Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24

,~ i':I ,~ r 23 a5 1 2: 1 5 P t",," th2~ Kum i n 415 '\34-8453 p.

1 " I
~\J

STEPHEN A. SOMMERS, SBN 225742 "


1 Law Offices of Steph~n A. Sommers ..\.,.;\I!i2~\f}
. 2
870 Mark~t Street, SUite I 142
San FranCISCO, CA 941 02
.' '\i\"EJ.;:J'j,P
~I''' \0 ~
F~ILED
(415) 260-5457 (Telephone) _.~..;~.<!Jt>' SAN M.t\lEO COUNTY
3 (415) 434-8453 (Fax) ~~

',\ \.' ') ~\ ' Attorney for Plaintiffs: ~\) ~


\( 5 Nancy Alperin, Kendra Keller, Sandra Marchese
6

7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY UP SAN MATEO
9
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
BY fAX
11
NANCY ALPERIN, KENDRA KELLER, ) Case :No.: CIV 444886
12 SANDRA MARCHESE, as individuals, )
) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
13 Plaintiffs, ) DAMAGES AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR:
) 1. SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION;
14 vs. ) 2. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
) E~/IOTIONAL DISTRESS;
15 ) 3. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN

16,
THE GORILLA FOUNDATION,
a California Corporation; and
)
)
)
RETALIATION FOR REPORTING
HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS
TO CALIOSHA;
FRANCINE PATTERSON, an individual, 4. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME;
j
17
5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS;
18 Defendants. 6. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON
) DISCHARGE;
19 I ) 7. MISREPRESENTATION;
) 8. NEGLIGENCE; and
20 ). 9. FRAUD - INTENTIONAL
) MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT
21 )
)
22 ~ DEMAND FOR WRY TRIAL

23 -----------------------------
24 INTRODUCTION
25
1. Plaintiffs NANCY ALPERIN ("ALPERIN"), KENDRA KELLE
26
("KELLER") and SANDRA MARCHESE ("MARCHESE") (collectively referred to herein
27
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
28 ALPERIN & KELLER v. THE GORILLA FOUNDATION & PATTERSON
Page 1 of24

11007132.\il- 123/200512:16:06 PM
II

"PLAINTll"FS") bring this action against THE GORILL\ I:OUNDATlON ("GORJLL'1


.L

F01}NDA nON") and defendant FRANCINE PATTERSON CPATTERSON") (defendunts at'-

collectively referred to herdn· il.'; "'DEFENDANTS"). During all relevant times, PATTERSON

\vas the Pres.ident and Director of Re::;entch H)l' GORILLA FOUNDATION. During aU relevan

times; GORILLA FOUNDATION h()u~:iI±d Koko: lOlnadult female gorm~\ CKOKO"). KOKO L
<5

7
. publidy kno\vn hy GORI.LLA FOUNDATION'S claims that she can cOD1Immicate \",ith human.:

E: . by use of sign language.

2. This lavvstLit pert.ains to the working conditions endured by PLAINTIFFS


10
dming their employment with GORILLA FOONDATION. During ALPERINaiid KELLER'
11
. employment, DEFENDANTS pressured ALPERIN and KELLER to pelionn bizarre sexual acr-
1.2

13 ., \'\iith KOKO. Through sign lallgtlage, as interpreted by PATTERSON, KOKO '''demanded;'


. .

H ALPERIN and KELLER remove their clothing and show KOKO their breasts. PATTERSON

15 . pressured ALPERIN and KELLER to perform such acts, regularly and consistently, u11d on a

least one occasion, outdoors where others CQuid see.


17
3. DEFENDANTS subjectedALPERlN and KELLER to w'orking condition,

19 ' 80 filthy and dangerous that ALPERIN and K.ELLER were compelled to nQtjfyCalif(mi.i~

20 Department of InduslTial Rclat1ons, Division of Occupational S<lfely and Health CCnLlOSHA").


21
Cal/OSHA perfOnlled an inspection and issued Hnes. T11Loex1 dav, DEFENDANTS tC!1t11nnted
2.2
. ALPERIN and KELLER'S employment.
.
."
:!.. -'

4_ DEFENDANTS required A.LPER1N and KELLER to \vorkbclbre and


24

25 after their regular eight-hour sbift W·lthOllt overtime pay. DEFENDANTS required ALPERIN
.... ,-..
..::!n

COJ\lPLAINT FOR DAlVIAGES


Al.PER.!;.\' & /(ELLER II, THH GORILLA FOUNDATION & PA 1TERSON
Page 2 o.f 24
.1

and KELLER to work through theil' rest breaks, After DEFENDANTS terminated ALPERIN
1

,-
') and KELLER, DEFENDANTS did not pay ALPERIN and KELLER their f~lH \vagcs.

:3 .1 5,. In order f(.)r ALPERIN lo accept DEFENDANTS' ofJer of' employment in

;1 I San Mateo County, ALPERIN had to quit her job in Southern CalinJrnia and move to Norlhem
5 I' . .
jl California, In order for !1/[ARCHESEto accept DEFENDANTS' ot1'er
6, . ..
of employment in San

7 I Mateo County, IvlARC.I::TESE. took a leave of absence from h.er job in \~lashington State.,

!3 ALPERfNand Iv'IARCHESE'S decision to move wa!> based on DEFENDANTS'


9
misrepresentation of the nature of the work.
10
For these acts, PLAINTIFFS allege the following:
11

.TIJRISDICTION

6, Thb~· Court is the propel' court in tbis mutter, This. action is properly file
14
in the City 0 f Red\yood City, County of San Ivlateo, State of C~Ji tomia, in the Hall ofJ ustice and
15

16 Records, South em Branch. DEFENDANTS' obligations and liabUity arise in .the eWes o.
, .
IT Woodside and Redwood City, Coumy of San Ivlateo, State of Cfl.lifornia~ Further.

DEFE1\q,")ANTS .maintain their business ()ffices and transact business ·within the City 0

Redwood City, C01.1111y of SM\\·1ateo, State of California. DEFEND.Al"lTS also maintain thei
20
rese~trch offices and transact business \vithin in the City of Woodside, COl.mty of San Tv1ateo

State of CalIfornia. All work performed for DEFENDANTS by PLAINTIFFS \-vas performed 1.
23 eilher the business offices in the City of Rcd\vood City, County of San Mateo, State oCCaliforni~
24
or the research offices in lhe City of Woodsjde, County of San rvfaleo, State ofCalit<)fni(1,
2.5
//
26

')~
~I
II
COlVIPLAINT FOR DA.MAGES
28 ALPERIN & RELLER v, TUE GORILLA FOU.NOATJO!V & PATTERS01V
Pag~:} of24
PARTIES
1

Plaintiffs

7. Plaintiff NANCY ALPERIN is a former non-exempt employee of

DEFENDANTS. ALPERIN wasemplny~cl by DEFENDANTS from on or about Apri123, 2004

through on or about July 21, 2004. \Vhile employed by DEFENDANTS, ALPERIN held til
. 6

'I
posi lion of Research AssistantlGorilla Caregiver.

8 Plaintiff KENDRA KELLER is a fotiner non-exempt employee oj

9 . DEFENDANTS. KELLER \vas employed by DEFENDANTS from on or about lvla.rch 23, 20041
10
through on or about July 18, 2004. \Vhile employed by DEFENDi\NT, KELLER held the

positiQn of Res earell Associate/Gorilla Caregiver.


12

13
9, At aU relevant times, KELLER I.md ALPERIN \vcrc "'emplo)iees"· of

DEFENDlI.NTS, clS 'de tined in Section 2(F) .ofIndustrial \Velfare Commission, \VngeOrder No.
15
5-2001.
16 . ,
10. PlainUff SANDRA MARCHESE is a former exempt employee of
17
DEFENDANTS. r..,fARCHESE \vasemployed by DEFENDANTS from on or about July 2003

1'3 through April 2004. \Vhilc employed by DEFENDANT, i'vfAItCHESE heJd the position 0

20 II, Research Associate.


21

22 Defendants

23 11. During flU relevant times, GORILLA fOUNDATION has done busincs."
24
. and continues to do business in the County of San Mateo~ State of Caljfomi~, Dc"fcndan

GORILLA FOUNDATION committed the acts alleged in this Aii'lencied Complaint in 1h'
26

27
County of San Mateo, State ofCalifl)rnia.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
28 ALPERhV <~KELLER v. THE GOIULLA FOlJNDAUON & PATTERSOiV
Page" of24
12. Dming all rdevant 11111<::$, GORILLA FOUNDATION "vas a c:orpol'atio

registered in the St(lte of Callfomia. GORJLLAFOUNDA TION is the' home of nyO gorillas,

KOKO and Ndume. GORILLA FOlJNDA.TION employsllpproximately sixteen (16) [uHAiffi

staff members to pert1]nn work a~ gorilla caregivers, adrninhLrative personnel and researd.

personnel.

7
13. During aU relevant tim.es, GOPJLLA FOUNDATION has been,tim'

continues to be, an "employer." asdefim:d in the California Government Code ~ !2926(d;

(';Gov~ Code"), California Labor Code § 6304, and Section 2(H) of Industria! \VeHkt
10
Conmrission, Wage OrclerNo.5-200L
11
14. Dw'ing nll rd.evam times, PATTERSON has been tbePresident ~m;
12

13 Director of Research for GORIl..LA FOUNDATION. During all relevant times, PATl'ERSON

has acted as an agent, directly or indireclly, of GORILLA FOUNDATiON, aJ1Ct has been LUl

is
ernployer in tbe State of Ca.1ifornia as defined in the California Govemlnent Code- § 12926(d);
16 . ·1
CCLlifornia Labor Code § 6304, {I.nd Section 2{I-J) ofIndustriril \VelJ'are Conullissron, Wage.Ordell
17
No. 5-2001.
18

l. .r:;.'
FACTS
20

21
15. On or abcnn !vtarch 20, 2004, DEFENDANTS intervie\'ved ALI'ERIN fod

22 the position of Research AssistanUGorilla Caregiver. At the time of that intervie\v,

23 DEFENDANTS \-vere u\vtlre Hmt ALPERIN lived in Southern Califomia. When DEFENDANTS
24
. offered ALPERIN ernployrne.nt, DEFENDANTS vtel'e alvare that in order to accept the position
25 '
ALPERIN \vould be required to move from ber Southern Cali fomia home.
26

27
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
"IT.-PERIN & KELLER ).i. 111£ GORILLA FOViVDl'lTfON &PATl1:RSON
Page 5 {If24
j

1 I! 16. . - ..
DEFENDANTS \NilH\lllv int1uenced ane! persuaded ALPERIN to move dI
:2 Isubstantial distance \vithin the Stale of Caii foruia for the purpose oi"..vol'king at DEFENDANTS 'I
: II facility. Ho"~ver, DEFENDANTS willfully misrepresented the kind, cbometer and nature
j!

0
I
r 'ho
work to A LPERlN.
5
17. At no time before bec.oming employed ,vith GORILLA FOUNDATJOi

did DEFENDANTS infoDn ALPERIN tlult they ,"vould require her to remove her do thing when

"demanded" by KOKO so that she could bond in a morcpcI'sonal manner \,,;11h the gorilla. At!H

time beIhre becoming employed ""itb GORILLA FOlJNDATION, did DEFEND.ANTS describe
10
to· ALPERiN the \\'\)rking conditions as unsEmttary 1md unsufe. At no time before becoming.

, employed with GOR1LLA FOUNDATION; did DEFEl'I"DANTS inforrnALPERIN that they


12

13 would require hcl' to\votk in excess of eight (8) hours 111 a day and in excess of forly (40) hour·

J.4 in \wek vvithout compcnsation filr the extm hours. At no time before becoming empj{)yed \\'ith
15
GORILLA FOUNDATION, did DEFEl\'f)Al"l'TS tell ALPERIN that they \\'ould require her to

\vork ~hrough her rest breaks.


17

18
18 On Of about July 2003, DEFENDANTS interviewedi'vlARClIESE for tho.:.

1,!:l position of Research Associate. At the time Qfthat interview, DEFENDANTS were aware tha

20 I'vfARCHESEllvecl in \Vasllin6rtQn State. When DEFENDANTS offered ~"1ARCHESE

employment, DEFENDANTS w"ere U\vare that in order to accept the position, MARCHESE
22
would be fequired to move from her \iVashington State home to SalllVIatco County, California.
23 ,

24
19. DEFENDANTS \.viIlfu[]y intluenced and persuaded jvL'-\R.CHESE to .111.0V

25 a substantial distance for .thc pUllJose of working at DEFENDANTS' faciUty. However,


26

27
COlHPLAlNT FOR DA.MAG£S
28 ALPERIN & KELLER v. TilE GORlLLA FOUNDATJOiV' & PATTF;RSON
Page 6 01'24
!1
1
,I

DEFEND.t-\NTS wilifully [J1i:srern~se!1ted the kind, character and nature of the work 't
1

!'"JARCHESE,

3 20. DEFENDANTS informed rvfARCHESE that (hey v..·ere interested in hel

because she (a) had advanced degrees in anthropology that would aidluGORJLLA
5
I~OUNDATION'S r~$earch, (b) wanted someone "vith t.eaching/cuniculum \.Y1itiug experience to

7
help v..Tite KokQ-base.d curriCula fbI' public schools and presentations, (c) someone \vith v.,rritine

experience. and Cd) someone with sign language skills. GORlLLA FOtJNDATION de-fined hel

9 • position as one where she woule! use the above skills and where she would act as iiai.sotl betweer'
10
DEFENlDA.l"l'TS and their staff. Hwas the opporhmity to use .the Hbove: skills. and of being tht

12 II Eaisonthat attracted J\tI\RCi~IESE to the position.
13 21.· DEFENDANTS of.t'ered ?vlARCHESE the researchussociate position, sly

requested a leave of absence from hercnrrent employer, the Bruinbridge Island School Distric
15
__vhere she \-vas a public s~hool teacher: sold most of her possession and drove down tc

Caiifomiu. DEFENDANTS refused to' l'elmlll1fsl;! any moving expens.es.

22. Upon. arrival, DEFENDANTS first assigned Ivtr\RCl-lESE to clean on


18;

GORILLA F01JNTIATION'S garage. The garage is where the gQriHa meals are prepared an

2'0 . 'where thi;!Y kept gorilla "enrichment" on the shelves. 111C shelving sY~1em was approxil'nately
21
ten feel wide, eight feet high, and three feet \vide. It contained what looked like years oJ
22
discarded plastic, blankel'i. scraps and tither junk. The shelving syst~m ~md its contents werl::
23
covered in grime and rat t~'::C0S.
24

25 23. Iv1.i\RCHESE'S second task \Vas to clean and defro~)l GORILLi

26 FOUNDATION Co~Founclc[' and vicewpresidr.:ont, Ron Cobn~s., kitchen freezer. MARCHES ';1

27
CO:VIPLA[NT FOR DAMAGES
28 ALPERiN & KELLER v, TilE GORJJ.LA F01..liVDATlON & PltTTERSOiV

I Page 7 of24

I!
d
was el"lli:mH(lSSed to be as.ked to do Bueh a menial t<l!')k, but performed the task. Cleaning }lvfr,

Cohn's kitchen was io become ,~ regular chore that DEFENDANTS requtred her to aecornplish

as part of bel' position as Research Associate. This includ,ecl mopping his nOO1'S, washing out hi-'
;1
microwave OVeD, washing the dishes, ;:Iml cleaning the cooking refuse ()\Jt of the sink left iro11.

;) !PATTERSON~S, preparation of the gorillas' meals. MA,RCHESE was also ordered W ·.tlJrQ'.~),1
6 ! ' " .
away the garbage,fiU the dog \ovatcl' bow% and clean up ariydog Jeces in i\Jr. Cohn's yard.

24. One of tvir. CQhn's dogs~ ~'Iax7 tt large male pit bull. would fiercdy harl

and jerk against his chrunwhen MARCHESE walked by Mr. Cohn's residence. One day vvhill;:
10
Max was chained outside, MARCHESE notice scraps of pnpet strewn about 1\1r. Cohn'_
11
drivc\vay. She knelt down to pick them up and did not notice l\'Iux lunge toward her. rvlax hi'
12

'" 'i down on her ann and his force pushed MARCHESE into the side of the garago. MARCHES,

14 Ii dropped the papers and nm into the garage to escape rv1ax. She looked dO'Nl1 and found a bole iI,
15
her s.weatshirtand th~lt her arm was set-aped, She ran to the onice slwkillg, and '\,\'hen safe1j
16
arriving there, broke down i.n tears,
17

18
25. MARCHESE informed PATTERSON of Max'~ attack upon her, to whic

PATfERSON replied, "this must never happen again;" and inlorn:lCd Ivir. Cohn oflv1a,{'g attack
20 Incredibly, Nfr. Cohn's response was thatM.ARCHE$E shQuld begin \valking I'v-fax so the hv.,
21
could ';'get to know each other." Later, l'v1r. Cohn approached ]v1.ARCHESE with Max on a le~tsh.

1\:1r. Cohn told MARCHESE that wnlking i\lax \vas the only way to "solve the problem:
2.3

24 . M.ARCHESE adamantly refused and asked that PATTERSON ,md j)Ar. Cohn kennel !\.'Iax in th~
'i,, .
25 I evenhlgs so that ~"fARCHESE could clean Iv1r. Cohn's kitchen, Sometimes they did, but mol'
26 often, the.y failed to kennel the large pit bLlIL

COr.-'lPLAINT FOR DAMAGES


28 ALPERIN & KELLER v. THE GORILLA FOUN'DAT/OiV & PATTERSO;V
Page 80f24
il/1ARCHESE was also responsible for cleaning the gorilla trailers.
1

:Sol1l~timeS she 'NtlS required to dean all three trailers, \vbich LO(lk two te) three hours per day.

3 Cleaning the (railers included removing feces and urine-soaked blnrlkels. and toys, washing the

bhlJlkets and toys (sometimes. by hand), sl,veeping, mopping and replenishing the blankets and
E.
toys. DE17ENDANTS required r.,·JARCHESE .to pick upand dispose of the gorilla's fece

OJ
withQut 'the USe 6fpro~ecLive cjolbing Qf gloves, 14ARCHESE requested protective clothing or .n

"pooper scoopcr," to \vhich [Vfr. Cohn suggested rvtARCHESE cut a paper plate in half and us·

that to accomplislt. the task.


10
The urine-soaked and feces-covered blankets vvel'C "'lashed in Mr. COhIl~
11
personal washing machine. When the washingtnachine st(;trted to fail, I'v1ARCHESE wru;
12

instructed to \.va5h thl: bla'(lk.ets ,vifh a hose that was located flear l'v'1a,\.

14 28. MARCHESE "v~s ~lso required to SOlt produce thaUs donated :fi:om loc" .
15
grocery storcs.MARCHESE,other staff members and voluntee1"s were required to sort througl".

20 110f the job description us Research Associate after completing all the dJores and duties thal
21 .
. DEFENDAJ"lTS never told lvfARCHESE were part of her positton. MARCHESE apprO~lched
22
. PATTERSON to infonn her that her regular job duties 'were not being completed because of the
2.3

24
additional job duties. PATTERSON told MARCHESE (hat she was an "exempt"employec, and

25 that MARCHESE was hi \v()rk as many hours a.s it took to complete the tasks she was hired tc
26 do.
27
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
28 ,-1l.PERnv & KELLER v. HIE GORILLA FOUl"lDA.TJON & PATTERSON
Page 9 of24
30. Working at GORILLA FOUNDATION "vas becoming unbearable.;
1. ,
I

f
;;: MARCHESE tried her best. to accomplish the tasks she was hired to do. but DEFENDANTS 'I
• ' . . I
i .'.
] Iinsistence th~lt
' 1
she perforrn a broad range of menial tasks that \overe Mtpart of'her j()!
4 !. description) made such accomplishments'nearly
. irnpQssible. On Or awund the end of A.pri1.2004·

MARCHESE gave DEFENDANTS t\vo-\veeks' notice of her resignation,


6

7
31. KELLER and ALPERIN'S employrnent with DEFENDJuYfS was equally

,E' frustrating and dememl1ng. During the CDurse of KELLER and ALPERIN'S employment,

DEFENDANTS subjected KELLEI{ and ALPERIN to sexual discrimination, inclucUng quid pre'
H)
quo sexual harassment and a hostile \vork environment. On several occasions, PATTERSON
11
~ ALPERIN
instructed KELLER and. to engage in the sexual act of removing~ their clothing'- t
12 i . ~.....

1:3 I expose their breasts to KOKO, in particular, theirnippies.


i
14 32. On these\.)ccasions~PATTERSON would interpret cCer(all1 hami
15
rn.overnents made by KOKO as a "demand~' to- see e)qJosed human :nipples. KELLER and

ALPERL'i have no evidence that K01(O actually has the ability to communicate to humans.
17
using sign language, her desire to see exposed hllman female nipples. AU supposed deman&;
18

19 made by KOKO were· interpretations of KOKO'S hand movements by P. . \TTERSON


.20 DEFENDANTS made it kno\\'11 to KELLER Clnd ALPERIN that if KELLER and ALPERIN di I

21
not in.dulge KOKO'S nipple fetish,~helr emp.loymellt with GORILLA FOUNDATION 'i.v{)ull
2.2
suffer.
23
33. Beginning in May 2004, through July 2004, PATTERSON pressur0

2::· ALPERIN to remove he!' clothing for KOKO'S enjoyment. On at lenst three occasions,
26
PATTERSON and ALPERIN visited KOKO together. During these visits, PATTERSON

co;vn'lAtNTFOl{ DAMAGES
28 ALPl:.JUN & KELLER1'. THE GORILLA FaTJAID.;1 rlON & PA rlJj:Jl}j'OlV
Page 10 0[24
C{)mlTIllillcaled to ALPERIN ll'll.'lt exposfng one's breasts to KOKO is a normal component tc

developing. a personal bond,vith the gol'illa. PATTERSON communicated her eXpectfltion tha

ALPEHJN should shovv' her nipples by speaking to the gorilla in phrases, such a~, "011 yes,

KOl(O, Nancy lmsnipples. Nancy C;:<Ul sho\v you her nipples.'" And, '<Oh KOKO; why don't ymJi

and Nancy have a visit? I '.yill go and do some other things. 1 'wouldn't want anything.to
6
impcdethc relationship bctv,rcen you two."
7

a 34. Beginning in May 2004, through June 2004, PATTERSON pressure

KELLER to remove her clothing for KOKO~S enjoyment. Gnat least two incidents in mid-to
10 i
late June 2004, PATTERSON i1ltensely pressured KELLER to expose herself to KOKO whil-

they \vere working outside \Nhere. other employees could potentially view KEL~ER '8 naket-1
12

13 body, PATTERSON instructed KELLER to expose her breasts by speaking to KOKO. Fo

14. . example, on one such occasion, PAITERSON sai.d, "KOKO, YOll see my nipples aU the time.

15 . Yml,are probably bored witb my nipples. You need to see nev,,. nipples. l'.vlll turn tuy back s

Kendra can show you her nipples."


17
35. Through discussions indicated above, and other coercive tactics:
18 I

19 DEFENDANTS communleated clearly to KELLER and ALPERIN that if they did not exp{)I),

20 themselves upon KOKO'S supposed "demands," then the'y would suffer adverse employment
21
actions, including discharge.
22
36. KELLER and ALPERIN \vere forced to work in 1.l1lsanitary and llnsaf....
23 • I
!
24
conditions. for example, rats in the food preparati<m area; chemicals siured next to kitchen'

2.'5 propane gfi$ and medical miicles; verrn.in attracted to an open compost heap; and gorilla urine

20 ,stored in the l'cirigerator with employees' food. KELLER and ALPERIN helieved the filthy and
27
COMPLAIN'J' fOR DAlVlAGES
28 ALPERl;\! & KELLER I'. THE GORILLA FOUiVDATlON & PAiTE'RSOiV
Page 11 of24
, Ii dangerous conditions in which they \vere required to viOrk constituted violations all
1

2 • nOH(';omplial1ee \Nilh S~lte or federal regulations.

37. On July 16, 2004. 'with the encouragement of KELLER, ALPERIN

'. submitted an official. complaInt to Cal/OSHA. On Angtlsl 5, 200,;~, as a result of ALPERfN'S

complaint, CallOSHAil1sp~cted the grounds of GORlLLA FOUNDATJON;S rcsearchfacillty it

Woodside,Cal/OSHA fined GORILL}\ F01JND.ATION for various code violations., Attache

8 • to this Amended Cornplainl, <.1S Exhibit C, is a letter dared August 23, 2004 from Cal/OSHA t

9
.ALPERIN documenting ALPERIN'S complaint that cflUsed CaUOSHA '8 inspcction,inCludino
10
the Citation, and Notiiication of Penal ty.
11
38. DEFENDA.NTS had knowledge that ALPERIN, whh KELLER'S
12

approval and encouragement, submitted complaints to Cat/OSHA.

39, ' By letter signed by PATTERSON, dated August 6~ 2D04- the day af:1:el
15
the Cal/OSHA inspector visited the GORILLAFOUNDATTON- DEFENDANTS termipate
16
KELLER and ALPERIN'S emplO)'111cnt.
17
40. Each and every week of their employment ,"'lith DEFENDAJ"'JTS

KELLER and ALPERIN worked at least one day in excess of eight (8) hours. Each and c'vcry
28 \ovcck KELLER and ALPERIN worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a week. KELLER an

ALPERlN averaged forty-t,vo (42) hours of worl\ per week. At no time during KELLER an
22
ALPERIN'S employment with DEFENDAl"lTS did DEFENDANTS pay wages for 'vorl'
23
!
peri()fToed ill excess of eight (8) hours in a day, or fOllY (40) hours in a week.

nc
L.J 41. DEFENDANTS \vere a\vare that KELLER and ALPERIN performe'
26
work in excess of eight (8) bours in a day and/or forty (40) hours in a 'Neck. KELLER an
27
COMPLAINT FOR DAj'\IAGES
ALPEIW"'" & /(ELLER 11, TilE GORILLA FOUlVIJATION ..~ PAT11:.'RSON
Page 12 ur24
tl I
'1\; I !

1
!. ALPERIN'S employment contracts with GORILLA. FOUNDATION describe the wurk ~cl1edul
2 as a '''40-bour 'Nark schedule on the grounds of the GORILLA FOUNDATION~ \\liHl additional
3 hours as needed."

42. Each and every day of their employment \-\"jlh DEFENDANTS, KELLE

and ALPERIN vlorked through either their morning rest break or the.ir afternoon rest break.
6

7
DEFENDANTS knowingly and willfully failed tQ provide KELLER and ALPERIN their res

8 breaks., as mandated by law. DEFENDANTS also falled to compeJJsate KELLER and ALPERIN

one hour of pay for each ffllssed re~,l break, as mandated by lav·l.
10
43. At the time of KELLER and ALPERIN'S respective termination dales,
11
DEFENDANTS owed KELLER and .ALPER1N unpaid \'vages. DEFENDANTS fuiled to pa)'l,
1.2
I.3 ,KELLER and ALPERIN the total amount ofwa.ges due.

44. As a result of DEFENDANTS outrageous~ extreme and negligent conduct,


15
KELLER and ALPERIN have suffered severe emotional distress. KELLER and ALPERIN'S
16
mental anguish resulting fronl DEFENDANTS' severe and extreme behavior include:
17
hUmiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappoil1tment and \vorry, all of which is substantial an
18

19 emhuing.

20

21
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
DiscriminHtion in Violiltion of the I?ah" Employment amI Housing Act
22
45. As a sepflrate and distinct chlim for relict~ KELLER and ALPERIN bl'in·
23

24
the FiTst Cause of Action against DEFENDANTS for violations of the California Fail

Employment and Housing Act (';FEI-!'t\'~), by alleging the i()llo\'Ving:


26

27
COIYIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
ALPERliV & EELLER 1'. THE GORILLA FO[jl\'DATION & PATTERSON
Page 13 of24
46. KELLER and ALPERIN reallege and incorporate by reference il" I "45 a~

"
.:. if tbey w'ere set forth here in fulL

47. DEFENDANTS dlscril111iluted aga.inst KELLER and i\LPERTN on 111


. r~

basis of their gender, in violation of FHHA. Gov. Code §~ 12900" i;!( seq.

48. During the course of KELLER and ALPERIN'S employment,


;:;
DEFENDANTS subjected KELLER and ALPEIZIN to sexu~'tl discrimjllation in the Ii)rm of qUitl
7

8 pro quo s,eXi.1a1 harassment and in the f(11111 of a hostile v{ork environment.

,: I, 49. On Jan",,,y 20, 200), KELLER and ALPERIN file<! charges of ,exu1
I, discriminadon em the basis oftheh' sex with the California Department of Fair Employment andl
11
•Housing ("'DFEH"), withino·ne yes.!' of the cliscriminatr{)11. On Januruy 2 I~ 2005, DFEH isstled '
12

1 .," IighHo~suelettel' to KELLER, and ALPERIN. Attached to this AmcndedComplaint a

EXHIBIT A is ALPERIN'S complaint against DEFENDANTS filed with the DFEH and tIll,;
l5
cotn')sp01'ldiI1g Right to Sue Notice, Attached to this ~.l\mended Complaint, as ,EXHIBITB i

KELLER'S compLaint against DEFENDANTS med \vith the'DFEH <lnciilie c.orrespcmdi.ng Righ
17
to Sue Notice.

50. As. a resnlt of being pressured by DEFENDANTS to remove their clothil1tl'


20 on the supposed "demand" of a. gorilla, for the gOl'iHa's enjoyment, KELLER and ALPERIN
21
$uffered damages cau:>ed by DEFENDAN'TS' wrongful acts, as stated in the section belo'll'
.22
entitled '''OAJ.\if.i-\GES~'' whkh is incorporated herein.
23
II
II
25 II
II
26
II
''',...,
~,'
II
COMPLAINT FOn DAMAGES
28 ALPciUlV & KELJ..ER II. nIB GOR}LLA FOU/VDA110iV & PATTE.RSON
l'agc 14 of24
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
1
Intenlionallni1iction or Emotional Distl'css

51. As a scpnmtc and distinct claim i(l!' relieJ: KELLER and ALPERlN br.in~
:3
the Second Cause of Action against DEFENDANTS tOt intentional ltiHicll()n oJ emotional

~ . distress, by alleging the follo'wing:

52. KELLER and ALPERIN reallege and incorporate by reference ~~ 1~51 H.


7
if they \verc set forth here in full.
8 .
53. As the employer, President, and Director of Research, PATTERSON iNa..:
9

10 i1i a posiLlon of pew,rer over KELLER a.net ALPERIN ,vit11 poteIitial to abuse that power. i\.;

11 President of GORILLA FOUNDATION, PATTERSON had the autllOrity to terminate K£LLER


12
and ALPERlN'Semploymel1t. KELLER moved to Northt.'TT1 Californla for the purpose of
1:3
working for GORILLA FOUNDATION,. making PATTERSON'S threats OfadverSl
14
employmentuctiQl1 and the prospect of being left \vithout employment in the Bay Al'ca extremely~
15

16 ·stressfui. PATTERSON is also wen Imown within the sign. langl1age eommuulty and has tIlt::

17 ability to cause significant damage to KELLER'S career as a sign language int.erJJreter.


18
KELLER and ALPERIN were ill a vulnerable position because of their relative lack of po\ve
19
vis"a-vis PATTERSON.
20
54. PATI'ERSON'S conduct to"Nard KELLER and ALPERIN wa.,> e;drem'

22 and outrageous and was intended to cause KELLER and ALPERIN emotional distress, Or Viet.

23 done with reckless disregard of the probability that the conduct would cause KELLER an(

ALPERlN emotional distress,


25
55. As a result of DEFENDANTS' outrageous and extreme conduct.

27 KELLER and ALPERIN have st.lffered severe emotional di.stress. KELLER and ALPERIN'S
COJ\.lPLAINTFOR DAMAGES
28 ALPER','" & KELLER I'. HIE GORILLA FOUNlJA1101'l & PATTERSO..V
Page 15 of24
mental. anguish reSLliting from DEFBND/\NTS" se'vere and' extreme behaviDf include
1

2 humiliation, embarrassment, anger .. disappoi.l1tment andwOlTY, all of "vhich is SlIbsta.ntial an(


I
3 [ enduring, KELLER and ALPERIN suffered damages caused by these DEFENDANTS,!

4 I\vrongful aCLs; as stated in the section belowentit!ed "DAJvlAGES;' which is incorporatedl I

5. I
I herein.

THIRD CAUSE Oli' ACTION


8 \"Vrongful Termination i,n Retaliatio.n for l~eportil1g
Health and Safety Vio'hltions to CnJ/OSILA.

10 56. As a separate and distinct claim for relief, KELLER anciALPER!N brin&
11 . the Third Cause {)f Action 'lgainst DEFENDANTS fl}T ·wTougl1.d tennination in retaliation f()
1.2 reporting health and safety violations to CallOSI-Li\, by alleging the follo\ving:
1.3 57. KELJ,ER and ,ALPERIN reallege and incorporate by reference .~~ J-56 a.~
14 if they \vere set forth here in fulL
15 58. .Pursuant to La'bol' Code §§ 1 i02.5and 6310. DEFENDANTS 'iyer.
1 €. pwhibited from retaliating against KELLER "md ALPERIN for submitting complaint.s oJ
. .. . . . -
17 unsanitary and unsafe working conditions to Cal/OSHA and government agencies, generaIly. 0
18 or about August 6, 2004, DEFENDANTS retaliated against KELLER and ALPERIN rOll

19 reporting violations of state and federalla...v to CuI/OSHA by terminating their employment.


20 59. KELLER. and ALPERIN suffered damages legally caused by thes
21 " DEFENDANTS' wrongful acts as stated in the section below entitled "DAMAGES," which j~

22 .' incorporated herein.


23
II
;211 1/
.If
25 II
1/
26
II
2'7
COI't'lPLAINT .FOR DAMAGES
28 AI.PERIN 4~[(ELLER v. TIlE GOJULL4 j-'OFND"'1 TION & PATTERSON
Page 16 of2.4
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Pl~y O .... {!rtimc
2
60. As a separate and distinct claim fol' relief, {<ELLER and ALPER1N bl'in~
3
the Founh Cause of Action against DEFENDANTSt\.w failure t\) pay overtime, by atleging tho

follm.ving:

61. KELLER and ALPERIN reallege and incoqJorate by reference 'r~ll ~60 a~
7
if they "yere set forth here in full.
8
·'}
6i... KELLER and ALPERIN were employed by DEFENDANTS as non

10 exempt aniuml care employees 'Nith feeding 1"esponsibiIities, an occupation thut falls \vithin thE:

regu1atory scope ofIndustrial Welfare Commission Order 5-2001.

63. Pw"suunt tolndnstrial WeU"are Commission Order 5~2001 mld Labor Cod-

§§ 200.226, 500, 510, and 1198, DEFENDANTS vv'ere required to compensate KELLER atld
14

64. Pursuant to Industrial We!nlre Commission Ordct 5-2001 a,nd Labor Coclt:

17 ,§§ 200, 226, 500, 5] 0, and 119S, DEFENDANTS \vere required to cOilipensate KELLER and
1.8
ALPERIN for all hours worked i.n excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours pc.

\vcek, at a rate of one .and one-balf (1 112) time~ KELLER and ALPERlN'S regular r()te;
20

21
DEFENDANTS failed to compensate KELLER and ,ALPEIUN for \vork performed i11 excess 0 i
22 eight (8) hours in a day or lorty {40) hours in a week.
I
23 65, KELLER <1nd ALPERI'N sulTered damages c~lUsed by these
24
DEFENDANTS' wTQngful acts as stated in the sect jon below entitled liDAJlvlA.GES.11 which LI
incotporated berein. .

27
COMPLAINT FOn DAiVIAGES
28 ALPERIN & KELLER 11. TlJ.l:: (;ORILLA FOUNDA11ON & P.41TERS(}N
Pilge 11004
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
.FnHurc to Prov.ide Rest Breaks

66. As ~\ $eparate tm(\ dislfinct claim for reHc( KELLER and .Al.PERIN brin::

4
I the Fifth CauseQf Action against DEFENDANTS for failure to provide rest breaks, by al1egin('
5 the i~Jnov",'ing:

6 I 67. KELLER and ALPERIN reallege and incorporate by reference ~'I 1-66 a~
7 Iif the.. \vere set l'brth here in fnll.
i' ../. .
8
63. Pursuant to InduslriuI \Velfute Commlssion Order 5-2001, ~ (12), all-

10
Labor Code §§ 516 and 226.7, DEfENDANTS are reqtLired to authorize al1d permit employee"

11 covered by the-aforementioned wage order to ta.kl:) paid rest perit;ld$ of ten (W)miol,ltes per fo

(4) hours ohvork time or major H:'cl.ctionthereof.

69. Under the atbre.mentioned j,vage order and California Labor Code § 226.7,

KELLER and ALPERfN are entitled to recover fi'om DEFEND.I\. NTS an additional hour of pay
15

at KELLER and ALPERIN'S regnhrr rate of compensation for each rest period not provide

17 during the lhr~e (3) years preceding the flling of KELLER and ALPERIN'S Complaint.
18
70. On a daily basis, during an relevemt times, KELLER and A1.PERIN

\\lorked through either their morning rest break 01' their afternoon rest hreak. DEFEl'mAN'TS
LV

. 2:'..
k.nmvingly and \viHfnlly failed to provide KELLER and ALPERfN their rest breaks, as mandated

22 by law. DEFENDANTS also failed' to c()mpensate PLAINT[FFS (me hOlLr of pay for each

missed rest break, as mandated by law.

71. KELLER and ALPERIN suffered dam<lges caused by DEFENDANTS'


25
\Vrongfll[ acts as stated in the section below entitled "Df\i\:·lA.GES," \vhich is incorpoI'ated herein.'
I
27
COMPLAINT FOR DAM. .\GES I
ALPERIN ~~ NEUER v. TIlE: GORll,l.A FOUNDATION & PATtERSON
Page IS of24 I
" 'I

SIXtH CAUSE OF ACTION


1
Faili.lre to Pay \VngC'$ Upon Discharge

72. As a separate and ciistincrciahrl for relief, KELLER and ALPERIN briri,g
3
Lhe Sixth Cause of Action against DEFENDANTS (br failure to pa.y e.amed \vagcs up()n

;, discharge, by allegingth.e foHo'i,ving:

73. KELLER [md ALPERlN reallege and incorporate by reference ,r'11-72 a"
7
iftbey "vere set forth here in fillI.
3
74. Pursuant to California La.bor Code § 201. upon KELLER and ALPERIN'S
9

10
respec6ve terminationdates~ DEFENDANTS were required to pay KELLER and ALPERIN alI

11 eanted wageS. At the time of KELLER and ALPERIN'S respective tel'mination dates:

1:> PLAINTIFFS had unpaid "vages mved to them. In violation of Labor Code § 201, and in thJ
1::,
, aite1'1lative Labor Code § 202, DEFENDANTS failed to pay KELLER and ALPERIN the total

amount of \vages due.


15

75. DEFENDANTS' failure to pay KELLER and ALPERIN the rcspectiv

1~'ageS due and owing them \-vas \viUfuI and in conscious disregard of KELLER and ALPERIN',

nghts.
19
76. DEFENDANTS' \villful failure to pay KELLER and AIJ>ERIN the wage.

due and owing each of lhemconstitutes violations of Labor Code § 20 L and in the altemative,

22 . Labor Code §202, Labor Code § 203 provides that "the wages ot' the employee shall C()ntillue a~

a penalty from the due d~~te thereof at the same rate until paid or until Hll action thereof j

commenced; but the wages shall not continue for mOTe than 30 days." DEFENDANTS failed t

pay KELLER and ALPERIN all earned wages, thLL,) J(ELLER and ALPERIN is entitled to
26

27
penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203.
COMPLAINT FOR DAl\"'~G.ES
28 ALPERIN & RELLER v. THE GORILLA FOUlVDA110i'y' & PA.TTERS01V
Page 19 of24
II
77. Pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5, KELLER and ALPERIN are alBo eac~

entitled to an aw[~:rd of reasonable attorneys' fe-es~ expenses, and costs incufP;;c! in this action.
!
78. KELLER und ALPERIN suffered dai1i.ages caused by DEFENDANTS'

\vrongf1.l1 acts as stnted in the sectiCl11 below eiuitled t'DA!vlACiES;" which is incorporated hereln.

SEVENTH CAUSE Oli' ACTION


i\ljsrcprcscllt~ltion

79. As a separate and distinel claim for relief: ALPERIN ~nd MARCHES"

brings the Seventh Cause of Action against DEFENDANTS Jor traudulent inducement it

violation of Labor Code § 970, by alleging the foHmvitlg:

80. ALPERIN and ~vfARCHESE reallege and incorporate by reference ~r~ 1~7~

as if the.y ",,'ere set forth here in full.

14 81, Labor Code § 970 makes it unlawful for an employer to intluence OI

15
persuade Hll)' person to change ftom011eplace to another in the StrIte of CaIifor.nft:l, through or by
16
•means of .knowillgly false representations concerning the kind, character OfSUcJl \"lork, or thd
l7 . . . !
sanitary conditions relating to the \1</o1'k.

19 82. Labol' Code § 972 provides that DEFENDANTS arc liable to ALPERIN

20 and MARCHESE fordouble damages resulting from such misrepresentations.TIms, for eae

2t •and every c.:allse of .action 111 this Amended Complaint, ALPERIN is entitled to <111 a\vard oIl
22
douhle damages,
23

24
83. ALPERIN and i'v-tARCHESE suffered damages caused by theSe

25 DEFENDANTS' \vrongfuI acts as stated in the section belov·,.. entitled "DAtv·1j\GES," which i
Ui incorporated herein.

COI\lPLAINT FOR DAMAGES


ALPERIN & KEl.l.EIlI'. 1'11£ GORlJ.lA POV/I/))ATlON & P.H11:.'RSON
Page 20 of24
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
.Negligence

84. As a separate <il1d distinct claim tor relief, PLAINTIFFS bi'log the Eighl:h
3
, Cause of Action against DEFENDANTS tor Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, by
4

5 Ialleging the following:


6 85, PU\INTIFFS reallege and incorpomte by reference ~l'l I -84 as if they
"I
. were set forth here in filII.
8
86. DEFENDANTS had nmnerollsduiics of care toPLAll\JTJFPS, incIudin,:.

1Q the maintenance of a healthy and safe \vorking envh'onmcnt, conveying to PLAINTIFFS thei,

11 respective job duties, and not pressuring them to engage in qUfdpto quo sexual acts.
:L2
87
t '. DEFENDANTS breached their duties ofeare 10 PLAINTUi'FS.

88 . PLAINTIFFS have suffered emotional distress. PLAINTIFFS' mental

. anguish re:::rulting thlJn DEFENDA1"iTS' negligence inch.ldes humiliation, embarrassment, anger,


15

disappointment and wony, aU ohvb1ch is substantial and enduring.

89, DEFENDlu"lTS' breach of their duties of care ,"vas the direct an


18
prOXimate cUlIscofPLAINTIFFS' injtu·ies.
1.9 i
90. PLAINTIFFS suffered damages caused by DEFENDANTS' \vrongful act j
>'""t.' •
.I.. i.}

as stated in the secti<ln, below entitled "DAivfAGES," 'wbich is incorporated herein.


21

22

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION


24
:Fraud - Intcntional'Misreprescntlltion of FaN

2.5
91. ALPERIN and KELLER reallege and incorporate by reference 'r~ 1-90 as

26 iftbey \vere set forth here in rull.

COMPLAINT FOR DAJVIAGES


ALPERJiV & KELLER v. TilE GOR1LL-I FOUll/DATiON & P.ATl'ERSOlI,'
f'ilgC 21 of24
1 92, AI the time DEFEND ANTS made the: representations l'egardi~t1g

2 . ALPERJN and KELLER'S employment whhDEFENDANTS., they misrepresented certain facts


.3
tmving lo do with ALPERfN and KELLER'S classit1cation as exempt employees, 'who were

therefore ineligible f'Or overtime compensation,

93, DEFENDANTS' representations were in fact fabe. Whether an employee


6
is classified ~i.!j exempt or nOIH~xempt cannot be determined by private agl"cement between an
7

employer and ait employee,

9 ~4, The uforeHtentjouecl c(}mluctofDEFENDANTS Vv'us an intentional

10 misrepresentation offner known to DEFENDANTS and done \vith the imention, otllhe part of

11
Ii'I DEFENDANTS, of depriving ALPElUN and KELLER of
' their property and legal rights, and
12
"vas despicable co11duct that subjected ALPERIN and KELLER to cruel and unjust lu~rdshipin
13
COllSc.iouS disreg.ard of ALPERIN and KE1LER>S rights, so as to justify and aw(ndofexemplary
14
tmd punitive damages.
15
95. ALPERIN and KELLER reasonably relied on DEFENDANTS'

representations concerning their employment dassifi.cation.Had ALPERIN and KELLER been

a~.vare of the mjsJepresent<~tion, they \v()~lld have inSlsted on being compensated J:br their

19 overtime and/or terminaLed their employment 'with DEFENDANTS"


10 96. PLAINTTFFS suffered damages caused by DEFENDANTS'wrongful aets

as slated in the sec lion belo\v entitled "DAlvfAGES/' 'l.-vhkh is Incorporated herein.
22
/1
23 /!
., "
., J
1/
//
25 -Ii
IJ
26 //

27
COMPLAINT FOR DA1VIAGES
28 A LPERlN & KELLER )', THE (;ORELLA FOC./NDATJO,V & .l'ATTl!."RSOl..,'
P'lgC 22 {If 24
H
II
'II
1
·1I DAMA.GES

2 !Wherefore, PIJ\fi\lTTFFS pray Judgment as f{)!Iows::


1. For compensatory damages D)r los.twagcs in th-::: amount of one year'))

pay: calculated to be thirty thousand dollars. ($30,OOCtOO) for ALPRJN; and thirty~tlve thousand
5
. dollars (S35;000.00) for KELLER.;

'I
.t.., Pursuant to Cali'n)rnia Civil Code §3294, for punitive and exemplary

8 damages: calclllated to be three hundred tl10usand dolJms ($300,000,00)fo1" ALPElUN; three


9
. hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) fOf KELLER; and one llundred Jifty tho~l5<md doilars
10
($150,000) fMMARCHESE.
11
3, For damages as a result of intentional ini1iction of emotional distress:
12

13 'calculated to be twenty~~five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for ALPERIN; and tVlenty~five

14 ,; th{lllSand donal'S ($25,000.00) for KELLER;

4. For non-payment of wages, including overthne pay, as mandated by


1.6
, Industrial Welfare Order 5-2001 : calculated to be five hmldred fOl'ty~t1:ve dollm"s and eight cents
17
16
I ($545.08) for ALPERIN; rind eight hundred seven dollars and eighty~four cents (S807.84) fot'
19 KELLER.
20 5. For \ivaitingtirne penalties of one day's wage for thirty (30) days pursuant
21
' to Labor Code § 203: calculated to be thr.ee thousand four hundred sixty-one donars and fifty-
I

ttJur cents ($3.461,.54) tor ALPERIN; and fOUl" thousand thirty~eight dollars a11d forty-six cents
23

2·4
($4,038.46) for KELLER~

25 6. For penalties lor not providing rest break periods for PLAINTIFFS ill the

2f. . amount of one hour of pay per each rest bIeak DEFENDANTS did not provide pursuilnt to Labo
27 I
COMPLAINT :rOR DAJ\'lAGES
28 ALPERIN & KELLm? v. THE GORILLA FOUl\~DA1'lOj\' & P;JTTERSOlV
Page 23 nf24
Code § 226.7: calculated to be nIne hundred eight dollurs and sixty-five cents ($908.65) tor
1

2 ALPERIN; and one thollsand, three hundred forty-six c10llars and fifteen cents ($1,346.15) for

3 KELLER;
4 .-.t . For interest accrued to date in the amount often percent (1 I]I}'O) per <1rtllUm
5
frommlJlllenl an1l)unt is due;

'I
s. Pursuant to Labor Code § 972, for double damages resulting from each

8 misrepresentation in violatIon of Labor Code § 970 to ALPERIN and MARCI·mSE. The total

amount of damages ovving ALPERIN listed above is three hundred fifty nine thousand, cine
10
hutldredfifteen d()l1urs ~md r.venty-seven cents ($359,915.27). The. double ()fthat amount, sev1en
11
• hundred nineteen thousand, eight hundred thirty dollars and fifty-[ollr cents ($719,830.54), is the
12

13 amount of damages DEFENDANTS ~ire liable to ALPERIN. Total.amount of damages o\ying:

l4 iviARCHESE shall be determined according to proof, but not less than three hundred thousand

dollars ($300,,000).

9. For attorneys' fees und costs pursuant to Labor Code, §§ 218.5 ancl 1194,
17
•to be subject to proof;
IE

19 10. For any other compen$at(~r),; general and special dmnages according to

20 proofat the time oftrial~ and


2:1
11. For such other and further relief the Court may deem just and propel'.
2'2
Respectfully submitted,
23

91- 7 0
J~kY---;-d
STBPI'~N A.
07l#w----r-
SOI\·l1vtERS I
26

:21
. Attomey for Plaintiffs I
COMPLAINT FOR DA1\:!i\GES
28 ALPERIlV & KELLER }l. THE GORl LL4 POU/I/DATJON & PA TTERSON
Page 24 of24