Lawsuit Complaint - Sharon O Donnell V Riot Games and Nicolo Laurent

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/07/2021 01:51 PM Sherri R.
Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by C. Monroe,Deputy Clerk

21STCV00596
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Jon Takasugi
1 Timothy B. Sottile, Esq. SBN: 127026

Michael F. Baltaxe, Esq. SBN: 129532
2 Payam I. Aframian, Esq. SBN: 299345
Victoria V. Felder, Esq. SBN: 304894
3
SOTTILE IIBALTAXE
4 28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, California 91301
5 Telephone: (818) 889-0050; Facsimile: (818) 889-6050
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff SHARON O'DONNELL

7
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY LOS ANGELES
9
10 SHARON O'DONNELL, an individual, CASE NO.: _ _ _ _ __
11 Plaintiff, [Assigned to H o n . - - - - - ~
12 vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

13
RIOT GAMES INC., a business entity exact 1. HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT
14 form unknown; NICOLAS LAURENT, an HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION
individual and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, OFTHEFEHA;
15 2. QUID PRO QUO HARASSMENT
Defendants.
IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
16 3. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON
SEX IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
17 4. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION
OFFEHA;
18 5. FAILURE TO PREVENT
HARASSMENT,
19 DISCRIMINATION AND
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION
20 OFFEHA;
6. FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES
21 DUE INCLUDING STRAIGHT
TIME AND OVER-TIME;
22 7. REPRESENTATIVE ACTION
FOR VIOLATION OF
23 CALIFORNIA BUSINESS &
PROFESSIONS CODE §17200;
24 8. FAILURE TO FURNISH
TIMELY AND ACCURATE
25 WAGE AND HOUR
STATEMENTS; and
26 9. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL
AND REST PERIODS
27
28
- 1-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
2
3
4 Plaintiff SHARON O'DONNELL alleges and complains as follows:
5 1. Plaintiff SHARON O'DONNELL ("O'Donnell or Plaintiff') is an individual who at all
6 times pertinent to this lawsuit was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
7 O'Donnell is entitled to the protections of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("PEHA")
8 because she is a female and engaged in protected activity as defined by the PEHA.
9 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant RlOT GAMES INC. ("Riot") a business
10 entity, exact form unknown, authorized to and doing business in the State of California. Riot
11 Games is in the electronic gaming business.
12 3. Plaintiff was at all times employed by Defendants Riot Games and DOES 1-100 and each
13 of them. Said defendants will hereinafter be, at times, refened to as the Employer Defendants.
14 4. Plaintiff was at all times relevant employed by the Employer Defendants at their facility
15 located at 12333 West Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90067, ("The Premises"). All of the
16 acts alleged herein, on info1mation and belief, occuned at the Premises.
17 5. The Employer Defendants are California employers who employ more than five people,
18 and are accordingly subject to the provisions of PEHA.
19 6. The Defendant NICOLAS LAURENT (Laurent) is an individual who was at all times
20 relevant employed as the CEO of the Employer Defendants at the Premises. Laurent is a managing
21 agent of the Employer Defendants. Laurent was at all times relevant Plaintiffs direct supervisor.
22 Plaintiff is informed and believes that he is a resident of the County of Los Angeles.
23 7. Defendants Does 1 through 100 are sued under fictitious names pursuant to California Code
24 of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
25 each defendant sued under such fictitious names is in some manner responsible for the wrongs and
26 damages as alleged below, and in so acting was functioning as the agent, servant, manager,
27 supervisor, and/or employee of the Employer Defendants, and in doing the actions mentioned
28 below was acting within the course and scope of his or her authority as such agent, servant.
-2-
1 8. Plaintiff was hired by the Employer Defendants in or about October 13, 2017 as an
2 executive assistant. She reported directly to Laurent. She retained that position until her wrongful
3 termination in July 2020.
4 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes that she was at all times relevant a non-exempt employee
5 covered by the wage and hour laws of the California Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders.
6 10. Riot Games is a male dominated culture. Female employees, including Plaintiff are
7 discriminated against, harassed and treated as second class citizens. There are very few female
8 executives at Riot.
9 11. That female employees are discriminated against, harassed and treated as second class
10 citizens is confirmed by the filing of a gender discrimination and equal pay class action which is
11 still ongoing.
12 12. Plaintiff is not a named class representative.
13 13. Shortly after Plaintiff was hired the Defendant Laurent began a pattern of harassing
14 Plaintiff based on her sex or gender. This continued until the end of her employment. This
15 harassment included, but was not limited to: calling Plaintiff"beautiful", telling Plaintiff that his
16 wife was jealous of beautiful women, telling Plaintiff that she had an "abusive tone", telling
17 Plaintiff to watch her tone and be "more feminine", repeatedly yelling at Plaintiff, speaking to
18 Plaintiff in a condescending tone, telling her to schedule his time so he would not need to be with
19 his wife,", calling Plaintiff "thick skinned and abrasive, repeatedly asking Plaintiff about her
20 personal life, looking at Plaintiffs social media, staring at her in a sexual fashion when discussing
21 his underwear telling Plaintiff that he really was a size extra-large but that he just liked a "tight
22 fit", telling female employees that the way to handle Covid stress was" have kids ,telling Plaintiff
23 don't let his wife !mow how close we are, putting his ann around her and asking her to travel with
24 him, asking her to work at his home when his family was away and asking her if she "could handle
25 him when they were alone at his house", telling Plaintiff she should "cum" over to his house while
26 his wife was away thereby implying they should have sex, and other conduct according to proof.
27 Plaintiff is informed and believes that such conduct was motivated by her sex and gender.
28 14. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that by this conduct Laurent explicitly and
-3-
1 implicitly conditioned job benefits and the absence of job detriments on Plaintiffs acceptance of
2 sexual conduct.
3 15. Plaintiff refused to "cum" over to the Defendant Laurent's house.
4 16. Subsequent to Plaintiff refusing to "cum" over to Defendant Laurent's house his hostility
5 and anger towards Plaintiff increased. She was subjected to further yelling and being spoken to in a
6 condescending manner. She had job duties taken away, was criticized for her "tone" and was
7 eventually terminated. Plaintiff is informed and believes that this was because she refused to have
8 sex or an affair with the Defendant Laurent.
9 17. Plaintiff was discriminated against based on her gender. This discrimination included but
10 was not limited to having duties taken away and being fired.
11 18. Plaintiff complained to the defendant Laurent and Human Resources about her duties being
12 taken away. This was a protected activity as defined by the FEHA. Plaintiff was thereafter
13 subjected to adverse employment actions, including, but not limited to being criticized and
14 terminated.
15 19. Plaintiff was, on information and belief misclassified as an exempt employee. Plaintiff was
16 at all times relevant a non -exempt employee entitled to all the wage and hour protections of a non-
17 exempt employee, including being paid for all the hours she worked, being paid for overtime and
18 receiving legally compliant rest and meal breaks.
19 20. During Plaintiffs employment she was not paid for all the hours she worked, including
20 overtime.
21 21. During Plaintiffs employment she was not afforded legally complaint rest or meal breaks.
22 22. Plaintiff has duly and timely exhausted her Administrative Remedies by filing chmges with
23 the DFEH and receiving a Right to Sue Notice.
24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
25 HARASSMENT {HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)
26 BASED ON GENDER/ SEX IN VIOLATION OF FERA
27 {BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
28 23. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full herein, each and every
-4-
1 allegation set forth above.
2 24. Shortly after Plaintiff was hired the Defendant Laurent began a pattern of harassing
8 his wife,", calling Plaintiff "thick skinned and abrasive, repeatedly asking Plaintiff about her
9 personal life, looking at Plaintiff's social media, staring at her in a sexual fashion when discussing
11 fit", telling female employees that the way to handle Covid stress was "have kids ,telling Plaintiff
12 don't let his wife know how close we are, putting his mm around her and asking her to travel with
13 him, asking her to work at his home when his fmnily was away and asking her if she "could handle
20 condescending manner. She had job duties taken away and was eventually terminated. Plaintiff is
21 infmmed and believes that this was because she refused to have sex or an affair with the Defendant
22 Laurent.
23 27. Plaintiff is further info1med and believes that by this conduct Laurent explicitly and
25 sexual conduct.
26 28. The foregoing conduct was unconsented to, was based on Plaintiffs sex or gender and
27 created an intimidating and hostile work environment based on her sex or gender. Such conduct
28 constitutes illegal hostile work environment sexual or gender-based harassment in violation of

-5-
I Government Code §12940(j) and other provisions of PEHA.
2 29. The Employer Defendants, and each of them, are liable for the conduct of the Defendant
3 Laurent because he was the CEO and at all times was acting as a managing agent, manager and
4 supervisor at the Premises.
5 30. Defendant Laurent is also independently liable for his own conduct.
6 31. As a proximate result of the said hm-assment as afore pied, Plaintiff suffered general
7 damages including emotional distress damages past and future in an amount in excess of the
8 minimum jurisdiction of this Court and according to proof.
9 32. As a further and proximate result of the harassment as afore pied, Plaintiff was required to
10 and did seek medical attention, and will need medical attention in the future, all to Plaintiffs
11 damages in a sum according to proof.
12 33. As a finiher proximate result of this harassment as afore pied, Plaintiff lost employment
13 benefits, including lost wages and fringe benefits past and future in an amount in excess of the
14 minimum jurisdiction of the court and according to proof.
15 34. As a fmiher proximate result of this harassment as afore pied, Plaintiff was required to and
16 did retain attorneys and is therefore entitled to an award of attorney's fees according to proof.
17 35. The afore pied conduct of Defendant Laurent constitutes oppression, fraud, and malice
18 thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against him. The Defendant Laurent
19 was a managing agent of the Employer Defendants and the Employer Defendants are therefore
20 liable for said conduct. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Employer
21 Defendants, and each of them, had advanced knowledge of the unfitness of Defendant Laurent, but
22 employed him nonetheless with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of the Plaintiff and
23 others or ratified or authorized the said conduct. Plaintiff is fiuiher infotmed and believes and
24 thereon alleges that this advance knowledge, or act of oppression, fraud, or malice or act of,
25 ratification or authorization were on the part of a managing agent or owner acting on behalf of the
26 Employer Defendants.
27
28
-6-

1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
3 (BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
6 3 7. Shortly after Plaintiff was hired the Defendant Laurent began a pattern of harassing
12 his wife,", calling Plaintiff"thick skinned and abrasive, repeatedly asking Plaintiff about her
13 personal life, looking at Plaintiffs social media, staring at her in a sexual fashion when discussing
15 fit", telling female employees that the way to handle Covid stress was "have kids ,telling Plaintiff
16 don't let his wife know how close we are, putting his arm around her and asking her to travel with
17 him, asking her to work at his home when his family was away and asking her if she "could handle
24 condescending manner. She had job duties talrnn away and was eventually terminated. Plaintiff is
25 informed and believes that this was because she refused to have sex or an affair with the Defendant
26 Laurent.
27 40. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that by this conduct Laurent explicitly and
-7-
1 sexual conduct.
2 41. Plaintiff was subjected to a pattern of sexual harassment by Defendant Laurent all as afore
3 pied. Plaintiff is informed and believes that employment benefits were offered, or withheld, based
4 on her acceptance of such conduct.
5 42. Defendant Laurent explicitly and implicitly conditioned job benefits and the absence of job
6 detriments on Plaintiffs acceptance of sexual conduct, all as afore pied. The sexual conduct was
7 unwelcome and offensive.
8 43. Such conduct constitutes quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of Government Code
9 § 12940(j).
10 44. The Employer Defendants, and each of them, are liable for the conduct of the Defendant
11 Laurent because he was the CEO and at all times was acting as a managing agent, manager and
12 supervisor at the Premises.
13 45. Defendant Laurent is also individually liable for his own conduct.
14 46. As a proximate result of the said harassment as afore pied, Plaintiff suffered general
17 4 7. As a further and proximate result of the harassment as afore pied, Plaintiff was required to
20 48. As a further proximate result of this harassment as afore pied, Plaintiff lost employment
23 49. As a further proximate result of this harassment as afore pled, Plaintiff was required to and
24 did retain attorneys and is therefore entitled to an award of attorney's fees according to proof.
25 50. The afore pled conduct of Defendant Laurent constitutes oppression, fraud, and malice
26 thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against him. The Defendant Laurent
27 was a managing agent of the Employer Defendants and the Employer Defendants are therefore
28 liable for said conduct. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Employer
-8-
1 Defendants, and each of them, had advanced knowledge of the unfitness of Defendant Laurent, but
2 employed him nonetheless with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of the Plaintiff and
3 others or ratified or authorized the said conduct. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
4 thereon alleges that this advance knowledge, or act of oppression, fraud, or malice or act of,
5 ratification or authorization were on the part of a managing agent or owner acting on behalf of the
6 Employer Defendants.
7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
8 DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER/SEX IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
9 (BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT LAURENT}
12 52. Plaintiff was discriminated against based on her gender. This discrimination included but
13 was not limited to having duties taken away and being fired.
14 53. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that adverse employment actions were
15 taken against her, including but not limited to: having duties taken away and being fired were done
16 due to her sex or gender (female).
17 54. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that her sex (female) was a motivating
18 factor in all the adverse employment actions taken against her, and alleged above.
19 55. The foregoing conduct by the Employer Defendants and each of them constitutes
20 discrimination in violation of Government Code §12940(a), and other provisions of PEHA, which
21 preclude an employer from discriminating against an employee or taking other adverse
22 employment actions against them due to their gender or sex.
23 56. As a proximate result of the said discrimination as afore pied, Plaintiff suffered general
24 damages including emotional distress past and future in an amount in excess of the minimum
25 jurisdiction of this court and according to proof.
26 57. As a further and proximate result of the discrimination as afore pled, Plaintiff was required
27 to, and did seek medical attention, and will need medical attention in the future, all to plaintiffs

-9-

1 58. As a further proximate result of this discrimination as afore pied, Plaintiff lost employment
4 59. As a further proximate result of this discrimination as afore pied, Plaintiff was required to
5 and did retain attorneys and is therefore entitled to an award of attorney's fees according to proof.
6 60. The afore pied conduct, including the discrimination constitutes oppression, fraud, and
7 malice thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. Plaintiff is informed and
8 believes, and thereon alleges that the Employer Defendants, and each of them, ratified or
9 authorized the discriminato1y conduct. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon
10 alleges that these acts of oppression, fraud, or malice or acts of ratification or authorization were
11 undertaken by managing agents acting on behalf of the Employer Defendants.
12 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FERA
14 (BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT LAURENT)
15 61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full herein, each and eve1y
17 62. Plaintiff was subjected to gender-based discrimination as afore pied.
18 63. Plaintiff complained to Human Resources about her duties being taken away. This was a
19 protected activity as defined by the PEHA. Plaintiff was thereafter subjected to adverse
20 employment actions, including, but not limited to being terminated.
21 64. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that her termination was motivated
22 by her protected activity.
23 65. The foregoing conduct is in violation of Government Code §12940(h) and other provisions
24 of PEHA, which preclude an employer from retaliating against any employee for protesting
25 conduct prescribed by the PEHA.
26 66. As a proximate result of the said retaliation as afore pied, Plaintiff suffered general
28 minimum jurisdiction of this court and according to proof.

- 10 -
1 67. As a further and proximate result of the retaliation as afore pled, Plaintiff was required to
4 68. As a further proximate result of this retaliation as afore pied, Plaintiff lost employment
5 benefits, including lost wages and fringe benefits, past and future in an amount in excess of the
7 69. As a further proximate result of this retaliation as afore pied, Plaintiff was required to and
8 did retain attorneys and are therefore entitled to an award of attorney's fees according to proof.
9 70. The afore pied conduct, including the retaliation constitutes oppression, fraud, and malice
10 thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
11 thereon alleges that the Employer Defendants, and each of them, ratified or authorized the
12 discriminatory conduct. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges that these
13 acts of oppression, fraud, or malice or acts of ratification or authorization were undertaken by
14 managing agents acting on behalf of the Employer Defendants.
15 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16 FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION,
17 AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FERA
21 72. Plaintiff is informed and believe that the Employer Defendants failed to take all steps
22 reasonably necessaiy to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation from occurring as
23 required by Government Code §12940(k).
24 73. Such conduct violated Government Code §12940(k), and allowed Plaintiff to be harassed,
25 discriminated against, and retaliated against, all as afore pied.
26 74. As a proximate result of the said violation ofFEHA, Plaintiff has suffered general damages
27 including mental anguish and emotional suffering past and future in an amount in excess of the

- 11 -
1 75. As a further proximate result of the said violation of PEHA as afore pied, Plaintiff has
2 suffered a loss of tangible employment benefits past and future including lost wages and fringe
3 benefits in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court and according to proof.
4 76. As a further and proximate result of the said violation of PEHA as afore pied, Plaintiff was
5 required to and did seek medical attention, and will need medical attention in the future, all to
6 Plaintiffs damages in a sum according to proof.
7 77. As a further proximate result of the Defendant Employers' violation of PEHA as afore pled,
8 Plaintiff was forced to and did retain attorneys, and is accordingly entitled to an award of
9 attorneys' fees and costs according to proof at the time of trial.
10 78. The afore pled conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, and malice thereby entitling Plaintiff
11 to an award of punitive damages. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that the Employer
12 Defendants ratified or authorized the said conduct. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
13 thereon alleges that said act of oppression, fraud, or malice or act of, ratification or authorization
14 were on the part of a managing agent or owner acting on behalf of the Employer Defendants.
15 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16 FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE INCLUDING OVER-TIME IN VIOLATION OF
17 LABOR CODE §§ 200, 204, 510, 1171,1194 AND 1198
18 {BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT LAURENT)
21 80. Plaintiff was at all times relevant a non-exempt employee covered by the wage and hour
22 laws of the California Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders.
23 81. Plaintiff was, on information and belief, treated as an exempt employee.
24 82. Plaintiff was entitled to be paid for all hours worked- all hours she was subject to the
25 control of the employer.
26 83. Plaintiffs assigned shift was 10-7 five days a week.
27 84. Plaintiff frequently stayed and worked after her assigned shift was over and also worked on
28 weekends. This was compensable time. Plaintiff was not paid for this time.
- 12 -
1 85. This time consisted of both straight time and overtime. The Employer Defendants were
2 aware of this fact.
3 86. Plaintiff was not paid for all the hours that she was subject to the control of the employer.
4 87. Labor Code sections 5 IO and I I 94 and other provisions of the Labor Code require an
5 employer to pay a non-exempt employee 1.5 times salary for every hour worked past 8 hours per
6 day or 40 per week.
7 88. Throughout the course of Plaintiffs employment, the Employer Defendants required
8 Plaintiff to work overtime or shifts in excess of eight (8) hours per day or forty (40) hours in one
9 week, without compensating Plaintiff for such overtime as required by law.
10 89. Throughout the course of Plaintiffs' employment, the Employer Defendants required
11 Plaintiffs to work off the clock. This off the clock time was both straight time and overtime.
12 Plaintiffs were not paid for this off the clock time.
13 90. The Employer Defendants accordingly failed to pay Plaintiff all wages due for all the hours
14 she worked, including both straight time and over-time in violation of California Labor Code
15 §§200 et seq., 500 et seq., 510 and §1171 et seq, and other provisions of the Labor Code all as
16 afore pied.
17 91. As a result of such violations of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff is entitled to recover
18 all compensation owed to her but not paid, including both straight time and overtime as well as
19 interest thereon (California Labor Code §218.6) and is further entitled to all penalties and/or
20 liquidated damages provided for in the above referenced sections of the California Labor Code and
21 an award of attorneys' fees and costs (California Labor Code §218.5) incmred in recovering such
22 amounts according to proof at the time of trial.
23 92. Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer fails to pay any wages of an employee
24 who is discharged or quits, the wages of such employee shall continue as from the due date thereof
25 at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced, for not more than 30 days.
26 Plaintiff is entitled to those wages.
27
28
- 13 -
1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
3 PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEO.
7 94. California Business and Professions Code § 17200, entitled "Definition," provides: "As used
8 in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful or fraudulent business act
9 or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by
10 Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and
11 Professions Code."
12 95. As set forth herein, the Employer Defendants have violated the provisions of the California
13 Labor Code providing for applicable overtime wages, and rest and meal periods as to each
14 Plaintiff.
15 96. By the conduct described above, Defendants have also violated the provisions of the Unfair
16 Competition Law, Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq., for which this Court should
17 issue equitable and injunctive relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code §17203, including
18 restitution of wages wrongfully withheld or labor taken without proper compensation.
19 97. Plaintiff demands an Order that Defendants make full restitution to Plaintiff for all wages
20 unlawfully retained due to a failure to pay overtime, and a failure to allow Plaintiff meal and rest
21 periods, at the rate at which these benefits were earned by Plaintiff.
22 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 FAILURE TO FURNISH TIMELY AND ACCURATE WAGE AND HOUR
24 STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE§ 226
26 98. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full herein, each and eve1y
28 99. Labor code section 226 sets forth the reporting requirements for employers when paying
- 14 -
1 wages, including:
2 Every employer shall, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each
3 of his or her employees ... an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages
4 earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is
5 solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of
6 Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission ... , and (9) all applicable
7 hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each
8 hourly rate by the employee ... "
9 100. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon alleges that the Employer Defendants
10 knowingly and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff with such timely and accurate wage and
11 hour statements.
12 101. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants' failures to comply with Labor Code section
13 226 by not realizing the total amount of wages to which she was entitled.
14 102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct as alleged above, Plaintiff is
15 entitled to a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period, and one hundred dollars
16 ($100) for each subsequent pay period for which Defendants violated the repo1ting requirement of
17 Labor Code section 226, up to a maximum of $4,000, together with interest thereon and attorney's
18 fees and costs.
19 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 REST PERIOD PAY, MEAL PERIOD PAY, INTEREST, ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS
21 AND PENALTIES PURSUANT TO
22 CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE§§ 218.S, 218.6, 226.7, AND 512
24 I 03. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full herein, each and every
25 allegation set fo1th above.
26 104. Plaintiff was at all times relevant a non-exempt employee.
27 105. At all times relevant herein, Labor Code §512 and other provisions of the California Labor
28
- 15 -
1 Code require an employer to provide certain meal periods to non-exempt employees, and said meal
2 periods are also mandated by the applicable orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC").
3 106. Furthermore, Labor Code §226. 7 requires payment to the employee of one additional hour
4 of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest
5 period is not provided.
6 107. At all times relevant herein, Labor Code §512, other provisions of the Labor Code and the
7 applicable IWC wage order established meal period requirements for Plaintiff, wherein an
8 employee working for more than five (5) hours was required to receive a meal period of not less
9 than thirty (30) minutes, and an employee working for ten (10) hours was required to be given a
10 second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes.
11 108. At all times relevant herein, the Labor Code and the applicable wage order provides that
12 unless the employee is relieved of all duty during the meal periods, the meal period shall be
13 considered an "on duty" meal period and counted as time worked.
14 109. The applicable wage order requires that an employer failing to provide an employee a meal
15 period, owes the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for
16 each workday that the meal period was not provided.
17 110. Plaintiff, on information and belief, alleges that while working for the Employer
18 Defendants, Plaintiff was not allowed to take her required meal periods, or she was obliged to take
19 an "on duty" meal period, in violation of the Labor Code and the applicable orders of the Industrial
20 Welfare Commission. These meal periods were therefore "on duty" meal periods and not meal
21 periods under the law.
22 111. Plaintiff at no time received the requisite one (1) hour or two (2) hours of pay at the
23 Plaintiffs regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period was not provided.
24 112. At all times relevant herein, the applicable wage order, as well as other applicable
25 provisions of the Labor Code established rest periods, wherein an employer was required to permit
26 all non-exempt employees to take rest periods of ten ( 10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or
27 major fraction thereof.
28 113. At all times relevant herein, the applicable wage order, as well as other applicable
- 16 -
1 provisions of the Labor Code required that an employer failing to provide an employee a rest
2 period, owed the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for
3 each workday that the rest period was not provided.
4 114. Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that while working for the Employer
5 Defendants, Plaintiff was not allowed to take her rest periods.
6 115. Plaintiff at no time received the requisite one (1) hour of pay at the Plaintiffs' regular rate
7 of compensation for each workday that the rest periods were not provided.
8 116. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct alleged above, Plaintiff is entitled to
9 recover all wages in lieu of meal periods denied and wages in lieu of rest periods denied, as well as
10 interest thereon, and is fmther entitled to all penalties and/or liquidated damages provided for, and
11 an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in recovering such amounts according to proof at the
12 time of trial.
13 117. Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer fails to pay any wages of an
14 employee who is discharged or quits, the wages of such employee shall continue as from the due
15 date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced, for not more than
16 30 days. Plaintiff is entitled to those wages.
17 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
19 1. For damages for lost employment income and benefits, past and future, according to proof;
20 2. For general damages including pain and suffering, past and future, according to proof;
21 3. For damages for past and future medical expenses according to proof;
22 5. For attorney's fees according to proof on those claims which allow them;
23 6. For costs of suit incurred herein;
24 7. For punitive damages;
25 8. For all compensation and wages owed to Plaintiff but not paid, including unpaid straight time
26 and overtime as well as interest thereon;
27 9. For all penalties and/or liquidated damages provided for in the California Labor Code;
28 10. For all wages in lieu ofrest and meal periods denied, as well as interest thereon;
- 17 -
1 11. For attorney's fees as permitted by law on the wage claims;
2 12. For prejudgment interest to the extent allowed by law;
3 13. Thirty days of wages pursuant to Labor code 203, plus interest;
4 14. That Defendants be ordered to restore to the public all funds acquired by means of any act or
5 practice declared by this court to be unlawful or fraudulent or to constitute unfair competition;
6 15. For a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period, and one hundred dollars
7 ($100) for each subsequent pay period for which Defendants violated the reporting requirement of
8 Labor Code section 226, up to a maximum of $4,000, together with interest thereon and attorney's
9 fees and costs; and
10 16. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
11
12 SOTTILE 11\BALTAXE
Dated: January 7, 2021
13
By
14 MICHAEL F. BALTAXE, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
16
17
18 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby requests a Trial by Jury.

19
20
21 SOTTILE IIBAL TAXE

Dated: January 7, 2021
22
23 By
24 Attorneys for Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
- 18 -

Lawsuit Complaint - Sharon O Donnell V Riot Games and Nicolo Laurent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit Complaint - Sharon O Donnell V Riot Games and Nicolo Laurent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/07/2021 01:51 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by C. Monroe,Deputy Clerk

1 Timothy B. Sottile, Esq. SBN: 127026

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff SHARON O'DONNELL

10 SHARON O'DONNELL, an individual, CASE NO.: _ _ _ _ __

12 vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

4 Plaintiff SHARON O'DONNELL alleges and complains as follows:

5 1. Plaintiff SHARON O'DONNELL ("O'Donnell or Plaintiff') is an individual who at all

11 Games is in the electronic gaming business.

16 acts alleged herein, on info1mation and belief, occuned at the Premises.

18 and are accordingly subject to the provisions of PEHA.

3 termination in July 2020.

12 12. Plaintiff is not a named class representative.

3 15. Plaintiff refused to "cum" over to the Defendant Laurent's house.

8 sex or an affair with the Defendant Laurent.

18 receiving legally compliant rest and meal breaks.

23 the DFEH and receiving a Right to Sue Notice.

24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

25 HARASSMENT {HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)

26 BASED ON GENDER/ SEX IN VIOLATION OF FERA

27 {BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

17 25. Plaintiff refused to "cum" over to the Defendant Laurent's house.

28 constitutes illegal hostile work environment sexual or gender-based harassment in violation of

4 supervisor at the Premises.

8 minimum jurisdiction of this Court and according to proof.

11 damages in a sum according to proof.

14 minimum jurisdiction of the court and according to proof.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2 QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA

3 (BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

5 allegation set forth above.

21 38. Plaintiff refused to "cum" over to the Defendant Laurent's house.

4 on her acceptance of such conduct.

7 unwelcome and offensive.

12 supervisor at the Premises.

16 minimum jurisdiction of this Court and according to proof.

19 damages in a sum according to proof.

22 minimum jurisdiction of the court and according to proof.

7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

8 DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER/SEX IN VIOLATION OF FEHA

9 (BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT LAURENT}

11 allegation set forth above.

16 due to her sex or gender (female).

21 preclude an employer from discriminating against an employee or taking other adverse

22 employment actions against them due to their gender or sex.

25 jurisdiction of this court and according to proof.

28 damages in a sum according to proof.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

3 minimum jurisdiction of the court and according to proof.

11 undertaken by managing agents acting on behalf of the Employer Defendants.

12 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FERA

14 (BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT LAURENT)

16 allegation set forth above.

17 62. Plaintiff was subjected to gender-based discrimination as afore pied.

20 employment actions, including, but not limited to being terminated.

22 by her protected activity.

25 conduct prescribed by the PEHA.

28 minimum jurisdiction of this court and according to proof.

3 damages in a sum according to proof.

6 minimum jurisdiction of the court and according to proof.

13 acts of oppression, fraud, or malice or acts of ratification or authorization were undertaken by