Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1 " I
~\J
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY UP SAN MATEO
9
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
BY fAX
11
NANCY ALPERIN, KENDRA KELLER, ) Case :No.: CIV 444886
12 SANDRA MARCHESE, as individuals, )
) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
13 Plaintiffs, ) DAMAGES AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR:
) 1. SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION;
14 vs. ) 2. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
) E~/IOTIONAL DISTRESS;
15 ) 3. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
16,
THE GORILLA FOUNDATION,
a California Corporation; and
)
)
)
RETALIATION FOR REPORTING
HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS
TO CALIOSHA;
FRANCINE PATTERSON, an individual, 4. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME;
j
17
5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS;
18 Defendants. 6. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON
) DISCHARGE;
19 I ) 7. MISREPRESENTATION;
) 8. NEGLIGENCE; and
20 ). 9. FRAUD - INTENTIONAL
) MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT
21 )
)
22 ~ DEMAND FOR WRY TRIAL
23 -----------------------------
24 INTRODUCTION
25
1. Plaintiffs NANCY ALPERIN ("ALPERIN"), KENDRA KELLE
26
("KELLER") and SANDRA MARCHESE ("MARCHESE") (collectively referred to herein
27
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
28 ALPERIN & KELLER v. THE GORILLA FOUNDATION & PATTERSON
Page 1 of24
11007132.\il- 123/200512:16:06 PM
II
collectively referred to herdn· il.'; "'DEFENDANTS"). During all relevant times, PATTERSON
\vas the Pres.ident and Director of Re::;entch H)l' GORILLA FOUNDATION. During aU relevan
times; GORILLA FOUNDATION h()u~:iI±d Koko: lOlnadult female gorm~\ CKOKO"). KOKO L
<5
7
. publidy kno\vn hy GORI.LLA FOUNDATION'S claims that she can cOD1Immicate \",ith human.:
H ALPERIN and KELLER remove their clothing and show KOKO their breasts. PATTERSON
15 . pressured ALPERIN and KELLER to perform such acts, regularly and consistently, u11d on a
19 ' 80 filthy and dangerous that ALPERIN and K.ELLER were compelled to nQtjfyCalif(mi.i~
25 after their regular eight-hour sbift W·lthOllt overtime pay. DEFENDANTS required ALPERIN
.... ,-..
..::!n
and KELLER to work through theil' rest breaks, After DEFENDANTS terminated ALPERIN
1
,-
') and KELLER, DEFENDANTS did not pay ALPERIN and KELLER their f~lH \vagcs.
;1 I San Mateo County, ALPERIN had to quit her job in Southern CalinJrnia and move to Norlhem
5 I' . .
jl California, In order for !1/[ARCHESEto accept DEFENDANTS' ot1'er
6, . ..
of employment in San
7 I Mateo County, IvlARC.I::TESE. took a leave of absence from h.er job in \~lashington State.,
.TIJRISDICTION
6, Thb~· Court is the propel' court in tbis mutter, This. action is properly file
14
in the City 0 f Red\yood City, County of San Ivlateo, State of C~Ji tomia, in the Hall ofJ ustice and
15
16 Records, South em Branch. DEFENDANTS' obligations and liabUity arise in .the eWes o.
, .
IT Woodside and Redwood City, Coumy of San Ivlateo, State of Cfl.lifornia~ Further.
DEFE1\q,")ANTS .maintain their business ()ffices and transact business ·within the City 0
Redwood City, C01.1111y of SM\\·1ateo, State of California. DEFEND.Al"lTS also maintain thei
20
rese~trch offices and transact business \vithin in the City of Woodside, COl.mty of San Tv1ateo
State of CalIfornia. All work performed for DEFENDANTS by PLAINTIFFS \-vas performed 1.
23 eilher the business offices in the City of Rcd\vood City, County of San Mateo, State oCCaliforni~
24
or the research offices in lhe City of Woodsjde, County of San rvfaleo, State ofCalit<)fni(1,
2.5
//
26
')~
~I
II
COlVIPLAINT FOR DA.MAGES
28 ALPERIN & RELLER v, TUE GORILLA FOU.NOATJO!V & PATTERS01V
Pag~:} of24
PARTIES
1
Plaintiffs
through on or about July 21, 2004. \Vhile employed by DEFENDANTS, ALPERIN held til
. 6
'I
posi lion of Research AssistantlGorilla Caregiver.
9 . DEFENDANTS. KELLER \vas employed by DEFENDANTS from on or about lvla.rch 23, 20041
10
through on or about July 18, 2004. \Vhile employed by DEFENDi\NT, KELLER held the
13
9, At aU relevant times, KELLER I.md ALPERIN \vcrc "'emplo)iees"· of
DEFENDlI.NTS, clS 'de tined in Section 2(F) .ofIndustrial \Velfare Commission, \VngeOrder No.
15
5-2001.
16 . ,
10. PlainUff SANDRA MARCHESE is a former exempt employee of
17
DEFENDANTS. r..,fARCHESE \vasemployed by DEFENDANTS from on or about July 2003
1'3 through April 2004. \Vhilc employed by DEFENDANT, i'vfAItCHESE heJd the position 0
22 Defendants
23 11. During flU relevant times, GORILLA fOUNDATION has done busincs."
24
. and continues to do business in the County of San Mateo~ State of Caljfomi~, Dc"fcndan
GORILLA FOUNDATION committed the acts alleged in this Aii'lencied Complaint in 1h'
26
27
County of San Mateo, State ofCalifl)rnia.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
28 ALPERhV <~KELLER v. THE GOIULLA FOlJNDAUON & PATTERSOiV
Page" of24
12. Dming all rdevant 11111<::$, GORILLA FOUNDATION "vas a c:orpol'atio
registered in the St(lte of Callfomia. GORJLLAFOUNDA TION is the' home of nyO gorillas,
staff members to pert1]nn work a~ gorilla caregivers, adrninhLrative personnel and researd.
personnel.
7
13. During aU relevant tim.es, GOPJLLA FOUNDATION has been,tim'
(';Gov~ Code"), California Labor Code § 6304, and Section 2(H) of Industria! \VeHkt
10
Conmrission, Wage OrclerNo.5-200L
11
14. Dw'ing nll rd.evam times, PATTERSON has been tbePresident ~m;
12
13 Director of Research for GORIl..LA FOUNDATION. During all relevant times, PATl'ERSON
has acted as an agent, directly or indireclly, of GORILLA FOUNDATiON, aJ1Ct has been LUl
is
ernployer in tbe State of Ca.1ifornia as defined in the California Govemlnent Code- § 12926(d);
16 . ·1
CCLlifornia Labor Code § 6304, {I.nd Section 2{I-J) ofIndustriril \VelJ'are Conullissron, Wage.Ordell
17
No. 5-2001.
18
l. .r:;.'
FACTS
20
21
15. On or abcnn !vtarch 20, 2004, DEFENDANTS intervie\'ved ALI'ERIN fod
23 DEFENDANTS \-vere u\vtlre Hmt ALPERIN lived in Southern Califomia. When DEFENDANTS
24
. offered ALPERIN ernployrne.nt, DEFENDANTS vtel'e alvare that in order to accept the position
25 '
ALPERIN \vould be required to move from ber Southern Cali fomia home.
26
27
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
"IT.-PERIN & KELLER ).i. 111£ GORILLA FOViVDl'lTfON &PATl1:RSON
Page 5 {If24
j
1 I! 16. . - ..
DEFENDANTS \NilH\lllv int1uenced ane! persuaded ALPERIN to move dI
:2 Isubstantial distance \vithin the Stale of Caii foruia for the purpose oi"..vol'king at DEFENDANTS 'I
: II facility. Ho"~ver, DEFENDANTS willfully misrepresented the kind, cbometer and nature
j!
0
I
r 'ho
work to A LPERlN.
5
17. At no time before bec.oming employed ,vith GORILLA FOUNDATJOi
did DEFENDANTS infoDn ALPERIN tlult they ,"vould require her to remove her do thing when
"demanded" by KOKO so that she could bond in a morcpcI'sonal manner \,,;11h the gorilla. At!H
time beIhre becoming employed ""itb GORILLA FOlJNDATION, did DEFEND.ANTS describe
10
to· ALPERiN the \\'\)rking conditions as unsEmttary 1md unsufe. At no time before becoming.
13 would require hcl' to\votk in excess of eight (8) hours 111 a day and in excess of forly (40) hour·
J.4 in \wek vvithout compcnsation filr the extm hours. At no time before becoming empj{)yed \\'ith
15
GORILLA FOUNDATION, did DEFEl\'f)Al"l'TS tell ALPERIN that they \\'ould require her to
18
18 On Of about July 2003, DEFENDANTS interviewedi'vlARClIESE for tho.:.
1,!:l position of Research Associate. At the time Qfthat interview, DEFENDANTS were aware tha
employment, DEFENDANTS w"ere U\vare that in order to accept the position, MARCHESE
22
would be fequired to move from her \iVashington State home to SalllVIatco County, California.
23 ,
24
19. DEFENDANTS \.viIlfu[]y intluenced and persuaded jvL'-\R.CHESE to .111.0V
27
COlHPLAlNT FOR DA.MAG£S
28 ALPERIN & KELLER v. TilE GORlLLA FOUNDATJOiV' & PATTF;RSON
Page 6 01'24
!1
1
,I
DEFEND.t-\NTS wilifully [J1i:srern~se!1ted the kind, character and nature of the work 't
1
!'"JARCHESE,
because she (a) had advanced degrees in anthropology that would aidluGORJLLA
5
I~OUNDATION'S r~$earch, (b) wanted someone "vith t.eaching/cuniculum \.Y1itiug experience to
7
help v..Tite KokQ-base.d curriCula fbI' public schools and presentations, (c) someone \vith v.,rritine
experience. and Cd) someone with sign language skills. GORlLLA FOtJNDATION de-fined hel
9 • position as one where she woule! use the above skills and where she would act as iiai.sotl betweer'
10
DEFENlDA.l"l'TS and their staff. Hwas the opporhmity to use .the Hbove: skills. and of being tht
n·
12 II Eaisonthat attracted J\tI\RCi~IESE to the position.
13 21.· DEFENDANTS of.t'ered ?vlARCHESE the researchussociate position, sly
requested a leave of absence from hercnrrent employer, the Bruinbridge Island School Distric
15
__vhere she \-vas a public s~hool teacher: sold most of her possession and drove down tc
GORILLA F01JNTIATION'S garage. The garage is where the gQriHa meals are prepared an
2'0 . 'where thi;!Y kept gorilla "enrichment" on the shelves. 111C shelving sY~1em was approxil'nately
21
ten feel wide, eight feet high, and three feet \vide. It contained what looked like years oJ
22
discarded plastic, blankel'i. scraps and tither junk. The shelving syst~m ~md its contents werl::
23
covered in grime and rat t~'::C0S.
24
26 FOUNDATION Co~Founclc[' and vicewpresidr.:ont, Ron Cobn~s., kitchen freezer. MARCHES ';1
27
CO:VIPLA[NT FOR DAMAGES
28 ALPERiN & KELLER v, TilE GORJJ.LA F01..liVDATlON & PltTTERSOiV
I Page 7 of24
I!
d
was el"lli:mH(lSSed to be as.ked to do Bueh a menial t<l!')k, but performed the task. Cleaning }lvfr,
Cohn's kitchen was io become ,~ regular chore that DEFENDANTS requtred her to aecornplish
as part of bel' position as Research Associate. This includ,ecl mopping his nOO1'S, washing out hi-'
;1
microwave OVeD, washing the dishes, ;:Iml cleaning the cooking refuse ()\Jt of the sink left iro11.
;) !PATTERSON~S, preparation of the gorillas' meals. MA,RCHESE was also ordered W ·.tlJrQ'.~),1
6 ! ' " .
away the garbage,fiU the dog \ovatcl' bow% and clean up ariydog Jeces in i\Jr. Cohn's yard.
24. One of tvir. CQhn's dogs~ ~'Iax7 tt large male pit bull. would fiercdy harl
and jerk against his chrunwhen MARCHESE walked by Mr. Cohn's residence. One day vvhill;:
10
Max was chained outside, MARCHESE notice scraps of pnpet strewn about 1\1r. Cohn'_
11
drivc\vay. She knelt down to pick them up and did not notice l\'Iux lunge toward her. rvlax hi'
12
'" 'i down on her ann and his force pushed MARCHESE into the side of the garago. MARCHES,
14 Ii dropped the papers and nm into the garage to escape rv1ax. She looked dO'Nl1 and found a bole iI,
15
her s.weatshirtand th~lt her arm was set-aped, She ran to the onice slwkillg, and '\,\'hen safe1j
16
arriving there, broke down i.n tears,
17
18
25. MARCHESE informed PATTERSON of Max'~ attack upon her, to whic
PATfERSON replied, "this must never happen again;" and inlorn:lCd Ivir. Cohn oflv1a,{'g attack
20 Incredibly, Nfr. Cohn's response was thatM.ARCHE$E shQuld begin \valking I'v-fax so the hv.,
21
could ';'get to know each other." Later, l'v1r. Cohn approached ]v1.ARCHESE with Max on a le~tsh.
1\:1r. Cohn told MARCHESE that wnlking i\lax \vas the only way to "solve the problem:
2.3
24 . M.ARCHESE adamantly refused and asked that PATTERSON ,md j)Ar. Cohn kennel !\.'Iax in th~
'i,, .
25 I evenhlgs so that ~"fARCHESE could clean Iv1r. Cohn's kitchen, Sometimes they did, but mol'
26 often, the.y failed to kennel the large pit bLlIL
:Sol1l~timeS she 'NtlS required to dean all three trailers, \vbich LO(lk two te) three hours per day.
3 Cleaning the (railers included removing feces and urine-soaked blnrlkels. and toys, washing the
bhlJlkets and toys (sometimes. by hand), sl,veeping, mopping and replenishing the blankets and
E.
toys. DE17ENDANTS required r.,·JARCHESE .to pick upand dispose of the gorilla's fece
OJ
withQut 'the USe 6fpro~ecLive cjolbing Qf gloves, 14ARCHESE requested protective clothing or .n
"pooper scoopcr," to \vhich [Vfr. Cohn suggested rvtARCHESE cut a paper plate in half and us·
instructed to \.va5h thl: bla'(lk.ets ,vifh a hose that was located flear l'v'1a,\.
14 28. MARCHESE "v~s ~lso required to SOlt produce thaUs donated :fi:om loc" .
15
grocery storcs.MARCHESE,other staff members and voluntee1"s were required to sort througl".
20 110f the job description us Research Associate after completing all the dJores and duties thal
21 .
. DEFENDAJ"lTS never told lvfARCHESE were part of her positton. MARCHESE apprO~lched
22
. PATTERSON to infonn her that her regular job duties 'were not being completed because of the
2.3
24
additional job duties. PATTERSON told MARCHESE (hat she was an "exempt"employec, and
25 that MARCHESE was hi \v()rk as many hours a.s it took to complete the tasks she was hired tc
26 do.
27
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
28 ,-1l.PERnv & KELLER v. HIE GORILLA FOUl"lDA.TJON & PATTERSON
Page 9 of24
30. Working at GORILLA FOUNDATION "vas becoming unbearable.;
1. ,
I
f
;;: MARCHESE tried her best. to accomplish the tasks she was hired to do. but DEFENDANTS 'I
• ' . . I
i .'.
] Iinsistence th~lt
' 1
she perforrn a broad range of menial tasks that \overe Mtpart of'her j()!
4 !. description) made such accomplishments'nearly
. irnpQssible. On Or awund the end of A.pri1.2004·
7
31. KELLER and ALPERIN'S employrnent with DEFENDJuYfS was equally
,E' frustrating and dememl1ng. During the CDurse of KELLER and ALPERIN'S employment,
DEFENDANTS subjected KELLEI{ and ALPERIN to sexual discrimination, inclucUng quid pre'
H)
quo sexual harassment and a hostile \vork environment. On several occasions, PATTERSON
11
~ ALPERIN
instructed KELLER and. to engage in the sexual act of removing~ their clothing'- t
12 i . ~.....
ALPERL'i have no evidence that K01(O actually has the ability to communicate to humans.
17
using sign language, her desire to see exposed hllman female nipples. AU supposed deman&;
18
21
not in.dulge KOKO'S nipple fetish,~helr emp.loymellt with GORILLA FOUNDATION 'i.v{)ull
2.2
suffer.
23
33. Beginning in May 2004, through July 2004, PATTERSON pressur0
2::· ALPERIN to remove he!' clothing for KOKO'S enjoyment. On at lenst three occasions,
26
PATTERSON and ALPERIN visited KOKO together. During these visits, PATTERSON
co;vn'lAtNTFOl{ DAMAGES
28 ALPl:.JUN & KELLER1'. THE GORILLA FaTJAID.;1 rlON & PA rlJj:Jl}j'OlV
Page 10 0[24
C{)mlTIllillcaled to ALPERIN ll'll.'lt exposfng one's breasts to KOKO is a normal component tc
developing. a personal bond,vith the gol'illa. PATTERSON communicated her eXpectfltion tha
ALPEHJN should shovv' her nipples by speaking to the gorilla in phrases, such a~, "011 yes,
KOl(O, Nancy lmsnipples. Nancy C;:<Ul sho\v you her nipples.'" And, '<Oh KOKO; why don't ymJi
and Nancy have a visit? I '.yill go and do some other things. 1 'wouldn't want anything.to
6
impcdethc relationship bctv,rcen you two."
7
KELLER to remove her clothing for KOKO~S enjoyment. Gnat least two incidents in mid-to
10 i
late June 2004, PATTERSON i1ltensely pressured KELLER to expose herself to KOKO whil-
they \vere working outside \Nhere. other employees could potentially view KEL~ER '8 naket-1
12
14. . example, on one such occasion, PAITERSON sai.d, "KOKO, YOll see my nipples aU the time.
15 . Yml,are probably bored witb my nipples. You need to see nev,,. nipples. l'.vlll turn tuy back s
19 DEFENDANTS communleated clearly to KELLER and ALPERIN that if they did not exp{)I),
20 themselves upon KOKO'S supposed "demands," then the'y would suffer adverse employment
21
actions, including discharge.
22
36. KELLER and ALPERIN \vere forced to work in 1.l1lsanitary and llnsaf....
23 • I
!
24
conditions. for example, rats in the food preparati<m area; chemicals siured next to kitchen'
2.'5 propane gfi$ and medical miicles; verrn.in attracted to an open compost heap; and gorilla urine
20 ,stored in the l'cirigerator with employees' food. KELLER and ALPERIN helieved the filthy and
27
COMPLAIN'J' fOR DAlVlAGES
28 ALPERl;\! & KELLER I'. THE GORILLA FOUiVDATlON & PAiTE'RSOiV
Page 11 of24
, Ii dangerous conditions in which they \vere required to viOrk constituted violations all
1
8 • to this Amended Cornplainl, <.1S Exhibit C, is a letter dared August 23, 2004 from Cal/OSHA t
9
.ALPERIN documenting ALPERIN'S complaint that cflUsed CaUOSHA '8 inspcction,inCludino
10
the Citation, and Notiiication of Penal ty.
11
38. DEFENDA.NTS had knowledge that ALPERIN, whh KELLER'S
12
39, ' By letter signed by PATTERSON, dated August 6~ 2D04- the day af:1:el
15
the Cal/OSHA inspector visited the GORILLAFOUNDATTON- DEFENDANTS termipate
16
KELLER and ALPERIN'S emplO)'111cnt.
17
40. Each and every week of their employment ,"'lith DEFENDAJ"'JTS
KELLER and ALPERIN worked at least one day in excess of eight (8) hours. Each and c'vcry
28 \ovcck KELLER and ALPERIN worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a week. KELLER an
ALPERlN averaged forty-t,vo (42) hours of worl\ per week. At no time during KELLER an
22
ALPERIN'S employment with DEFENDAl"lTS did DEFENDANTS pay wages for 'vorl'
23
!
peri()fToed ill excess of eight (8) hours in a day, or fOllY (40) hours in a week.
nc
L.J 41. DEFENDANTS \vere a\vare that KELLER and ALPERIN performe'
26
work in excess of eight (8) bours in a day and/or forty (40) hours in a 'Neck. KELLER an
27
COMPLAINT FOR DAj'\IAGES
ALPEIW"'" & /(ELLER 11, TilE GORILLA FOUlVIJATION ..~ PAT11:.'RSON
Page 12 ur24
tl I
'1\; I !
1
!. ALPERIN'S employment contracts with GORILLA. FOUNDATION describe the wurk ~cl1edul
2 as a '''40-bour 'Nark schedule on the grounds of the GORILLA FOUNDATION~ \\liHl additional
3 hours as needed."
42. Each and every day of their employment \-\"jlh DEFENDANTS, KELLE
and ALPERIN vlorked through either their morning rest break or the.ir afternoon rest break.
6
7
DEFENDANTS knowingly and willfully failed tQ provide KELLER and ALPERIN their res
8 breaks., as mandated by law. DEFENDANTS also falled to compeJJsate KELLER and ALPERIN
one hour of pay for each ffllssed re~,l break, as mandated by lav·l.
10
43. At the time of KELLER and ALPERIN'S respective termination dales,
11
DEFENDANTS owed KELLER and .ALPER1N unpaid \'vages. DEFENDANTS fuiled to pa)'l,
1.2
I.3 ,KELLER and ALPERIN the total amount ofwa.ges due.
19 emhuing.
20
21
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
DiscriminHtion in Violiltion of the I?ah" Employment amI Housing Act
22
45. As a sepflrate and distinct chlim for relict~ KELLER and ALPERIN bl'in·
23
24
the FiTst Cause of Action against DEFENDANTS for violations of the California Fail
27
COIYIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
ALPERliV & EELLER 1'. THE GORILLA FO[jl\'DATION & PATTERSON
Page 13 of24
46. KELLER and ALPERIN reallege and incorporate by reference il" I "45 a~
"
.:. if tbey w'ere set forth here in fulL
basis of their gender, in violation of FHHA. Gov. Code §~ 12900" i;!( seq.
8 pro quo s,eXi.1a1 harassment and in the f(11111 of a hostile v{ork environment.
,: I, 49. On Jan",,,y 20, 200), KELLER and ALPERIN file<! charges of ,exu1
I, discriminadon em the basis oftheh' sex with the California Department of Fair Employment andl
11
•Housing ("'DFEH"), withino·ne yes.!' of the cliscriminatr{)11. On Januruy 2 I~ 2005, DFEH isstled '
12
EXHIBIT A is ALPERIN'S complaint against DEFENDANTS filed with the DFEH and tIll,;
l5
cotn')sp01'ldiI1g Right to Sue Notice, Attached to this ~.l\mended Complaint, as ,EXHIBITB i
KELLER'S compLaint against DEFENDANTS med \vith the'DFEH <lnciilie c.orrespcmdi.ng Righ
17
to Sue Notice.
51. As a scpnmtc and distinct claim i(l!' relieJ: KELLER and ALPERlN br.in~
:3
the Second Cause of Action against DEFENDANTS tOt intentional ltiHicll()n oJ emotional
10 i1i a posiLlon of pew,rer over KELLER a.net ALPERIN ,vit11 poteIitial to abuse that power. i\.;
16 ·stressfui. PATTERSON is also wen Imown within the sign. langl1age eommuulty and has tIlt::
22 and outrageous and was intended to cause KELLER and ALPERIN emotional distress, Or Viet.
23 done with reckless disregard of the probability that the conduct would cause KELLER an(
27 KELLER and ALPERIN have st.lffered severe emotional di.stress. KELLER and ALPERIN'S
COJ\.lPLAINTFOR DAMAGES
28 ALPER','" & KELLER I'. HIE GORILLA FOUNlJA1101'l & PATTERSO..V
Page 15 of24
mental. anguish reSLliting from DEFBND/\NTS" se'vere and' extreme behaviDf include
1
5. I
I herein.
10 56. As a separate and distinct claim for relief, KELLER anciALPER!N brin&
11 . the Third Cause {)f Action 'lgainst DEFENDANTS fl}T ·wTougl1.d tennination in retaliation f()
1.2 reporting health and safety violations to CallOSI-Li\, by alleging the follo\ving:
1.3 57. KELJ,ER and ,ALPERIN reallege and incorporate by reference .~~ J-56 a.~
14 if they \vere set forth here in fulL
15 58. .Pursuant to La'bol' Code §§ 1 i02.5and 6310. DEFENDANTS 'iyer.
1 €. pwhibited from retaliating against KELLER "md ALPERIN for submitting complaint.s oJ
. .. . . . -
17 unsanitary and unsafe working conditions to Cal/OSHA and government agencies, generaIly. 0
18 or about August 6, 2004, DEFENDANTS retaliated against KELLER and ALPERIN rOll
follm.ving:
61. KELLER and ALPERIN reallege and incoqJorate by reference 'r~ll ~60 a~
7
if they "yere set forth here in full.
8
·'}
6i... KELLER and ALPERIN were employed by DEFENDANTS as non
10 exempt aniuml care employees 'Nith feeding 1"esponsibiIities, an occupation thut falls \vithin thE:
63. Pw"suunt tolndnstrial WeU"are Commission Order 5~2001 mld Labor Cod-
§§ 200.226, 500, 510, and 1198, DEFENDANTS vv'ere required to compensate KELLER atld
14
64. Pursuant to Industrial We!nlre Commission Ordct 5-2001 a,nd Labor Coclt:
17 ,§§ 200, 226, 500, 5] 0, and 119S, DEFENDANTS \vere required to cOilipensate KELLER and
1.8
ALPERIN for all hours worked i.n excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours pc.
\vcek, at a rate of one .and one-balf (1 112) time~ KELLER and ALPERlN'S regular r()te;
20
21
DEFENDANTS failed to compensate KELLER and ,ALPEIUN for \vork performed i11 excess 0 i
22 eight (8) hours in a day or lorty {40) hours in a week.
I
23 65, KELLER <1nd ALPERI'N sulTered damages c~lUsed by these
24
DEFENDANTS' wTQngful acts as stated in the sect jon below entitled liDAJlvlA.GES.11 which LI
incotporated berein. .
27
COMPLAINT FOn DAiVIAGES
28 ALPERIN & KELLER 11. TlJ.l:: (;ORILLA FOUNDA11ON & P.41TERS(}N
Pilge 11004
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
.FnHurc to Prov.ide Rest Breaks
66. As ~\ $eparate tm(\ dislfinct claim for reHc( KELLER and .Al.PERIN brin::
4
I the Fifth CauseQf Action against DEFENDANTS for failure to provide rest breaks, by al1egin('
5 the i~Jnov",'ing:
6 I 67. KELLER and ALPERIN reallege and incorporate by reference ~'I 1-66 a~
7 Iif the.. \vere set l'brth here in fnll.
i' ../. .
8
63. Pursuant to InduslriuI \Velfute Commlssion Order 5-2001, ~ (12), all-
10
Labor Code §§ 516 and 226.7, DEfENDANTS are reqtLired to authorize al1d permit employee"
11 covered by the-aforementioned wage order to ta.kl:) paid rest perit;ld$ of ten (W)miol,ltes per fo
69. Under the atbre.mentioned j,vage order and California Labor Code § 226.7,
KELLER and ALPERfN are entitled to recover fi'om DEFEND.I\. NTS an additional hour of pay
15
at KELLER and ALPERIN'S regnhrr rate of compensation for each rest period not provide
17 during the lhr~e (3) years preceding the flling of KELLER and ALPERIN'S Complaint.
18
70. On a daily basis, during an relevemt times, KELLER and A1.PERIN
\\lorked through either their morning rest break 01' their afternoon rest hreak. DEFEl'mAN'TS
LV
. 2:'..
k.nmvingly and \viHfnlly failed to provide KELLER and ALPERfN their rest breaks, as mandated
22 by law. DEFENDANTS also failed' to c()mpensate PLAINT[FFS (me hOlLr of pay for each
72. As a separate and ciistincrciahrl for relief, KELLER and ALPERIN briri,g
3
Lhe Sixth Cause of Action against DEFENDANTS (br failure to pa.y e.amed \vagcs up()n
73. KELLER [md ALPERlN reallege and incorporate by reference ,r'11-72 a"
7
iftbey "vere set forth here in fillI.
3
74. Pursuant to California La.bor Code § 201. upon KELLER and ALPERIN'S
9
10
respec6ve terminationdates~ DEFENDANTS were required to pay KELLER and ALPERIN alI
11 eanted wageS. At the time of KELLER and ALPERIN'S respective tel'mination dates:
1:> PLAINTIFFS had unpaid "vages mved to them. In violation of Labor Code § 201, and in thJ
1::,
, aite1'1lative Labor Code § 202, DEFENDANTS failed to pay KELLER and ALPERIN the total
1~'ageS due and owing them \-vas \viUfuI and in conscious disregard of KELLER and ALPERIN',
nghts.
19
76. DEFENDANTS' \villful failure to pay KELLER and AIJ>ERIN the wage.
due and owing each of lhemconstitutes violations of Labor Code § 20 L and in the altemative,
22 . Labor Code §202, Labor Code § 203 provides that "the wages ot' the employee shall C()ntillue a~
a penalty from the due d~~te thereof at the same rate until paid or until Hll action thereof j
commenced; but the wages shall not continue for mOTe than 30 days." DEFENDANTS failed t
pay KELLER and ALPERIN all earned wages, thLL,) J(ELLER and ALPERIN is entitled to
26
27
penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203.
COMPLAINT FOR DAl\"'~G.ES
28 ALPERIN & RELLER v. THE GORILLA FOUlVDA110i'y' & PA.TTERS01V
Page 19 of24
II
77. Pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5, KELLER and ALPERIN are alBo eac~
entitled to an aw[~:rd of reasonable attorneys' fe-es~ expenses, and costs incufP;;c! in this action.
!
78. KELLER und ALPERIN suffered dai1i.ages caused by DEFENDANTS'
\vrongf1.l1 acts as stnted in the sectiCl11 below eiuitled t'DA!vlACiES;" which is incorporated hereln.
79. As a separate and distinel claim for relief: ALPERIN ~nd MARCHES"
brings the Seventh Cause of Action against DEFENDANTS Jor traudulent inducement it
80. ALPERIN and ~vfARCHESE reallege and incorporate by reference ~r~ 1~7~
15
persuade Hll)' person to change ftom011eplace to another in the StrIte of CaIifor.nft:l, through or by
16
•means of .knowillgly false representations concerning the kind, character OfSUcJl \"lork, or thd
l7 . . . !
sanitary conditions relating to the \1</o1'k.
19 82. Labol' Code § 972 provides that DEFENDANTS arc liable to ALPERIN
20 and MARCHESE fordouble damages resulting from such misrepresentations.TIms, for eae
2t •and every c.:allse of .action 111 this Amended Complaint, ALPERIN is entitled to <111 a\vard oIl
22
douhle damages,
23
24
83. ALPERIN and i'v-tARCHESE suffered damages caused by theSe
25 DEFENDANTS' \vrongfuI acts as stated in the section belov·,.. entitled "DAtv·1j\GES," which i
Ui incorporated herein.
84. As a separate <il1d distinct claim tor relief, PLAINTIFFS bi'log the Eighl:h
3
, Cause of Action against DEFENDANTS tor Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, by
4
1Q the maintenance of a healthy and safe \vorking envh'onmcnt, conveying to PLAINTIFFS thei,
11 respective job duties, and not pressuring them to engage in qUfdpto quo sexual acts.
:L2
87
t '. DEFENDANTS breached their duties ofeare 10 PLAINTUi'FS.
22
2.5
91. ALPERIN and KELLER reallege and incorporate by reference 'r~ 1-90 as
10 misrepresentation offner known to DEFENDANTS and done \vith the imention, otllhe part of
11
Ii'I DEFENDANTS, of depriving ALPElUN and KELLER of
' their property and legal rights, and
12
"vas despicable co11duct that subjected ALPERIN and KELLER to cruel and unjust lu~rdshipin
13
COllSc.iouS disreg.ard of ALPERIN and KE1LER>S rights, so as to justify and aw(ndofexemplary
14
tmd punitive damages.
15
95. ALPERIN and KELLER reasonably relied on DEFENDANTS'
a~.vare of the mjsJepresent<~tion, they \v()~lld have inSlsted on being compensated J:br their
as slated in the sec lion belo\v entitled "DAlvfAGES/' 'l.-vhkh is Incorporated herein.
22
/1
23 /!
., "
., J
1/
//
25 -Ii
IJ
26 //
27
COMPLAINT FOR DA1VIAGES
28 A LPERlN & KELLER )', THE (;ORELLA FOC./NDATJO,V & .l'ATTl!."RSOl..,'
P'lgC 22 {If 24
H
II
'II
1
·1I DAMA.GES
pay: calculated to be thirty thousand dollars. ($30,OOCtOO) for ALPRJN; and thirty~tlve thousand
5
. dollars (S35;000.00) for KELLER.;
'I
.t.., Pursuant to Cali'n)rnia Civil Code §3294, for punitive and exemplary
ttJur cents ($3.461,.54) tor ALPERIN; and fOUl" thousand thirty~eight dollars a11d forty-six cents
23
2·4
($4,038.46) for KELLER~
25 6. For penalties lor not providing rest break periods for PLAINTIFFS ill the
2f. . amount of one hour of pay per each rest bIeak DEFENDANTS did not provide pursuilnt to Labo
27 I
COMPLAINT :rOR DAJ\'lAGES
28 ALPERIN & KELLm? v. THE GORILLA FOUl\~DA1'lOj\' & P;JTTERSOlV
Page 23 nf24
Code § 226.7: calculated to be nIne hundred eight dollurs and sixty-five cents ($908.65) tor
1
2 ALPERIN; and one thollsand, three hundred forty-six c10llars and fifteen cents ($1,346.15) for
3 KELLER;
4 .-.t . For interest accrued to date in the amount often percent (1 I]I}'O) per <1rtllUm
5
frommlJlllenl an1l)unt is due;
'I
s. Pursuant to Labor Code § 972, for double damages resulting from each
8 misrepresentation in violatIon of Labor Code § 970 to ALPERIN and MARCI·mSE. The total
amount of damages ovving ALPERIN listed above is three hundred fifty nine thousand, cine
10
hutldredfifteen d()l1urs ~md r.venty-seven cents ($359,915.27). The. double ()fthat amount, sev1en
11
• hundred nineteen thousand, eight hundred thirty dollars and fifty-[ollr cents ($719,830.54), is the
12
l4 iviARCHESE shall be determined according to proof, but not less than three hundred thousand
dollars ($300,,000).
9. For attorneys' fees und costs pursuant to Labor Code, §§ 218.5 ancl 1194,
17
•to be subject to proof;
IE
19 10. For any other compen$at(~r),; general and special dmnages according to
91- 7 0
J~kY---;-d
STBPI'~N A.
07l#w----r-
SOI\·l1vtERS I
26
:21
. Attomey for Plaintiffs I
COMPLAINT FOR DA1\:!i\GES
28 ALPERIlV & KELLER }l. THE GORl LL4 POU/I/DATJON & PA TTERSON
Page 24 of24