Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 1 of 6
`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 1of6
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 2 of 6
`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`.
`LIPOW & HARRIS
`
`JEFFREY A. LIPOW (82339)
`27943 Seco Cyn. Rd., #309
`Santa Clarita, CA 91350
`Telephone: (818) 905-0507
`Email: jlipow@lipowharris.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`KAJAL PRASAD
`
`E-FILED
`
`Clerk of Court
`:
`
`rer7'2021 2:20 PM
`superiorvoun oe
`ounty of
`Santa
`Clara
`210V392117
`Reviewed By: V. Taylor
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
`
`Case No. 21CV392117
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESFOR:
`
`1) Wrongful Termination in
`Violation of Public Policy
`
`[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
`
`)))) )
`
`)))
`
`KAJAL PRASAD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,
`U.S., Corporation, a Delaware corporation;
`>
`and DOES1 through 50, Inclusive.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff, Kajal Prasad, alleges as follows:
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`1.
`
`The events alleged herein occurred within the County of Santa Clara, State
`
`of California.
`
`2.
`
`At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a resident of the County of Santa Clara,
`
`State of California.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation (Cognizant)
`
`was and is a corporation duly formed and organized a pursuant fo the lawsof the State of
`
`Delaware, and authorized to do and is doing businessin the County of Santa Clara, State
`
`of California.
`
`4.
`
`The true names,identities and capacities, whether, individual, associate,
`
`corporate or otherwise, of Defendants Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknownto
`
`—
`
`oO6©&SsDBtHSeHYOh
`
`— So
`
`11
`
`-1-
`
`OOSMPLAINT ——“‘OOOOO....CCCSCt~«‘i:s
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 3 of 6
`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`Plaintiffs at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by suchfictitious names. When
`
`the true names and capacities or participation of suchfictitiously designated Defendants
`
`are ascertained, Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to insert said
`
`true names,identities, capacities, together with the proper charging allegations. Plaintiffs
`
`are informed and believe and thereupon allege that each of the Defendants sued herein
`
`as Doeis responsible in some mannerfor the events and happenings hereinafter referred
`
`to thereby proximately causing the injuries and damagesto Plaintiff as hereinafter set
`
`forth.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allegesthat, atall times
`
`mentioned herein, each of the Defendants, including thefictitiously named defendants,
`
`was the agent and employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things
`
`hereinafter alleged, was acting within the scope and course of such agency. Plaintiffs are
`
`further informed and believe and thereupon allege thatat all times relevant hereto, each of
`
`the Defendants andthefictitiously named Defendants acted in concert and in furtherance
`
`of each others’interest.
`
`In fact, there is such a unity of interest and ownership between
`
`and among all Defendants that any separateness between them has ceased to exist, such
`
`that Defendants, and each of them, are the alter egos of each other. Based on the facts
`
`alleged herein, adherenceto the legalfiction of the existence of all Defendants separate
`
`and apart from each other would sanction their wrongful conduct and promoteinjustice.
`
`6.
`
`At all times relevant, Cognizant provided IT support for Nvidia Companyin
`
`the City of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, State of California.
`
`7.
`
`Net2source is an employment agency with whom Plaintiff had posted her
`
`resume on a job portal. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Cognizant contracted with
`
`Net2sourceto provide potential employees for positons Cognizant was seekingtofill. As
`
`part of the arrangement between Cognizant and Net2source,if Cognizant hired an
`
`employee through Net2source, Net2source would handleall payroll and related taxes for
`
`the employee.
`
`8.
`
`In or about February 2019,Plaintiff was contacted by Cognizant through the
`
`-2-
`
`
`SoCOMPLAINT——“‘(‘(‘(‘(Crsé‘(‘(C!!O!O!O;~;~C~™
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 4 of 6
`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 4 of6
`
`job portal where she had posted her resumeregarding a potential job opening. Plaintiff
`
`wasinterviewed by an employee of Cognizant, Ramesh Pulagam (Pulagam), after which
`
`she washired to work with Cognizant’s support team located on the Nvidia campus.
`
`Throughout her emplacementwith Cognizant, Plaintiff's payroll and pay checks came from
`
`Net2source.
`
`9.
`
`As a matter of law underthe California Fair Employment Housing Act
`
`(FEHA)Plaintiff was an employee of Cognizantas:
`
`A. Cognizant was responsible for hiring andfiring Plaintiff
`
`B. Cognizanttrained Plaintiff to work of a memberofits IT support team on the
`
`Nvidia campus.
`
`C. Cognizant controlled, managed, directed and supervisedPlaintiff's daily work
`
`activities.
`
`D. Pulagam wasPlaintiff's direct supervisor throughout her employment.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff commenced her employment with Cognizant in or about February
`
`2019 onits IT support team at the Nvidia campus.
`
`11.
`
`Prior to November 2019,Plaintiff received nothing but compliments for her
`
`work performance. Pulagam complimentedPlaintiffs performance and askedherif she
`
`wasinterested in becominga fulltime employee with Cognizant. Plaintiff stated that she
`
`enjoyed her work and would very muchlike to becomea fulltime employee with
`
`Cognizant.
`
`12.
`
`In or about early November 2019, Pulagam askedPlaintiff to accompany him
`
`to dinner after work. During dinner, Pulagam told Plaintiff that he wanted a relationship
`
`with Plaintiff and told her that he could make hera fulltime employee with Cognizant with a
`
`raise. He said, “I take care of you, you take care of me,” intimating a sexual relationship.
`
`Plaintiff declined Pulagam’s quid pro quo offer.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff drove Pulagam to the restaurant as he did not havehis vehicle, and
`
`after dinner, dropped him off at his apartment. Pulagam stated, “You should give me a
`
`kiss for the night.” Plaintiff declined.
`
`Ae
`
`
`COMPLAINT=—<“<i‘(i‘(‘(<‘(<‘(<i‘(i‘(‘(‘Ci;C;;!W!.OC~;!C;~;
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 5 of 6
`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 5of6
`
`—CoOoNTHNwwFBOwOh
`
`14.
`
`Immediately subsequentto the dinner, Pulagam becamehostile towards
`
`Plaintiff and highlycritical of her work performance. He accused her of having poor
`
`customer support service, and reported to other managers that Plaintiff was a poor
`
`performer. The criticisms of Plaintiff's job performance by Pulagam werepersistent.
`
`15.
`
`In or aboutthe later part of January 2020, Pulagam toid Plaintiff that if she
`
`reconsidered his proposal made during the dinner that everything would go back to
`
`normal. Pulagam told Plaintiff that she had one week to consider his proposal.
`
`16.
`
`On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff was terminated from her employment with
`
`Cognizant.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
`
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
`
`A fundamental public policy embodied in California's Fair Employment and
`
`Housing Actis that employees havea right to be free of sexual harassment, including quid
`
`pro quo harassment, in the workplace, and a right to be free from retaliation for resisting
`
`sexual harassmentin the workplace.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants, and each of them, violated the public policies of California in
`
`terminating Plaintiff's employment as alleged herein.
`
`20.
`
`The aforementioned unlawful employment practices on the part of
`
`Defendants, and each of them, were a substantial factor in causing damagesand injuries
`
`to Plaintiff as set forth below.
`
`21.
`
`As aresult of the aforesaid unlawful acts of Defendants, and each of them,
`
`Plaintiff has lost, and may continue to lose, income and benefits in an amount
`
`unascertained atthis time according to proof at time oftrial. Plaintiff claims such an
`
`amount in damages together with pre-judgmentinterest pursuant to California Civil] Code
`
`section 3287 and/or any other provision of law providing for pre-judgmentinterest.
`
`22.
`
`As aresult of the aforesaid unlawful acts of Defendants, and each of them,
`
`-4.
`
`—GSMPLAINT —~—~—~—————.COCOCOC~*:s
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 6 of 6
`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document1-3 Filed 01/15/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`Plaintiff was personally humiliated, suffered mental and emotional injury and distress, all to
`
`her general damage in an amountin excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court,
`
`according to proofat the time oftrial.
`
`23.
`
`The aforesaid acts directed towards Plaintiff were carried out with a
`
`conscious disregard of Piaintiff's rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy
`
`Plaintiff, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code
`
`section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to exemplary damages in a sum whichis an amount
`
`appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants, and each of them, to deter such
`
`conductin the future, and to set an example for others, in an amount according to proof at
`
`time oftrial. Further, Defendants knowingly employed a person who they knew sexually
`
`harassed other employees.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against all Defendants, and each of them,
`
`as follows:
`
`1.
`
`For loss of earnings and earning ability, past and future, plus prejudgment
`
`interest thereon according to proofat time oftrial;
`
`2.
`
`For non-economic damagesfor emotional injury and harm in an amountin
`
`excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, according to proof at time of
`
`trial:
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`For punitive and exemplary damages accordingto proof;
`
`For costs of suit incurred herein; and
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court deemsjust and proper.
`
`Dated: December7, 2021
`
`LIPOW & HARRIS
`
`By:
`
`.
`YA. LIPO
`J
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`KAJAL PRASAD
`
`Ak
`
`-5-
`
`— b
`
`o
`
`OoCO~~AtraSSW
`
`