1 2

Angela M.Alioto,SBN 130328) ( Emily St John Cohen,SBN 239674) (

LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. ALIOTO
AND ANGELA ALIOTO SAN MATCB COUNTY

LED
2012

700 Montgomery Street

4

San Francisco, CA 94111 2104 -

AUG 0
Cie

Telephone: 415)4348700 ( 5
6 7

Facsimile:415) 4638 ( 438 Sandra L.Ribero, SBN 236769) (

RIBERA.LAW FIRM

parlor court

8 9 10 11 12

A Professional Corporation 807 Montgomery Street

San Francisco,CA 94133 Telephone: ( 415)576 1600 Facsimile: ( 415)842 0321 -

Attorneys for Plaintiff Juliet Kniley

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

13 14 15 16
17

SAN MATEO COUNTY

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

QW
JULIET KNILEY, ) Plaintiff, )
VS. )

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

18

1. Whistleblower Retaliation ( al.Lab. C

Code 1102. c)) 5( 2. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA

19

GENENTECH, INC., } and

20

3. Harassment in Violation of FEHA 4. Failure to Prevent Retaliation and

DOES 1 -20, )
21

Harassment in Violation of FEHA

5. Wrongful Termination in Violation

22
23 24 25

Defendant(s).

of Public Policy 6. Wrongful Demotion in Violation of Public Policy

7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

26 27

28

Kniaay v.Gcmnwk inn at al.

cam*at hr. i Damum

1
2

PlaintiffJULWT KNILEY or Plaintiffs for her Complaint against Defendant ( "

GENENTECH,INC. ( " Genentech"or Defendant'), " hereby alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION

3
4 5
s

1.

This is an action for damages for Defendant's whistleblower retaliation in violation of

California Labor Code

1102(c), retaliation in violation of FEHA,harassment in violation of

8
9

FEHA,failure to prevent retaliation in violation of public policy,wrongful termination in

violation ofpublic policy,wron& demotion in violation of public policy,and intentional

infliction of emotional distress.The action arises out of Plaintiffs employment with
Defendant

10
11
12

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13

14
15

2.

Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court

1 by California Code of Civil Procedure 410. 0.

3.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code

PARTIES

ofCivil Procedure

395.

16

17
4.
18

At all pertinent times mentioned in this Complaint,Plaintiff was a resident ofthe County of
San' rancisco, State of California. F

19
20 21 22

5.

Defendant Genentech,Inc.is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware,but has had its headquarters in South San Francisco in the State of California ever
since its founding in 1976.

23

6.
24

Defendant Genentech,Inc.is a pharmaceutical company, and employs approximately eleven thousand, five hundred ( 1, 00)employees in the United States. 1 5

25

26
27

7.

In March of 2009,Defendant Genentech, Inc.and the Roche Group combined their

pharmaceutical operations and Defendant became an independent center within the Roche
Group.
Kzu* GemnteA Inc.et al. v. Complaint for Damages
2

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.

3
4

9.
5
6
7

At all the pertinent times mentioned in this Complaint,Defendant acted with the intent to
a tortious effect on the Plaintiff within the State of California.

10.

Corporate Defendant is directly liable to Plaintiff for the harassing conduct of their

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16

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
of their 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

17 18
19 20

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

21 22

other Defendant. In doing the things alleged in the causes of action into which this paragraph is

incorporated by reference, each and every Defendant was acting within the course and scope of
23 24

this agency or employment and was acting with the consent, permission,and authorization of

25
26

each remaining Defendant. All actions of each Defendant alleged in the causes of action into
which this paragraph is incorporated by reference were ratified and approved by the officers or
the managing agents of every other Defendant.

27 28

Knft v.C4meawA Ine.et aL

C= far Damages PWM

2
3

EXHAUSTION OF ADPAMSTRATM REMEDIES

14.

Plaintiffhas fully exhausted all applicable administrative remedies. Plaintiff has received a

4
5

Right- Sue Notice from the California Department ofFair Employment and Housing on toOctober 5,2011.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1
6
9

15. Plaintiff Juliet Kniley is a female.

16. Plaintiff lives in San Francisco, California.

10

11 12

17. On December 5,2005,Plaintiffwas hired by Defendant as an Associate [Clinical]Operations

Team Leader with an annual base salary of 115, 00. 00. $ 0

13
14

18. From December 2005 to August 2009,Plaintiff received only excellent performance reviews,
as is evidenced by her multiple promotions.

15 16

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's senior executives and All Hands Meetings," Pi3 Kinase Program was the most important " the
program at the company.

17
1s

19
20

20. In and around August of2008, Plaintiffwas promoted to the role ofSenior Clinical Program
Manager with an annual base salary of 133, 75. 00. $ 3

21.

22
23 24

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

25 2' 6
27

Defendant's Development Sub Team Leader DSTL), Deryack,M. ., the first- n( Wla D that i

human clinical trial must be followed as written. Plaintiff complained to Defendant's

management that instead of following written protocol,Defendant's Pi3 Kinase Program Team
Knft V.GCWVWb,Inc.et al. Complaint ft Damages

28

was engaging in illegal and unethical conduct in relation to the clinical trials. The laws and

2 3

regulations that Defendant violated included,but were not limited to: 1) Code of Federal ( 21 Regulations (CF. 30,which requires that a sponsor submit a protocol amendment R.) ' . 312. "

5
6

describing any change in a Phase I protocol that significantly affects the safety of subjects "; 2; (
1

21 CRR_ 312. 5 which indicates that

sponsors (Defendant)are responsible for ensuring that

7
8 9

investigations are conducted in accordance with the protocol; 3) ( International Conference of

Harmonisation ( H.) I.. C E6

2, indicates that the investigator should not implement 4. . 5 which

any deviation from,or changes of the protocol without approval of the Institutional Ethics
10
11

H Committee,and ( I..E8 3. . 4) C 3, 2 which indicates that adherence to the protocol is

12 13

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 FDAregulated clinical trials.

14

15 16

17
18

22. Throughout October and November of 2008,Plaintiff complained ton multiple occasions to

Defendant's DSTL Mika Derynck,M. ., Defendant's Clinical SubTeam Leader CSTL) D and (
Scott Holden,M. .that Defendant's premature and inappropriate safety testing in humans for D
certain clinical studies-in Defendant's Pi3 Kinase Program violated several laws and

19
20

21

regulations that were designed to protect the safety of the patients on whom the tests were
being conducted.

22
23
24

23. On or about December 17,2008,Plaintiff complained to Defendant's management about the

behavior of Dr.Holder being inconsistent with Defendant's corporate values and of his

25 26

insistence on violating federal regulations and international directives. After this meeting,Dr. I
Holden began to verbally abuse, harass, and retaliate against Plaintiff.. Holden confronted Dr.

27 28

Complaint fir Damages

1 2 3

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's direct area of accountability. As a

result,Plaintiff was prevented from obtaining all information necessary for her to fully

6
7
e

function in her role as Senior Clinical Program Manager of the Pi3 Kinase Program.
24. Plainhfftold Defendant's management about Dr.Holden's harassment and retaliation, and

specifically sought assistance from her manager, Mark Bradley,and Mr.Bradley's supervisor,
Tricia Moore.Plaintiff objected to proceeding with these clinical trials and tests on humans

9
to

11

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's conduct was

12
13 14

unethical and illegal, and was in violation of 1) ( Federal Regulations; 2) ( Defendant's Good

15

Operating Procedures; 3) ( Defendant's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS); (4) and the
International Conference of Harmonisation Guidelines. Such violations put the lives ofthe
subjects of Defendant's Pia Kinase Program clinical trials at unnecessary risk of death and
injury.
25.

16
17
18

19 20 21 22

On January 7,2009, Plaintiff complained to Defendant's Vice President Stuart Lutzker,MD

via Defendant's multi-ater feedback foam that Dr.Derynck was making clinical trial r

in the area ofprotocol compliance that were putting the relationship with the clinical
23

24 25 26
27 28

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's Senior Management,which could have a

significant negative impact on Defendant's business and could put trial subjects' fives in
Kaft V.amxn ak loo.et BL Complain kr Deungw

1 2

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.
4

5
6
7

Derynck during two separate team meetings # at " oche will take this molecule away from us h R
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.

9'
10 11
12

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

13 14 15

the law. Because it was the responsibility of Clinical 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

16 17 18 19
20

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's management, 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

21
22

2324

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.

25
26

27 28

Way v.Gmanwk I= at aL

OMPIRW iar DawAga

1
2

29. In August of 2009,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.

4

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

6 7 8
9

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

10 11

reputation with others at the company as a top notch Senior Clinical Program Leader.

12 13 14 15

31. Team members ofthe Pi3 Kinase Program,including the Development Sub team Leader and
the Vice President of Development Oncology, repeatedly told Plaintiffthat 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

16

Program Manager provided the same positive feedback about Plaintiff.

17 18

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.

19
20

21
22

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 -

23 24

colleagues. The Manager who replaced Plaintiffin the P13 Kinase Program reaped the benefi

25
26 27

from the success ofPlaintiffs work. Defendant's management 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's Development Sub team
Uft V.Gmewnk Ina.ct aL Camplaiai % Dma r

26

1 2

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
4

5
6

retaliatory work environment she experienced while working under Drs.Derynck and Holden
in the Pi3 Kinase Program.

35. On January 31,2010,Plaintiff was further retaliated against with her first negative

8
9

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 meritbased 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
I

10
11

12 13
14

typical Senior Clinical Program Leader.

15

36. On March 16,2010,Plaintiff complained to one of her supervisors,Tricia Moore,about the

16
17

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.

18 19 20 21

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

22

assigned James Deslonde, Senior Manager ofEmployee Relations,to undertake an

23 24

investigation into Plaintiffs complaints.

25
26

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

27

and unethical acts of the Pia Kinase Team and management's ongoing retaliatory acts.Plaintifq
Utley v.Cleoenmk Inc.at aL phial for Damages

28

also sent a carbon copy ofthe formal written complaint to the following employees of _
Defendant: Christopher Brown, ChiefHealthcare Compliance Officer,James Deslonde, Senior

2 3

Manager of Employee Relations; Ann LeeKarlon,Vice President of Portfolio Management

4

and
5 6

Operations; Michael Li

P meat Law Associate General Counsel of Development

Michelle Rohrer,Vice President of Regulatory;Richard Scheller,Executive Vice President of

7 8

Research and Early Development; Denise Smith Hams,Vice President ofHuman Resources; and Philippe Van der Auwera,Global Head of Safety.

9 10
11

39. In an April 26,2010 meeting, Mr.Deslonde told Plaintiff that the performance review was

unfair and unwarranted, but there was ` otting he could do" h

40. Plaintiff continued to be subjected to retaliation throughout the remainder of2010 as a result o

12 13 14

her continuous whistle blowing about the Pi3 Kinase Team's illegal and unethical conduct.

41. Plaintiffs midyear 2010 review,which Plaintiffreceived in July of2010,was once again filled with gross misstatements regarding her performance. Defendant informed Plaintiff in a

15

16

spiteful that her meritbased salary increase, annual bonus,and LTIs were lower than
17 18 19

her colleagues,despite her consistently exceptional performance on programs ofgreat

importance to Defendant's business.

20
21
22

42. Furthermore,. Defendant's management subsequently and repeatedly damaged Plaintiffs

ability for lateral and promotional moves in the company for which she was exceedingly
qualified-

23
24

43. Throughout 2010, Ms.Kimball,Plaintiffs supervisor,continuously harassed and besieged

25
26
27

Plaintiffwith accusatory, hypercritical, capricious and duplicitous lectures without allowing

Plaintiffto speak, or ridiculing Plaintiff s explanation of alleged incidents. Ms.Kimball also

28

Km1ey v.Qeneaftek Ino.et al. Cmnplafat Ox Damages

10

imposed expectations and cumbersome and gratuitous tasks that were not imposed on others at Plaintiffs job leveL

2 3

44. In or around late January of2011, Plaintiffreceived another unwarranted negative

4 5

performance review and was again denied a merit based salary-ncrease, an annual bonus,and i
LTIs commensurate with her'erformance. , p

6
7
8

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
10 11 12

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.

13 14 15
16
17

46. After Plaintiffs February 2011 complaint, Defendant undertook another investigation into
Defendant's hostile and retaliatory conduct

47. In early March of2011, Plaintiffinterviewed for a lateral position in the Product Development
Group at Genentech. Her interviews went well,but she was informed that any offer or

18 19
20

determination of who would fill the position was still contingent on the employee's latest
performance review.

21 22 23 24 25
26

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 of her manager,Ms.Kimball.

27 28

Kniky v.IonenWA Im at al. (

Complaint for Damages
11

49.

On March 17,2011,Plaintiff complained to Egiployee Relations about not being selected for

2 3

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
4

for these positions.

5

6
7

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

8 9

was still being retaliated against and harassed frequently, Defendant took no action to remedy
the hostile and retaliatory actions.

10

51. On or about May 23,2011,Ms. Kimball wrote Plaintiff up based on false accusations in a
11

12
13 14
15

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, further retaliation against Plaintiff for her whistle blowing and complaints about in
Ms.Kimball. This was Plaintiffs first and only PIP.

16 17
18 19 20 21

53. On August 30,2011,Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated.

54. At the time of her termination,Plaintiff had been making a base salary ofapproximately
00 135, 75.a year. 7

55. Plaintiffs terminati was without merit,without fair warning,wrongful in administration,

22
23

and not equitable in consideration of her 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's violations.

24

25
26 27 28

Kailey v.Owmte* Im et all, e mplabd tr nun es

12

1
2

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Whistleblower Retaliation

in Violation of Labor Code 1102. 5

3
4

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 iffully pleaded at length herein.

57. California Labor Code

7

c) retaliation by an employer against an employee 1102.5( prohibits

8
9 10

who refuses to participate in an activity that would result in violation of a state or federal

statute,or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. The

California Legislature enacted Labor Code

c) express intent,to protect 1102. 5( the with "

11

employees who refuse to act at the direction oftheir employer or refuse to participate in
12

activities of an employer that would result in a violation of law."

13
14
F1i

58. It is the fundamental public policy ofthis 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's Whistleblower statute,Labor Code

16
17 is

c). 1102.5( more fully set forth in the As

preceding paragraphs ofthis Complaint,Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and is therefore

protected by the mandates of Labor Code 11025( c). in or around October of 2008, Starting

19

20
21

Plaintiff raised objections to management and her supervisors regarding the Pi3 Kinase
plan to proceed with a phase of the FirstInHuman safety trials because it violated several - laws and Federal Regulations.
59.

22
23

Following Plaintiff's objections to participation ofand proceeding with the Pia Kinaw

24

Program Team's planned actions,Defendant knowingly and intentionally retaliated against

25

26 27 28

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 11

LTIs,meritbased salary increases, bonuses, and other raises; demoting Plaintiffby removing Kniley V.Genentech,r= et aL

Complaint fbr Damages

13

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

2
3

accusing Plaintiff of making mistakes she had not made;harassing Plaintiff and treating
4

5 6 7 8
vim

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 of 2011.

to 11
12

60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful retaliation against plaintiff in
violation of Labor Code

c), 1102. 5( Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer substantial

13
14

losses in earnings,bonuses, deferred compensation, future earnings, and other employment

benefits. Plaintiffrequests full back pay, full restitution of any loss ofbenefits,. including
pension and other compensation she otherwise would have been entitled such as merit based -

15
16

salary bonuses, salary increases,and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages for
17 18

these losses and hereby demands an award ofdamages against Defendant in an amount
according to proof at trial.
61.

19 20
21

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 ofreprisal for
refusing to participate in activities that would result in a violation of law.Plaintiff also suffe

22
23
24

from extreme emotional distress,including, but not limited to:mental anguish, outrage,

25 26

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

27 28

disruption of her personal life: Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages for these losses and
Kmlcy v.Oeneatech. I= et al. CMVbkW Ibr Dwmw

14

hereby demands an award of damages against Defendant in an amount according to proof at

trial.

3
4

62. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively,with

wrongful intent to harm Plain= an evil motive amounting to malice,and with a from
5

6
7 e
9

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,

10

11

63. Pursuant to Labor Code

12 13
14

f), a civil penalty for each violation of 1102. 5( Defendant is liable for

Labor Code

c). 1102. 5( more fully set forth above,Plaintiff provided notice of her As

intention to seek recovery of civil penalties for Defendant's violations ofLabor Code

15 16

c). 1102. 5( the expiration of thirtythree ( 3)days from the date of Plaintiffs notice, Upon 3

Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to assert a claim for civil penalties against
17

Defendant.
1s

19
20
21 22

64. Pursuant to California Code Cty. Proc. 1021. 5, court a

may award attorneys' fees tO a

successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which:1) resulted in ( has
the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest; 2) significant benefit has ( a
been conferred on the general public or a large class ofpersons; and ( ) necessity and 3 the

23
24

financial burden of private enforcement renders the award appropriate.Under Jaramillo v

25
26

County ofOrange (2011)200 Ca1. ppAth 811, 829,protecting whistleblowers from retaliation A
is
a

strong public interest that confers

significant benefit on the general public namely,

27 28

empowering people to step forward to expose fraud,corruption, and other wrongdoing.

Kniley v.oenwtwi,Inc.at aL Complemt for Damages

1S I

1 2

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 ACTION Retaliation in Violation of FEHA

3
4 5 6 7
s 9

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

10

has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a
11 12
13

complaint,testified,or assisted in any proceeding within the Code.

67.

As more fully set forth in the preceding paragraphs ofthis Complaint,Plaintiff reported

14 15 16

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 of Federal Regulations that placed human subjects at unnecessary risk of

17
is

injury and/or death.In October of2008,Plaintiff raised objections regarding the Pi3 Kinase

19 20
21

Team's plan to proceed with a phase of the FirstInHuman 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

22
23 24

Plaintiff in several ways,including but not limited to:providing unwarranted negative

25 26
27 29

performance reviews for 2009,2010,and 2011;failing to give her appropriate or deserving LTIs,meritbased salary increases,bonuses, and other raises; demoting Plaintiff by removing her from her coveted and esteemed role on the Pi3 Kmase Team;subjecting Plaintiffto

increased scrutiny of her work that others in a similar position were not subjected to;falsely '
Kn1W v.oene twk Inc.a al. C= ms DameM pWM 16

accusing Plaintiff ofmaking mistakes she had not made;harassing Plaintiff and treating
Plaintiffin an abusive manner that other employees in a similar position were not subjected to;

2,
3

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

4
5 6
7

complaints ofretaliation;putting Plaintiff on an unwarranted performance improvement plan;

and by terminating Plaintiff in August of 2011.

81 1 69. Defendant's retaliatory actions against Plaintiff were of such a severe and pervasive nature so
91
to

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
11

12
13

subjected to Defendant's retaliatory adverse employment actions or hostile work environment.

Rather,the retaliatory conduct began only after Plaintiff complained about Defendant's illegal
and unethical conduct. Plaintiff was singled out and subjected to Defendants' retaliatory acts
and hostile work environment because of her refusal to engage in illegal and unethical

14

15
16 17
18

170.

Defendant was aware of and/or had full knowledge ofthe retaliatory actions taken against

Plainfiff by its employees and agents,including Plaintiffs supervisor, Ms.Kimball,and

19 20
21

knowingly permitted,condoned and/or otherwise authorized this retaliation against Plaintiff.

Defendant was also aware of and had knowledge of the extent and pervasiveness ofthe hostile work environment that Plaintiff was subjected to,and knowingly permitted,condoned and/or
otherwise authorized it.

22
23

171. At all times herein relevant,Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job for
24 25 26 27

which she had been hired.

72. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's unlawful acts,Plaintiff suffered and continues
to suffer substantial losses in earnings,future earnings,bonuses, deferred compensation, and

28

Kn& v.Bach. et aL y Im
comVI& W ft DumWo
17

1
2

other forms of compensation in an amount which is currently unascertained. As a result of

Defendant's wrongful acts,Plaintiff faces substantial diminution offuture earning capacities in an amount,which is currently unascertained. In addition,Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

3 4

suffer the indignation of retaliation;the deprivation ofthe right to work without fear of reprisal .
5

6
7

for refusing to participate in activities that would result in a violation of law,as well as extreme
emotional distress, including but not limited to:mental anguish, outrage, fivstration, severe anxiety about her future, fear of harm to employability, anxiety over the damage to her

8
9

reputatign,embarrassment among her friends and colleagues,and the disruption ofher personal
life. Plaintiffis entitled to receive compensatory damages for these losses and hereby demands

10 11 12 13
14

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

15

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

16 17 18

from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from Defendant in an

19

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,Plaintiff has been required to retain the services of counsel.Pursuant to
California Government Code

20
21

22

12965, she is entitled to an award ofattorney's fees.

23

24 25

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Harassment in Violation of FEHA

As to Defendant Genentech,Inc.and Does 1 50) -

26
27 28

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 aL CompWM fa Damages

18

76. California Government Code

129400)makes it an unlawful employment practice for an

2
3

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
4

corrective action.
5

6
7 8

77. As more fully set forth in the preceding paragraphs ofthis 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 of Federal regulations that placed human subjects at unnecessary risk of injury and/or death. Starting in October of 2008,Plaintiff raised objections regarding the Pi3
Kinase Team's plan to proceed with a phase ofthe First- n- trials because it Human safety I
violated several laws and was a threat to public safety.

9
10
11 12

13
14

178. Plaintiffthen experienced harassment by her supervisors, upperlevel management, and coworkers. Such harassment included,but was not limited to:supervisors, management and co-

15
16
17

workers treating Plaintiff in an abusive manner that otwr employees in a similar position were

18.

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 Plaintiff of misconduct that she had not committed.

19
20 21

79. The harassing conduct was so severe,widespread, and persistent that it constituted a hostile
22 23
24

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
environment.

25 26
27

28

Miley v.Gmcnwh.I= at aL

Complaint hr Damegm

19

1'

81.

At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job
for which she. ad been hired. h

21

4 continues suffer substantial losses in earnings,bonuses,deferred compensation, and 3I 182. Asa directtoand proximate result ofDefendant's unlawful conduct,Plaintiff sufferedfixture
earnings,and other employment benefits. Plaintiffrequests full back pay,full restitution of any loss of benefits, including pension and other compensation she otherwise would have been
entitled such as meritbased salary bonuses, salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensatory damages for these losses and hereby demands an award of
10

11

12
13

183.

compensatory damages against defendants in an amount according to proofat trial.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawfial conduct,Plaintiff experienced and

continues to experience indignation as a result ofthe retaliation. She was and still is deprived of

14 15
16

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 of harm to

17
18

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

19 20 21 22

amount according to proof at trial. 84. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously,fraudulently and oppressively,with a

23 24
25 26

wrongful intent to harm Plaintiff;from an evil motive amounting to malice,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

27
28

damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award of punitive damages from Defendant

Knfy v.Genentech, Im at al. Complaint for Damages

20

1 2 3

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

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Prevent Retaliation and Harassment in Violation of FEHA

As to Defendant Genentech, Inc.and Does 1 50) -

e
9

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

10

12940(k) makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to take all

11

12

reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination,retaliation,and harassment from

occurring.
88.

13

14

Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent Defendant's employees and agents from retaliating against and harassing Plaintiff.Defendant did not take immediate and appropriate
corrective action.

15

16 17 18

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.

19 20 21

90.
22

Defendant failed to appropriately address the complaint by Plaintit and did not implement
any reasonable remedial steps to prevent future harassment and retaliation.

23
24

191. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and
continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, bonuses,deferred compensation, future

25
26

earnings, and other employment benefits.Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution of any
27
2s

loss ofbenefits,including pension and other compensation she otherwise would have been
Bnlay V.Genentech, Inc.et al. complaint Sr DamaM
22

06
M

entitled such as merit- ased salary bonuses, salary increases,and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is b

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.

3
4

92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful 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

8 9

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

to 11

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

12
13

damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award of damages from Defendant in an
amount according to proof at trial.

14

15

93. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously,fraudulently and oppressively, with a
16 17 18
19 20

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 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

21
22

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.

23
24 25
26

1021.5, court may award attorneys' fees to a a

successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which:1) resulted in ( has

the enforcement ofan important right affecting the public interest; 2) significant benefit has ( a

27

beenconferred on the general public or a large class ofpersons; and (3) necessity and the
Way,v.Oenenteck Inc.at al. mMlaiut for Damages
22

28

financial burden ofprivate enforcement renders the award appropriate. Under Jarmnillo v. County ofOrange ( 011)200 Cal. pp.811,829,protecting whistleblowers from retali 2 4th A
is
a

2 3 4

strong public interest that confers

namely, significant benefit on the general public

empowering people to step forward to expose fraud,corruption,and other wrongdoing.

5

6
7

Plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of statutory attorneys' fees and costs of suit,and hR requests recovery of her attorney's fees and costs of suit in an amount according to proof.
FHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8
9 10
11

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Common,Law,Tameny v.Atlantic Richfield Co., Cal.3d 167 ( 980)) 27 1

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.

12

13

196. This is a common law cause ofaction pursuant to the law of the State of California Jurisdiction
14 15 16
17 18

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

19 20
21

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 of California.Plaintiff is

22

23
24

199.

therefore protected by the mandates of Labor Code

c). 1102. 5(

In response to Plaintiffs legally protected activity,Defendant discharged Plaintiff on

August 30,2011.

25
26

27 28

100. At all times herein relevant,Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job for
which she had been hired.
Keg v.oenmftk Ina at al.

CmAmW for Dvanw

23

101. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendant's unlawful retaliation against plaintiff in
of Labor Code

2 3
4

c), 1102. ( 5 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 of benefits,including pension and

6
7

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.

8
9. to
11

102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct,Plaintiff experienced and

12 13
14

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,

15
16

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

17
18

19

20
21 22
23 24

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

25 26
27

participate in activities that would result in a violation oflaw. Plaintiff is entitled to receive
punitive damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from

28

Kniley v.C3eneoMk Inc. at aL

Complaint for Damages
24

1
2

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

3
4

f), a civil penalty for each violation of 1102.5( Defendant is liable for

Labor Code
5

c). 1102.5( more fully set forth above,Plaintiff provided notice of her As

6
7

intention to seek recovery ofcivil penalties for Defendant's violations ofLabor Code

c). 1102.5( the expiration ofthirty-hree 33)days from the date of Plaintiffs notice, Upon t (
Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to assert a claim for civil penalties against
Defendant.
105. Pursuant to California Code Civ.Proc.

e
9

10 11

1021.5, court may award attorneys' fees to a a

12

successM party against one or more opposing parties in any action which: 1) resulted in ( has
the enforcement ofan important right affecting the public interest; 2) significant benefit has ( a

13
14
15

been conferred on the general public or a large class ofpersons; and (3) necessity and the
financial burden ofprivate enforcement renders the award appropriate. Under Jara.116 v.
County ofOrange (2011)200 Cal, ppAth 811, 829,protecting whisdeblowers from retaliation A
is a strong public interest that confers
a

16

17 18 19 20
21

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 ofstatutory attorneys' fees and costs ofsuit,and hereby requests
recovery' ofher attorney's fees and costs of suit in an amount according to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22

23
24

Wrongfal Demotion in Violation ofPublic Policy

Common Law,Tammy v.Atlantic Rkkfleld Ca., CaL 3d 167 (1980)) 27

As to Defendant Genentech,Inc.and Does 1 50) -

25
26

106. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through
105,supra with the same force and effect as if fully pleaded at length herein.

27 28

may T.owafte . Inc.of aL MPWM for D=&

25

1
2

107. This is a common law cause of action pursuant to the law ofthe State of California.
Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Twneny v Atlantic Richfield Co. 27 Cal. 3d 167 ( 980). 1 108. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job
for which she had been hired.

3
4
5 6

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's Whistleblower statute,Labor Code

8 9

c). set forth in the 1102. 5( more fully As

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

to
11
12 13 14

upon whom experimental drugs were being tested;therefore, Plaintiff is within the class
protected by the public policy of the laws of California. Plaintiff is therefore protected by the
mandates of Labor Code

11025( c).

15

110. Defendant demoted Plaintiff by removing her from the most important program for the
16 17
18

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

19 20

experimental drugs are tested.

111. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct against plaintiff in violation
of Labor Code

21 22

c), 1102. 5( Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in

earnings,bonuses, deferred compensation, future earnings,and other employment benefits.

23 24 25
26

Plaintiff requests full back pay,full restitution of any loss of benefits,including pension and
other compensation she otherwise would have been entitled such as meritbased salary bonuses, salary increases,and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensatory

27 28

Way v.OmenWA Inc.et al. Complemt for Damages

26

damages for these losses and hereby demands an award of compensatory damages against

2 3

defendants in an 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
5

6
7

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

9
10

future,fear ofharm to her employability,anxiety about the damage to her reputation,

embarrassment among her friends and colleagues, and the disruption of her personal life.

11

12
13

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.

14
15

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.

16

conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be free from a wrongful demotion for refusing to
17 18
19

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

20 21

engaging in such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof.

114. Pursuant to Labor Code

22

f), a civil penalty for each violation 1102. 5( Defendant is liable for

23

Labor Code
24

c). 1102. 5( more fully set forth above,Plaintiff provided notice of her As

25 26

intention to seek recovery of civil penalties for Defendant's violations ofLabor Code

c). 1102. 5( the expiration ofthirty-hree ( 3) Upon t 3 days from the date of Plaintiff's notice,

27

28

Kailey Y.Ocner w* et a1. Ina

complaint for Damages,

27

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

3
4

court may award attorneys' fees to a

successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which: 1) resulted in ( has
5

6
7

the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest; 2) significant benefit ha ( a been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons; and ( ) necessity and 3 the financial burden of private enforcement renders the award appropriate.Under Jarmnillo v.
County ofOrange ( 011)200 Ca1. ppA4th 811, 829,protecting whistleblowers from retaliatic 2 A

9 to

is
11
12

strong public interest that confers

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

13 14 15

requests recovery of her attorney's fees and costs ofsuit in an amount according to proof.

16
17

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

18
19

As to Defendant Genentech,Inc.and Does 150) 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.

20

117. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages to compensate her for the emotional distress caused by
21 22

Defendant's wrongful and unlawful conduct.Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Rojo v Klinger,

1990)52 Ca1. d 63. . 3

23 24 25

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.

26
27 28

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 aL complaint tbrDn" s e
28

and family,and he has suffered emotional distress. This emotional distress has manifested itself

2 3
4

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.

5
6
7

Plaintiff therefore seeks damages for such emotional distress in an amount to be proven at the
time of trial..

8 9

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

to

suffering.. Plaintiff has been and will in the future be required to employ physicians to examine,
11
12

treat and care for her and will incur additional medical expenses in an amount to be proven at
the time of trial.

13
14 15

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/ r should have known that its conduct was likely to result in severe mental distress. o

16 17

18 19
20 21 22 23

Plaintiff therefore seeks damages for such emotional distress in an amount to be proven at the
time of trial.

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 of Plaintiff

and other employees ofDefendant,and in furtherance of Defendant'sratification ofthe

wrongful conduct of the employees and managers of Defendant. The Plaintiff is therefore
entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

24 25
26 27
28

Km1ey v.mote* at al. ( Inc.

Com kt for Damages 29

1'

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 3

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;

6
7

8
9

C. Front pay;

D. Damages for mental pain and suffering;

E. Reasonable attorney fees;
F. Costs of suit;
G. Civil Penalties;

10
11

12

13
14
15

H. Punitive damages; and

I. Dated:

Such other relief as the Court deems just and reasonable.

( 1 a p1

LAW OFFICES OF MAYOR JOSEPH L.ALIOTO &

16
17

ANGE
By.
JOSEP

ALI

YT,

18
19

IOTO VERONESE

Attorney for Plaintiff Juliet Kniley

20 21

22

23
24

25

26
27
28

Kniley v.Genentech, Inc.et al.

Complaint for Damages

30