Mercieri - 2019.03.19 - Complaint

1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 1. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to California Government Code section

3 12965, subdivision b, because the unlawful actions alleged herein occurred in the City and
4 County of San Francisco, and the records of these actions are found in the City and County of
5 San Francisco.
6 2. The damages sought in this matter exceed $25,000. This matter is thus properly
7 submitted to the Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction for the City and County of San Francisco.
8 3. On January 11, 2019, Plaintiff properly notified the Department of Fair Employment
9 and Housing of her intent to sue Defendant and has received a “right-to-sue” notice prior to filing
10 this Complaint. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s “right-to-sue” notice is attached hereto as
11 Exhibit A.
12 PARTIES
13 4. Plaintiff is a California citizen and a resident of San Francisco, California in this
14 judicial district. Defendant employed Plaintiff within the meaning of the California Government
15 Code section 12926.
16 5. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee covered by the California
17 Family Rights Act (herein referred to as “CFRA”), Government Code section 12945.2(a).
18 6. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an employer subject to CFRA,
19 Government Code section 12945.2(b) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (herein
20 referred to as “FEHA”), Government Code section 12925(d).
21 7. Plaintiff worked as a Staffing Channels Specialist earning $31.73 per hour at the
22 outset of her employment and $33.17 per hour at the end of her employment. Plaintiff began
23 working for Defendant on or about October 17, 2016 and was terminated on or about October 15,
24 2018.
25 8. Plaintiff is informed and belives and based thereon alleges that Defendant is a
26 Delaware corporation, with its principal headquarters at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain
27 View, California. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
28 Defendant is registered to do business in California under corporation number C3831672.
Mercieri v. Alphabet, Inc. Superior Court of San Francisco County, Court Case No. _________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,
2 of defendants named herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff and
3 therefore said defendants are sued under fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
4 thereon alleges that each of the defendants fictitiously named herein is legally responsible in
5 some actionable manner for the events described herein, and thereby proximately caused the
6 damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state the true
7 names and capacities of such fictitiously named defendants when the same have been
8 ascertained.
9 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10 10. In or around the Summer of 2016, Plaintiff was recruited by Defendant for a position
11 she did not apply for. At the time, Plaintiff was not working because of her disability.
12 11. Plaintiff has Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (“CRPS”). CRPS is a chronic nervous
13 system disorder. As a result of her CRPS, Plaintiff experiences chronic and extreme pain.
14 Plaintiff’s immune system is compromised as a result of the CRPS. The disease has invaded
15 Plaintiff’s immune system and causes shortness of breath and absent seizures. CRPS impacts
16 Plaintiff’s sleep and prevents her from experiencing REM Sleep. In 2012, Plaintiff’s suffered
17 further symptoms of CRPS in her nervous and circulatory systems causing progressive damage
18 to her internal organs, including her digestive tract which made the physical act of eating
19 excruciating. The disease impacts Plaintiff’s memory and her vision. For many with CRPS, the
20 pain is so excruciating that the only remedy is suicide, hence the unfortunate nickname for
21 CPRS, “the suicide disease”.
22 12. During her recruitment, Plaintiff informed Defendant of her need for
23 accommodations as a result of her disability. Defendant assured Plaintiff that Google was a
24 place where “differences were celebrated.”
25 13. Following Plaintiff’s interviews, Defendant’s former Senior Vice President of People
26 Operations, Laszlo Bock called and offered Plaintiff a position. Mr. Bock expressly stated that
27 he was impressed with Plaintiff’s drive and her advocacy on behalf of the disability community.
28 14. Plaintiff was hired and began working for Defendant on or about October 17, 2016.
1 15. Over the Christmas holiday 2016, Plaintiff was hospitalized with the flu. On her
2 return she had severe pain that made it difficult to move and breathe. As a result, Plaintiff had a
3 co-worker take her to the hospital where she learned that she had broken a rib from the severe
4 coughing she experienced while enduring the flu. When Plaintiff returned to work and provided
5 her medical documents to her manager, her manager responded by stating that “a person like
6 [her]” should feel “lucky to be at Google.” Because Plaintiff thereafter felt as though she could
7 lose her job if she took leave, she came into work despite the pain she was experiencing.
8 16. In or around the Spring of 2017, Plaintiff’s team was moved to a satellite office at
9 Google’s Mountain View campus. This campus is a known “Superfund” site, a location where
10 previous industrial occupants were known to leak or dump toxic chemicals. Plaintiff’s doctors
11 were concerned about her being exposed to trichlorethylene (“TCE”) at this location because of
12 her compromised immune system. Despite requests, Defendant was either unable or unwilling to
13 provide documents stating that it was safe for a person with a compromised immune system to be
14 exposed to TCE. It took months for Defendant to provide Plaintiff with necessary information
15 and to provide accommodations.
16 17. In or around the Fall of 2017, Plaintiff met with Defendant’s Senior Vice President of
17 Diversity and Inclusion, Danielle Brown. Plaintiff shared with her the challenges and struggles
18 she faced while working at Google and that she felt Defendant needed to better include disabled
19 employees into their diversity and inclusion plan. Ms. Brown agreed there was a gap but was not
20 sure how to proceed with it. Plaintiff expressed an interest in helping to grow the team but was
21 told they were in the middle of a reorganization and would not know where to place Plaintiff.
22 18. Shortly after this meeting, Plaintiff was placed on a “step-up” program, purportedly
23 because of Plaintiff’s performance. Despite the fact that the program was ostensibly designed to
24 improve Plaintiff’s performance, she was provided nothing productive during her weekly
25 meetings, including no training, no tools, and no constructive criticism. Instead, during these
26 weekly meetings, Plaintiff was told that she was awful at her job, and that she was “handed this
27 job from Laszlo”. As a result of the stress Plaintiff felt during and leading up to these meetings,
28 Plaintiff suffered digestive distress, throwing up because of stress, fear and anxiety.
1 19. In Early 2018, Plaintiff complained to a colleague that she felt she was given “dead
2 leads” unlike her teammates, which hindered her hiring rates. Plaintiff told her colleague that
3 she was thinking of speaking with her manager, Hashona Braun, about these concerns, but was
4 discouraged from doing so because it might draw more attention to her disability and could be
5 used against her during her performance evaluation. Plaintiff’s colleague was also told to be
6 careful in speaking with her director because he was close with the managers.
7 20. In or around January 2018, Plaintiff told her Ms. Braun her desire to move teams
8 because of how unhealthy she felt in her present position. It was Plaintiff’s understanding and
9 belief that Defendant encouraged employees to explore other teams within the company. Ms.
10 Braun laughed at Plaintiff and said that she would need to remain in staffing and that she would
11 not support Plaintiff’s efforts to explore other positions. It is Plaintiff’s understanding and belief
12 that Ms. Braun had supported co-workers’ efforts to explore other positions.
13 21. Around this same time, Plaintiff was asked to take the lead for the Disability Alliance
14 monthly meetings. Plaintiff was very excited for this opportunity but when she spoke to Ms.
15 Braun about this opportunity, she was again laughed at, told that nothing beneficial would come
16 from taking the position, that it would hurt not help her, that she should “stay in [her] lane,”
17 “focus on the work [she was] given,” and to “be grateful [she was] working [there].”
18 22. Following this meeting, Plaintiff reached out to “Respect@Google”, an anonymous
19 resource for Googlers to speak about feeling unsafe or discriminated at work. Plaintiff was
20 connected with Stephanie Bilodeau, an organizational development consultant and leadership
21 coach at Google, who had been with the company for 14 years at the time of their connection.
22 Ms. Bilodeau shared that she too has a disability and shared stories about demotions she faced as
23 a result of her disability.
24 23. In early 2018, following these meetings, Plaintiff requested a quiet workspace as an
25 accommodation for her disability. Specifically, Plaintiff’s disability requires her to lie down
26 because of spinal pain. Plaintiff had initially requested a couch in her workplace so she could
27 rest when needed, but was told no. Defendant suggested a bean bag chair, but this made
28 Plaintiff’s pain worse. Defendant could not mark off a room as quiet space on her floor so she
1 requested access to the 8th Floor instead, as it would give an immediate quiet and safe space to
2 work when she was experiencing a pain flare up. Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff this
3 access for months, during which time she suffered extreme pain during her flare ups.
4 24. Following further unconstructive and pre-textual feedback, Plaintiff contacted her
5 Director via email. Plaintiff expressed how she felt completely isolated, unsupported and set up
6 to fail. Plaintiff further expressed how psychologically unsafe she felt at work, that she was the
7 subject of unrealistic expectations and that she was having a flare up of her CRPS symptoms.
8 25. In or around March 2018, Plaintiff became very ill from her CRPS and was going to
9 take sick leave for the days she could not work. Ms. Bilodeau suggested that Plaintiff take
10 disability leave because it would give her time to heal. Plaintiff took a brief disability leave from
11 mid-March through mid-April 2018.
12 26. In April 2018, shortly after returning from leave, Plaintiff was given a poor
13 performance rating from her manager. This review did not suggest ways for Plaintiff to correct
14 or improve alleged performance failings and did not provide any clear methods for improvement.
15 Rather, the review was vague and filled with subjective criticisms. During the review, Plaintiff
16 was told that she “sucks at her job”, that her job “was given to [her] on a silver plate by Laszlo”,
17 that “her hand would not be held” and that she “should feel lucky to be working at Google.”
18 Plaintiff was shocked to receive this review because her manager would tell her that she was on
19 the right track and to keep up the good work during their weekly meetings. Plaintiff told her
20 manager that she was going to report the review the human resources, and her manager
21 responded by laughing and saying, “good luck.”
22 27. In April 2018, Plaintiff complained about her manager’s review, and specifically
23 stated that she felt she was being discriminated against and harassed because of her disability and
24 for having taken leave. Moreover, Plaintiff complained about the fact that she had been under
25 several different managers during her relatively short tenure and felt it unfair for someone
26 without much time managing her to give her such a negative and discriminatory review despite
27 having only managed her for a short time.
28
1 28. Following Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant’s HR department acknowledged that her
2 manager failed to communicate and set clear expectations. Despite this however, Plaintiff was
3 told that her performance review would stand.
4 29. Shortly after reporting her manager to HR, Plaintiff was assigned to a different
5 manager, Caragh Lavoie. Despite no longer working for Ms. Braun, Plaintiff noticed that Ms.
6 Braun was still monitoring Plaintiff’s work.
7 30. In June 2018, Plaintiff received an email from Aditya Yerramilli from Defendant’s
8 Ethics Committee, requesting a meeting about Plaintiff’s “unethical conduct at work.” Plaintiff
9 was told that “someone” had brought “troubling data” to his attention and that it needed to be
10 discussed. Plaintiff requested more context about the meeting, but Mr. Yerramilli refused to
11 provide anything further until they met. Plaintiff explained to Mr. Yerramilli about her disability
12 and how stress interacts with her disability. Plaintiff requested that she would like to have her
13 manager or HR representative in the meeting but was told that the Ethics Committee is sensitive
14 to having too many people in the room. Plaintiff then requested to record the meeting so she
15 could play it back to her manager/ HR representative specifically because her disability impacts
16 her short-term memory. Defendant refused.
17 31. Plaintiff later learned that the hearing was based on Plaintiff’s work before she went
18 on leave, specifically when she requested a lighter workload because of her illness. Defendant
19 would not tell Plaintiff who reported her but the only person who was monitoring her work on
20 the system was Ms. Braun.
21 32. Plaintiff spoke to Ms. Bilodeau about the process, who stated that “this is Google’s
22 way of scaring employees straight, and for people like us, it just makes us sicker.”
23 33. Plaintiff went through two months of the hearing process and the end result was for
24 Defendant to tell her to be “more mindful” of her work.
25 34. Plaintiff spoke with her HR representative and complained that the ethics committee
26 meetings are not set up to accommodate disabled employees. When told that this would be
27 passed along, Plaintiff requested to be able to make the complaint herself and was denied the
28 opportunity.
1 35. In or around August 2018, Plaintiff was informed by her doctor that she needed to
2 have surgery. Plaintiff informed Ms. Lavoie and informed her that because of her disability and
3 chronic illness it takes her longer to heal and that she might be out for a while as a result. Ms.
4 Lavoie told Plaintiff that she was sorry Plaintiff was sick, but that she should stay focused on her
5 goals at work. Based on this comment and her prior experience, Plaintiff was fearful any further
6 requests for accommodations would lead to more adverse employment actions, up to and
7 including her termination.
8 36. Thereafter, Plaintiff was placed on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”). As a
9 part of the PIP, Plaintiff was told that she was expected to produce eight hires for a project that
10 was near a standstill. Plaintiff spoke to a teammate, Ivori Johnson, who agreed that these were
11 unrealistic expectations because of the lack of movement with the project and encouraged
12 Plaintiff to suggest a more realistic expectation of four to five hires. Plaintiff believed anything
13 more was unattainable and that she was instead being set up to fail. Plaintiff thereafter spoke to
14 Ms. Lavoie about these issues. Ms. Lavoie stating that she would speak to HR, and despite
15 Plaintiff’s request to be a part of this meeting, the conversation was again had without her.
16 Following Ms. Lavoie’s meeting, HR changed the PIP to require her to produce a still unrealistic
17 number of seven hires. Plaintiff again refused to sign the PIP because she believed it was setting
18 her up to fail.
19 37. In or around August 2018, Plaintiff was informed that she could not work more than
20 five hours of overtime per week. Because she needed to do more and work more, she worked
21 hours which were not logged despite her co-workers obtaining approval for more overtime.
22 38. Plaintiff was told by Defendant that she “lacked calibration” with her team, so she
23 started working with Ms. Johnson on her profiles to help get hires for both Plaintiff and her
24 teammate. Through this work, Plaintiff was close to reaching her hiring goal, and even received a
25 peer bonus for her work.
26 39. Plaintiff’s manager reached out to Ms. Johnson to ask for information on how
27 Plaintiff helped her with these candidates. Ms. Lavoie asked Ms. Johnson not to tell Plaintiff
28 that she reached out. Ms. Johnson did not feel comfortable with Ms. Lavoie going behind
1 Plaintiff’s back on a day when Plaintiff was out sick, so she sent Plaintiff a text and called
2 Plaintiff to inform her about Ms. Lavoie’s inquiry. Ms. Johnson stated that she understood why
3 Plaintiff felt like she had a target on her back and sent her screenshots of the emails she sent to
4 Ms. Lavoie in regard to Plaintiff’s role in obtaining the candidates.
5 40. When Plaintiff returned from sick leave, Plaintiff was told by Ms. Lavoie that she
6 would not count the candidates Plaintiff collaborated on with Ms. Johnson toward Plaintiff’s
7 hiring goal, thus setting Plaintiff back on her hiring goal. Plaintiff met with Ms. Lavoie while
8 out sick and argued that the rules changed the moment Plaintiff began to make progress.
9 41. Plaintiff was out sick during her performance review and was not able to finish her
10 personal write up of her accomplishments. Plaintiff informed Ms. Lavoie about this and was told
11 not to worry because “it wouldn’t matter.”
12 42. In or around September 2018, Ms. Lavoie denied Plaintiff access to information for a
13 project. When Plaintiff requested access and stated that she needed the tools to do her job, she
14 was told to rely on a teammate and that she had everything she needed. When Plaintiff’s new
15 manager offered to provide Plaintiff with access to the information, Ms. Lavoie reversed the
16 decision and further denied her assistance.
17 43. The information Plaintiff was requesting would have assisted her in bringing on 12-
18 14 hires in September and October. Because of the salary offers for the position, candidates
19 were dropping out. Plaintiff was trying to make the salary offers more competitive by providing
20 data to recruiters, who were in turn working with Google’s compensation team. Plaintiff
21 explained this to Ms. Lavoie demonstrated how she was helping resolve the issue. Ms. Lavoie
22 told Plaintiff that she would speak to someone but never got back to Plaintiff. Plaintiff made
23 efforts to follow up, to no avail.
24 44. In or around October 2018, Plaintiff told Ms. Lavoie that she could no longer delay
25 her surgery because her pain was becoming worse. Plaintiff stated that she was looking to have
26 it done in the fall. Ms. Lavoie responded by laughing and stating, “well, we will see if this
27 happens.”
28
1 45. Just as she had feared, on October 15, 2018, Plaintiff received an email terminating
2 her employment while she was out on sick leave prior to her surgery.
3 46. Plaintiff requested her personal belongings be sent to her, including medical devices
4 she needed for her disability, such as a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit,
5 canned oxygen, prescription drugs, circulation mats, clothing, and other personal belongings.
6 47. Plaintiff never received her personal belongings. Instead, she received from Google a
7 box of trash, including perishable and rotting food items, and a tampon that was either used or
8 given the appearance of being used. Plaintiff never maintained any box like this at her
9 workplace, and did not even recognize most of the items in the box. Instead it appeared that
10 someone at Google had, in response to her request, essentially dumped a bunch of trash in a box
11 and sent it to her.
12 48. Despite informing Defendant of this issue, Plaintiff has still not received her personal
13 belongings.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14
Disability Discrimination
15 (Government Code § 12940(a))
Against Defendant Alphabet, Inc.
16
49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs as if
17
they were set forth here in full.
18
50. Defendant was aware that Plaintiff was disabled, specifically that she had CRPS, as
19
described above and that Plaintiff’s disability limited her ability to work and required her to take
20
sick leave and disability leave.
21
51. Plaintiff was able to perform her essential job duties with reasonable accommodation
22
for her disability, and in fact performed her essential job duties throughout her employment.
23
52. Plaintiff was treated differently than her non-disabled co-workers because of her
24
disability and/or need for accommodations.
25
53. Plaintiff was given a negative performance review shortly after taking leave for her
26
disability.
27
54. Plaintiff was given a Performance Improvement Plan which had unattainable goals
28
prior to her termination.
1 55. Plaintiff was repeatedly accused of not being disabled by her supervisors and co-
2 workers.
3 56. Plaintiff would routinely request accommodations and would receive them only after
4 months of continually making requests.
5 57. Plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to look for different teams to work with as
6 her non-disabled co-workers were.
7 58. Defendant failed to provide accommodations to Plaintiff for the ethics committee
8 hearings as requested by Plaintiff.
9 59. Ultimately, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment while she was out on sick
10 leave on October 16, 2018.
11 60. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant was motivated
12 by Plaintiff’s disability, the accommodations she required for her disability, and the leave she
13 took for her disability when it terminated Plaintiff’s employment.
14 61. On information and belief, in doing the acts herein alleged, Defendant acted with
15 oppression, malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and Plaintiff is therefore
16 entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.
17 62. As a further proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff was required to and did
18 retain attorneys and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs according to
19 proof.
20
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21
Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process
22 (Government Code § 12940(n))
23
24
25
64. Plaintiff had a disability that was known to Defendant.
26
65. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff requested that Defendant make reasonable
27
accommodation for her disability so that she would be able to perform her essential job duties,
28
1 including participating in the ethics committee hearings, taking leave for surgery and having a
2 place to rest during a pain flare up.
3 66. Plaintiff was willing to participate in the interactive process to determine whether
4 reasonable accommodation could be made so that she would be able to perform the essential
5 functions of her job.
6 67. Defendant failed to participate in a timely, good-faith interactive process with
7 Plaintiff to determine whether a reasonable accommodation could be made.
8 68. Plaintiff was harmed and Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing
9 Plaintiff’s harm.
12 entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the times of trial.
15 proof.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
16
Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations
17 (Government Code § 12940(m))
18
19
20
72. Defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation in light of Plaintiff’s
21
disability. Plaintiff specifically requested accommodations related to her disability during the
22
ethics committee hearing and was denied that accommodation or any other. Additionally,
23
Plaintiff requested time off for surgery and was denied the time off to have the surgery.
24
73. Plaintiff could have performed her essential job duties with reasonable
25
accommodation.
26
74. Plaintiff was harmed and Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing
27
Plaintiff’s harm.
28
6 proof.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7
Violation of California Family Rights Act
8 (Government Code § 12945.2)
9
10
11
78. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code section 12945.2 and California
12
Code was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant. Said sections required
13
Defendant, their employees and agents, to not retaliate against Plaintiff for requesting or taking
14
time off for statutory medical level. Moreover, at all times herein mentioned, California Code of
15
Regulations Title 2 section 7297.7 was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant.
16
79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts of Defendant in
17
criticizing Plaintiff’s performance following her return from leave in or around April 2018, and
18
in terminating her employment in October 2018, following her notification of pending leave, as
19
stated herein, is an unlawful employment practice in violation of the California Family Rights
20
Act, Government Code section 12945.2 and California Code of Regulations Title 2 section
21
7297.7.
22
80. As a proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
23
sustained damages from the loss of her employment, from loss of past and future earnings and
24
other employment benefits, from loss of all other rights and benefits which naturally exist with
25
fair employment, but which was denied her by said Defendant, all in an amount to be proven at
26
the time of trial.
27
81. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct by Defendant, Plaintiff
28
sustained emotional distress, all to her damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
6 proof.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
8 (Against Defendant Alphabet, Inc.)
9 84. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs as if
10 they were set forth here in full.
11 85. Plaintiff’s termination was in violation of fundamental public policies of the State of
12 California, to wit: (1) the right to be free of discrimination on account of one’s complaints of
13 disability discrimination, and/or for having a disability; (2) the right to be able to exercise a
14 request for statutory leave for medical reasons; and (3) the right to be free of retaliation for the
15 exercise of rights under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12926
16 and 12940, and the California Family Rights Act, Government Code section 12945.2, and all
17 accompanying regulations.
18 86. As a proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
19 sustained damages from the loss of her employment, from loss of past and future earnings and
20 other employment benefits, from loss of all other rights and benefits which naturally exist with
21 fair employment, but which was denied her by said Defendant, all in an amount to be proven at
22 the time of trial.
23 87. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct by Defendant, Plaintiff
24 sustained emotional distress, all to her damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
28
3 proof.
4
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5
Conversion
6 (Against Defendants Does 1-10 and Alphabet, Inc.)
7 90. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs as if
8 they were set forth here in full.
9 91. The items described above including the TENS unit, oxygen canisters, prescription
10 drugs, clothing, circulation mats and items of sentimental value, belonged to Plaintiff and were
11 items of personal property.
12 92. Defendants knew these items were Plaintiff’s property and intentionally and
13 substantially interfered with Plaintiff’s property by not returning it to her when terminating her
14 employment in October 2018, or at any time since, despite repeated requests.
15 93. By refusing to return the property described above to Plaintiff, Defendants have
16 prevented Plaintiff from having access to the personal property discussed above.
17 94. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants’ failure to return this property.
18 95. Defendants’ actions occurred following the termination of Plaintiff’s employment and
19 was thus outside the scope of her employment with Defendant Google.
20 96. Defendant Does 1-10’s actions in refusing to return and/or preventing Plaintiff from
21 obtaining her personal property were performed within the scope of their employment and arose
22 from their employment with Defendant Alphabet, Inc.
23 97. Plaintiff has been harmed by Defendant’s actions and Defendants’ conduct was a
24 substantial factor in causing that harm, including Plaintiff being required to replace said items
25 and/or not being able to replace items of sentimental value.
26 98. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct by Defendants, Plaintiff
27 sustained emotional distress, all to her damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
28
1 99. On information and belief, in doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with
4
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Against Defendants Does 1-10 and Alphabet, Inc.)
6
100. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs as if
7
8
101. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by
9
intentionally and/or recklessly subjecting Plaintiff to abuse and retaliation when Defendants sent
10
a box of trash, including rotting food and a tampon which was either used, or given the
11
appearance of being used, to Plaintiff instead of the personal belongings Defendants should have
12
sent Plaintiff. Defendants, and each of them, ratified such conduct by failing and refusing to take
13
any and all reasonable steps necessary to prevent such conduct from occurring and by failing to
14
take appropriate corrective action following their knowledge of such conduct. Defendants
15
conduct occurred after the termination of Plaintiff’s employment and was thus outside the scope
16
of her employment. However, Defendants Does 1-10’s conduct occurred within the scope of
17
their employment and arose from their employment with Defendant Alphabet, Inc.
18
102. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ willful, wanton, intentional, outrageous
19
and malicious conduct, Plaintiff suffered severe and extreme mental and emotional distress, the
20
exact nature and extent of which are not presently known to Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not at this
21
time know the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and
22
thereon alleges, that some of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.
23
103. By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has
24
been directly and legally caused to suffer damages as alleged herein.
25
104. On information and belief, in doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with
26
oppression, malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and Plaintiff is therefore
27
entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.
28
///
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for the following judgment:
3 1. Judgment finding Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, violated Plaintiff’s rights
4 pursuant to the California Government Code and Common Law;
5 2. Award of lost wages and other compensation denied or lost to Plaintiff by reason of
6 Defendants’ violations of the law;
7 3. Award of compensatory damages for pain and suffering by reason of the actions of
8 Defendants;
9 4. Award of statutory penalties;
10 5. Exemplary and punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294;
11 6. Award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;
12 7. Award of prejudgment interest;
13 8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
14
15 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
16 Plaintiff Gina Merceiri hereby demands a jury trial on this matter.
17
18
QUINTANA HANAFI, LLP
19
20
Date: March 19, 2019 ________________________
21 Rory Quintana
Attorneys for Plaintiff
22
Gina Merceiri
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
January 11, 2019
Gina Mercieri
2894 Bush Street
San Francisco, California 94115
RE: Notice to Complainant

DFEH Matter Number: 201901-04771111
Right to Sue: Mercieri / Google/Alphabet, Inc.
Dear Gina Mercieri:
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. If you do not have an attorney, you must serve the complaint yourself.
Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for information
regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice of Filing of
Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.
Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing


January 11, 2019
RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government
Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government
Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit.
This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of
the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact
information.
No response to DFEH is requested or required.
Sincerely,


January 11, 2019
Gina Mercieri
2894 Bush Street
San Francisco, California 94115
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Gina Mercieri,
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective
January 11, 2019 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will
take no further action on the complaint.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,

1 COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
3
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
4
In the Matter of the Complaint of
5 Gina Mercieri DFEH No. 201901-04771111
6 Complainant,
7 vs.
8 Google/Alphabet, Inc.
1600 AMPHITHEATRE Way
9 Mountain View, California 94043
10 Respondents
11
12 1. Respondent Google/Alphabet, Inc. is an employer subject to suit under the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
13
2. Complainant Gina Mercieri, resides in the City of San Francisco State of
14
California.
15
3. Complainant alleges that on or about October 16, 2018, respondent took the
16 following adverse actions:
17 Complainant was harassed because of complainant's disability (physical or
18 mental), medical condition (cancer or genetic characteristic).
19 Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's family care or
medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more people), disability (physical or mental),
20 medical condition (cancer or genetic characteristic) and as a result of the
discrimination was terminated, reprimanded, denied a work environment free of
21
discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied
22 reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied work opportunities or
assignments, denied or forced to transfer.
23
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted
24 any form of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related
accommodation and as a result was terminated, reprimanded, denied a work
25
environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit
26
27 -1-
Complaint – DFEH No. 201901-04771111
28 Date Filed: January 11, 2019
1 or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied or forced to
transfer.
2
3
Additional Complaint Details: I was approached to work at Google in or around
4 the summer of 2016. At the time I was working as an advocate for disabled
individuals. I have had Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) since 2011. At
5 the time I was recruited, I made it clear I did not have any relevant experience but it
was made clear to me by the SVP of People Operations Laszlo Bock, that I was
6 wanted at Google and that I would be given the opportunity to learn and grow and
7 that I would be able to bring my experience advocating for disabled people into
Google to help recruit and support disabled workers. On October 17, 2016, I began
8 working for Google as a Channel Specialist. My job was to "source" individuals for
recruiters to speak with.
9 In or around December 2016, Mr. Bock left Google and thereafter I began to be
treated in a hostile and discriminatory way by the 7 or 8 different supervisors I had
10 during my two years at Google. As but one example, following a bout of the flu
11 during the 2016 holidays, I returned to Mountain View with severe pain in my
abdomen and discovered that while fighting the flu I had broken a rib. When I
12 informed my then supervisor that I would need time to recover, she laughed and
stated that a "person like me" should feel lucky to be at Google. Because I didn't
13 feel I would be able to take the necessary leave to recover based on her comments,
I did not take leave. Additionally, I did not receive requested accommodation
14
information until almost six months from my start date. For example, my team was
15 moved to the Quad which had once been a Superfund site. My doctor was
concerned about my exposure to the chemical TCE. When we requested
16 documentation certifying my safety as an employee with a compromised immune
system, I was denied that information for months. During this time and related to the
17 difficult relationship I had with my manager at the time, I went through a bout of
18 Shingles. Throughout 2017, I worked diligently to continue to learn my position but
was consistently dealing with stress and the fallout that stress has on my disability.
19 In early 2018, I requested to move to a different team because of how unhealthy and
unhappy I was, something Google typically encourages. My manager at the time,
20 Hashona Braun laughed at my request. I was never given the same opportunities as
my teammates in receiving support to look into other teams and projects. Around
21 this same time I was asked to take the lead for the Disability Alliance, a group of
22 disabled Google employees, monthly meetings. My managers laughed when I
informed them of this opportunity and told me to "stay in my lane", "focus on the
23 work I am given," and to "be grateful that I am even working here." For months I
requested accommodations to aid with my pain. For example, because of spinal
24 pain, I sometimes need a place to lie down. I was consistently denied the
accommodations I requested and/or was ignored in my requests. At last and only
25
after months of requests, was I given access to a more quiet work place.
26
27 -2-
1 In early Spring 2018, I contacted our director Olga Donnelly explaining that I was
desperate for help as I felt isolated, unsupported and set up to fail. I expressed how
2 psychologically unsafe work was for me and the impact this had on me with my
disability. As a result of the stress, I became very sick from the CRPS and took
3
FMLA leave from mid-March to mid-April 2018. Upon my return from leave I was
4 given a poor performance review by Hashona. The review was entirely subjective
and did not provide information related to my actual performance or how to correct
5 issues. I was expressly told by Hashona that I "suck at my job" and that it was
handed to me "on a silver platter" by Mr. Bock. I told Hashona I was going to report
6 her to HR and did so after my review. I explained to HR that I felt the review was
7 discrimination based on my disability. HR acknowledged that Hashona had failed to
communicate and set clear expectations and sent her to a 30-minute manager
8 retraining. However her review of me remained on my record. Despite the fact that
Hashona stopped being my manager shortly thereafter, I found that she was still
9 constantly monitoring my work online. Thereafter and following my complaint of
disability discrimination, I was told that there was a complaint of unethical conduct
10 made about me and that I had to come to a meeting regarding this matter. I was
11 refused accommodations in this meeting, despite expressly describing how stress
impacts my disability. At no time during the meeting was I ever told of any unethical
12 conduct, but was instead told that my performance needed to improve. The end
result of the "hearing" was that I was told to be "more mindful" of my work. To my
13 knowledge there was no investigation of whether Hashona had made the complaint
and/or whether the complaint was made in retaliation for my requests for
14
accommodation or my complaints. I complained at the conclusion of this matter that
15 the ethics committee is not set up to accommodate disabled employees. In July
2018, I was told by my doctor that I need to have graft in my nose removed because
16 it is being rejected by my body. When I told my manager about this, and how with
my disability it takes me longer to heal she said that I should stay focused on my
17 goals at work. As a result of this conversation I did not have the surgery as I was
18 afraid I would lose my job. In August 2018, I was placed on a performance
improvement plan. The plan called for me to bring on 8 hires on a project. I did not
19 feel these were realistic expectations because the project was at a standstill. Others
on my team felt this was not a realistic plan and I was encouraged by teammates to
20 push back. I explained I felt this performance plan was retaliatory and discriminatory
and designed to make me fail, but nothing was changed. Despite my complaints I
21 continued to work not only with my group but with others and despite doing so well
22 as to receive a peer award, none of the work I did was considered as part of my
performance review. In early October, I told my manager that I couldn't put off my
23 surgery any longer because it was becoming too painful. She laughed and stated,
"well, we will see if it happens." On October 16, 2018, I was on sick leave with an
24 infection, and was terminated via email, one day shy of my two year anniversary.
25
26
27 -3-
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Rory C. Quintana, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read
the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are
3
based on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
4
On January 11, 2019, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
5 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
6 San Francisco, CA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -4-

Mercieri - 2019.03.19 - Complaint

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Mercieri - 2019.03.19 - Complaint

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 1. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to California Government Code section

10 they were set forth here in full.

18 86. As a proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff

22 the time of trial.

23 87. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct by Defendant, Plaintiff

27 entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

8 they were set forth here in full.

11 items of personal property.

14 employment in October 2018, or at any time since, despite repeated requests.

22 from their employment with Defendant Alphabet, Inc.

25 and/or not being able to replace items of sentimental value.

26 98. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct by Defendants, Plaintiff

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

January 11, 2019

RE: Notice to Complainant

Dear Gina Mercieri:

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

January 11, 2019

RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

No response to DFEH is requested or required.

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

January 11, 2019

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Gina Mercieri,

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

Você também pode gostar