25 26 27 28 Camey R. Shegeri CShegerian She erianlaw.com SSOCIATES, ING. 358 Sint Monica Boulevard, Seite 70 Santa Monica, California 90401 Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770 Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER BLATCHFORD ian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER BLATCHFORD, Plaintiff, vs. FOX US PRODUCTIONS 11, INC., 21ST CENTURY FOX AMERICA,” INC. FOX ED ENISION, STUDIOS, INC., ‘TH CENTURY FOXTIMC CORPORATION, 21ST CENTURY FOX FIL! CORPORATION BILL INDORA, RI RUBEN ViPNARScUSA SCHINDELTEIM REN REVIN HALE and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: Ce Cerone COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS. OF AGE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (2) HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF AGE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (3) RETALIATION FOR COMPLAINING OF De AND/O! HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF AGE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (4) RETALIATION FOR TAK CFRA Li LEAVE IN VIOLATION OF (5) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5; (6) BetaGe, oF EXPRESS ORAL ‘T NOT TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE; (7) BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT NOT TO TERMINATE fone Aimee WITHOUT GOOD (8) PARAMOUR SEXUAL PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES26 27 28 HARASSMENT; 9) Boor TERMINATION OF [PLOYMENT IN VIOLATION or PUBLIC POLICY IN A , OF LABOR CODE (10) FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, iD RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (11) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Christopher Blatchford, alleges, on the basis of personal knowledge and/or information and belief: SUMMARY This is an action by plaintiff, Christopher Blatchford (“plaintiff or “Blatchford”), whose employment with defendants Fox US Productions 11, Inc. (“Fox 11”), 21st Century Fox America, Inc. (“Fox America”), Fox Television Studios, Inc. (“Fox TV”), Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“20th Century Fox”), 21st Century Fox Film Corporation (“21st Century Fox”) (collectively “Fox”) was wrongfully terminated, Plaintiff brings this action against defendants for economic, non-economic, compensatory and punitive damages, pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, pre-judgment! interest pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 3291, costs, and reasonable attomeys’ fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. PARTIES. 1. Plaintiff; Blatchford is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a! ae PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES2B 25 26 27 28 resident of the County of Los Angeles, California. 2. Defendants: Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox are, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint were, authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Los Angeles. Defendants’ place of business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the County of Los Angeles. Defendant Bill Mondora (“defendant” or “Mondora”) is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a supervisor with defendants. Defendant Mondora is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles, California, Defendant Ruben Villaescusa (“defendant” or “Villaescusa”) is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a supervisor with defendants. Defendant Villaescusa is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles, California. Defendant Ramona Schindelheim (“defendant” or “Schindelheim”) is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a supervisor with defendants. Defendant Schindelheim is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles, California. Defendant Kevin Hale (“defendant” or “Hale”) is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a supervisor with defendants. Defendant Hale is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles, California. 3. Doe defendants: Defendants Does 1 through 100 are sued under fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and| ‘on that basis alleges, that each of the defendants sued under fictitious names is in some manner responsible for the wrongs and damages alleged below, in so acting was functioning as the agent, servant, partner, and employee of the co-defendants, and in taking the actions mentioned below was acting within the course and scope of his or her authority as such agent, servant, partner, and employee, with the permission and consent] of the co-defendants. The named defendants and Doe defendants are sometimes hereafter! referred to, collectively and/or individually, as “defendants.” 4. Relationship of defendants: All defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and/or! a PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESabetted the discrimination, retaliation, and harassment alleged in this Complaint, which conduct is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i). All defendants were responsible for the events and damages alleged herein, including on the following bases: (a) defendants committed the acts alleged; (b) at all relevant times, one or more of the defendants was the agent or employee, and/or acted under the control or supervision of, one or more of the remaining defendants and, in doing the acts alleged, acted within the course and scope of such agency and employment and/or is or are otherwise liable for plaintiff's damages; (c) at all relevant times, there existed a unity of| ownership and interest between two or more of the defendants such that any individuality and separateness between those defendants has ceased, and defendants are the alter egos of one another. Defendants exercised domination and control over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of defendants does not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. Adherence to the fiction of the separate! existence of defendants would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and would sanction fraud and promote injustice. All actions of all defendants were taken by employees, supervisors, executives, officers, and directors during employment with all defendants, were taken on behalf of all defendants, and were engaged in, authorized, ratified, and approved of by all other defendants. 5. Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox both directly and indirectly employed plaintiff Blatchford, as defined under the Fair! Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) at Government Code section 12926(4). 6. In addition, defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox compelled, coerced, aided, and abetted the discrimination, which is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i). 7. Finally, at all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants acted as agents of all other defendants in committing the acts alleged herein. Ml Ml + PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES20 21 2 2B FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 8. Plaintiff's hiring: Plaintiff Blatchford, a 68-year-old man, was employed by Fox for 23 years, starting in or around April 1992. Blatchford worked as an Investigative and General Assignment News Reporter. 9. Plaintiff's job performance: At all times, Blatchford performed his job duties in an exemplary manner. In fact, Blatchford is considered one the most decorated, recognized, and productive news reporters ever employed at Fox. 10. Plaintiff's protected status and activity: a. Plaintiff Blatchford is over the age of 40. b. Blatchford took a protected leave under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) for his wife’s serious health condition. 11. Defendants’ adverse employment actions and behavior: a. During his early employment, Blatchford was reporting approximately 30- 40 lengthy “sweeps” pieces (“sweeps”) per year, with each lasting approximately four to eight minutes. Blatchford’s sweeps typically attained high ratings for the station. b. Starting in 2000, defendants began to hire younger managers and producers at Fox and suddenly Blatchford’s special projects were no longer aired as they had been in the past. c. In or around 2011, Kingsley Smith became the News Director at Fox. Smith drastically cut station resources, leaving reporters and management with less staff and assistance to run the station. Addition, the older, higher paid employees were replaced by younger employees who were cheaper. Smith repeatedly gave speeches emphasizing! ‘how staff was to, “do more with less.” d. Ramona Schindelheim replaced the previous managing editor when he retired at the age of 55. In fact, as soon as the second week of her assuming the role of Managing Editor, Schindelheim criticized Blatchford stating, “stop living in the past. You need to get up to speed with the times.” Mt 5 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESm4 25 26 27 28 e. In or around 2012, Blatchford was able to do a few sweeps that produced good ratings and publicity, including a Golden Mike for his reporting on the Mexican Mafia. Nonetheless, Schindelheim banned Blatchford from doing any more special projects during much of 2013 and 2014 and told the special reports producer that no reporter can spend longer than two days on any project. Blatchford was the only employee singled out in this manner and at the time was one of very few employees that were his age. £ In or around 2013, Blatchford complained to Smith, requesting to work on sweeps pieces and explaining that Schindelheim was marginalizing and belittling him and treating him differently than the younger employees. Smith completely ignored Blatchford. Despite this, Blatchford was one of only two Fox reporters to receive an Emmy nomination in 2013, and the only employee at Fox to receive an Emmy nomination in 2014. Blactford’s complaints of age biases were ignored. g. Smith engaged in unethical and improper behavior during his tenure as Director. From the start of his employment, Smith had an ongoing sexual affair with a| legal analyst Robin Sax. It seemed, Smith’s energy at the station was primarily devoted to advancing her career — at the expense of more qualified, talented, and senior reporters. In fact, Sax was on every show and openly favored at the newsroom, greatly decreasing newsroom morale. This also affected Blachtford’s career as he was disfavored and lost opportunities as a result of this affair. h. The Union Steward was Tony Valdez, one of the last reporters left over the age of 60, Cuda teamed up with Liz Habib and a few others and advanced a petition get tid of Valdez as a union steward and to de-certify the union. Almost all union ‘employees were over the age of 40. Clearly, such measures were taken to push older employees out of Fox. i. Tellingly, Blatchford and other older employees who stood up for the union during the meeting were thereafter faced with retaliation. Blatchford was among the reporters who had his role minimalized after standing up for Valdez. and the union. In se PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES25 26 27 28 contrast, the freelancers, who were primarily younger employees, who supported decertifying the union were rewarded with staff positions. Blatchford again complained to Smith regarding the retaliation, Smith ignored Blatchford and failed to address any of his complaints. j. Smith’s unethical and illegal behavior was not exclusive to his sexual affair or attempts to get rid of the union. Smith also terminated a skilled and hardworking reporter, Al Naipo, simply on the basis of his race. This is evidenced in that Blatchford was told by Carlos Amezcua that Smith stated, “it’s a white man’s world and you better get used to it.” Additionally, Smith terminated a female employee after she returned from medical leave. Prior to the employee going out on leave, Smith assured her she would have a job when she returned, On another occasion, Smith harshly told another female employee he terminated, “you make my eyes bleed.” Blatchford was made aware of all of these instances while employed. k. In or around late 2013, desperate to get the attention of upper-level management, Blatchford wrote an anonymous letter to the Fox Board of Directors regarding Smith’s affair, his various unethical behavior and its effect on the newsroom. His complaints were ignored. 12. Defendants’ other adverse employment actions and behavior: a. In or around April 2014, Bill Mondora became the new News Director. Realizing the desperate state of management at Fox, Blatchford feared that the hostile treatment would only continue. In response, Blatchford met with Mondora and expressed that he felt there was a “mid-management crisis” at Fox. b. On or around May 27, 2014, Mondora approached Blatchford with a three- month contract and no raise, which was unusual because he typically received three year; contracts, Importantly, Blatchford had received only one 2% raise in the last four years, during the same period in which he was forced to take a 10% pay cut. Mondora assured Blatchford that they would meet in three months. Approximately two months passed before Mondora presented Blatchford with a postdated contract from September 1, 2014 re PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES26 27 28 to February 28, 2015, and insisted that he sign it. c. To Blatchford, work environment only became more hostile. In or around late 2014 and early 2015, Blatchford met with Mondora on multiple occasions and complained that he felt he was being phased out and treated differently because of his age. d. In or around September 2014, Blatchford was placed in an unreasonable situation of which he expressed was unrealistic, Executive Producer Haley Hearst called Blatchford and screaming over the telephone at Blatchford, stating, “do your job,” “you have to do it” and unjustifiably stating that he was “insubordinate.” Blatchford was shocked and offended by Hearst’s harassing comments. e. On or around June 22, 2015, Villaescusa stated he needed to talk to Blatchford in his office. Villaescusa launched into an accusatory and degrading dialogue, falsely claiming that Blatchford had not done his work and did not inform Schindetheim regarding his progress. f, Blatchford went to see Mondora after the incident. Mondora then stated that he did not give Blatchford another contract so that he “could leave on his own terms.” Which only reinforced Blatchford’s suspicion that he was being setup to be fired or was being pushed out. 13. Defendants’ termination of plaintiff’s employment: a. Ultimately, Blatchford leamed that his wife was diagnosed with a serious medical condition. Blatchford requested to go on a leave of absence for his wife’s serious medical condition. On or around August 1, 2015, Blatchford started his CFRA leave. While on CFRA leave, Blatchford visited the doctor for his own health-related! reasons. Defendant’s mistreatment of Blatchford, including harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against Blatchford on the basis of his age and good faith complaints regarding such treatment, adversely affected Blatchford’s health and contributed to his developing a serious medical condition. Blatchford’s physician wamed that his condition would not improve if he returned to work at the hostile work environment at & PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.28 6 27 28 Fox KTTV. Thus, on or around February 1, 2016, after approximately 23 years of award-winning performance, Blatchford’s employment was constructively terminated. b. Ina short period of five years, Fox terminated two reporters, a weatherman, and at least three anchormen/women who were all over the age of 50. Lastly, a middle- management executive in recent months referred to Fox KTTV’s senior reporter, 70- year-old Valdez, as “an angry old man.” 14. Economie damages: As a consequence of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has suffered and will suffer harm, including lost past and future income and employment benefits, damage to his career, and lost wages, overtime, unpaid expenses, and penalties, as well as interest on unpaid wages at the legal rate from and after each payday on which those wages should have been paid, in a sum to be proven at trial. 15. Non-economic damages: As a consequence of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has suffered and will suffer psychological and emotional distress, humiliation, and mental and physical pain and anguish, in a sum to be proven at trial. 16. Punitive damages: Defendants’ conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294, so as to entitle plaintiff to an award of| ‘exemplary/punitive damages. a. Malice: Defendants’ conduct was committed with malice within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294, including that (a) defendants acted with intent to cause injury to plaintiff and/or acted with reckless disregard for plaintiff's injury, including by terminating plaintiff's employment and/or taking other adverse job action against plaintiff because of plaintifi’s age, disability, medical leave, race, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy, gender, and/or good faith complaints, and/or (b) defendants’ conduct was despicable and committed in willful and conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights, health, and safety, including plaintiffs right to be free of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, abuse of the requirements of accommodation and engaging in the interactive process, and wrongful employment termination. b. Oppression: In addition, and/or alternatively, defendants’ conduct was' 9 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:25 26 27 28 committed with oppression within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294, including that defendants’ actions against plaintiff because of plaintiff's age, disability, medical leave, race, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy, gender, and/or good faith complaints was “despicable” and subjected plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, in knowing disregard of plaintiff's rights to a work place free of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, abuse of the requirements of accommodation and engaging in the interactive process, and wrongful employment termination. c. Fraud: In addition, and/or alternatively, defendants’ conduct, as alleged, was fraudulent within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294, including that defendants asserted false (pretextual) grounds for terminating plaintiff's employment and/or other adverse job actions, thereby to cause plaintiff hardship and deprive plaintiff of legal rights. 17. Attorneys’ fees: Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. 18. Exhaustion of administrative remedies: Prior to filing this action, plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a timely administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and receiving a DFEH right-to-sue letter. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of FEHA (Government Code § 12900, et seq.) (Age Discrimination) —Against Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox, and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 19. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 20. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute requires -10- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES4 25 26 27 defendants to refrain from discriminating against any employee because he or she is more than 40 years old. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to- sue letter. 21. During plaintiff's employment with defendants, defendants, through their su- pervisors, engaged in actions that had a negative impact on the treatment of employees who were more than 40 years old. Specifically, defendants discharged older employees with greater frequency than younger employees, hired fewer employees who were older| than 40, and gave better jobs and benefits to younger employees. 22. During plaintiff's employment with defendants, defendants intentionally en- gaged in age discrimination by discharging employees over the age of 40 with greater frequency than other employees. During plaintiff's employment with defendants, defen- dants had a pattern and practice of discriminating against employees who were more than 40 years old. 23. Plaintiff was a qualified employee at the time of the termination of his employment, he was more than 40 years old, and he was replaced by an employee younger than 40, raising an inference of discrimination, 24. Defendants, through their managers and supervisors, made a number of com- ‘ments to and about plaintiff that exhibited ageist motivations, intentions, and conscious- ness. Plaintiff believes and on that basis alleges that defendants’ real motivation was to discharge him because of his age. 25. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, violated FEHA, and defendants committed unlawful employment practices, including by the following, separate bases for liability: a. Discharging, barring, refusing to transfer, retain, hire, select, and/or employ, and/or otherwise discriminating against plaintiff, in whole or in part on the basis of| plaintiff's age and/or other protected characteristics, in violation of Government Code section 12940(a); b. Harassing plaintiff and/or creating a hostile work environment, in whole or “Ue PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESin part on the basis of plaintiff's age and/or other protected characteristics, in violation of Government Code section 12940(j); c. Failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment based on age and/or other protected characteristics, in violation of Government Code section 12940(k); d. Retaliating against plaintiff for seeking to exercise rights guaranteed under| FEHA and/or opposing defendants’ failure to provide such rights, in violation of Gov- ernment Code section 12940(h). 26. On the basis of the above, plaintiff believes and alleges that his age was a substantial motivating factor in defendants’ termination of his employment. 27. Asa proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi- nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits. 28. Asa proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi- nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo- tional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 29. Defendants’ discrimination was done intentionally, in a malicious, fraudulent, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages. 30. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount according to proof. Ml Ui Mit Ml 2122 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES20 au 2 2B SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of FEHA (Government Code § 12900, ef seq.) (Age Harassment)—Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 31. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 32. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, violated FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seg., and defendants committed unlawful employment practices, including by the following, separate bases for liability: a. Harassing plaintiff and/or creating a hostile work environment, in whole or in part on the basis of plaintifi’s age and/or other protected characteristics, in violation of| Government Code section 12940(j); b. Failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on age, in violation of Government Code section 12940(k). 33. Asa proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi- nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits. 34, As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harass- ‘ment of plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 35. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), plaintiff is entitled to recover reason- able attorneys’ fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount according to proof.proof. 36. Defendants’ misconduct was committed intentionally, in a malicious, fraudulent, despicable, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages against defendants. Bae PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESTHIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of FEHA (Government Code § 12900, et seq.) (Retaliation for Complaining of Age Discrimination and/or Harassment)—Against Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox, and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 37. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 36 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 38. Plaintiff's age and/or other characteristics protected by FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seq., were motivating factors in defendants’ decision to terminate plaintiff's employment, not to retain, hire, or otherwise employ plaintiff in any position, and/or to take other adverse job actions against plaintiff. 39. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, violated FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et the following, separate bases for liability: q., and defendants committed unlawful employment practices, including by a. Discharging, barring, refusing to transfer, retain, hire, select, and/or employ, and/or otherwise discriminating against plaintiff, in whole or in part on the basis of| plaintiff's age and/or other protected characteristics, in violation of Government Code section 12940(a); b. Harassing plaintiff and/or creating a hostile work environment, in whole or| in part on the basis of plaintiff's age and/or other protected characteristics, in violation of| Government Code section 12940()); c. Failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on age, in violation of Government Code section 12940(k); 4. Retaliating against plaintiff for seeking to exercise rights guaranteed under FEHA and/or opposing defendants’ failure to provide such rights, including rights of| reasonable accommodation, rights of interactive process, leave rights, and/or the right to be free of discrimination, in violation of Government Code section 12940(h). Bra PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES2B 24 28 26 27 28 40. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia- tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of | earnings and other employment benefits. 41. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia- tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 42. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attomeys’ fees. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), plaintiff is entitled to recover reason-able attorneys’ fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount according to proof. 43. Defendants’ misconduct was committed intentionally, in a malicious, fraudulent, despicable, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages against defendants. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of FEHA (Government Code § 12900, et seq.) (Retaliation for Taking CFRA Leave)—Against Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 2ist Century Fox, and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 44, The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 45, Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, violated FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seq., and defendants committed unlawful employment practices, including by the following, separate bases for liability: a. Discharging, barring, refusing to transfer, retain, hire, select, and/or employ, and/or otherwise discriminating against plaintiff, in whole or in part on the basis of| plaintiff's taking medical leave, in violation of Government Code section 12940(a); a PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES26 27 28 b. Retaliating against plaintiff for seeking to exercise rights guaranteed under FEHA and/or opposing defendants’ failure to provide such rights, including rights of| reasonable accommodation, rights of interactive process, leave rights, and/or the right to be free of discrimination, in violation of Government Code section 12940(h). 46. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia- tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of | earnings and other employment benefits. 47. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia- tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 48. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount according to’ proof, 49. Defendants’ misconduct was committed intentionally, in a malicious, fraudulent despicable, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages against defendants. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of Labor Code § 1102.5, et seq.—Against Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox, and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 50. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 49 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 51. Atall relevant times, Labor Code section 1102.5 was in effect and was binding on defendants. This statute prohibits defendants from retaliating against any employee, including plaintiff, for raising complaints of illegality. oe PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES52. Plaintiff raised complaints of illegality while he worked for defendants, and defendants retaliated against him by discriminating against him, harassing him, and taking adverse employment actions, including employment termination, against him. 53. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional viola- tions of Labor Code section 1102.5, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humili- ation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 54, As a result of defendants’ adverse employment actions against plaintiff, plain- tiff has suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof. 55. Defendants’ misconduct was committed intentionally, in a malicious, fraudulent, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages against defendants. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Express Oral Contract Not to Terminate Employment without Good Cause)—Against Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox, and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 56. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 55 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 57. Defendants, through their agents, entered an oral agreement not to terminate plaintiff's employment except for good cause. Plaintiff and defendants, through their supervisors, made mutual promises of consideration pursuant to this oral agreement. Plaintiff performed all duties required of him under the agreement by performing his job in an exemplary manner. 58, Defendants and their managers and supervisors terminated plaintiff's employ- ment without good cause, violating the express oral contract they had with him. 59. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful breach of the express oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause, plaintiff has suffered and continues to at ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:suffer damages, including losses of earnings and benefits, in a sum according to proof. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Not to Terminate Employment without Good Cause (Marketing West, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603; Civil Code § 1622)—Against Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox, and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 60. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through $9 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 61. On the basis of oral assurances of continued employed given to plaintiff by defendants’ supervisors, the length of plaintiff's employment with defendants, defen- dants’ actual practice of terminating employment only for cause, and the industry stan- dard for the business defendants engaged in of terminating employment only for cause, plaintiff and defendants shared the actual understanding that plaintiff's employment could and would be terminated only for cause. This shared understanding resulted in an implied contract requiring that defendants have good cause to terminate plaintiff's em- ployment. 62. Defendants, through their agents, entered an express oral agreement not to terminate plaintiff's employment except for good cause. Defendants represented to plaintiff that his employment would not be terminated unless his job performance were unsatisfactory. Plaintiff decided to work for defendants on the basis of these promises and agreed to work for defendants on the basis of these promises. Plaintiff performed all of the duties required of him under this agreement during his employment. 63. Defendants and their managers and supervisors terminated plaintiff's employ- ‘ment without good cause, violating the implied-in-fact and/or express contract they had with him. “18. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES25 26 27 28 64, As a proximate result of defendants’ willfal breach of the implied-in-fact con- tract not to terminate employment without good cause, plaintiff has suffered and con- tinues to suffer damages, including losses of earnings and benefits, in a sum according to proof. 65. Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees for lost wages under this cause of action under Labor Code section 218.6. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Paramour Sexual Harassment Against Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox, and Does 1 to 100 66, The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 65 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 67. Defendants showed clear preference for employees that did not reject sexual advances from supervisors. 68. Employees that did not reject sexual advances from supervisors received tangible, economically valuable employment benefits denied other employees, including promotions, raises, and continued employment. 69. Plaintiff rebuffed sexual advances from Defendants. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earings and other employment benefits. 70. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi- nation against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo- tional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 71. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will 19. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESseek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known. 72. Defendants’ misconduct was committed intentionally, in a malicious, fraudulent, oppressive manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against ‘Defendants. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, FEHA, Government Code § 12900, et seqg.—Against Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox, and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 73, The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 72 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 74, Defendants terminated plaintiff's employment in violation of various funda- mental public policies underlying both state and federal laws. Specifically, plaintiff's employment was terminated in part because of plaintiffs protected status (age, disability, CFRA leave, race, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy, and/or gender) and because plaintiff in protected activities. These actions were in violation of FEHA and the California Constitution and California Labor Code section 1102.5. 75. As a proximate result of defendants’ wrongful termination of plaintiff's em- ployment in violation of fundamental public policies, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 76. As a result of defendants’ wrongful termination of plaintiff's employment, plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof. 71. Defendants’ wrongful termination of plaintiff's employment was done inten- tionally, in a malicious, fraudulent, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages. -20- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESau 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 78. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, et seq., plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount according to proof. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of FEHA (Government Code § 12940(k) (Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation) — Against Defendants Fox 11, Fox America, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox, and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 79. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 78 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 80. Atall times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940(k), was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute states that it is an unlawful employment practice in California for an employer “to fail to take all rea- sonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” Prior to filing the instant Complaint, plaintiff filed a timely administrative charge with the DFEH and received a right-to-sue letter. 81. During the course of plaintiff's employment, defendants failed to prevent their ‘employees from engaging in intentional actions that resulted in plaintiff's being treated less favorably because of plaintiff's protected status (i.e., his age, disability, medical leave, race, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy, and/or gender). During the course of| plaintiff's employment, defendants failed to prevent their employees from engaging in unjustified employment practices against employees in such protected classes. During the course of plaintiff's employment, defendants failed to prevent a pattern and practice by their employees of intentional discrimination and harassment on the bases of age, disability, medical leave, race, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy, gender, and/or other protected statuses or protected activities. ate PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES20 au 2 23 24 25 82. Plaintiff believes and on that basis alleges that his age, disability, medical leave, race, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy, gender, and/or other protected status and/or protected activity were substantial motivating factors in defendants’ employees’ discrimination and retaliation against him. 83. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional miscon- duct, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits. 84. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional miscon- duct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 85. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount according to| proof. 86. Defendants’ misconduct was committed intentionally, in a malicious, fraudulent, despicable, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages against defendants. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 87. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 86 are re-alleged and incorpo- rated herein by reference. 88. Defendants’ discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory actions against plaintiff constituted severe and outrageous misconduct and caused plaintiff extreme emotional distress. 89. Defendants were aware that treating plaintiff in the manner alleged above, including depriving plaintiff of his livelihood while he was suffering from an actual, 2. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES20 2 2 23 24 perceived, and/or history of disability, would devastate plaintiff and cause plaintift| extreme hardship. 90. As a proximate result of defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits as a result of being emotionally distressed. 91. As a proximate result of defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff] has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 92. Defendants’ misconduct was committed intentionally, in a malicious, fraudulent, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages. PRAYER WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Christopher Blatchford, prays for judgment against defendants as follows: 1. For general and special damages according to proof; For exemplary damages, according to proof; For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages awarded; |. For reasonable attorneys’ fees; . For costs of suit incurred; awrpwn . For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. ADDITIONALLY, plaintiff, Christopher Blatchford, demands trial of this matter’ by jury. The amount demanded exceeds $25,000.00 (Government Code § 72055). Mi ul Soke PLAINTIFI’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES28 26 27 28 Dated: September 14, 2016 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. By: y Cora LG Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER BLATCHFORD 24 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES