Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
1FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO. 986451079 Sunrise AvenueSuite B-315Roseville, CA 95661Telephone: (916) 549-8784E-Mail: bvansickle@surewest.netAttorney for PlaintiffMARC HEADLEY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MARC HEADLEY
,Plaintiff,vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL, a corporateentity, AND DOES 1 - 20
 Defendants.)))))))))))))))))
CASE NO. BC404958PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDEDCOMPLAINT FOR:1)
 
UNFAIR PRACTICES UNDER B&P §17200 ET. SEQ2)
 
LABOR CODE VIOLATIONS3)
 
REFORMATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT4)
 
HUMAN TRAFFICKING5)
 
INVASION OF PRIVACY ANDCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE JANEL. JOHNSON, DEPT. 56INTRODUCTION
1)
 
This case challenges Scientology’s long-standingpractice of evading laws and depriving workers of basic humanrights. In particular, Plaintiff complains that he worked longhard hours for illegal wages and was subjected to violations ofpersonal rights and liberties by Defendant for purposes ofobtaining forced labor. Since leaving the Scientologyenterprise, Plaintiff has reported Defendant’s labor lawviolations to the California Labor Commission and filed the
 
 
2FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
initial Complaint in this action. Defendant has wrongfullyretaliated against Plaintiff for these proper and privilegedactions.2)
 
Plaintiff’s case has a solid legal foundation. It issupported by statutory law and decisions of the U.S. SupremeCourt, the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Courtof Appeals. Defendant’s case appears to be based on the premisethat its status as a tax-exempt entity provides an impermeableshield against claims. In particular, Defendant CSI, which ispart of the Scientology enterprise (“Scientology”), typicallyclaims First Amendment or waiver type defenses to ongoingviolations of state and federal law. These purported defenses tootherwise indisputably illegal conduct will not withstandscrutiny and analysis. The law is well settled that Defendant issubject to labor laws and other neutral laws of generalapplicability. Further, the rights in question cannot be waived.Fundamental rights and the protection of the labor laws cannot belost with the stroke of a pen or word processor. (Authoritiesare referenced and cited below.)3)
 
The goals of this case include forcing the Defendant tocomply with labor laws and clearing the path for workers ofScientology organizations to obtain the compensation due themunder state and federal labor laws. Plaintiff seeks payment forhis work at minimum wage, overtime pay and other remediesauthorized by law.4)
 
Defendant Church of Scientology International (CSI)represents itself to be the “Mother Church” of Scientology. CSIhas its principal office and apparent headquarters in Los
 
 
3FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Angeles, California. The County of Los Angeles is an appropriatevenue for this action.5)
 
At times herein material, and continuing, Defendant CSIwas and is an enterprise conducting business, and an employerpaying employees to conduct said business, within the State ofCalifornia and in interstate commerce. Accordingly, saidDefendant is subject to California and Federal laws concerningtheir work force, working conditions, business practices, minimumwage, payment for overtime and the protection of minors. Asalleged in more detail herein, Defendant has systematicallyignored and violated said laws to the damage of Plaintiff Headleyand others similarly situated.6)
 
Plaintiff is uncertain with respect to the identity ofall persons or entities responsible and liable for this wrongfulconduct and names said potential parties as Doe Defendants 1 - 10as authorized by California law. Doe Defendants 11 - 20 arethose potential Defendants who may participate in wrongfulretaliation, witness intimidation and fraudulent transfer orconcealment of assets to avoid payment of judgment in this case.7)
 
Defendant CSI, related Scientology entities andpotential Doe Defendants claim that workers such as Plaintiff arenot entitled to the benefits and protections of the labor laws.The weight of authority is contrary to Defendant’s self-grantedimmunity from state and federal labor laws. As stated by theCalifornia Supreme Court, “… [to] permit religious beliefs toexcuse acts contrary to law… would be to make professed doctrinesof religious belief superior to the law of the land, and ineffect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more