UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG& BHOWMIK Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #0 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #0 Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #0 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA0 Telephone: (- Facsimile: ( - Website: LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. OSMAN Mark A. Osman (State Bar # 0 West A Street, th Floor San Diego, CA0 Telephone: ( - Facsimile: ( -0 Attorneys for Plaintiff SANDRA PERRY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, vs. Plaintiff, AT&T MOBILITY LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO.CV-- JCS FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF, CODE 00 et seq.;. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES, HOURLY WAGES and OVERTIME WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE 0,,,. & ;. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE ;. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES FOR REQUIRED EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE 0; and,. LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT [LABOR CODE et seq.]. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL --

2 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 Plaintiff Sandra Perry ("PLAINTIFF", an individual, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former employees, alleges on information and belief, except for her own acts and knowledge which are based on personal knowledge, the following: INTRODUCTION. Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC hereinafter also referred to as "AT&T" in order to service customers requires individuals to answer calls from AT&T customers in regard to billing questions and technical support. The cost, as proscribed by law, of the personnel hired to answer these calls includes not only the pay and overtime pay of these employees but also the cost of training, the cost of business expenses and the cost of the employer s share of tax payments to the federal and state governments for income taxes, social security taxes and unemployment insurance and payments for workers compensation insurance ("business related expenses". To avoid the payment of these legally proscribed costs and expenses to the fullest extent possible, AT&T devised a scheme to place the responsibility for the payment of these costs and expenses of AT&T on the shoulders of the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. As respondeat superior, AT&T is legally responsible for the payment of all these costs, expenses and taxes plus penalties and interest. This lawsuit is brought on behalf of the laborers who worked for AT&T during the class period to collect the wages due them as employees of AT&T, the cost of their training and the cost of their business expenses, the cost of the employer s share of payments to the federal and state governments for income taxes, social security taxes, unemployment insurance and payments for workers compensation insurance, plus penalties and interest. After deducting all business related expenses, including but not limited to tax payments, from the payments made by AT&T to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members as employees of AT&T earn less than the minimum wage for all hours on the job. --

3 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 THE PARTIES. Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC is a Delawarecompany with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.AT&T Mobility LLC conducts business under the name AT&T Mobility and AT&T. Defendant Arise Virtual Solutions Inc. hereinafter also referred to as "ARISE" is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Miramar, Florida. AT&T, ARISE, as an agent of AT&T, and others acting as agents of AT&T as part of this scheme are hereinafter collectively referred to as "DEFENDANTS."PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are and were employed by AT&T by and through ARISE and/or other agents of AT&T. In order to become an employee of AT&T, the PLAINTIFF and the others similarly situated were required by DEFENDANTS to each form a separate Virtual Services Corporation ("VSC" to act as a shell corporation and alter ego of the DEFENDANTS as part of the scheme to further insulate AT&T from AT&T s liability for wages, costs, expenses and taxes. ARISE and the other agents of AT&T act as the hiring agencies for AT&T as part of this scheme. AT&T subcontracts the hiring process and job placement functions to ARISE and the other hiring agentsas another part of the scheme to attempt to circumvent responsibility for protections afforded to employees under federal and California laws. As a result of this relationship, AT&T nevertheless, remains responsible for the conduct alleged herein in that the employment by AT&T was not completely disassociated from the employment by ARISE and the other hiring agents by and the through the VSC as a result of the arrangement that existed between the DEFENDANTS to have the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members provide services to AT&T. Therefore, AT&T as respondeat superior remains liable as the employer of the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for all wages, costs and expenses due them. At all relevant times, AT&T, ARISE and the other hiring agencies conducted and continue to conduct substantial and regular business throughout California.. AT&T operates as a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. providing wireless and data communication services and products to individual, business and government users in the United States. Arise Virtual Solutions Inc. is one the nation s leading providers of virtual --

4 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 business services for brands seeking to improve business results through their sales and service channels. ARISE delivers customer service and technical support personnel through a network of more than,000 certified individuals and is just one of many companies that offer home-based, Virtual Call-Center Agents to companies like AT&T. This so called new wave of "homesourcing" is growing in popularity as companies like AT&T can substantially reduce their overhead no office space, no office supplies, no training costs, no employer s share of payroll withholding taxes, no workers compensation insurance premium payments, no unemployment insurance payments, no social security taxes, and most significantly, lower labor costs without any overtime payments, without any payment for time on the job not involving "talk minutes" and without any meal and/or rest breaks.instead of paying for all hours worked, office expenses, employers share of payroll taxes, social security taxes, unemployment insurance and workers compensation insurance for a call-center department, AT&T reduces these labor costs by requiring the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members to incorporate and then classifies the shell Virtual Services Corporations ("VSC" as "independent contractor" as part of the scheme to defraud the PLAINTIFF and the other Class Members and the federal and state governments. AT&T s obligation to properly classify workers as employees is more than a matter of private concern between the parties. This obligation is founded on the laws of our federal and state governments that companies pay wages due for hours worked, their share of payroll taxes to our federal and state governments and business related expenses of their employees.. Plaintiff Sandra Perry ("PLAINTIFF" has been employed by AT&T in Californiaas a "Virtual Call-Center Agent" since September 00 and currently works in that position for DEFENDANTS.. The position of Virtual Call-Center Agent was represented by DEFENDANTS to the PLAINTIFF and the others similarly situated as an independent contractor position capable of paying between cents and cents per talk minute. PLAINTIFF and the others similarly situated are compensated per talk minute based on performance and rarely earn more than cents pert talk minute. The primary job of the --

5 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 Virtual Call-Center Agents who perform work for AT&T was and is to provide customer support services to AT&T customers including but not limited to technical and billing support services. The job duties of the Virtual Call-Center Agents cannot be performed without logging into AT&T s systems. Once logged into the AT&T system, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members can receive calls and log "talk minutes." This is the only time paid for by AT&T. A copy of the advertisement evidencing this employment relationship is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference herein.. To perform their job duties, the PLAINTIFF and the others similarly situated perform work subject to the control of AT&T in that AT&T has the authority to exercise complete control over the work performed and the manner and means in which the work is performed. California Labor Code defines "employee" as "every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed." In addition to the California Labor Code s presumption that workers are employees, the California Supreme Court has determined the most significant factor to be considered in distinguishing an independent contractor from an employee is whether the employer or principal has control or the right to control the work both as to the work performed and the manner and means in which the work is performed. AT&T controlled both the work performed and the manner and means in which the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members performed their work in that: (a PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated were not involved in a distinct business, but instead were provided with instructions as to how to perform their work and the manner and means in which the work was to be performed by means of DEFENDANTS manuals, written notifications and system requirements; (b PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated were continuously provided with training and supervision, and received training from DEFENDANTS as to how and in what way to service AT&T customers including but not limited --

6 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 to daily chat support with supervisors in that no prior advanced skill or training other than training by AT&T is required to obtain this job; (c PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated performed customer service work which is part of AT&T s principal business and is closely integrated with and essential to the employer s business of providing wireless voice and data communication services and products to consumers; (d PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated performed the work themselves and did not hire others to perform their work for them; (e PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated did not have the authority to make employment-related personnel decisions; (f PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated were required to work a minimum of service hours of talk minutes per week and a minimum of four ( service hours of talk minutes per weekend and could only choose to work from the available hours designed by AT&T; (g PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated performed their work in a particular order and sequence in accordance with AT&T company policy; (h PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated either resolved AT&T s customer issues in accordance with company policy or if unable to do then assembled the work into a report that allowed others to follow-up with additional work on the matter reported; (i PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated were not allowed to work or service any other cellular service provider such as Verizon, Sprint or T- Mobile; and, (j AT&T enjoyed the ability to terminate employment relationships with the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members with our without cause at any time.. As a result, stripped of all the legal fictions and artificial barriers to an honest classification of the relationship between the PLAINTIFF and all the other similarly situated on the one hand, and DEFENDANTS on the other hand, the PLAINTIFF and all the other similarly situated, are employees, and not independent contractors of AT&T, --

7 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 and should therefore have been properly classified as non-exempt, hourly employees. This Action is brought on behalf of the PLAINTIFF and all those similarly situated doing work as a Virtual Call-Center Agent who were paid directly or indirectly by and through AT&T and/or an AT&T agent to provide customer service and technical support by handling inbound customer calls of AT&T customers and who performed this work for AT&T in California during the period beginning of the date four ( years before the filing of this Action and ending on the date as determined by the Court (the "CLASS PERIOD" away from AT&T offices and who were directly or indirectly classified by AT&T as an independent contractor of AT&T (the "CLASS" or "Class Members".. The work schedule for the Class Members was set by AT&T. Generally, the Class Members worked more than forty (0 hours each workweek and more than eight ( hours each work day in order to achieve the minimum service hours required of hours of "talk minutes" per weekday (Monday through Friday and the minimum service hours required of four ( hours of "talk minutes" per weekend. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members typically work four ( days per weekday and one ( day per weekend. As a result, to log twenty-five ( hours of "talk minutes" per weekday, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members need to login in. hours of "talk minutes" per weekday. After deducting two ( ten (0 minute rest breaks and one ( thirty (0 minute meal break per weekday, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members have.0 hours per weekday of their time accounted for leaving less than one ( hour in an eight ( hour day where the phone is not in use or the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are not engaged in legally required breaks. The true facts are that the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members spend more than an hour each day on the job without logging in "talk minutes" otherwise on a legally recognized break.. PLAINTIFF and the other Class Members were not provided with compensation for hours worked that were not "talk minutes," or overtime compensation as required by law. 0. PLAINTIFF and the other Class Members were not reimbursed for their home office expenses or training time and training costs, or the employer s share of --

8 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 employment taxes, social security taxes, unemployment insurance and workers compensation insurance ("payroll taxes and mandatory insurance".. As a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, DEFENDANTS have unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively classified every Class Member as "independent contractors" in order to unlawfully avoid compliance with all applicable federal and state laws that require payment for all hours at work, business expenses, training expenses and the employer s share of payroll taxes and mandatory insurance. As a result of the scheme to defraud the federal and state governments and the Class Members, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members earn less than minimum wage for all hours at work.. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of DEFENDANTS sued here are currently unknown to the PLAINITFF who therefore sues these DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the DEFENDANTS designated here is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. PLANITIFF will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of DEFENDANTS when they have been ascertained and become known.. The agents, servants and/or employee of DEFENDANTS and each of them acting on behalf of DEFENDANTS acted within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of DEFENDANTS, and personally participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of DEFENDANTS with respect to the conduct alleged herein. Consequently, the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other DEFENDANTS and all DEFENDANTS are jointly and severally liable to the PLAINTIFF and the other Class Members, for the loss sustained as a proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS agents, servants and/or employees. THE CONDUCT. The primary job duty required of the PLAINTIFF and the other Class Members as defined by DEFENDANTS is executed by them through the performance of non-exempt labor within a defined elementary skill set of answering inbound AT&T --

9 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 customer calls in order to provide telephonic AT&T customer service and technical support to AT&T customers.. Although the PLAINTIFF and the other Class Members performed elementary level non-exempt labor subject to AT&T s complete control over the manner and means of performance, AT&T instituted a blanket classification policy, practice and procedure by which all of these Class Members were classified as "independent contractors" exempt from compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation, meal breaks and rest breaks, reimbursement for business related expenses and training time and expenses. By reason of this uniform misclassification, the Class Members were also required to pay AT&T s share of payroll taxes and mandatory insurance premiums. As a result of this uniform misclassification practice, policy and procedure applicable to the PLAINTIFF and the other Class Members who performed work for DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 00 (the "UCL", by engaging in a company-wide policy, practice and procedure which failed to properly classify the PLAINTIFF and the other Class Members and thereby failed to pay them minimum wage for all hours worked, overtime wages for overtime hours worked and provide them with meal and rest breaks, reimbursement of business related expenses, payment for training time and expenses, and for the employer s share of payroll taxes and mandatory insurance. The proper classification of these employees is DEFENDANTS burden. As a result of DEFENDANTS intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANTS violated the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder as herein alleged. DEFENDANTS did not have in place a policy, practice or procedure that provided meal and rest breaks to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members as evidenced by DEFENDANTS business records which contain no record of these breaks. In addition, DEFENDANTS failed to reimburse the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their job duties for DEFENDANTS benefit which include, but are not limited, to the following: home office expenses including a computer, software, internet, a headset, ink, paper and other related --

10 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page0 of 0 0 office supplies and required training courses including the fee of the courses and the necessary materials in order to complete the courses.. DEFENDANTS, as a matter of law, have the burden of proving that employees are properly classified and that DEFENDANTS otherwise comply with applicable laws. DEFENDANTS, as a matter of corporate policy, erroneously and unilaterally classified all the Class Members as independent contractors.. During their employment with DEFENDANTS, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members performed elementary level customer services and technical support by requiring only the answering of inbound customer calls from AT&T customers.. PLAINTIFF and all the Class Members are and were uniformly classified and treated by DEFENDANTS as independent contractors at the time of hire and thereafter, DEFENDANTS failed to take proper steps to determine whether the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were properly classified under the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order (Wage Order -00 and/or Wage Order -00 and Cal. Lab. Code 0, et seq. as exempt from applicable labor laws. Since DEFENDANTS affirmatively and willfully misclassified the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members in compliance with California labor laws, DEFENDANTS practices violated and continue to violate California law. In addition, DEFENDANTS acted deceptively by falsely and fraudulently classifying the PLANTIFF and each Class Member as independent contractors when DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that this classification was false and not based on known facts. DEFENDANTS also acted deceptively by violating the California labor laws, and as a result of this policy and practice, DEFENDANTS also violated the UCL. In doing so, DEFENDANTS cheated the competition by paying the CLASS less than the amount competitors paid who complied with the law and cheated the CLASS by not paying them in accordance with California law.. DEFENDANTS also failed to provide and still fails to provide the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members with a wage statement in writing that accurately sets forth gross wages earned, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the PLAINTIFF and -0-

11 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 the Class Members. This conduct violated Cal. Lab. Code. The pay stub also does not accurately display anywhere the PLAINTIFF s and the other Class Members overtime hours and applicable rates of overtime pay for the pay period. 0. By reason of this uniform conduct applicable to the PLAINTIFF and all the Class Members, DEFEDNANTS committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 00 (the "UCL", by engaging in a company-wide policy, practice and procedure which failed to correctly classify the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members as employees. The proper classification of these employees is DEFENDANTS burden. As a result of DEFENDANTS intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANTS failed to pay all required overtime compensation for work performed by the Class Members and violated the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder as herein alleged. THE UCL REMEDIES. As a result of DEFENDANTS UCL violation, the PLAINTIFF, on behalf of herself and the CLASS, seeks restitutionary disgorgement of DEFENDANTS ill-gotten gains into a fluid fund in order to provide restitution of all the money that DEFENDANTS were required by law to pay, but failed to pay, to the PLAINTIFF and the CLASS. PLAINTIFF also seeks all other relief available to her and the other Class Members located in California under California law. PLAINTIFF also seeks declaratory relief finding that the employment policies, practices and procedures of DEFENDANTS violate California law. THE CLASS. PLAINTIFF brings this Action as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. (b( and/or (, on behalf of a CLASS defined as all individuals who were paid directly or indirectly by AT&T by and through AT&T agents to provide customer service and technical support by handling inbound customer calls of AT&T customers and who --

12 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 performed this work for AT&T in California away from AT&T offices and who were directly or indirectly classified by AT&T as an independent contractor of AT&T. The applicable "CLASS PERIOD" is defined as the period beginning on the date four ( years before the filing of this Action and ending on a date as determined by the Court.. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CLASS against DEFENDANTS, the CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted accordingly.. All Class Members who performed and continue to perform this work for AT&T in California during the CLASS PERIOD are similarly situated in that they are subject to DEFENDANTS uniform policy and systematic practice that requires them to perform work without compensation as required by law.. DEFENDANTS, as a matter of corporate, policy, practice and procedure, and in violation of the applicable California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC" Wage Order Requirements, and the applicable provisions of California law, intentionally, knowingly and willfully engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANTS unfairly, unlawfully and deceptively instituted a practice to ensure that all individuals employed as independent contractors were not properly classified as non-exempt employees from the requirements of California Labor Code 0, et seq.. During the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANTS uniformly violated the rights of the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members under California law, without limitation, in the following manners: (a Violating the California Unfair Competition laws, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 00 et seq. the ("UCL", in that AT&T, while acting as respondeat superior, devised and implemented a scheme by and through its agents whereby the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were forced to unlawfully, unfairly and deceptively shoulder the cost of AT&T s wages for all unpaid work time other than "talk minutes," all unpaid overtime hours worked, business related expenses, training time and expenses, and --

13 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 (b (c (d (e (f (g (h AT&T s share of employment taxes, social security taxes, unemployment insurance and workers compensation insurance; Violating the California Unfair Competition laws, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 00 et seq. the ("UCL", by unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively having in place company policies, practices and procedures that uniformly misclassified the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members as independent contractors; Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively failing to have in place a company policy, practice and procedure that accurately determined the amount of working time spent by the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members performing non-exempt employee labor; Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively failing to have in place a company policy, practice and procedure that reclassified as non-exempt employees those members of the CLASS who were classified as independent contractors; Violating the California Labor Code, by failing to pay minimum wage for all hours worked up to eight ( hours a workday and forty (0 hours a workweek; Violating Cal. Lab. Code 0, et seq., by failing to pay overtime pay to the PLAINTIFF and the Class members who were improperly classified as independent contractors, and retaining the unpaid overtime to the benefit of DEFENDANTS; Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by unlawfully deducting earned wages from the Class Members; Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by failing to provide all legally required meal and/or rest breaks to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members; --

14 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 (i Violating Cal. Lab. Code 0, 0 and/or 0, which provides that when an employee is discharged or quits from employment, the employer must pay the employee all wages due without abatement, by failing to tender full payment and/or restitution of wages owed or in the manner required by California law to the Class Members who have terminated their employment; (j Violating Cal. Lab. Code, by failing to provide the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members with an accurate itemized statement in writing showing gross wages earned, net wages earned, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and all the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee; and, (k Violating Cal. Lab. Code 0, by failing to reimburse the Class Members for necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties for DEFENDANTS.. As a result of AT&T s uniform policies, practices and procedures, there are numerous questions of law and fact common to all Class Members who worked for AT&T in California during the CLASS PERIOD. These questions include, but are not limited, to the following: (a Whether Defendant AT&T is the respondeat superior of Defendant ARISE and other job placement agencies of AT&T and all VSCs and therefore responsible for all acts of Defendant Arise, the Virtual Service Corporations, other job placement agencies for amounts due Class Members as a result of the Class Members being misclassified as independent contractors by AT&T; (b Whether the DEFENDANTS are estopped as a result of their own misconduct from asserting the existence of the VSCS as a defense to the Class Members claims for unpaid minimum --

15 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 (c (d (e (f (g (h wages, for unpaid overtime wages, unpaid business expenses, unpaid training time and expenses, and paid expenses including but not limited to the employer s share of payroll taxes and mandatory insurance; Whether the existence of the VSCs can be ignored as a legal fiction as the VSCs are nothing more than the alter egos of the DEFENDANTS required to exist at the direction of DEFENDANTS in order to insulate DEFENDANTS from liability to the Class Members as employees of AT&T; Whether AT&T s policies, practices and pattern of conduct described in this Complaint was and is unlawful; Whether AT&T unlawfully failed to accurately pay the Class Members hours worked, overtime hours worked and/or minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code and California regulations and the applicable California Wage Order; Whether the Class Members are non-exempt employees entitled to the protection of California s minimum wage laws, hourly wage laws for all hours worked and overtime compensation for overtime hours worked under the pay requirements of California law; Whether AT&T s policy, practice and procedure of classifying the Class Members as independent contractors exempt from minimum wage laws, hourly wages laws for all hours worked and overtime compensation and failing to pay the Class Members all amounts due violates applicable provisions of California law; Whether AT&T unlawfully deducted earned wages from the Class Members in violation of the California Labor Code and applicable regulations and California Wage Order -00; --

16 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 (i Whether AT&T unlawfully failed to keep and furnish the Class Members with accurate records of overtime hours worked; (j Whether AT&T unlawfully failed to reimburse the Class Members with required expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties; (k Whether AT&T has engaged in unfair competition by the abovelisted conduct; and, (l Whether AT&T s conduct was willful.. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a Class Action as set forth in, in that: (a The persons who comprise the CLASS are so numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court; (b Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the CLASS and will apply uniformly to every Class Member; (c The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims of each member of the CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all the Class Members, was classified as an independent contractor upon hiring based on the defined corporate policies and practices and labored under DEFENDANTS systematic procedure that failed to properly classify the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. PLAINTIFF sustained economic injury as a result of DEFENDANTS employment practices. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were and are similarly or identically harmed by the same unlawful, unfair, deceptive and persuasive pattern of misconduct engaged in by DEFENDANTS by deceptively telling all the Class Members that they were not entitled to minimum wages, wages for all hours worked, overtime wages, the --

17 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 employer s share of payment of payroll taxes and mandatory insurance, and reimbursement for training time and training expenses based on the defined corporate policies and practices, and unfairly failing to pay these employees who were improperly classified as independent contractors; and, (d The representative PLAINTFF will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the CLASS, and has retained counsel who is competent and experienced in Class Action litigation. There are no material conflicts between the claims of the representative PLAINTIFF and the Class Members that would make class certification inappropriate. Counsel for the CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all employees in the CLASS.. In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this Action is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. (b( and/or (, in that: (a Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive, statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the CLASS will create the risk of: (i Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the CLASS which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the CLASS; and/or, (ii Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CLASS which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair or impeded their ability to protect their interests. --

18 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 (b (c The parties opposing the CLASS have acted on grounds generally applicable to the CLASS making appropriate classwide relief with respect to the CLASS as a whole in that DEFENDANTS uniformly classified and treated the Class Members as independent contractors and, thereafter, uniformly failed to take proper steps to determine whether the Class Members were properly classified as independent contractors, and thereby denied these employees wages and payments for business expenses, training expenses and the employer s share of payroll taxes and mandatory insurance as required by law. (i With respect to the First Cause of Action, the final relief on behalf of the CLASS sought does not related exclusively to restitution because through this claim the PLAINIFF seeks declaratory relief holding that DEFENDANTS policies and practices constitute unfair competition, along with incidental equitable relief as may be necessary to remedy the conduct declared to constitute unfair competition. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the CLASS with respect to the practices and violations of California law as listed above, and predominate over any question affecting only individual members, and a Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of: (i The interest of the Class Members in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; --

19 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 (ii The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the CLASS; (iii In the context of wage litigation because as a practical matter a substantial number of individual class members will avoid asserting their legal rights out of fear of retaliation by DEFENDANTS, which may adversely affect an individual s job with DEFENDANTS or with a subsequent employer, the Class Action is the only means to assert their claims through a representative; (iv The desirability or undesirability of concentration the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (v The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a Class Action; and, (vi The basis of DEFENDNATS policies and practices uniformly applied to all the Class Members. 0. The Court should permit this Action to be maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. (b( and/or (, because: (a The questions of law and fact common to the CLASS predominate over any question affecting only individual members; (b A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the CLASS; (c The Class Members are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all Class Members before the Court; --

20 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page0 of 0 0 (d PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, will not be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a Class Action; (e There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and equitable relief for the acts of unfair competition, statutory violations and other improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages and injuries which DEFENDANTS actions have inflicted upon the CLASS; (f There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets and available insurance of DEFENDANTS are sufficient to adequately compensate the Class Members for any injuries sustained; (g DEFENDANTS have acted or has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the CLASS, thereby making final classwide relief appropriate with respect to the CLASS as a whole; (h The members of the CLASS are readily ascertainable from the business records of DEFENDANTS. The CLASS consists of all DEFENDANTS Class Members employed in California during the CLASS PERIOD; and, (i Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to bring an efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and hour related claims arising out of DEFENDANTS conduct as to the Class Members.. DEFENDANTS maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and identify by name and job title, each of DEFENDANTS employees who have been systematically, intentionally and uniformly subjected to DEFENDANTS corporate policies, practices and procedures as herein alleged. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend the complaint to include any additional job titles of similarly situated employees when they have been identified. -0-

21 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This Court hasjurisdiction over this Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. (b( and/or (. This Action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of a class that exceeds 00 persons, that involves more than $,000,000 in controversy and where the citizenship of at least one Class Member is diverse from that of DEFENDANTS. As a result, this Court also has original jurisdiction over this Action under U.S.C. (CAFA Jurisdiction.. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to U.S.C. because: (i Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC and Defendant Arise Virtual Solutions Inc. are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and therefore reside in this District, (ii one of more of the DEFENDANTS currently maintain offices and at all relevant times maintained offices and facilities in this District and (iii DEFENDANTS committed the wrongful conduct herein alleged in this District against members of the CLASS. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION For Unlawful, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 00 et seq.] (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against All Defendants. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs through of this Complaint.. DEFENDANTS are "persons" as that term is defined under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 0.. Section 00 of the California Business & Professions Code defines unfair competition as any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 00 applies to violations of labor laws in the employment context. Section 0 authorizes injunctive, declaratory and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition as follows: Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may take such --

22 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition. California Business & Professions Code 0.. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANTS have engaged and continue to engage in a business practice which violates California law, including but not limited to Wage Order -00, the Minimum Wage Order (MW-00, the California Labor Code including Sections 0, 0, 0, 0,, 0,,,,., &, the regulations of the Department of Labor and the opinions of the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement, for which this Court should issue declaratory and other equitable relief, pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof 0, as may be necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct held to constitute unfair competition, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.. By the conduct alleged herein, AT&T s practices were unfair in that these practices violate public policy, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to employees, and are without valid justification or utility, for which this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 0 of the California Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld, business expenses wrongfully withheld and for the payment of the employer s share of income taxes, social security taxes, unemployment insurance and workers compensation insurance.. By the conduct alleged herein, AT&T s practices were deceptive and fraudulent in that AT&T s uniform misclassification practice was to represent to the Class Members that they were not entitled to minimum wages, overtime wages, business expense reimbursement, payment for payroll taxes or mandatory insurance and other benefits as required by California law, when in fact these representations were false and likely to deceive, for which this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief, --

23 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 pursuant to Section 0 of the California Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 0. By the conduct alleged herein, AT&T s practices were also unfair and deceptive in that AT&T s uniform misclassification caused the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members to be underpaid for each pay period they were employees of AT&T.. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF demands on behalf of herself and on behalf of each member of the CLASS, all overtime wages due and all business related expenses due, and reimbursement for and payment of all of employer s share of payroll taxes and mandatory insurance.. By the conduct alleged herein, AT&T s practices were also unfair and deceptive in that AT&T s uniform policies and practices failed to provide mandatory meal and/or rest breaks to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members.. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF demands on behalf of herself and on behalf of each member of the CLASS, minimum wages, overtime wages, business expenses, payment for the employer s share of payroll taxes and mandatory insurance, and one ( hour of pay for each workday in which an off-duty meal period was not timely provided for each five ( hours of work, and/or one ( hour of pay for each workday in which a second off-duty meal period was timely provided for each ten (0 hours of work.. PLAINTIFF further demands on behalf of herself and each member of the CLASS, one ( hour of pay for each workday in which a rest period was timely provided as required by law and payment for the cost of all training courses and the wages due for the time spent in these courses.. By and through the unfair and unlawful business practices described herein, DEFENDANTS have obtained valuable property, money and services from the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members, and has deprived them of valuable rights and benefits guaranteed by law and contract, all to the detriment of the employees and all to the benefit of DEFENDANTS so as to allow DEFENDANTS to unfairly compete against competitors who comply with the law. --

24 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0. All the acts described herein as violations of, among other things, the California Labor Code, California Code of Regulations and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, are unlawful, are in violation of public policy, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and are deceptive and likely to deceive employees, and thereby constitute unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 00 et seq.. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are entitled to, and do, seek such relief as may be necessary to restore to them the property and money which DEFENDANTS have acquired, or of which the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have been deprived, by means of the described unlawful and unfair business practices.. PLAINTIF and the Class Members are further entitled to, and do, seek a declaration that the described business practices are unlawful and unfair and that an injunctive relief should be issued restraining DEFENDANTS from engaging in any unlawful and unfair business practices in the future.. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members have no plain, speedy and/or adequate remedy at law that will end the unlawful and unfair business practices of DEFENDANTS. Further, the practices herein alleged presently continue to occur unabated. As a result of the unlawful and unfair business practices described herein, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless DEFEDNANTS are restrained from continuing to engage in these unfair and unlawful business practices. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, Hourly Wages and Overtime Wages [Cal. Lab. Code 0,,,. & ] (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against All Defendants 0. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs through of this Complaint. --

25 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members bring a claim for DEFENDANTS willful and intentional violations of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission requirements for DEFENDANTS failure to correctly classify the Class Members as employees and therefore compensate them for all the hours they worked, including overtime hours.. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code 0, other applicable laws and regulations, and public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all hours worked. Cal. Lab. Code 0 and 0 require DEFENDANTS to pay all wages due to an employee whose employment has terminated.. Cal. Lab. Code 0 further provides that employees in California shall not be employed more than eight ( hours per workday and forty (0 hours per workweek unless they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law. The California Labor Code provides for minimum wages and for the payment for all hours worked.. Cal. Lab. Code establishes an employee s right to recover unpaid wages, including overtime compensation and interest thereon, together with the costs of suit. Cal. Lab. Code further states that the employment of an employee for longer hours than those fixed by the Industrial Welfare Commission is unlawful.. DEFENDANTS have intentionally and uniformly designated certain employees as independent contractors without regard to DEFENDANTS realistic expectations and actual overall requirements of the job, including the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, who were paid directly or indirectly by AT&T and who performed work for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC. This was done in an illegal attempt to avoid payment of minimum wages, wages for all hours worked, overtime wages and other benefits in violation of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission requirements.. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, worked more than eight ( hours in a workday, forty (0 hours in a workweek and/or on the seventh (th consecutive day of a workweek. --

26 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS failed to pay the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, minimum wages, wages for all hours worked and overtime wages for the hours they worked in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law as required by Cal. Lab. Code 0,,. &, even though the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were regularly required to work, and did in fact work, uncompensated hours, hours compensated at less than minimum wage and overtime hours that DEFENDANTS never recorded as evidenced by DEFENDANTS business records and witnessed by employees.. By virtue of DEFENDANTS unlawful failure to pay compensation to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for all hours worked, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, an economic injury in amounts which are presently unknown to them and which we be ascertained according to proof at trial.. DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were misclassified as independent contractors and DEFENDANTS systematically elected, either through intentional malfeasance or gross nonfeasance, not to pay them for their labor as a matter of uniform corporate policy, practice and procedure. 0. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members therefore request recovery of all compensation according to proof, interest, costs, as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against DEFENDANTS in a sum as provided by the California Labor Code and/or other statutes. To the extent overtime compensation is determined to be owed to the Class Members who have terminated their employment, these employees would also be entitled to waiting time penalties under Cal. Lab. Code 0, which penalties are sought herein. Further, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are entitled to seek and recover statutory costs.. In performing the acts and practices herein alleged in violation of labor laws and refusing to provide the requisite overtime compensation, DEFENDANTS acted and continue to act intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward the PLAINTIFF and --

27 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 toward the Class Members with a conscious and utter disregard of their legal rights, or their consequences to them, and with the despicable intent of depriving them of their property and legal rights and otherwise causing them injury in order to increase corporate benefits at the expense of the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements [Cal. Lab. Code ] (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against All Defendants. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs through of this Complaint.. Cal. Lab. Code provides that an employer must furnish employees with an "accurate itemized" statement in writing showing: ( Gross wages earned; ( Total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a of Section or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission; ( The number of piecerate units earned and any applicable rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis; ( All deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item; ( Net wages earned; ( The inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid; ( The name of the employee and his or her social security number, except that by January, 00, only the last four digits of his or her social security number may be shown on the itemized statement; ( The name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; and, ( All applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS violated Cal. Lab. Code in that DEFENDANTS failed to provide an accurate wage statement in writing that properly --

28 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 and accurately itemized the number of hours worked by the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, at the effective regular rates of pay and the effective overtime rates of pay.. DEFENDANTS knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with Cal. Lab. Code, causing damages to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. These damages include, but are not limited, to costs expended calculating the true hours worked, wages earned, the amount of employment taxes and mandatory insurance which were not properly paid by DEFENDANTS to federal and state tax authorities. These damages are difficult to estimate. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members may elect to recover liquidated damages of fifty dollars ($0.00 for the initial pay period in which the violation occurred and one hundred dollars ($00.00 for each violation in subsequent pay periods pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial (but in no event more than four thousand ($, for the PLAINTIFF and each respective member of the CLASS herein, plus statutory costs pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code (g. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses [Cal. Lab. Code 0] (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against All Defendants. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs through of this Complaint.. Cal. Lab. Code 0 provides, in relevant part, that: An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful.. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS violated Cal. Lab. Code 0, by failing to indemnify and reimburse the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for expenses incurred in the performance of their job duties for DEFENDANTS. --

29 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 Specifically, DEFENDANTS failed to reimburse the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for expenses which include, but is not limited, to home office expenses including a computer, software, internet, a headset, ink, paper and other related office supplies and required training courses including the fee of the courses and the necessary materials in order to complete the courses. DEFENDANTS are estopped by DEFENDANTS conduct to assert any waiver of this expectation. Although these expenses were necessary expenditures incurred by the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members DEFENDANTS failed to indemnify and reimburse them for these expenses as an employer is required to do under the laws and regulations of California.. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members therefore were forced by the expectation of DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS' unwritten policy to contribute to DEFEDNANTS business expenses, which expenses must be refunded by DEFENDANTS to each member of the CLASS. 0. Cal. Lab. Code 0(b and (c provide for interest at the statutory post judgment rate of (ten 0% simple interest per annum from the date of the expenditures, plus attorneys fees to collect reimbursement.. PLAINTIFF therefore demands reimbursement for expenditures or losses incurred by her and the Class Members in the performance of her job duties for DEFENDANTS, or their obedience to the directions of DEFENDANTS with interest at the statutory rate and costs under Cal. Lab. Code 0. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 00 [Cal. Lab. Code et seq.] (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against All Defendants. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs -, supra, as though fully set forth at this point.. PLAINTIFF brings this representative action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all individuals who are or previously were doing work as a Virtual Call-Center --

30 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page0 of 0 0 Agents who were paid directly or indirectly by and through AT&T and/or an AT&T agent to provide customer service and technical support by handling inbound customer calls of AT&T customers and who were directly or indirectly classified by AT&T as an independent contractor of AT&T during the applicable statutory period as determined by the Court (the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES.. On April, 0, PLAINTIFF gave written notice by certified mail to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the Agency and the employers of the specific provisions of this code alleged to have been violated as required by Labor Code.. See Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein. The statutory waiting period for PLAINTIFF to add these allegations to the Complaint has expired. As a result, pursuant to Section., PLAINTIFF may now commence a civil action pursuant to Section.. The policies, acts and practices heretofore described were and are an unlawful business act or practice because DEFENDANTS (a failure to properly record and pay PLAINTIFF and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for all the hours they worked, including overtime, (b failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (c failure to timely pay wages, and (d failure to reimburse PLAINTIFF and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for reasonable business expenses, violates the applicable Labor Code sections listed in Labor Code. as set forth hereinabove and thereby gives rise to statutory penalties as a result of such conduct. PLAINTIFF, as an AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE, hereby seeks recovery of civil penalties as prescribed by the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 00 on behalf of herself and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, against whom one or more of the violations of the Labor Code was committed. PRAYER WHEREFOR, the PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against each Defendant, jointly and severally, as follows:. On behalf of the CLASS: -0-

31 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// A That the Court certify action asserted by the CLASS as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. (b( and/or (; B An order temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining DEFENDANTS from engaging in similar unlawful conduct as set forth herein; C An order requiring DEFENDANTS to pay all sums unlawfully withheld from the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members; D Disgorgement of DEFENDANTS ill-gotten gains into a fluid fund for restitution of the sums incidental to DEFENDANTS violations due PLAINTIFF and the Class Members; E Compensatory damages, according to proof at trial, including compensatory damages for overtime compensation due PLAINTIF and the other members of the CLASS during the applicable CLASS PERIOD, plus interest thereon at the statutory rate; and, F Penalties payable to all terminated employees in the CLASS in accordance with Cal. Lab. Code 0.. On behalf of the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES: A Recovery of civil penalties as prescribed by the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of

32 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of. On all claims: A An award of interest, including prejudgment interest at the legal rate; B An award of penalties and cost of suit, but neither his prayer nor any other allegation or prayer in this Complaint is to be construed as a request, under any circumstance, that would result in a request for attorneys fees or costs available under Cal. Lab. Code.; and, C Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 0 0 Dated: May, 0 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK By: /s/ Norman B. Blumenthal NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF --

33 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFF demands a jury trial on issues triable to a jury. 0 0 Dated: May, 0 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK By: /s/ Norman B. Blumenthal NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF --

34 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 EXHIBIT A

35 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of

36 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of

37 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of

38 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of

39 Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of