drugs were being tested. Plaintiff also objected to performing illegal
activity in violation ofFederal regulations that placed human subjects at unnecessary risk of
injury and/or death. Starting in October of2008, Plaintiff raised objections regarding the Pi3
Kinase Team's plan to proceed with a phase of the First-In-Human safety trials because it
violated several laws and was a threat to public safety.
178. Plaintiff then experienced harassment by her supervisors, upper -level management, and co-
workers. Such harassment included, but was not limited to: supervisors, management and co-
workers treating Plaintiff in an abusive manner that otwr employees in a similar position were
not subjected to; supervisors and management targeting her for her whistle blowing;
supervisors singling out and scolding Plaintiff for mistakes she had not made; and supervisors
and management accusing Plaintiffofmisconduct that she had not committed.
79. The harassing conduct was so severe, widespread, and persistent that it constituted a hostile
and abusive work environment for Plaintiffand altered the conditions ofher employment.
80. Plaintiffs supervisors 'and Defendant's agents knew or should have known of the harassing
conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Plaintiff complained to
management several times about the harassing and retaliatory conduct and distressing work
28 • environment.
Miley v. Gmcnwh. I= at aLComplaint hr Damegm 19
1'
21
3I4
81. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job
for which she.had been hired.
182. Asa direct and proximate result ofDefendant'sunlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and
continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, fixture
earnings, and other employment benefits. Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution ofany
loss ofbenefits, including pension and other compensation she otherwise would have been
entitled such as merit -based salary bonuses, salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is
entitled to receive compensatory damages for these losses and hereby demands an award of10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
compensatory damages against defendants in an amount according to proofat trial.
183. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant'sunlawfial conduct, Plaintiff experienced and
continues to experience indignation as a result ofthe retaliation. She was and still is deprived of
the right to work without fear of reprisal for refusing to participate in activities that would result
in a violation of law. Plaintiff also suffered from extreme emotional distress, including, but not
limited to: mental anguish, outrage, fiustration, severe anxiety about her future, fear ofharm to
her employability, anxiety about the damage to her reputation, embarrassment among her
friends and colleagues, and the disruption ofher personal life. Plaintiff is entitled to receive
damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award of damages from Defendant in an
amount according to proof at trial.
84. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with a
wrongful intent to harm Plaintiff; from an evil motive amounting tomalice, and with a
conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be free from harassment for refusing to participate
in activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive
damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from Defendant
Knfy v. Genentech, Im at al.Complaint for Damages 20
1
2
3
4
in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from engaging in
such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof.
185. in bringing this action, Plaintiff has been required to retain the services ofcounsel. Pursuant to
California Government Code § 12965, she is entitled to an award of attorney's fees.5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21•
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Prevent Retaliation and Harassment in Violation ofFEHA
As to Defendant Genentech, Inc. and Does 1 -50)
86.. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through 85
supra with the same force and effect as if folly pleaded at length herein.
87. California Government Code § 12940(k) makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to take all
reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment from
occurring.
88. Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent Defendant'semployees and agents from
retaliating against and harassing Plaintiff. Defendant did not take immediate and appropriate
corrective action.
89. Immediately after Plaintiff s initial complaints in October of 2008 and throughout Plaintiff s
subsequent complaints about retaliation and harassment, Defendant failed to take steps to
protect Plaintiff from further harassment and retaliation.
90. Defendant failed to appropriately address the complaint by Plaintit and did not implement
any reasonable remedial steps to prevent future harassment and retaliation.
191. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendant'sunlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and
continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, future
earnings, and other employment benefits. Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution ofany
loss ofbenefits, including pension and other compensation she otherwise would have been
Bnlay V. Genentech, Inc. et al.complaint Sr DamaM 22
06
M
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
entitled such as merit-based salary bonuses, salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is
entitled to receive compensatory damages for these losses and hereby demands an award of
compensatory damages against defendants in an amount according to proofat trial.
92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant'sunlawful conduct, Plaintiff experienced and
continues to experience indignation as a result ofthe retaliation. She was and still is deprived of
the right to work without fear ofreprisal for refusing to participate in activities that would result
in a violation of law. Plaintiff also suffered from extreme emotional distress, including, but not
limited to: mental anguish, outrage, frustration, severe anxiety about her future, fear ofharm to
her employability, anxiety about the damage to her reputation, embarrassment among her
friends and colleagues, and the disruption ofher personal life. Plaintiff is entitled to receive
damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award of damages from Defendant in an
amount according to proof at trial.
93. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with a
wrongful intent to harm Plaintiff from an evil motive amounting to malice, and with a
conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be flee from retaliation and harassment for refusingto participate'inactivities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive
punitive damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from
Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from
engaging in such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof.94. Pursuant to California Cade . 0y. Proc. § 1021.5, a court may award attorneys' fees to a
successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which: (1) has resulted in
the enforcement ofan important right affecting the public interest; (2) a significant benefit has
been conferred on the general public or a large class ofpersons; and (3) the necessity and
Way, v. Oenenteck Inc. at al.mMlaiut for Damages 22
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
financial burden ofprivate enforcement renders the award appropriate. Under Jarmnillo v.
County ofOrange (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th811, 829, protecting whistleblowers from retali
is a strong public interest that confers a significant benefit on the general public — namely,
empowering people to step forward to expose fraud, corruption, and other wrongdoing.
Plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of statutory attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and hR
requests recovery ofher attorney's fees and costs of suit in an amount according to proof.
FHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Wrongful Termination in Violation ofPublic PolicyCommon, Law, Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980))
As to Defendant Genentech, Inc. and Does 1 -50)
95. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through 94
supra with the same force and effect as if fully pleaded at length herein.
196. This is a common law cause ofaction pursuant to the law of the State of California Jurisdiction
is invoked pursuant to Tameny v Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 167.
97. There is a fundamental public policy in this state against employers who retaliate against
employees who pursue legally protected rights.
198. - As more fully set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff engaged in
protected activity by reporting violations of laws and regulations designed to ensure public
safety and the safety ofindividuals upon whom experimental drugs were being tested, therefor
Plaintiff is within the class protected by the public policy ofthe laws ofCalifornia. Plaintiff is
therefore protected by the mandates ofLabor Code § 1102.5(c).
199. In response to Plaintiffs legally protected activity, Defendant discharged Plaintiff on
August 30, 2011.
100. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job for
which she had been hired.
Kegv. oenmftk Ina at al.
CmAmW for Dvanw 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
101. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendant'sunlawful retaliation against plaintiff in
ofLabor Code § 1102.5(c), Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in
earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, future earnings, and other employment benefits.
Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution of any loss ofbenefits, including pension and
other compensation she otherwise would have been entitled such as merit -based salary bonuses,
salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensatory damages for
these losses and hereby demands an award of compensatory damages against defendants in an
amount according to proof at trial.
102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant'sunlawful conduct, Plaintiff experienced and
continues to experience indignation as a result ofthe wrongful termination. She was and still is
deprived ofthe right to work without fear of reprisal for refusing to participate in activities that
would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff also suffered from extreme emotional distress,
including, but not limited to: mental anguish, outrage, frustration, severe anxiety about her
future, fear ofharm to her employability, anxiety about the damage to her reputation,
embarrassment among her friends and colleagues, and the disruption ofher personal life.
Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award of
damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof at trial.
103. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with a
wrongful intent to harm Plaintiff, from an evil motive amounting to malice, and with a
conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be free from wrongful termination for refusing to
participate in activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive
punitive damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from
Kniley v. C3eneoMk Inc. at aLComplaint for Damages 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from
engaging in such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof.104. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(f), Defendant is liable for a civil penalty for each violation of
Labor Code § 1102.5(c). As more fully set forth above, Plaintiff provided notice of her
intention to seek recovery ofcivil penalties for Defendant'sviolations ofLabor Code §
1102.5(c). Upon the expiration of thirty-three (33) days from the date of Plaintiffs notice,
Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to assert a claim for civil penalties againstDefendant.
105. Pursuant to California Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, a court may award attorneys' fees to a
successM party against one or more opposing parties in any action which: (1) has resulted in
the enforcement ofan important right affecting the public interest; (2) a significant benefit has
been conferred on the general public or a large class ofpersons; and (3) the necessity and
financial burden ofprivate enforcement renders the award appropriate. Under Jara.116 v.
County ofOrange (2011) 200 Cal,AppAth 811, 829, protecting whisdeblowers from retaliationis a strong public interest that confers a significant benefit on the general public — namely,
empowering people to step forward to expose fraud, corruption, and other wrongdoing. Plaintiff
is entitled to receive an award of statutory attorneys' fees and costs ofsuit, and hereby requestsrecovery' of her attorney's fees and costs of suit in an amount according to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Wrongfal Demotion in Violation ofPublic PolicyCommon Law, Tammy v. Atlantic Rkkfleld Ca., 27 CaL 3d 167 (1980))
As to Defendant Genentech, Inc. and Does 1 -50)
106. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through105, supra with the same force and effect as if fully pleaded at length herein.
may T. owafte . Inc. of aLMPWM forD=& 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
107. This is a common law cause ofaction pursuant to the law ofthe State of California.
Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Twneny v Atlantic Richfield Co. 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980).
108. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job
for which she had been hired.
109. It is the fundamental public policy of this State that no employer retaliate against an eniployec
who refuses to engage in an activity that would result in a violation of law, as provided by
California'sWhistleblower statute, Labor Code § 1102.5(c). As more fully set forth in the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity - by reporting
violations of laws and regulations designed to ensure public safety and the safety ofindividual
upon whom experimental drugs were being tested; therefore, Plaintiff is within the class
protected by the public policy of the laws ofCalifornia. Plaintiff is therefore protected by the
mandates ofLabor Code § 11025(c).
110. Defendant demoted Plaintiff by removing her from the most important program for the
company because ofher good faith actions in reporting violations of several laws and Federal
Regulations designed to protect public safety and the safety of individuals upon whom
experimental drugs are tested.
111. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant'sunlawful conduct against plaintiff in violation
ofLabor Code § 1102.5(c), Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in
earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, future earnings, and other employment benefits.
Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution ofany loss ofbenefits, including pension and
other compensation she otherwise would have been entitled such as merit -based salary
bonuses, salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensatory
Way v. OmenWA Inc. et al.
Complemt for Damages 26
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
damages for these losses and hereby demands an award of compensatory damages against
defendants inan amount according to proof at trial.
112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff experienced and
continues to experience indignation as a result of the wrongful demotion. She was and still is
deprived of the right to work without fear of reprisal for refusing to participate in activities thaw
would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff also suffered from extreme emotional distress,
including, but not limited to: mental anguish, outrage, frustration, severe anxiety about her
future, fear ofharm to her employability, anxiety about the damage to her reputation,
embarrassment among her friends and colleagues, and the disruption ofher personal life.
Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award of
damages from Defendant in an amount according to proofat trial.
113. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with a
wrongful intent to harm Plainti$ from an evil motive amounting to malice, and with a.
conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be free from a wrongful demotion for refusing to
participate in activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive
punitive damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from
Defendant m an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from
engaging in such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof.
114. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(f), Defendant is liable for a civil penalty for each violation
Labor Code § 1102.5(c). As more fully set forth above, Plaintiff provided notice ofher
intention to seek recovery ofcivil penalties for Defendant'sviolations ofLabor Code §
1102.5(c). Upon the expiration ofthirty-three (33) days from the date of Plaintiff'snotice,
Kailey Y. Ocner w* Ina et a1.
complaint for Damages, 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to assert a claim for civil penalties against
Defendant
115. Pursuant to California Code . Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, a court may award attorneys' fees to a
successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which: (1) has resulted in
the enforcement ofan important right affecting the public interest; (2) a significant benefit ha
been conferred on the general public or a large class ofpersons; and (3) the necessity and
financial burden ofprivate enforcement renders the award appropriate. Under Jarmnillo v.
County ofOrange (2011) 200 Ca1.AppA4th 811, 829, protecting whistleblowers from retaliatic
is a strong public interest that confers a significant benefit on the general public — namely,
empowering people to step forward to expose fraud,'corruption, and other wrongdoing.
Plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of statutory attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and hereb
requests recovery ofher attorney's fees and costs ofsuit in an amount according to proof.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
As to Defendant Genentech, Inc. and Does 1 -50)116. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through
115 supra with the same force and effect as if fully pleaded at length herein.
117. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages to compensate her for the emotional distress caused by
Defendant'swrongful and unlawful conduct. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Rojo v Klinger,
1990) 52 Ca1.3d 63. .
118. The acts described hereinabove are separately, as well as in their totality, so extreme and
outrageous that they cannot be tolerated by a civilized society.
119. As a result of the extreme and outrageous acts described herein, Plaintiff has been held up to
great derision -and embarrassment with his fellow workers, friends, members of the community
Katy V. OWMteck lna of aLcomplaint tbrDn"es 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and family, and he has suffered emotional distress. This emotional distress has manifested itself
in physical symptoms experience by Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, headaches, anxiety,
stress, depression, and insomnia. Plaintiff informed and believes that Defendant committed such
extreme and outrageous acts knowing that they would cause Plaintiff such emotional distress.
Plaintiff therefore seeks damages for such emotional distress in an amount to be proven at the
time of trial..
120. Because of the wrongful acts of Defendant as herein alleged above, Plaintiff sought psychiatric
treatment and was administered medication and psychotherapy to alleviate her emotional
suffering.. Plaintiff has been and will in the future be required to employ physicians to examine,
treat and care for her and will incur additional medical expenses in an amount to be proven at
the time oftrial.
121. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant acted deliberately for the purposes of injuring
Plaintiff as alleged above. Defendant further acted intentionally and unreasonably because it
knew and/or should have known that its conduct was likely to result in severe mental distress.
Plaintiff therefore seeks damages for such emotional distress in an amount to be proven at the
time oftrial.
122. Defendant's acts were malicious, oppressive or fraudulent with the intent to vex, injure, annoy,
humiliate and embarrass Plaintiff; and in conscious disregard of the rights or safety ofPlaintiff
and other employees ofDefendant, and in furtherance of Defendant's- ratification ofthe
wrongful conduct of the employees and managers ofDefendant. The Plaintiff is therefore
entitled to an award ofpunitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
Km1ey v. (mote* Inc. at al.Com kt for Damages 29
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
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
123. Plaintiff Juliet Kniley hereby demands a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
124. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant her the following relief
A. Compensatory damages;
B. Back pay;
C. Front pay;
D. Damages for mental pain and suffering;
E. Reasonable attorney fees;
F. Costs ofsuit;
G. Civil Penalties;
H. Punitive damages; and
I. Such other relief as the Court deems just and reasonable.
Dated: 1 a (p1 LAW OFFICES OF MAYOR JOSEPH L. ALIOTO &ANGE ALI
YT,By.
JOSEP IOTO VERONESE
Attorney for PlaintiffJuliet Kniley
Kniley v. Genentech, Inc. et al.Complaint for Damages 30