FILED

srlbc.!ndcdbEri
i

Counrvol L<rAnoebs
I
1 ATEXANDER I(RAXOW+ GUCK TTP
LA Michael S. Morrison (State Bar No. 205320)
ocl30 201? I

ult-l
2
Jessica S. Choi (state Bar No. 312795)
3 401 wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
Santa Monlca, California 90401
1*fl,**Y I

fll
4 T: 310 394 0E88 | F: 310 394 0811
i

E: [email protected] I [email protected]
5
qs 6
Atomeys for Plaintiff
BECKY STEENHOEK
7

I
*$1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
d
a
@
I
10
!N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - UNUMITED

c5
d
11
BECKY STEENHOEK, an individual, caseN8f, 6 S 1 4 91
6# 12

@ 't3
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT FOR DAIIAGES
v.
14 I. SEXUAL HAMSSiIEI{T - HOSTILE
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT WORK ENVIRONIf,EiIT (Cal. Got/l
15 lNC., a Delaware Corporation doing coae S izglo(i)); I

business in Califomia, NZK I

16 PRODUCTIONS, lNC., a California 2. SEX DISCRIilINAION (Cal. Govt
Corporation, ELAN GALE, an individual, Code $ 12940(a)); I
17 PETER SCALETTAR, an indivklual,
BENNETT GRAEBNER, an indivklual, 3. RETALIATION (Gal. Gov't Code
18 JACQUELINE MZ PEREZ, an individual, s 12e40ft));
CAITLIN STAPLETON, an individual, and
19 DOES 1-100, inclusive, 4. FAILURETOPREVEIT
HARASSITIENT, DISCRIMINATION,
20 Defendants. AND RETALIATIOI{ (Cel. Gov't I
code S r2eo(k));
21
INTENTIOI{AL INFLICTION OF
2. EIIOTIOilAL DISTRESS;

23 WRONGFUL TERIIINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
24

25 DEIiAND FOR JURY TRIAL

26

27

2g
 CIT/CaSE: ECjAl4gl
LEN/DEF':
tb
RECEIPT *r @1465980018
oAlE PAID! lo/$/t? 09:49 A}l
PAY E TT t4S.0O 310,
i10ai0ti{,1 REcEMD!
Cl@(! 1435.m
OASI: l{}.m
CIfl{GE, t0.m
CAfiD: aO.O0

)-
'r i I
i. ;l
'E. .. ,!'i2
..';'-. .1.1,.8
l, :,, .:i-t.E
,j-)

)i

i
i. i.a.\ ,

6t
 o
1 Plaintiff Becky Steenhoek ('steenhoek" or "Plaintiff') complains and alleges on

2 information and belief the following against Defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment lnc.,

3 NZK Produc'tions, lnc. ("NZK'), Elan Gale, Peter Scalettar, Bennett Graebner, Jacqueline

4 Naz Perez, Caitlin Stapleton, and Does 1-'100 (collectively, "Defendants"):

5 INTRODUCTPN

6 L This is a sexual harassrnent, discrimination, rctaliation, and wrongful

7 terminadon action brought on behalf of Plaintiff Becky Steenhoek ("Plaintiff' or

I 'sEenhoeld'), who worked on the produclion and filming of 'The Bachelofl television
9 series as well as "Bachelo/' related spin-ofrs and specials, induding "The Bachelorette,"

't0 'Bachelor in Paradise," and "Jade & Tanner's Wedding'; (collectively, "The Bachelo/

11 Series'). Plaintiff worked for NZK Productions, lnc. and Wamer Bros. Entertainment lnc.
12 (collectively, 'Corporate Defendants") on'The Bachelo/' Series ftom October 2014 until

13 April 2016, when she was wrongfully terminated for complaining abor.rt the hostile work

14 environment that Defendants created by pervasive and persistent sexual inquiries and

15 language directed at her by the show's Executi\re Producers and Cast Producers.

t6 Despite Sleenhoek's making clear that she was not interested in discussing her sexual
17 life with her supervisors and co-workers, lhe Executive and Cast Producers of the shoitr,

18 including Elan Gale, Peter Scalettar, Bennett Graebner, Jacqueline Naz Perez, and

19 Caillin Stapleton (collectively, 'lndividual Defendants'), asked Steenhook questions on a

20 daily basis such as:

21 . "How often do you masturbate?"

22 . "Do you own sex toyddildos?"

23 . "Have you ever had anal sex?"

24 . "Do you enjoy giving hand jobs?"

25 . "ls your vagina shaved? Do you have a landing strip?"

fi . "Has a man ever got your 'taco' [euphemism for vagina] talking?"

27

28
 1 2. The persistent serual inquiries directed at Steenhoek were not part of the

2 "creative' process of the shor but were instead intended to embarrass her because of

3 her sexual inexperience and conservative views about sex. Simply put, questioning

4 Steenhoek about her sex liE was entertainment for the Executive Prcducers. Afrer

5 Steenhoek protested against the unwanted sexual comments and personal inquirioS, lhe

6 Executive Producers subjected Steenhoek to retaliatory conduct, unjustly criticized her

7 work performance, tenninated her, and prevented her from being hired again on the

I serbs in her former position as a produclion assistant. Defendanb' conducf was exlrerne
9 and outrageous and caused Steenhoek significant economic and emotional harm. .

10

11 3. The Court has personaljurisdlction over Defendants because they are

12 resklents and/or doing business in the state of Califomia.

13 4. Venue is proper in this Court in accordance with Section 395(a) of the

14 California Code of CMI Procedure because Defendanb, or some of them, reside in.

15 andor are doing business ln Los Angeles County. Moreover, Defendants employed
16 Plaintifi in Los Angeles County and the harms occurred in Los Angelos County.

17 PARTIES

10 5. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Becky Steenhoek rrvas a resident of Los Angeles
19

20 6. Plaintifi is informed and believes and on this basis alleges that Defendant NZK

21 Productions, lnc. is a Califomia corporation doing business in Los Angeles County,

22 Galifomia.

23 7. Plaintifi is informed and believes and on this basis alleges that Defendant

24 Waner Bros. Entertainment lnc. is a Delaware corporation doing business in Los

25 Angeles County, Califomia.

26 8. Plaintiff is informed and belie\res and on this basis alhges that Defendant Elan
27 is a resident of Los Angeles County, Califomia.

2E
 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on this basis alleges that Defendant

Peter Sabttar is a res'nient of Los Angeles County, Califomia.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on this basis alleges that Defendant

Bennett Graebner is a residenl of Los Angeles County, Califomia.

1'1. Plaintiff is infomed and believes and on this basis alleges that Defendant

Jacqueline Naz Perez is a resklent of Los Angeles County, Califomia.

12. Plaintiff is infomed and believes and on this basis alleges that Defendant

Caitlin Stapleton is a resident of Los Angeles County, Califomia.

13. NZK and Warner Bros. Entertainment lnc. are joint employers of Plainffi. with

respect to NZK, it is the entity listed on Plaintiffs wage statements as her employer. NZK

1,' I is also the entity which issued the "Deal Memos" to Plaintiff which set forth some of the

nl terms and conditions of her employment on 'The Bachelor'' Series. NZK was also

,rl responsible for the payment of Plaintiffs wages and had the authority to discipline,

14 discharge, transfer, and promote Plaintifi - and in fac't did so.

15 14. wamer Bros. Entedainment lnc. is the ioint employer of Plaintiff because it
16 also had the right to control the means and manner of Plaintiffs work performance' The

17 lndivirjual Ebfendants who har6sed and defamed Phintiff are also employees of Wamer

18 Bros. Enterlainment lnc. These individuals supervised Plaintiffs work and dictated her
job.
19 work assignments during her employment. They also discharged her from her

20 Moreover,.wamer Bros. Entertainment lnc. provides employees on "The Bachelod

21 Series with its Poliry Prohibiting Discriminalion and Harassment, which contains the

22 policies and procedures of employment that are supposed to be enforced by supervisors

23 and managers of D,efendants concerning the very condud at issue in this case. The

24 Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment also diects ernployees like Plainffi to
- if
25 contac{ Wamer Bros. Entertainment Corporate Legal - Employrnent Law Departnnl

n employee on the show is the subject of or a witness to prohibited discrimination,

provides Workers
27 , and harassment. Warner Bros' Entertainment lnc. also

28
 ,|
Compensation/Accident & Healtlr Coverage insurance as well as insurance wilh respect

2 to use of company vehicles to employees on "The Baclelofl Sedes. Accordingly,

3 Defendants are the joint employers of Plaintiff.

4 15. Plair{iff further alleges that NZK and Wamer Bros. Entertainment lnc.

5 constitute an integrated enterprise based on their intenelation of operations, c,ommon

6 management, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership and financial

7 conhol. Additional facts supporting the conclusion that NZK and Warner Bros.

I Entertainment lnc. should be considered an integraled enterprise as well as joint

9 employers of Plaintiff include:

10 a. On February 24, 2017 , Plaintiff sent a letter to NZK, notiFying NZK of

1'l grievances against it and inviting NZK to negotiate. On March 2,2017,

12 Plaintiff sent notice under the Califomia Private Attomeys General Act of

13 2004 to sevenl entities, including NZK and Wamer Bros. Entertainment lnc.

14 Beginning in March 2017.Wa'rrl,. Bros. Entertainment lnc. participated in

15 pre-litigation discussions as Plaintiffs employer, held itself out to be

16 Plaintiffs employer, and did not deny that it was Plaintiffs employer.
'17 b. On March 24,20'17 , Mce President & Senior Employment Counsel of
18 Warner 8ros. Enterlainment lnc. provided Plaintiffs personnel file to

19 Plaintiffs counsel on behalf of NZK Productions, lnc.

20 c. ln or around March and Aptil2017, Warner Bros. Entertainment lnc.

21 investigated Plaintiff s employment-related claims.

2 d. On April 7 ,2017 ,Wa'net Bros. Entertainment lnc. refened Plaintiffs claims

23 to its outside counsel, which is representing l,,ZK Productions, lnc. in Los

24 Angeles Superior Court case number 8C643017, styled Connor E*eft v.

25 NZK Productions, /nc., filed Decmbr 7, 2016.

x e. NZKs Policy Prohibiting Discriminatkrn and Harassment states that NZK is
27 a part of the Wamer Bros. Enlertainment Group.

28
 o

f. Wamer Bros. Entertainment lnc. and NZK share the same entity address

and the same agent and address for Service of Process'

g, Warner Bros. Enterlainment lnc. and NZK share the same corporate

secretary.

5 h. Wamer Bros. Entertainment lnc' and NZK share human resouroes

6 departnent, as well as share employees who work on 'The Bachelod'

7 Series, as stiatedI above.

0 '16. The true names and capacities of defendants named as Does 1-100, inclusive,

I whether individual, cotporate, associate, or olherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff, who

10 therefore sues hese defendants by such fictilious names. Plaintiff will amend this

1l Complaint to show the true names and capacities of these defendants when they are

12 ascertained .

13 17 . At all times mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, lvere the agents,

11 representativ6, employees, sucoessors, assigns, Parents, subsidiaries, aff/or affliates,

15 each of the other, and at all times pertinent hereto were acting within the course and

16 scope of their authori$ as such agents, Epresentatives, employees, su@essors,

17 assigns, parents, substriaries and/or afiiliates. Ptaintiff also alleges that Defendants

IE were, at all tirnes relevant hereto, the alter egos of each other. \Mterever reference is

19 made to Defendants herein, it is intended to include all of the named Defendants as well

20 as the Doe defendants. Each of the fictitiously named Doe defiendants b responsible for
21 the occunenoes hetein alleged and pmximately caused Plaintiff damages (desoibed

22 belorv).

23 GENEML ALLEGATIONS AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACT]ON

21 18. Plaintiff Becky Steenhoek worked for NZK Produdions, lnc, on "The Bachelo/'

25 Series from Odober 2014 until Apdl 2016, when she was wrongfully teminated for

26 about the hostib worl environment created by the pelvasive and persistent

27 inquiries and language directed at her by the shou/s Executive Producers, Ehn

28
 1 Gale, Peter Scaletlar, and Bennett Graebner, as well as Cast Producers Jacqueline Na)

2 Perez and Caillin Stapleton.

3 19. Steenhoek began working as a Production Assistant ('P.A.') for "The

4 Bachelod' (Season 19) in the fall of 2014. Plaintiffs hard work and enthusiastic attitude.

5 made her a favorite of her co-workers and was noticed by the producers of the show.

6 20. Because of her excellent work performance, Steenhoek was asked to come

7 back to work as a PA. and promoted to Casting P.A. and Cast Handler for subsequent

8 seasorls ard series, including "The Bachelor" (Season 20), 'The Bachelorette" (Season

9 11), "Bachelor in Paradise" (Season 2), and "The Bachelo/'-related specials, such as
10 Jade and Tanne/s Wedding. Steenhoek grew accustomed to and relied on the
11 consistenl, year-round employment she had while working for MK.
12 2'1. ln her roles as a P.A. on the production side and Cast Handler, Steenhoek dir!
13 not witness or experience any offensive sexual comments or sexually explicit questions
14 directed at her, and she was allored to perform her job without inckJent. Phintifi
15 continued to thrive as a valued ernployee when she worked as a PA. on the production
't6 side and as a Cast Handler. ln March 2016, Gale and Scalettar asked Steenhoek to
17 interview for the Segment Producer position for lhe upcoming season of The
18 Bachelorette' (Season l2). Steenhoek was excited about the opportunity to join the
19 'inner circle' on the producing side of filming, and she accepted the position. As
20 Segment Producer, Steenhoek's main job responsibililies were as a lalent handler to the

2',1 lead, that season's Bachelorette Joelle ("JoJo") Fletcher. Steenhoek was paid a salary of

22 $1,400 a week, and her contract was for the 10-week length of the season. Steenhoek
23 worked anywhere ftom 15-18 hours per day, 7 days per week. Stapleton was
24 Steenhoek's dircc't supervisor in this role, and Stapleton reported direcUy to the Executive

25 Prcducels. While Steenhoek understood that sex was a theme on the shou\r, she was

n never iold that the job of segment producer wouH require her to share the intimate details
t=

27 & her own sexual life w'fih her supervisots or be forced to hear about her supervisors'
tD
28
13
 1 personal serual experiences in intimate detail.

2 22. Soon into the filming of "The Bachelorette' (Season 12), Sleenhoek witnessed

3 and experienced daily and pervasive discussions about sex. None of the sexual talk was

4 related to the production of the show or assisting in the creative process. lnstead, the

5 production team bragged - in graphic detail - about their personal, sexual conduct and

6 directed sexually charged, deeply personal inquires to Steenhoek despite her clear
7 indications that she uras uncomfortable discussing her personal sex life.

I 23.- From March 22 through April 9, 2016, the Execulive and Cast Producers
I engaged on a daily basis in sexually explicit conversations about their personal sex lives
'10 and also directed highly inappropriab questions to Steenhoek. Questions dirccted at
11 Steenhoek included:

12 . Do you masturbate? How often, and how?

13
. Do you orn sex toys or dildos?
11
. Have you ever sal under a shower faucet or touched yourself to masfurbate?
15
. What was your worsUbest sexual experionce?
16

'lf ' Have you performed or experienced oral or anal sex?

18 . Do you prefer oral or anal sex? Would you ever have anal sex?

19 . How do you prefer to give or receive hand jobs?

20 . Have you ever given someone a blow job?
21
. How do you shave your vagina? Do you have a landing strip? ls it completely
22 bare?

23 . lA/tpre is the craziest place you had sex?

21
' Do you like your man to "manscape'?
25
. Have you ever fondled balls before?
26
. Do any of the contestants get your 'traco talking'? (a reftrence lo Steenhoek's
27 vagina and whether the contestants gol her sexually excited).
28
t,
 ,] 24. On March 26, 2016, the Executive Producers, Stapleton, Steenhoek, and
2l Fletcher were eating dinner at the airport prior to learning their flight was delayed until the

following moming. The group began to discuss what they would have done with the extra

: time thal night. Graebner explained that he would have mashrrbated in bed with his wife,

5 describing in detail how he "jacked off' onto hb wife when they watched W at night.

6 Gale announced to th group that he would have 'trcked his gklfriend for two more
7 hours." The producerc.then continued to discuss masturbation and detailed how ofien
I each of them had sex.

I 25. Steenhoek was ofiended by the sexual inquiries directed al her and comments

10 about the Executive and Cast Producers' personal sex lives. She would not engage in

11 the conversations and was nevei told that the conversations were part Of the creative
12 proce6s. Steenhoek made clear that she was not interested in answering questions
13 about her private sexual life or hearing about the Sexual activities of her supervisors
11 which were unrelated b work or the shods creative pro@ss.

15 26. The more Steenhoek would get flustered and refuse to eng4e in the
16 conversation or answer these numerous sexually explicit questions, the more the
17 Executive Producers targeted her and pressured her to ansurcr the questions. The
18 Executive and Cast Producers enioyed teasing Steenhoek about her sexual life because

19 of her sexual inexperience and reluctance to discuss sex. When Steenhoek replied that
20 she did not want to answer the question or would remain silent in response to the
21 producers sexually exPlicit questions, the producers would comment, 'Becky is

22 blushing," "l'm sure we're making Becky uncornfortrable"' "l'm sure Beckys ears are
23 buming," and "Becky looks so honified." Steenhoek feh as if the visibb discornfort she

24 efiibited in response to these questions prompted the Executive Producers to delve

25 deeper into asking Steenhoek these extremely personal questions. The Executive
m Roducers would purposely escalate the intensity of their quesiioning and sexual
:P
27 &cussions in response to Steenhoek's apparent discomfort and refusal to respond to
;J)
28
i=6
r 9.
 a
1 the unwelcomed questioning.

2 27 . The sexually explicit inquiries that wele aimed at Steenhoek because of her

3 gender did not and could not further the shovt's creative expression. steenhoek was

4 viewed as an ouEider, not a team player, and ridiculed as judgmental and too sensitive

5 for refusing to participate in the 'locker room' talk of sexual operiences and preferences.

D 28. Steenhoek was aware that as a dating and relationship shorv' the subiect of

7 *, ,orid be discussed. However, Steenhoek was not a conteshnt or participant, and

I therefore there was no legitimate reason to constantly bombard her wiih sexual questions

I - especially when she had made clear that such questioning was offensive, unwelcomed,

10 and made her uncomforiable. Likewise, conversations about the Executive Producers'
11 and cast Producers, sex lives also were not show related. 'Ttp Bachelo/' has yet to
'12 have a shorv, for example, where anal sex was discussed as a topic. Ultimately, the fact

13 that the show touched on topics ]elated to dating and sex did not give the Executive and

14 Cast Producers free rein to harass Steenhoek in the name of the "creative process.'l

15 29. On April 9, 2016, Stapleton asked Steenhoek whether she "had ever bndled
't6 balls before.' At that point, Steenhoek put Stapleton on notice that such questions were

17 inappropriate and replierJ that she was over listening to and being constantly questioned

18 about her .private sex life. Steenhoek complained to Stapleton that the conversations
'19 made her feel uncomfortable and were causing her distress. Steenhoek's complaints to

20 her immediate supervisor ucre consistent with Defendants' sexral harassment policy for

21 making comphints about unwanted sexual comments.

22 30. The next day, Slapleton apologized about the conversation and toH

23 Steenhoek that she needed to understand that the Executive Producers \irere three
24 middle-aged men and that was what men talk about. Stapleton told Steenhoek, 'S!aQ
25 tre wav of the industrv and world that we wort in," so Steenhoek just had to accept it.
6 * 31. Onoe Sbenhoek cornphined to Staplelon, Steenhoek noticed a dramatic

27 ehange in the manner in which her supervisors interac,ted with her. Steenhoek was (1)
ri,
2g
lP
 o
1l shunned as an outsiier by the Executive Producers, (2) no longer allowed to sit in on

,l group meetings during which the producers would discuss the agenda or storylines they

,] wanted to push, (3) asked to step out of the room during show produdion and inteNieurs,

4 (4) uniusfly criticized by lhe producers, and (5) told she 'uould not be attending" the
5 filming of the shods elimination rose oeremony. This was humiliatirE and impac{ed her

6 ability to do her job. The producers also unfairly bhmed steenhoek for things completely

7 out of her control (e.g., room service taking too long to deliver food or dirty dishes being

8 hft by hotel staff in room). Each of these acts was discriminatory and retaliatory in nature
I and contributed to the hostile work environment experienced by Steenhoek'

10 32,onApdl17'2016'justoneweekafte]steenhoekcomplainedtostapleton,
11 Graebner informed Steenhoek that Steenhoek would not continue with the resl of the

12 filming of 'The Bachelorette." Graebner told steenhoek that she YUas not being enough

13 of a ',bitch,,, which was why she would not be continuing following the filming of the
11 hometown episodes. Graebner assured steenhoek that scalettar would be getting in
15 contac.t with sbenhoek about working as a P.A. in the office to preparc for "Badtelor in
16 Paradise" (Season 3) and Steenhoek would be paid the salary she received as a
17 segment Producer untit the end. of the season. steenhoek was shocked that she wouH
18 be terminated fuom her position merely because she protested against unwanted sexual

19 commenb and personal inquiries.

20 33. Steenhoek was never contacted by Scaleftar. \Mren Steenhoek attempted to

21 contact the prcducers, Steenhoek was told the executives were too busy to speak to her.

22 34. ln mid-May 2016, Steenhoek met with the shorrrirs Superuising Producer, Louis

23 Caric, and Stapbton. Stapleton and Caric toH Sieenhoek lhat 'her morals were getting

24 in the way of her work" and "her morals were a threat to the shortr.' Sieenhoek asked

25 why she was never spoken to about this purported issue before she complained and

26 she was terminabd. Steenhoek had asked mulliple times lhroughout the season

27 feedback from Stapleton and the Executive Producers regarding her job performane,

2A
 3
bul at no point did they ever inform her that she was not doing a good job or fullilling her
job responsibilities. Caric told Steenhoek that the Executive Producers don't have time to

il sit down and talk about problems with employees, which is why they terminated
Steenhoek.

35. Previous to this meeting, on March 28, 20'16, Coordinator Lisa Propeck

contaded Steenhoek to ask her to wolk as Cast Handler for the upcoming season of

"Bacheloi in paradise" (season 3). Steenhoek was interested in retuming to this position

because it meant she did not have to work in the inner circle where she was subjected to

the unwanted harassment and ilbgal retaliation. Propeck told Steenhoek that she would

receive a confirmation email once the dates were confirmed for filming. Steenhoek
r:l emailed Propeck lhat she had not heard back yet ab61lt the travel dates for "Bachelor in
,',I paradise." Propeck replied to steenhoek that steenhoek would have to talk to caric

13 about it.
,,14 36. At the rneeting with caric and strapleton in mid-llay, caric infonned

15 Steenhoek that they were not going to bring Steenhoek along that season for 'Bachelor

16 in Paradise.', caric told steenhoek he dkl not think she was a good fit uorking on the
17 producing side, but if she was interesled in the production side, they might have a

18 coordinator position available for her. Caric suggested that Steenhoek take some time to

19 conskler if she had an interest in purcuing something on the production side. caric
20 instructed her to inform him whether she did, because he would be willing to conskler

2'.1 talking with her about potential opportunilies at NZK or elsarhere

2. 97. on June , 2016, Coordinator olMa choudry contacted Steenhoek to work

27
,,The Bacheloi'-related w specials, 'The Men Tell AII and 'After the
23 as a P.A. on the

21 Final Rose.,, Steenhoek accepted the ofbr, but then she received a phone call from
25 choudry on July 1, 2016, and Chodry informed her that she would no longer be able to
m as a P.A. on the production side for the specials per the Executives Producers'
27

2A
 38. Chorvdry told Steenhoek that during a company meeting regarding the crew

br the specials, steenhoek's name carne up and the Executive Producerc cdticized

steenhoek. The Executive Producers stated that steenhoek was not to be hired under
any ciranmstances. chordry also shared that steenhoek was being discussed in a
negative light in.and around the 0ffrce. chowdry revealed to steenhoek that many of the

produc{ion staff were fighting fo steenhoek to be allo,ed to work because of her

excelbn[ work performance; however, the Executive Producers made il knouln that

Steenhoek would nol to be hired.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

10 I 39. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff caused to have filed a complaint of

Discrimination with the calilornia tlepartnent of Fair Employrnent and Housing CDFEH),

;l regarding all cf the facb alhjed in this Complaint for damages that eshblish a violation

13 | of the Fair Employment and Housing Ad (.'FEHA) on February 10,2017' The DFEH
,al issued a righLto-sue notice against the corporate Defendants on February ,0, 2017. On
,ui February '14,2017 and Marci 1,2017, Phintifi amended her DFEH charge to name and
16 include additional entities. on April 12, 2017, Plainffi amended her DFEH charge to

17 name and include the lndividual Defendants. The DFEH issued Plaintifi an amended
18 right to sue. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into. a tolling agreement, effective as of

19 Apil27,2o17, as to any claims related to Plaintiffs DFEH charge' l

20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21 SEXUAL HARASSIIIENT . HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

2. (Cal. Gov't Code S 129400)

23 BY Phintifi against All Defendants '

24 40. Plaintifi realleges and incorporates by reference, as through fully set forth at

25 length herein, all of the allegations contrained in lhe preceding paragraphs'

28 41. At all relevant times, Dehndants harassed Plaintifr on the basis of her sex
a hostile work environment for
27 ), in violation of the FEHA, and Defendants created
2g
 Plaintiff. As described above, the Executive Producers anid Cast Producers engaged on
a daily basis in sexually explicit conversations about their personal sex lives and direc'ted

highly inappropriate questions to Phintiff, purposely escalating the inbnsity of their

questioning and sexual discussions in response to Plaintiffs visible disconrfort and
refusal io respond to lhe unwelcomed questioning. Defendants shunned Plaintifi as an

outsi{er; no longer allowed'her to sit in on group meetings during which lhe producers

would diicuss the agenda or storylines they wanted to push: ask6d her to step out of the

:I room during sho^, produdion and interviews; unjustv criticized heI; told her that she

"would not be attending" the filming of the sho#s etimination rose ceremony; terminated

her; prevented her hiring on other series and specials, and other conduct according to
proof.

42. The harassment \Jvas sevele and pervasive, and a reasonable person in

Plaint'ffs circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile

and

abusive, as did Phintiff.

4g. Defendanb willfully and wlth reckless indifference violated califomia

Govemment code $$ 129OO et. seg. and harassed Plaintiff, as outlined above, based
on
,tl
17 her sex (female).

18 44. Defendants knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take
't9 immediate and appropriate conective ac'tion.

m 45. Economic damage. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of

and wages
21 Defendants, Plaintiff suffered and will suffer special damages for lost eamings
jurisdic'tional limits of this court.
22 in an amount not yet fully known, but in excess of the

23 46. Non.economic damages, As a direc{ and legal result of the conduc,t of

to
24 Defendants, Plaintiff sufiered general damages including, but not limited to, damag.e
hurt
25 her reputation, pain and sufiprirE, humiliation, embanassmer , mortification'

2A and emotional distress, all in an amount to be proved at trial'

27

2S
 . Exemplary and punitive damages. Defendants have engaged in despicable

l
47

conducl, exposing Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hadship, with the intent'ron to cause injury

to Plainliff, and with conscious disregard of her rights. Defendanls occupied a position of

kust which gave them power to damage Plaintiffs abili$ to earn a livelihood. Defendants

abused that position of trust by maliciously, ftaudulently, and oppressively discharging

Plaintiff and discriminating against her under the circumstances described here.

:l Defendants' conduct was canied out by and ratifred by one or mole of Defendanb'
managing agents. Plaintiff is trerefore entiued to punitive damages in an amount to be

:l proven at trial. Defendants' conduct in discriminating against Plaintiff was willful and

lol oppressive and done in conscious disregard of her righb'

48. Ratification. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that
Defendants were at all relevant times aware of the conducl of each of the other

Defendants and approved and ratified that conduct.

ul SECOND CAUSE OF ACNO]I

15 | sExDrscRmlNATlo}{
,.1 (Gal. Gov't Gode $ 129a0(a))

17 By Plaintifi against Colporate Defendants and Does 1-1oo

18 49. Plaintifi realleges and incorporates by refetence, as through fully set forth at

19 lengrth herein, all of the allegations contained in the preceding paraglaphs'

20 50. At all relevant times, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of
to
21 her sex (female), in violation of the FEI'IA, and Defendanb discharged and/or refused

Z2 hire Plaintifi on the basis of her sex (female). As described above, the Executi\re
23 Producers and cast Producers engaged on a daily basis in sexually e)Qlicit
questions
24 conversations about their personal sex lives and directed highly inappropriate

25 to Plaintiff, purposely escalating the intensity of their questioning and sexual discussions

fi response to Plainffis visible discorrfort and refusal to resPond to the unwelcomed

27 Defendantg shunned PIaiffi as an outsider; no longer allowed her to sit in

28

I
 1 on group meetings during which the producers would discuss the agenda or storylines
2 they wanted to push; asked her to step out of the room dudng shour production and

3 interviews; unjustly criticized her; told her hat she '\rvould not be attending" the filming of
4 the shoit's eliminalion rose oeremony; terminated hr; prevented her hiring on other
5 series and specials, and other conduct according to proof.

6 51. Economic damagea. As a dired and legal result of the conduct of

7 Defendairts, Plaintifi sufiered and will sufier spechl damages for lost earnings and wages

8 in an amount not yet fully known, but in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court,

9 52. Non-economic damages. As a direct and legal result of the condud of

10 Defendants, Plaintiff suffercd general damages including, but not limited to, damage to

11 her rcputation, pain and sufieilng, humiliation, embanassment, mortification, hurt

12 feelings, and emotional distress, all in an amount to be Proved at tial.

13 53. Exemphry and punitive damages. DeEndants have engaged in despicable

14 conduct, exposing Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, with lhe intention to cause iniury

15 to Plainffi, and with conscious disregard of ler rights. Defendants occupied a position of

16 tust which gave them power to damage Plaintiffs ability to eam a livelihood. Defendants
17 abused that position of trust by maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively discharging

18 Plainffi and discriminating against her under lhe circumstances described here.
19 Defendants' conduct was canied out by and ratified by one or more of Debndants'

20 managing agents. Plainlifi is therofore enti[ed to punitive damages in an amount to be

21 proven at trial. Defendants' conduct in discriminating against Plaintiff was willful and

22 oppressive and done in conscious disregad of her righb.

23 54.
Ratification. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that
24 Defendants urere at all relevant times aware of the conduct of each of the other

25 Debndants and approved and ratified thal conduc{.

26 t,u
t,
27 t:lt
.,:
2S
 THIRD CAUSE OF ACT]ON

RETAUANON
(Cal. Govt Code S 12940(h))

By Plaintiff against Corporate Defendanb and Does 1-100

.5 55. Plaintiff realleges and incorporales by reference, as through fully set forth at

6 length herein, all of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs.

7 56. Defendants' conduct violates Government Codes $ 12940(h). lt is an unhwtul

I employrnent practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee because he or

I she has complained about or opposed any praclices that are unlaMul under FEHA,
10 through informal or formal complaints alleging such unlawful conduct.

11 57 . Plaintifi engaged in protected activity, including but not limibd to complaining

'12 and opposing sexual harassrnent and discrimination io her supervisor and management.

13 58. Defendants subjeded Plainffi to adverse actions as a result of Plaintiffs

11 prolected adivity. As described above, Defendants shunned Plainffi as an outskJer; no

15 longer allowed her to sit in on group meetings during which the producers would discuss

16 the agenda or storylines they wanted to push; asked her to step out of the room during

17 show produdion and interviews; unjustly criticized he6 told her that she 'lvould not be

1E attending" the filming of the shouy's elimination rose ceremony; terminated her; prevented

19 her hiring on other series and specials, and other conduct according to prmf'

20 59. Economic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conducl of

21 Defendants, Plaintiff suffercd and will sufer special damages for lost eamings and wages

22 in an amount not yet fully known, but in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court

23 60. Non+conomlc damages. As a dhect and legal resuh ofthe conduct of

24 Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general damages including, but not limited to, damage to

25 her reputation, pain and sufiering, humiliation, embarassment, mortification, hurt

26 and emotional disbess, all in an amount to be proved at trial.

27 61. Exemplary and punitiye damages. Defendanb have engaged in despicable

28
 conduct, exposing Plaintifl to cruel and unjust hardship, with the intention to cause inlury

;l to Plainffi, and with conscious disregard of her rights. Defendants occupied a position of
trust which gave them power to damage Plaintiffs ability to eam a livelihood. Defendants

abused that position of trust by maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively discharging

Plaintifi and discriminating against her under the circumstances described here.

Defendants' conduc{ was canied out by and ratified by one or more of Defendants'

;l managing agents. Plaintifi is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be

proven at trial. Defendants' conduct in discriminating against Plaintiff was willful and

:l oppressive and done in conscious disregard of her rights.

Ratlltcation. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that
62.
Defendants were at all relevant times aware of the conduc.t of each of lhe other
rrl Defendants and approved and ratified that conduct.

131 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIO]'I

,.1 FAILUREToPREVENTHARASSmENT,DIscRII{l[ATlol{,ANDRETALIATIoN
15 (Cal. Gov't Code S r29'|(}(k))

16 By Plaintiff against Corporate Defendants and Does 1-100

17 63. Plaintifi realleges and incorporaEs by reference, as through fully set torth at

18 length herein, all of he allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs'

19 at. Govemment Code S 12940(k), provides that it b unlawful for an employer to

from
20 fail to take steps necessary to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
21 occurring.

2. 65. Defendants violated this law by failing to prevent harassment, discrimination'

to
23 and retaliation from occuning in that they failed to take all reasonable steps necessary

24 prevent disclimination, harassrnent' and retaliation in ils workplace'

25 66. Economic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of

and wages
26 Elefendants, Plaintiff suffered and will sufier special damages for lo6t eamings
of lhe jurisdictional limits of this Court
27 fran amount not yet fu1y known, but in excess
:D
28
l,
.-J
 67. Non-economic damages. As a direct and hgal result ofthe conduct of
ll Defendants, Plaint'ff suffered general damages including, but not limited to, damage to
her reputatbn, pain and suffering, hurniliation, embalrassment, mortification, hurt

feelings, and emotional distress, all in an amount to be proved at trial.

68. Exemplary and punitive damages. Defendants have engaged in despicable

conduct, exposing Phintifi to cruel and unjust hardshh, with the intention to cause inlury

to Plaintiif, and with conscious disregard of her rights. Defendants occupied a position of
trust which gave them power to damage Plaintifrs abili$ to earn a livelihood. Defendants

abused that position of trust by maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively discharging

Ptaintiff and discriminating against her under the circumstances described here.

Defendants' @nduct was carried out by ard ratified by one oI more of Defendants'

;rl managing agents. Plaintlff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be

13 I proyen at trial. Defendants' conduct in discriminating against Plaintiff was willful and

,al oppressive and done in conscious dbregard of her rights'

,t
l
69. Ratlfication. Plaintiff b informed and believes and on that basis alleges that
16 Defendants were at all relevant times aware of the conduct of each of the other

17 Defendants and approved and ratified that conduct.

18 F|FTH CAUSE OF ACnoN

19 TNTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EIIOTIONAL D]STRESS

20 By Plaintiff against All Defendants

21 70. Plainffi realleges and incorporates by reference, as through fully set forth at

22 length herein, all of the allegations contained in the p,eceding Paragraphs'

23 71. Defendanls' conduct described in this comphint was e)dreme and outrageous
emotional
24 with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing,

25 disbess to Plaintifi.

8 72. Plaintff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants'
pervasive
27 as described more fully above, including, but not limibd to, directing

28
 o
and persbtent sexual inquiries and language at her by the showts producers, was
'"1
intended to cause PlainUff emotional distress. Alternatively, Defendants acted with
reckless disregard of the probabili$ that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress, knowing

that Plaintiff was present when the conduct occurred.

73. Economic damages.. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of

Defendants, Plaintiff suffered and will sufier special damages for lost eamings and wages

I
in an am6unt rmt yet fully known, but in excess of tre jurisdictional limits of this Court.
1

,l 74. , Non-conomic damages. As a direcd and legal result of the conduct of

1 ,l Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general damages including, but not limited to, damage to
.,ol her ieputation, pain and suffering, humiliation, embanassment, mortification, hurt

,rl feelings, and emotional distress, all in an amount to be proved at trial'

12 TS.Exemplaryandpunitivedamages.Defendantshaveengagedindespicable
13 conduc{, exposing Plaintiff to cruel and uniust hardship, with the intention to cause injury

'14 to Pfaintiff, and witr conscious disregard of her righb. Defendanb occupied a position of
15 trust whk$ gave them power'to damage Plaintiffs ability to eam a livelihood. Defendants

16 abused that position of trust by maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively discharging

17 Plaintifi and discriminating against her under the circumstances described here.

18 Defendants' conduct was canied out by and ratilied by one or more of Defendants'

1g managing agents. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be

20 proven at tdal. Defendants' conduc.t in discriminating against Plaintiff was willful and

21 oppressive and done in conscious dbregard of her rights.

2 76.
Ratification. Plainffi is informed and believes and on lhat basis alleges that
23 Debndants were at all relevant times aware of the conduct of each of the other
24 Defendants and approred and ratified that conduct.

25 ilt
2A lil
.,,
27 t7l
28 t
i.)

,p
 S1XTH CAUSE OF ACTION

WRONGFULTERMNATION IN VIO1ITION OF PUBLIC POLICY

3 By Plaintifi against Corporate Defendants and DOES 1-100

4 77. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, as through fully set forth at

5 lenglh herein, all of the allegations contiained in the preceding paragmphs.

6 78. Plaintiffs termination was in violation of fundamental, basic, and substantial

7 public pilicies of the State of Califomia, including, but not limiled to, the FEI'IA and

8 federal fiUeVll.

I 79. Economic damagea. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of

10 Defendants, Plaintiff sufiered and will suffer special damages for lost eamings and wages

11 in an amount not yet fully known, but in excess of the jurisdictional limits ol this court.

12 80. Noncconomic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conducl of

13 Deiendants, Plaintiff suffered general damages including, but not limited to, damage to

14 her eputation, pain and sufiedng, humiliation, embanassrnent, moffication, hurt

15 feelings, and emotional distress, all in an amount to be proved at trial.

16 81. Eremplary and punitive damages. Defendants have engaged in despicable

17 conduc,t, exposing Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, with the intention to cause injury
'l
t8 to Phintiff, and with conscious disregard of her rights. Defendants occupied a position of

t9 trust wtrich gave them power to damage Plaintiffs ability to eam a livelihood. DeGndants

20 abused that posiiion of trust by maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively discharging

21 plaintiff and dbcriminating against her undbr the circumstances described here.

22 Defendants' conduct was canied out by and ratified by one or more of Debndants'

2l managing agents. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be

24 proven at trial. Defendants' conduct in discriminating against Plaintiff was willful and

25 oppressive and done in conscious disregard of her rights.

fr ut
27 rLt
io
28
 o
1 82. Ratification, Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that
2 Defendants were at all relevant limes aware of the conduct of each of the other

3 Defendants and approved and ratified that conduct.

5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment as follows:

7 1. For general and special damages, according to proof' with inlerest thereon
I
i
8 at the rnaximum legal rate;

9 2. For reasonable attomey's fees and costs, including expelt witness fees,

10 pursuant to California Governmenl Code Section 12965(b);

11 3. For statutory costs, including expert witness fees;

12 4. For injunc{ive relief;

13 5. For punitive damages;

14 6. For interest accrued to date;

15 7. For Plaintiffs costs of suit; and
16 8. For all other and further relief that the Court may deem iust and proper'
17

18 DATED: October24,2017 ALDGNDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP

19

20
Michael S. Morris6n
2l
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2. BECKY STEENHOEK
23

24

25

26

27

2S
 o

il Plaintifi requests a trial by jury on all issues so tiable.

DATED: Odobcr24,2017 ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP

,l
Michael S. Morrison
Jessie S. Choi
Attorneys for Phinffi
:l BECKY STEENHOEK
,,ol

't1l

nl
l
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
,p
27
,:,
2E