Genentech Lawsuit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Angela M. Alioto, (SBN 130328)Emily St John Cohen, (SBN 239674)LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. ALIOTOAND ANGELA ALIOTO

700 Montgomery StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111 -2104Telephone: (415) 434 -8700Facsimile: (415) 438 -4638

Sandra L. Ribero, (SBN 236769)RIBERA. LAW FIRM

A Professional Corporation807 Montgomery StreetSan Francisco, CA 94133Telephone: ( 415) 576 -1600Facsimile: ( 415) 842 -0321

Attorneys for Plaintiff Juliet Kniley

LEDSAN MATCB COUNTY

AUG 0 2012

Ciet parlor court

E

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN MATEO COUNTY

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

QWJULIET KNILEY, )

Plaintiff, )

VS. )

GENENTECH, INC., and }

DOES 1 -20, )

Defendant(s). )

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1. Whistleblower Retaliation (Cal. Lab.Code § 1102.5(c))

2. Retaliation in Violation ofFEHA3. Harassment in Violation ofFEHA4. Failure to Prevent Retaliation and

Harassment in Violation ofFEHA

5. Wrongful Termination in Violationof Public Policy

6. Wrongful Demotion in Violation ofPublic Policy

7. Intentional Infliction of EmotionalDistress

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Kniaay v. Gcmnwk inn at al.cam*iathr.Damum 1

1 PlaintiffJULWT KNILEY (or "Plaintiffs for her Complaint against Defendant

2 GENENTECH, INC. ( "Genentech" or "Defendant'), hereby alleges as follows:3

NATURE OF THE ACTION

4

51. This is an action for damages for Defendant'swhistleblower retaliation in violation of

s

California Labor Code § 1102(c), retaliation in violation of FEHA, harassment in violation of

FEHA, failure to prevent retaliation in violation ofpublic policy, wrongful termination in8

9 violation ofpublic policy, wron& demotion in violation ofpublic policy, and intentional

10 infliction of emotional distress. The action arises out ofPlaintiffs employment with

11 Defendant

12

JURISDICTION AND VENUE13

14 2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by California Code ofCivil Procedure § 410.10.

15 3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code ofCivil Procedure § 395.

16 PARTIES

174. At all pertinent times mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiffwas a resident ofthe County of

18

San'Francisco, State of California.19

205. Defendant Genentech, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of

21 Delaware, but has had its headquarters in South San Francisco in the State ofCalifornia ever

22 since its founding in 1976.

236. Defendant Genentech, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, and employs approximately eleven

24

thousand, five hundred (11,500) employees in the United States.25

7. In March of 2009, Defendant Genentech, Inc. and the Roche Group combined their26

27 pharmaceutical operations and Defendant became an independent center within the Roche

28 Group.

Kzu* v. GemnteA Inc. et al.2Complaint for Damages

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8. From approximately December 5, 2005 to August 30, 2011, Plaintiffwas employed by

Defendant. Plaintiffs official job site for Defendant was located at 1 DNA Way, South San

Francisco, California, 94080.

9. At all the pertinent times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendant acted with the intent to

a tortious effect on the Plaintiffwithin the State of California.

10. Corporate Defendant is directly liable to Plaintiff for the harassing conduct of their

supervisors, managers, division heads, other employees and agents.

11. Corporate Defendant is directly liable for the conduct of its division heads, managers,

supervisors, employees and agents as described herein. At all times pertinent in this Complaint

the employees ofDefendant were acting as agents ofDefendant and also were within the scope

oftheir employment.

12. Plaintiff is ignorant ofthe true names or capacities of the Defendants sued here under the

fictitious names DOES 1 through DOES 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each DOE

Defendant was responsible in some manner for the occurrences and injuries alleged in this

Complaint.

13. At all times mentioned in the causes ofaction into which this paragraph is incorporated by

reference, each and every individual Defendant was the agent or employee of each and every

other Defendant. In doing the things alleged in the causes ofaction into which this paragraph is

incorporated by reference, each and every Defendant was acting within the course and scope of

this agency or employment and was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of

each remaining Defendant. All actions of each Defendant alleged in the causes ofaction into

which this paragraph is incorporated by reference were ratified and approved by the officers or

the managing agents ofevery other Defendant.

Knft v. C4meawA Ine. et aL

C=PWM far Damages 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

6

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1s

19

20

21.

22

23

24

25

2'6

27

28

EXHAUSTION OF ADPAMSTRATM REMEDIES

14. Plainti ffhas fully exhausted all applicable administrative remedies. Plaintiff has received a

Right- to-Sue Notice from the California Department ofFair Employment and Housing on

October 5, 2011.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

15. Plaintiff Juliet Kniley is a female.

16. Plaintiff lives in San Francisco, California.

17. On December 5, 2005, Plaintiffwas hired by Defendant as an Associate [Clinical] Operations

Team Leader with an annual base salary of $115,000.00.

18. From December 2005 to August 2009, Plaintiff received only excellent performance reviews,

as is evidenced by her multiple promotions.

19. In July of2007, Plaintiff was promoted to hold the Operational Leadership role in the Pi3

Kinase Program due to her excellent performance reviews. According to Defendant'ssenior -

executives and "All Hands Meetings," the Pi3 Kinase Program was the most important

program at the company.

20. In and around August of2008, Plaintiffwas promoted to the role ofSenior Clinical Program

Manager with an annual base salary of $133,375.00.

21. Plaintif''s status and her work environment began to change, however, in October of2008

after Plaintiff, carrying out her duties as listed in her position description, informed

Defendant'sDevelopment Sub Team Leader (DSTL), Wla Deryack, M.D., that the first-in-

human clinical trial must be followed as written. Plaintiff complained to Defendant's

management that instead of following written protocol, Defendant'sPi3 Kinase Program Team

Knft V. GCWVWb, Inc. et al.Complaint ft Damages 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

was engaging in illegal and unethical conduct in relation to the clinical trials. The laws and

regulations that Defendant violated included, but were not limited to: (1) 21 Code ofFederal

Regulations (C.F.R.) §'312.30, which requires that a sponsor "submit a protocol amendment

describing any change in a Phase I protocol that significantly affects the safety of subjects "; (2;

21 CRR_ 312.5 which indicates that

1

sponsors (Defendant) are responsible for ensuring that

investigations are conducted in accordance with the protocol; (3) International Conference of

Harmonisation (I.C.H.) E6 § 4.5.2, which indicates that the investigator should not implement

any deviation from, or changes of the protocol without approval of the Institutional Ethics

Committee, and (4) I.C.H E8 § 3.2.3, which indicates that adherence to the protocol is

essential. The International Conference ofHarmonisation Guidelines, which is advocated by

the FDA, sets an international standard ofthe highest scientific and ethical quality for clinical

studies that are conducted in human subjects; and other FDA Standards regarding good clinical

practices in FDA- regulated clinical trials.

22. Throughout October and November of2008, Plaintiff complained ton multiple occasions to

Defendant'sDSTL Mika Derynck, M.D., and Defendant's Clinical Sub -Team Leader (CSTL)

Scott Holden, M.D. that Defendant'spremature and inappropriate safety testing in humans for

certain clinical studies-in Defendant'sPi3 Kinase Program violated several laws and

regulations that were designed to protect the safety of the patients on whom the tests were

being conducted.

23. On or about December 17, 2008, Plaintiff complained to Defendant'smanagement about the

behavior ofDr. Holder being inconsistent with Defendant'scorporate values and ofhis

insistence on violating federal regulations and international directives. After this meeting, Dr. I

Holden began to verbally abuse, harass, and retaliate against Plaintiff.. Dr. Holden confronted

Complaint fir Damages 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

e

9

to

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffmultiple times, in which he yelled, pounded his fists on a table, angrily pointed his

finger at her, and belittled her. Additionally, Dr. Holden began to exclude Plaintiff from

meetings that were held to discuss topics under Plaintiff'sdirect area ofaccountability. As a

result, Plaintiffwas prevented from obtaining all information necessary for her to fully

function in her role as Senior Clinical Program Manager of the Pi3 Kinase Program.

24. Plainhfftold Defendant'smanagement about Dr. Holden's harassment and retaliation, and

specifically sought assistance from her manager, Mark Bradley, and Mr. Bradley's supervisor,

Tricia Moore. Plaintiffobjected to proceeding with these clinical trials and tests on humans

due to the absence ofDefendant's adherence to the rules and regulations promulgated to

protect the subjects. Despite Plaintiffs objections, Plaintiffs supervisors consistently

Plaintiffs objections and permitted the clinical trial violations. Defendant'sconduct was

unethical and illegal, and was in violation of (1) Federal Regulations; (2) Defendant's Good

Operating Procedures; (3) Defendant'sStandard Operating Procedures (SOPS); and (4) the

International Conference ofHarmonisation Guidelines. Such violations put the lives of the

subjects ofDefendant'sPia Kinase Program clinical trials at unnecessary risk ofdeath and

injury.

25. On January 7, 2009, Plaintiff complained to Defendant'sVice President Stuart Lutzker, MD

via Defendant'smulti-rater feedback foam that Dr. Derynck was making clinical trial

in the area ofprotocol compliance that were putting the relationship with the clinical

investigator above the best interests of the human trial subjects.

26. On April 28, 2009, Plaintiff further complained that she would not be a party to presenting

unrealistic clinical trial timelines to Defendant'sSenior Management, which could have a

significant negative impact on Defendant'sbusiness and could put trial subjects' fives in

Kaft V. amxn ak loo. et BLComplain kr Deungw 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9'

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23-

24

25

26

27

28

jeopardy as a result of shortcuts taken to achieve such unrealistic timelines. Despite the

accuracy of the timelines Plaintiff did present to Drs. Derynck and Holden, Plaintiff was

continuously ridiculed and disparaged by them in public forums. Plaintiffwas told by Dr.

Derynck during two separate team meetings #hat "Roche will take this molecule away from us

if they see these timelines."

27. Following a presentation on July 9, 2009, Plaintiff again indicated to Dr. Derynck that -

the timelines for certain clinical trials were unrealistic. and not supported by Clinical

Operations.

28. On July 29 and August 3, 2009, Plaintiff was repeatedly instructed by Drs. Derynck and

Holden to allow a clinical trial to go forward without the necessary approvals required under

the law. Because it was the responsibility ofClinical Operations to ensure the adequacy of the

regulatory documentation, Plaintiff complained to her supervisors, including her current

manager Lenny Kimball, that she was not willing to initiate the clinical trial without sufficient

information to identify the protocol. Lenny Kimball failed to alleviate or even respond to

Plaintiff's complaints about Defendant's illegal conduct Ms. Kimball, as well as other

members of Defendant'smanagement, failed to investigate the merits ofPlaintiffs reports of

illegal and unethical conduct, and instead retaliated against Plaintiff for raising concems to

management about the lack of adherence to safety laws and regulations by demoting Plaintiff

and removing her from the Pi3 Kinase Program even though she had held her position with the

program since July 9, 2007 and received a promotion from Clinical Program Manager to Sr.

Clinical Program Manager in August of2008.

Way v. GmanwkI= at aLOMPIRW iar DawAga 7

1

2

3

4

M

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

26

29. In August of2009, following her complaints about illegal and unethical conduct, Plaintiff was

removed from the Pi3 Kinase Program, a demotion, something that was done only when a

Clinical Program Manager demonstrated consistently poor performance or improper behavior.

30. As Senior Clinical Program Leader, Plaintiffwas exclusively charged with "ensuring that all

programs under her oversight were instituted according to ethical, regulatory and legal

requirements" Plaintiffwas demoted for performing the functions ofher job, a job with duties

that she was uniquely qualified to carry out. This was pure retaliation, and such blatant, .

wrongful, and baseless conduct by management tended to and did in fact defame Plaintiff's

reputation with others at the company as a top notch Senior Clinical Program Leader.

31. Team members ofthe Pi3 Kinase Program, including the Development Sub team Leader and

the Vice President ofDevelopment Oncology, repeatedly told Plaintiff that she was a needed

and valued participant on the investigational product Pi3 Kinase Program Other team

members from another Program for which Plaintiff simultaneously worked as a Senior Clinic

Program Manager provided the same positive feedback about Plaintiff.

32. Being removed from the Pi3 Kinase Program caused severe damage to Plaintiffs reputation

amongst her coworkers and around the community. The Pi3 Kinase Program was a highly

valued Program at the company.

33. Plaintiff set up and implemented the Pi3 Kinase Program based on her operational strategies

and expertise. This required a workload ofbetween 5 -10 fold higher than Plaintiffs

colleagues. The Manager who replaced Plaintiff in the P13 Kinase Program reaped the benefi

from the success ofPlaintiffs work. Defendant'smanagement then promoted Plaintiffs

replacement to be a Clinical Program Group Leader, a higher position than Plaintiffhad

previously had as Senior Clinical Program Leader. Both Defendant'sDevelopment Sub team

UftV. Gmewnk Ina. ct aLCamplaiai %r Dma 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

I

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Leader and the Clinical Sub team Leader of the Pi3 Kinase Program also received promotions

based on Plaintiffs work shortly after Plaintiff was removed from the Pia Kinase Program.

34. On January 12, 2010, Plaintiff again' complained to her supervisors about the harassing and

retaliatory work environment she experienced while working under Drs. Derynck and Holden

in the Pi3 Kinase Program.

35. On January 31, 2010, Plaintiffwas further retaliated against with her first negative

performance review relating to her performance in 2009. The review was inaccurate and

unwarranted given Plaintiffs performance. Based on Plaintiffs negative performance review,

Plaintiffwas also denied a Long Term Incentive ( "LTr) bonus as well as a merit -based salary

bonus and a salary increase, despite successfully initiating at least eight clinical trials for the

Pia Kinase Program in one year, which was five to ten tunes the output and workload of a

typical Senior Clinical Program Leader.

36. On March 16, 2010, Plaintiff complained to one ofher supervisors, Tricia Moore, about the

unwarranted performance review she had received. Instead of attempting to investigate

Plaintiffs complaints, Ms. Moore mocked Plaintiff for her strict adherence to standard

operating procedures.

37. In or around March 2010, Plaintiff complained to Human Resources and Employee Relations

about her inaccurate performance review relating to her performance in 2009. Defendant

assigned James Deslonde, Senior Manager ofEmployee Relations, to undertake an

investigation into Plaintiffs complaints.

38. On April 21, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a formal written complaint to Sean Bohm, Vice

President of Genentech Early Development to again voice her concerns regarding the illegal

and unethical acts of the Pia Kinase Team and management'songoing retaliatory acts. Plaintifq

Utleyv. Cleoenmk Inc. at aL

phial for Damages 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

also sent a carbon copy of the formal written complaint to the following employees of _

Defendant: Christopher Brown, ChiefHealthcare Compliance Officer, James Deslonde, Senior

Manager ofEmployee Relations; Ann Lee- Karlon, Vice President of Portfolio Management

and Operations; Michael Li Associate General Counsel of Development •meat LawP

Michelle Rohrer, Vice President of Regulatory; Richard Scheller, Executive Vice President of

Research and Early Development; Denise Smith -Hams, Vice President ofHuman Resources;

and Philippe Van der Auwera, Global Head of Safety.

39. In an April 26, 2010 meeting, Mr. Deslonde told Plaintiff that the performance review was

unfair and unwarranted, but there was h̀otting he could do"

40. Plaintiff continued to be subjected to retaliation throughout the remainder of2010 as a result o

her continuous whistle blowing about the Pi3 Kinase Team's illegal and unethical conduct.

41. Plaintiffs mid -year 2010 review, which Plaintiff received in July of2010, was once again

filled with gross misstatements regarding her performance. Defendant informed Plaintiff in a

spiteful that her meritbased salary increase, annual bonus, and LTIs were lower than

her colleagues, despite her consistently exceptional performance on programs ofgreat

importance to Defendant'sbusiness.

42. Furthermore,. Defendant'smanagement subsequently and repeatedly damaged Plaintiffs

ability for lateral and promotional moves in the company for which she was exceedingly

qualified-

43. Throughout 2010, Ms. Kimball, Plaintiffs supervisor, continuously harassed and besieged

Plaintiffwith accusatory, hypercritical, capricious and duplicitous lectures without allowing

Plaintiffto speak, or ridiculing Plaintiff s explanation of alleged incidents. Ms. Kimball also

Km1ey v. Qeneaftek Ino. et al.Cmnplafat Ox Damages 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

imposed expectations and cumbersome and gratuitous tasks that were not imposed on others at -

Plaintiffs job leveL

44. In or around late January of2011, Plaintiff received another unwarranted negative

performance review and was again denied a merit based salary-increase, an annual bonus, and

LTIs commensurate with her'performance. ,

45. On or about February 14, 2011, Plaintiffmade another formal complaint to Defendant's

management regarding her demotion, depial of bonuses and salary increases, and unwarranted

performance reviews and ratings that all resulted from her ongoing complaints that the Pi3

Kinase team was violating laws and regulations. Plaintiff further complained at this time that

her management had consistently ignored her previous complaints, and had instead retaliated

against and harassed her.

46. After Plaintiffs February 2011 complaint, Defendant undertook another investigation into

Defendant'shostile and retaliatory conduct

47. In early March of2011, Plaintiff interviewed for a lateral position in the Product Development

Group at Genentech. Her interviews went well, but she was informed that any offer or

determination ofwho would fill the position was still contingent on the employee's latest

performance review.

48. On or about March 4, 2011, Plaintiff again complained about the most recent unwarranted

performance review to Guy Zuzovsky in Human Resources. Plaintiff explained to Mr.

Zuzovsky that she was particularly concerned about the inaccurate performance review

because she was attempting to transfer to a new department within Genentech where she woul

no longer be subjected to the retaliatory and harassing conduct ofher manager, Ms. Kimball.

Kniky v. (IonenWA Im at al. -Complaint for Damages 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49. On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff complained to Egiployee Relations about not being selected for

numerous positions for which she was qualified and her concern that unsubstantiated

comments in her prior performance reviews were'the reason why. Plaintiff failed to be selected

for these positions.

50. On April 27, 2011, Mr. Zuzovsky informed Plaintiff that the 2011 formal investigation

regarding the retaliation and harassment upon Plaintiff was completed. Even though Plaintiff

was still being retaliated against and harassed frequently, Defendant took no action to remedy

the hostile and retaliatory actions.

51. On or about May 23, 2011, Ms. Kimball wrote Plaintiffup based on false accusations in a

document entitled "Performance Counseling."

52. Despite meeting the expectations of the Performance Counseling document, on July 15, 2011,

Ms. Kimball placed Plaintiff on an unwarranted and unfair Performance Improvement Plan

CTIP'J, in further retaliation against Plaintiff for her whistle blowing and complaints about

Ms. Kimball. This was Plaintiffs first and only PIP.

53. On August 30, 2011, Plaintiffwas wrongfully terminated.

54. At the time ofher termination, Plaintiff had been making a base salary ofapproximately

135,775.00a year.

55. Plaintiffs terminati was without merit, without fair warning, wrongful in administration,

and not equitable in consideration ofher total performance. Rather, the justifications used by

Defendant were pretexts to hide the disapproval and retaliation that ensued as a result of

Plaintiffs complaints and the exposure of the Defendant'sviolations.

Kailey v. Owmte* Im et all,e mplabd trnun es 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

F1i

16

17

is

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Whistleblower Retaliationin Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5

As to Defendant Genentech, Inc. and Does 1 -50)

56. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through

55 supra with the same force and effect as if fully pleaded at length herein.

57. California Labor Code § 1102.5(c) prohibits retaliation by an employer against an employee

who refuses to participate in an activity that would result in violation ofa state or federal

statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. The

California Legislature enacted Labor Code § 1102.5(c) with - the express intent, "to protect

employees who refuse to act at the direction of their employer or refuse to participate in

activities ofan employer that would result in a violation of law."

58. It is the fundamental public policy of this State that no employer retaliate against an employee

who refuses to engage in an activity that would result in a violation of law, as provided by

California'sWhistleblower statute, Labor Code § 1102.5(c). As more fully set forth in the

preceding paragraphs ofthis Complaint, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and is therefore

protected by the mandates ofLabor Code § 11025(c). Starting in or around October of2008,

Plaintiff raised objections to management and her supervisors regarding the Pi3 Kinase

plan to proceed with a phase of the First -In -Human safety trials because it violated several

laws and Federal Regulations.

59. Following Plaintiff's objections to participation ofand proceeding with the Pia Kinaw

Program Team's planned actions, Defendant knowingly and intentionally retaliated against

Plaintiff in several ways, including but not limited to: providing unwarranted negative

performance reviews for 2009, 2010, and 2011; failing to give her appropriate or deserving

28 11 LTIs, merit -based salary increases, bonuses, and other raises; demoting Plaintiffby removingKniley V. Genentech, r= et aLComplaint fbr Damages 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

vim

to

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

her from her coveted and esteemed role on the Pi3 Kinase Team; subjecting Plaintiff to

increased scrutiny of her work that others in a similar position were not subjected to; falsely

accusing Plaintiff ofmaking mistakes she had not made; harassing Plaintiff and treating

Plaintiff in an abusive manner that other employees in a similar position were not subjected to;

refusing to investigate and address Plaintiffs complaints about being targeted because ofher

refusal to engage in illegal activity; refusing to take corrective action in response to Plaintiffs

complaints ofretaliation; putting Plaintiff on an unwarranted performance improvement plan;

and by terminating Plaintiff in August of2011.

60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful retaliation against plaintiff in

violation ofLabor Code § 1102.5(c), Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer substantial

losses in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, future earnings, and other employment

benefits. Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution ofany loss ofbenefits,. including

pension and other compensation she otherwise would have been entitled such as merit -based

salary bonuses, salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages for

these losses and hereby demands an award ofdamages against Defendant in an amount

according to proof at trial.

61. Furthermore, Plaintiff experienced and continues to experience indignation as a result of the

retaliation. She was and still is deprived of the right to work without fear of reprisal for

refusing to participate in activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff also suffe

from extreme emotional distress, including, but not limited to: mental anguish, outrage,

frustration, severe anxiety about her future, fear of harm to her employability, anxiety about

the damage to her reputation, embaaassme among her. friends and colleagues, and the

disruption ofher personal life: Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages for these losses and

Kmlcy v. Oeneatech. I= et al.CMVbkW Ibr Dwmw 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

e

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1s

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

hereby demands an award of damages against Defendant in an amount according to proof at

trial.

62. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with

wrongful intent to harm Plain= from an evil motive amounting to malice, and with a

conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be free from retaliation for refusing to participate in

activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive

damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from Defendant

in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from engaging mi

such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof,

63. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(f), Defendant is liable for a civil penalty for each violation of

Labor Code § 1102.5(c). As more fully set forth above, Plaintiff provided notice ofher

intention to seek recovery ofcivil penalties for Defendant'sviolations ofLabor Code §

1102.5(c). Upon the expiration of thirty -three (33) days from the date of Plaintiffs notice,

Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to assert a claim for civil penalties against

Defendant.

64. Pursuant to California Code Cty. Proc. § 1021.5, a court may award attorneys' fees tO a

successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which: (1) has resulted in

the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest; (2) a significant benefit has

been conferred on the general public or a large class ofpersons; and (3) the necessity and

financial burden ofprivate enforcement renders the award appropriate. Under Jaramillo v

County ofOrange (2011) 200 Ca1.AppAth 811, 829, protecting whistleblowers from retaliation

is a strong public interest that confers a significant benefit on the general public — namely,

empowering people to step forward to expose fraud, corruption, and other wrongdoing.

Kniley v. oenwtwi, Inc. at aL -

Complemt for Damages 1 S

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

s

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

is

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

29

Plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of statutory attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and

requests recovery of her attorney's fees and costs of suit in an amount according to proof.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONRetaliation in Violation of FEHA


65. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through


66. California Government Code § 12940(h) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an

employer to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person

has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a

complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding within the Code.

67. As more fully set forth in the preceding paragraphs ofthis Complaint, Plaintiff reported

violations of laws and regulations designed to ensure public safety and the safety of individuals

upon whom experimental drugs were being tested. Plaintiff also objected to performing illegal

activity in violation ofFederal Regulations that placed human subjects at unnecessary risk of

injury and/or death. In October of2008, Plaintiff raised objections regarding the Pi3 Kinase

Team's plan to proceed with a phase of the First -In -Human safety trials because it violated

several laws and was a threat to public safety.

68. Following Plaintiffs objections to participation ofand proceeding with the Pi3 Kinase

Program Team's planned actions, Defendant knowingly and intentionally retaliated against

Plaintiff in several ways, including but not limited to: providing unwarranted negative

performance reviews for 2009, 2010, and 2011; failing to give her appropriate or deserving

LTIs, merit -based salary increases, bonuses, and other raises; demoting Plaintiff by removing

her from her coveted and esteemed role on the Pi3 Kmase Team; subjecting Plaintiff to

increased scrutiny of her work that others in a similar position were not 'subjected to; falselyKn1W v. oene twk Inc. a al.C=pWM ms DameM 16

I

2,

3

4

5

6

7

8191

to

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

accusing Plaintiff ofmaking mistakes she had not made; harassing Plaintiff and treating

Plaintiff in an abusive manner that other employees in a similar position were not subjected to;

refusing to investigate and address Plaintiffs complaints about being targeted because ofher

refusal to engage in illegal activity; refusing to take corrective action in response to Plaintiff's

complaints of retaliation; putting Plaintiff on an unwarranted performance improvement plan;

and by terminating Plaintiff in August of2011.

1 69. Defendant'sretaliatory actions against Plaintiff were of such a severe and pervasive nature so

as to create a hostile work environment that adversely affected the terms and conditions of

Plaintiff's employment with Defendant. Other employees in Plaintiffs department were not

subjected to Defendant'sretaliatory adverse employment actions or hostile work environment.

Rather, the retaliatory conduct began only after Plaintiff complained about Defendant'sillegal

and unethical conduct. Plaintiff was singled out and subjected to Defendants' retaliatory acts

and hostile work environment because ofher refusal to engage in illegal and unethical

170. Defendant was aware of and/or had full knowledge of the retaliatory actions taken against

Plainfiff by its employees and agents, including Plaintiffs supervisor, Ms. Kimball, and

knowingly permitted, condoned and/or otherwise authorized this retaliation against Plaintiff.

Defendant was also aware of and had knowledge of the extent and pervasiveness of the hostile

work environment that Plaintiff was subjected to, and knowingly permitted, condoned and/or

otherwise authorized it.

171. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job for

which she had been hired.

72. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant'sunlawful acts, Plaintiff suffered and continues

to suffer substantial losses in earnings, future earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, and

Kn&yv. Bach. Im et aLcomVI&WftDumWo 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

other forms ofcompensation in an amount which is currently unascertained. As a result of

Defendant'swrongful acts, Plaintiff faces substantial diminution of future earning capacities in

an amount, which is currently unascertained. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

suffer the indignation of .retaliation; the deprivation ofthe right to work without fear of reprisal

for refusing to participate in activities that would result in a violation of law, as well as extreme

emotional distress, includingbut not limited to: mental anguish, outrage, fivstration, severe

anxiety about her future, fear of harm to employability, anxiety over the damage to her

reputatign, embarrassment among her friends and colleagues, and the disruption ofher personal

life. Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensatory damages for these losses and hereby demands

an award of compensatory damages against Defendant in an amount according to proof at trial.

73. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with a

wrongful intent to harm plaintiff, from an evil motive amounting to malice, and with a

conscious disregard for plaintiffs rights to be free from retaliation for refusing to participate in

activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive damages

from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from Defendant in an

amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from engaging in such

unlawful employment, practices, in an amount according to proof

74. In bringing this action, Plaintiffhas been required to retain the services ofcounsel. Pursuant to

California Government Code § 12965, she is entitled to an award ofattorney's fees.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONHarassment in Violation ofFEHA


75. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through


Way v. owAaW4 Inc. et aLCompWM fa Damages 18

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

76. California Government Code § 129400) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an

employee to be subjected to harassment and an employer's agents or supervisors know or

should have known ofthis harassing conduct, yet fail to take immediate and appropriate

corrective action.

77. As more fully set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff reported

violations oflaws and regulations designed to ensure public safety and the safety of individuals

upon whom experimental drugs were being tested. Plaintiff also objected to performing illegal

activity in violation ofFederal regulations that placed human subjects at unnecessary risk of

injury and/or death. Starting in October of2008, Plaintiff raised objections regarding the Pi3

Kinase Team's plan to proceed with a phase of the First-In-Human safety trials because it

violated several laws and was a threat to public safety.

178. Plaintiff then experienced harassment by her supervisors, upper -level management, and co-

workers. Such harassment included, but was not limited to: supervisors, management and co-

workers treating Plaintiff in an abusive manner that otwr employees in a similar position were

not subjected to; supervisors and management targeting her for her whistle blowing;

supervisors singling out and scolding Plaintiff for mistakes she had not made; and supervisors

and management accusing Plaintiffofmisconduct that she had not committed.

79. The harassing conduct was so severe, widespread, and persistent that it constituted a hostile

and abusive work environment for Plaintiffand altered the conditions ofher employment.

80. Plaintiffs supervisors 'and Defendant's agents knew or should have known of the harassing

conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Plaintiff complained to

management several times about the harassing and retaliatory conduct and distressing work

28 • environment.

Miley v. Gmcnwh. I= at aLComplaint hr Damegm 19

1'

21

3I4

81. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job

for which she.had been hired.

182. Asa direct and proximate result ofDefendant'sunlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and

continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, fixture

earnings, and other employment benefits. Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution ofany

loss ofbenefits, including pension and other compensation she otherwise would have been

entitled such as merit -based salary bonuses, salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is

entitled to receive compensatory damages for these losses and hereby demands an award of10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

compensatory damages against defendants in an amount according to proofat trial.

183. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant'sunlawfial conduct, Plaintiff experienced and

continues to experience indignation as a result ofthe retaliation. She was and still is deprived of

the right to work without fear of reprisal for refusing to participate in activities that would result

in a violation of law. Plaintiff also suffered from extreme emotional distress, including, but not

limited to: mental anguish, outrage, fiustration, severe anxiety about her future, fear ofharm to

her employability, anxiety about the damage to her reputation, embarrassment among her

friends and colleagues, and the disruption ofher personal life. Plaintiff is entitled to receive

damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award of damages from Defendant in an

amount according to proof at trial.


wrongful intent to harm Plaintiff; from an evil motive amounting tomalice, and with a

conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be free from harassment for refusing to participate

in activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive

damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from Defendant

Knfy v. Genentech, Im at al.Complaint for Damages 20

1

2

3

4

in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from engaging in

such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof.

185. in bringing this action, Plaintiff has been required to retain the services ofcounsel. Pursuant to

California Government Code § 12965, she is entitled to an award of attorney's fees.5

6

7

e

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21•

22

23

24

25

26

27

2s

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Prevent Retaliation and Harassment in Violation ofFEHA


86.. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through 85

supra with the same force and effect as if folly pleaded at length herein.

87. California Government Code § 12940(k) makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to take all

reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment from

occurring.

88. Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent Defendant'semployees and agents from

retaliating against and harassing Plaintiff. Defendant did not take immediate and appropriate

corrective action.

89. Immediately after Plaintiff s initial complaints in October of 2008 and throughout Plaintiff s

subsequent complaints about retaliation and harassment, Defendant failed to take steps to

protect Plaintiff from further harassment and retaliation.

90. Defendant failed to appropriately address the complaint by Plaintit and did not implement

any reasonable remedial steps to prevent future harassment and retaliation.

191. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendant'sunlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered and

continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, future

earnings, and other employment benefits. Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution ofany

loss ofbenefits, including pension and other compensation she otherwise would have been

Bnlay V. Genentech, Inc. et al.complaint Sr DamaM 22

06

M

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

to

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

entitled such as merit-based salary bonuses, salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is

entitled to receive compensatory damages for these losses and hereby demands an award of

compensatory damages against defendants in an amount according to proofat trial.

92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant'sunlawful conduct, Plaintiff experienced and

continues to experience indignation as a result ofthe retaliation. She was and still is deprived of

the right to work without fear ofreprisal for refusing to participate in activities that would result

in a violation of law. Plaintiff also suffered from extreme emotional distress, including, but not

limited to: mental anguish, outrage, frustration, severe anxiety about her future, fear ofharm to

her employability, anxiety about the damage to her reputation, embarrassment among her

friends and colleagues, and the disruption ofher personal life. Plaintiff is entitled to receive

damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award of damages from Defendant in an



wrongful intent to harm Plaintiff from an evil motive amounting to malice, and with a

conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be flee from retaliation and harassment for refusingto participate'inactivities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive

punitive damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award ofpunitive damages from

Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from

engaging in such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof.94. Pursuant to California Cade . 0y. Proc. § 1021.5, a court may award attorneys' fees to a


the enforcement ofan important right affecting the public interest; (2) a significant benefit has


Way, v. Oenenteck Inc. at al.mMlaiut for Damages 22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

financial burden ofprivate enforcement renders the award appropriate. Under Jarmnillo v.

County ofOrange (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th811, 829, protecting whistleblowers from retali


empowering people to step forward to expose fraud, corruption, and other wrongdoing.

Plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of statutory attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and hR

requests recovery ofher attorney's fees and costs of suit in an amount according to proof.

FHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Wrongful Termination in Violation ofPublic PolicyCommon, Law, Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980))


95. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through 94

supra with the same force and effect as if fully pleaded at length herein.

196. This is a common law cause ofaction pursuant to the law of the State of California Jurisdiction

is invoked pursuant to Tameny v Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 167.

97. There is a fundamental public policy in this state against employers who retaliate against

employees who pursue legally protected rights.

198. - As more fully set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff engaged in

protected activity by reporting violations of laws and regulations designed to ensure public

safety and the safety ofindividuals upon whom experimental drugs were being tested, therefor

Plaintiff is within the class protected by the public policy ofthe laws ofCalifornia. Plaintiff is

therefore protected by the mandates ofLabor Code § 1102.5(c).

199. In response to Plaintiffs legally protected activity, Defendant discharged Plaintiff on

August 30, 2011.

100. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job for

which she had been hired.

Kegv. oenmftk Ina at al.

CmAmW for Dvanw 23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9.

to

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

101. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendant'sunlawful retaliation against plaintiff in

ofLabor Code § 1102.5(c), Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in

earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, future earnings, and other employment benefits.

Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution of any loss ofbenefits, including pension and

other compensation she otherwise would have been entitled such as merit -based salary bonuses,

salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensatory damages for

these losses and hereby demands an award of compensatory damages against defendants in an


102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant'sunlawful conduct, Plaintiff experienced and

continues to experience indignation as a result ofthe wrongful termination. She was and still is

deprived ofthe right to work without fear of reprisal for refusing to participate in activities that

would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff also suffered from extreme emotional distress,

including, but not limited to: mental anguish, outrage, frustration, severe anxiety about her

future, fear ofharm to her employability, anxiety about the damage to her reputation,

embarrassment among her friends and colleagues, and the disruption ofher personal life.

Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award of

damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof at trial.


wrongful intent to harm Plaintiff, from an evil motive amounting to malice, and with a

conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be free from wrongful termination for refusing to

participate in activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive


Kniley v. C3eneoMk Inc. at aLComplaint for Damages 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

e

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from

engaging in such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof.104. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(f), Defendant is liable for a civil penalty for each violation of

Labor Code § 1102.5(c). As more fully set forth above, Plaintiff provided notice of her


1102.5(c). Upon the expiration of thirty-three (33) days from the date of Plaintiffs notice,

Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to assert a claim for civil penalties againstDefendant.

105. Pursuant to California Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, a court may award attorneys' fees to a

successM party against one or more opposing parties in any action which: (1) has resulted in

the enforcement ofan important right affecting the public interest; (2) a significant benefit has


financial burden ofprivate enforcement renders the award appropriate. Under Jara.116 v.

County ofOrange (2011) 200 Cal,AppAth 811, 829, protecting whisdeblowers from retaliationis a strong public interest that confers a significant benefit on the general public — namely,

empowering people to step forward to expose fraud, corruption, and other wrongdoing. Plaintiff

is entitled to receive an award of statutory attorneys' fees and costs ofsuit, and hereby requestsrecovery' of her attorney's fees and costs of suit in an amount according to proof.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Wrongfal Demotion in Violation ofPublic PolicyCommon Law, Tammy v. Atlantic Rkkfleld Ca., 27 CaL 3d 167 (1980))


106. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through105, supra with the same force and effect as if fully pleaded at length herein.

may T. owafte . Inc. of aLMPWM forD=& 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

to

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

107. This is a common law cause ofaction pursuant to the law ofthe State of California.

Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Twneny v Atlantic Richfield Co. 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980).

108. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was qualified and able to satisfactorily perform the job

for which she had been hired.

109. It is the fundamental public policy of this State that no employer retaliate against an eniployec

who refuses to engage in an activity that would result in a violation of law, as provided by

California'sWhistleblower statute, Labor Code § 1102.5(c). As more fully set forth in the

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity - by reporting

violations of laws and regulations designed to ensure public safety and the safety ofindividual

upon whom experimental drugs were being tested; therefore, Plaintiff is within the class

protected by the public policy of the laws ofCalifornia. Plaintiff is therefore protected by the

mandates ofLabor Code § 11025(c).

110. Defendant demoted Plaintiff by removing her from the most important program for the

company because ofher good faith actions in reporting violations of several laws and Federal

Regulations designed to protect public safety and the safety of individuals upon whom

experimental drugs are tested.

111. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant'sunlawful conduct against plaintiff in violation

ofLabor Code § 1102.5(c), Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in

earnings, bonuses, deferred compensation, future earnings, and other employment benefits.

Plaintiff requests full back pay, full restitution ofany loss ofbenefits, including pension and

other compensation she otherwise would have been entitled such as merit -based salary

bonuses, salary increases, and LTI bonuses. Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensatory

Way v. OmenWA Inc. et al.

Complemt for Damages 26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

damages for these losses and hereby demands an award of compensatory damages against

defendants inan amount according to proof at trial.

112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff experienced and

continues to experience indignation as a result of the wrongful demotion. She was and still is

deprived of the right to work without fear of reprisal for refusing to participate in activities thaw

would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff also suffered from extreme emotional distress,

including, but not limited to: mental anguish, outrage, frustration, severe anxiety about her

future, fear ofharm to her employability, anxiety about the damage to her reputation,

embarrassment among her friends and colleagues, and the disruption ofher personal life.

Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages from Defendant and hereby requests an award of

damages from Defendant in an amount according to proofat trial.


wrongful intent to harm Plainti$ from an evil motive amounting to malice, and with a.

conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights to be free from a wrongful demotion for refusing to

participate in activities that would result in a violation of law. Plaintiff is entitled to receive


Defendant m an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant and other employers from

engaging in such unlawful employment practices, in an amount according to proof.

114. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(f), Defendant is liable for a civil penalty for each violation

Labor Code § 1102.5(c). As more fully set forth above, Plaintiff provided notice ofher


1102.5(c). Upon the expiration ofthirty-three (33) days from the date of Plaintiff'snotice,

Kailey Y. Ocner w* Ina et a1.

complaint for Damages, 27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

to

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to assert a claim for civil penalties against

Defendant

115. Pursuant to California Code . Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, a court may award attorneys' fees to a


the enforcement ofan important right affecting the public interest; (2) a significant benefit ha


financial burden ofprivate enforcement renders the award appropriate. Under Jarmnillo v.

County ofOrange (2011) 200 Ca1.AppA4th 811, 829, protecting whistleblowers from retaliatic


empowering people to step forward to expose fraud,'corruption, and other wrongdoing.

Plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of statutory attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and hereb

requests recovery ofher attorney's fees and costs ofsuit in an amount according to proof.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

As to Defendant Genentech, Inc. and Does 1 -50)116. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every fact stated in paragraphs 1 through


117. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages to compensate her for the emotional distress caused by

Defendant'swrongful and unlawful conduct. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Rojo v Klinger,

1990) 52 Ca1.3d 63. .

118. The acts described hereinabove are separately, as well as in their totality, so extreme and

outrageous that they cannot be tolerated by a civilized society.

119. As a result of the extreme and outrageous acts described herein, Plaintiff has been held up to

great derision -and embarrassment with his fellow workers, friends, members of the community

Katy V. OWMteck lna of aLcomplaint tbrDn"es 28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

to

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and family, and he has suffered emotional distress. This emotional distress has manifested itself

in physical symptoms experience by Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, headaches, anxiety,

stress, depression, and insomnia. Plaintiff informed and believes that Defendant committed such

extreme and outrageous acts knowing that they would cause Plaintiff such emotional distress.

Plaintiff therefore seeks damages for such emotional distress in an amount to be proven at the

time of trial..

120. Because of the wrongful acts of Defendant as herein alleged above, Plaintiff sought psychiatric

treatment and was administered medication and psychotherapy to alleviate her emotional

suffering.. Plaintiff has been and will in the future be required to employ physicians to examine,

treat and care for her and will incur additional medical expenses in an amount to be proven at

the time oftrial.

121. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant acted deliberately for the purposes of injuring

Plaintiff as alleged above. Defendant further acted intentionally and unreasonably because it

knew and/or should have known that its conduct was likely to result in severe mental distress.

Plaintiff therefore seeks damages for such emotional distress in an amount to be proven at the

time oftrial.

122. Defendant's acts were malicious, oppressive or fraudulent with the intent to vex, injure, annoy,

humiliate and embarrass Plaintiff; and in conscious disregard of the rights or safety ofPlaintiff

and other employees ofDefendant, and in furtherance of Defendant's- ratification ofthe

wrongful conduct of the employees and managers ofDefendant. The Plaintiff is therefore

entitled to an award ofpunitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

Km1ey v. (mote* Inc. at al.Com kt for Damages 29

1'

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

123. Plaintiff Juliet Kniley hereby demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

124. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant her the following relief

A. Compensatory damages;

B. Back pay;

C. Front pay;

D. Damages for mental pain and suffering;

E. Reasonable attorney fees;

F. Costs ofsuit;

G. Civil Penalties;

H. Punitive damages; and

I. Such other relief as the Court deems just and reasonable.

Dated: 1 a (p1 LAW OFFICES OF MAYOR JOSEPH L. ALIOTO &ANGE ALI

YT,By.

JOSEP IOTO VERONESE

Attorney for PlaintiffJuliet Kniley

Kniley v. Genentech, Inc. et al.Complaint for Damages 30

Genentech Lawsuit

Documents

Transcript of Genentech Lawsuit