SLUMMONS
`
`(CITA CION JUDICIAL)
`
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`
`(A VISO AL DEMANDADO):
`PlNTEREST, lNC., DOES 1 through 20, inclusive
`
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
`
`FRANCOISE BROUGHER
`
`SUM-100
`
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`
`
`(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTlC
`
`
`below.
`
`
`E! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
`
`
`
`
`
`You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
`served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
`case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/se/fhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the
`court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may
`be taken without further warning from the court.
`There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhe/pcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
`costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`[A VISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, Ia corie puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacidn a
`continuacién.
`
`Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDAR/O después de que le entreguen esta citacién y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
`corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una I/amada telefénica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
`en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`Puede enconfrar estos formularios de la corte y mas infon'nacién en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www. sucorie. ca. gov), en la
`biblioteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagarla cuota de presentacién, pida aI secretario de la corte que
`Ie dé un formulario de exencio'n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte Ie podra’
`
`
`quitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
`Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que Ilame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
`
`remisidn a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla can [as requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
`
`
`programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
`
`
`(www./awhelpcalifomia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de Ias Cortes de California, (www.5ucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con la corte 0 el
`colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, Ia corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
`
`
`
`cua/quier recuperacion de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo a una concesidn de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
`
`
`-
`pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
`
`
`The name and address of the court is:
`NU
`: (N’
`odel Ca 0):
`
`(El nombre y direccion de la corte es):
`San Francisco Superior Court, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102
`
`-
`
`-€§baé8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccién y e/ nUmero
`de teléfono del abogado del demandante, 0 del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
`David A. Lowe,'Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP, 351 California St., Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94104; T
`
`
`415-434—9800
`
`
`
`
`. Deputy
`DATE:
`Clerk, by
`(Fecha) AUG 1 i
`CLerk Of the COUI'i
`(Secretario)
`(Adjunto)
`
`
`(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS—010).)
`
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use 9/ formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (P
`-01 ).)
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
`
`1. [:l as an individual defendant.
`2. E] as the person suedégnder the fictitious name of (specify):
`
`3. 1:] on behalf of (specify):
`
`ANGELICA SUNGA
`
`
`
`|:| CCP 416.60 (minor)
`under: |:| CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`CI CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`1:] CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`|:] CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) E] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
`Z] other (specify):
` Pa 21 OH
`4. 1:] by personal delivery on (date)
`Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
`Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
`Judicial Council of California
`www.courts.ca.gov
`SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009]
`
`3 UMMONS
`
`

`

`.
`1 DAVID A. LOWE (SBN: 178811)
`
`dal@rezlaw.com
`» 2 MICHELLE G. LEE (SBN: 266167)
`3 mgl@rezlaw.com
`MEGHAN F. LOISEL (SBN: 291400)
`4 mfl@rezlaw.com
`I
`RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP
`351 California Street, Suite 700
`
`5
`
`I
`I I
`Sugflor court of Cornia
`
`County Of San FranCISCO
`AUI‘
`.1 1 m
`J
`_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET.SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rezIaw.com
`
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`6 Telephone: (415) 434-9800
`7' Facsimile: (415) 434—0513
`
`8 Attorneysfor Plaintifl
`FRANCOISE BROUGHER
`
`9
`
`1O
`
`1 1
`
`1
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`12
`13 FRANCOISE BROUGHER,
`
`EGG—204585888
`Case No.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`vs.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`16 PINTEREST, INC., DOES 1 through 20,
`inclusive,
`
`17
`
`Defendants.
`
`,
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`XV:IA8
`
`COlVIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434—9500IFx(415)434-0513|www.rezlaw.com
`
`.—L
`
`OOOONOCn-bQJN
`
`FRANCOISE BROUGHER, complains and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`Even at the very top ranks of a public company, female executives can be targeted
`
`for sex discrimination and retaliation. Although Pinterest markets itself to women looking for
`inspiration, the company brazenly fired its top female executive for pointing out gender bias
`
`within Pinterest’s male-dominated leadership team. For two years, Plaintiff Francoise Brougher
`
`was Pinterest’s high-performing Chief Operating Officer and helped take the company public.
`
`However, whereas male executives were rewarded for strong leadership styles, Ms. Brougher
`
`was criticized for not being compliant or collaborative enough. In addition, Ms. Brougher was
`
`offered a less favorable compensation structure than her male peers and had to fight for equal
`
`treatment. Finally, when Ms. Brougher complained to the head of Human Resources and to
`
`Chief Executive Officer Ben Silbermann that Pinterest’s Chief Financial Officer made
`
`demeaning sexist comments to her, and she aSked for help to remedy the hostile work
`
`environment, Mr. Silbermann summarily fired her over a video call.
`
`2.
`
`Instead of taking her complaint seriously, investigating it properly, and doing the
`
`hard work to address her concerns about gender discrimination and hostility, Pinterest fired
`
`Ms. Brougher to protect the comfort of her male peers. In an attempt to cover up Ms. Brougher’s
`
`complaints, Pinterest tried to create a'fiction that her firing was a voluntary departure.
`
`Ms. Brougher’s termination solidified Pinterest’s unwelcoming environment for women and
`
`minorities by imposing a high cost to challenging the men at the top.
`
`3.
`
`Although Pinterest publicly laments the lack of diversity in its leadership, in
`
`practice, it turns a blind eye to the biased thinking that limit women’s opportunities for success in
`
`leadership roles. By terminating an outspoken leader with Ms. Brougher’s impressive
`
`credentials, Pinterest further entrenched its workplace inequities.
`
`4.
`
`Ms. Brougher brings this lawsuit to change Pinterest’s culture of gender bias and
`
`to hold Pinterest accountable for discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation
`
`of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and the Labor Code.
`
`///
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rezlaw.com
`
`A
`
`ocoooxloumhoom
`
`PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Francoise Brougher was employed by Defendant Pinterest, Inc. from
`
`March 2018 until her termination in April 2020. She is a resident of Los Altos Hills, California.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Pinterest, Inc. is a Delaware corporation,
`
`registered in the State of California, whose primary place of business is the City and County of
`
`San Francisco, California.
`
`7.
`
`The true names and capacities of Defendants named herein as Does 1 through 20,
`
`whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, and the true involvement of Defendants
`
`sued herein as Does 1 through 20, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants
`
`by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show the true names, capacities,
`
`and involvement of Does 1 through 20 when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
`
`thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated as a “Doe” is responsible in some manner
`
`for the events and happenings referred to herein, and that Plaintiff’s injuries and damages as
`
`hereinafter set forth were proximately caused by said-Defendants.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants
`
`sued herein is or was the agent, employee, partner and/or representative of one or more of the
`
`remaining Defendants, and each of them was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of
`
`such agency and employment. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that each of the
`
`Defendants herein gave consent to, ratified, and authorized the acts alleged herein to each of the
`
`remaining Defendants.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil
`
`Procedure § 395(a) and California Government Code § 12965. Defendant’s Principal Executive
`
`Office is in the City and County of San Francisco. Defendant transacts business in San
`
`Francisco. Defendant is within the jurisdiction of this Court for the purposes of service of
`
`process.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`2
`COlVIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rezIaw.com
`
`.—\
`
`OtomNODU‘l-hOJN
`
`NNNNNNNNN—x—X—‘l—‘l—X—A—x—x—x—xmVODU‘l-hCDNAOtOOSNOU'l-hOJNA
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff was employed in, and significant events material to this case occurred
`
`within, San Francisco. The obligations and liability complained of herein arose in San Francisco,
`
`and Plaintiff suffered injury in San Francisco.
`
`PROCEDURAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`11.
`
`On August 7, 2020, Ms. Brougher filed a complaint with the Department of Fair
`
`Employment and Housing against Pinterest, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation, and
`
`obtained a Right-to-Sue notice the same day.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`12.
`
`Ms. Brougher has had an outstanding career in Silicon Valley. She arrived in the
`
`United States in her 205 on a student visa and with only a loan to support her, and has been a
`
`technology executive for the past twenty years, serving some of the Valley’s most successful
`
`companies.
`
`13.
`
`Before joining Pinterest, Ms. Brougher was an executive at Charles Schwab,
`
`Google, and Square. She led Google’s Bizops group when the company was in a period of
`
`exponential growth. She worked on a breadth of issues, including Google’s engineering
`
`organization model, large scale acquisitions and integrations, and Google’s initial expansion into
`
`Africa. She later managed all of Ad Sales globally for the torso and tail advertisers and was
`
`responsible for a $16 billion advertising business. During her four-and-a-half-year tenure, the
`
`revenue growth moved from high-single digits to over 25 percent year over year growth for this
`
`segment of advertisers.
`
`14.
`
`At Square, Ms. Brougher had the opportunity to help a smaller company scale and
`
`define its business strategy. Ms. Brougher worked on initiatives such as expanding Pinterest’s
`
`customer base to include larger retailers, the creation of Square’s partner ecosystem, and
`
`redefining its go-to—market strategy. She scaled across many functions, including Sales, Account
`
`Management, Customer Success, Business Development, and Marketing. And she was part of
`
`the leadership team that took the company public.
`
`15.
`
`For over eight years, Ms. Brougher has been an engaged member of Sodexo’s
`
`Board, a French multinational operating in over 70 countries.
`
`.
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rez|aw.com
`
`16.
`
`Needless to say, her professional experience is extraordinary. And she believed
`
`that she had shattered the glass ceiling in the tech world.
`
`17.
`
`Ms. Brougher joined Pinterest as Chief Operating Officer in March 2018. At the
`
`time, she was optimistic and eager to apply her experience. During her first year at Pinterest,
`
`Ms. Brougher added significant value to the company. Revenue growth accelerated, especially in
`
`the third and fourth quarters of 2018, paving the way in part for a successful IPO. Under her
`
`leadership, her team became more disciplined around sales process and customer segmentation.
`
`They made significant progress toward rebuilding the marketing team, diversifying advertisers,
`
`and building a stronger ecosystem by re-engaging partners. The communication team’s
`
`promotion of the company resulted in more positive mentions in the press. She encouraged
`
`Pinterest to keep political advertising off Pinterest. And her team introduced new processes to
`
`increase velocity and clarity of goals.
`
`18. When Ms. Brougher accepted the position, she believed that, if she worked hard to
`
`prove herself, the company would judge her based on her job performance and compensate her
`
`fairly.
`
`19.
`
`In January 2019, Pinterest unveiled its new company values at a company-wide
`
`event at the San Francisco Orpheum Theater. At this picture-perfect event, Pinterest presented
`
`Ms. Brougher as the champion the “Care and Candor” value. This value was meant to encourage
`employees to challenge people directly while maintaining a respectful working environment.
`
`Ms. Brougher was praised for her authenticity and encouraged to lead by example by being direct
`
`and transparent. Unfortunately, Pinterest’s actions did not match its words.
`
`20.
`
`Ironically, even though Pinterest markets itself to women as a source of lifestyle
`
`inspiration,the company leadership team is male dominated, and gender-biased attitudes are
`
`prevalent. Its website makes this clear:
`
`._\
`
`OCCmNODO'l-booN
`
`NNNNNNNNNAA—X-A—L—x—x—x—xACONCDmAwN—XOCOOONCDm.thA
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513[www.rezlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`—\
`
`OCOOONODUI-hwk)
`
`Ben Silbermann
`(xylem:amaze:can
`
`mammary
`
`Evan $61110
`(3:24mewe:11mm“£2
`
`Todd Morgenield
`WM Emma;mm
`
`See https://investor.pinterestinc.com/governance/management/default.aspx.
`
`21. When Ms. Brougher raised questions about strategy decisions, Mr. Silbermann
`
`criticized her for not being collaborative and told her that she did not have consistently healthy
`
`cross-functional relationships. When Ms. Brougher asked him specifics, he could not provide
`
`them. Instead, he told her to keep quiet, saying she should “be mindful” of how she acted in
`group setting. And he discouraged her from communicating directly, saying it was unacceptable
`
`for her to say, “we have basically not improved X.”
`
`22.
`
`His comments are an archetypal example of gender discrimination. Women are
`
`encouraged to be assertive in the workplace, but assertiveness is a liability for women, even for
`
`executives. Whereas male executives are viewed as bold, thoughtful, and engaged leaders when
`
`they challenge and critique proposed strategy decisions, female executives are viewed as
`
`uncooperative. In Ms. Brougher, candor was detrimental, despite being a corporate core value.
`
`23.
`
`Criticism like that which Mr. Silbermann gave Ms. Brougher is commonly
`
`experienced by women in tech. Kieran Snyder’s research uncovered an “abrasiveness trap” in
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`'
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rezlaw.com
`
`—\
`
`OOODNOUI-hwk)
`
`which women are criticized for speaking up at work and being “abrasive,” and are told to speak
`
`less. Conversely, men are not criticized for similar conduct and are encouraged to be
`
`“aggressive.” Surveying tech employees’ performance reviews, she found that: “58.9% of the
`
`reviews received by men contained critical feedback. 87.9% of the reviews received by women
`
`did.” (See Snyder, Kieran, The abrasiveness trap: High-achieving men and women are described
`
`diflerently in reviews, available at https://web.stanford.edu/dept/radiology/cgi-
`
`bin/raddiversity/wp—content/uploads/2017/12/TheAbrasivenessTrap.pdf.) When the women were
`
`criticized, their personality was the focus of the criticism. This occurred in 2.4% of the critical
`
`reviews that men received and 75.5% of the critical reviews that women received.
`
`24.
`
`A year into her employment, Ms. Brougher learned that the company had
`
`discriminated against her in the structure of her equity compensation.
`25. When she was hired, Ms. Brougher was told that that the Board had directed that
`
`executives receive backloaded equity grants, meaning that the majority of the shares would vest
`
`in the last two years of the grant. Specifically, her equity grant provided that only ten percent of
`
`the shares vested the first year; twenty percent vested the second year; thirty percent vested the
`
`third year; and forty percent vested the fourth year.
`
`26.
`
`She believed that this vesting schedule was standard for Pinterest executives at her
`
`level, and based on this belief, she even offered another incoming female executive the same
`
`grant structure. As Pinterest approached its IPO, it offered Ms. Brougher an IPO retention grant
`
`that was even more backloaded. Starting in March 2019, Ms. Brougher was to receive stock over
`
`five years with the last two years making up most of the reward. She was scheduled to vest zero
`
`stock in the first year, five percent in the second year, five percent in the third year, forty-five
`
`percent in the fourth year, and forty-five percent in the fifth year. She wrongly assumed that all
`
`the executives were treated equally.
`27.
`Then she saw the company’s S-l securities filing. It reflected the salaries of the
`
`highest-paid employees. Even though Ms. Brougher was the C00 and managed a large,
`
`complex organization, she was not on the list. Not only that, she discovered that her male peers
`
`had been given more favorable vesting schedules. For the male executives identified, their initial
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513Iwww.rezlaw.com
`
`—\
`
`OCOCDNODCfl-b-OJN
`
`equity grants were not backloaded and their IPO retention grants were much less backloaded that
`
`Ms. Brougher’s. Ms. Brougher learned that she was still below the glass ceiling, looking up. It
`
`was hard to swallow.
`
`28.
`
`Compared to Chief Financial Officer Todd Morgenfeld’s initial grant, Ms.
`
`Brougher’s was significantly backloaded. In Mr. Morgenfeld’s first year, he received 812,500
`
`shares, whereas, in Ms. Brougher’s first year, she received 300,000 shares. In other words, in
`
`their first years, Pinterest paid Ms. Brougher 37 percent of the equity it paid Mr. Morgenfeld.
`
`29.
`
`Ms. Brougher raised her concerns about the disparate pay with Mr. Silbermann.
`
`Mr. Silbermann told her to work it out with HR. She prepared a spreadsheet for HR laying out
`
`the difference between her equity grants and that of her male peers. She showed that she had
`
`received far less equity in her first year of employment and that, unlike her male peers, her equity
`
`grants were heavily backloaded. Mr. Silbermann relented in part and authorized an adjustment to
`
`her IPO retention grant.
`
`30.
`
`After the IPO, Ms. Brougher was no longer invited to Board meetings. At times,
`
`members of her team were invited, sometimes without her knowledge. But as the COO of
`
`Pinterest, Ms. Brougher no longer had meaningful engagement with the company’s board.
`
`31.
`
`Her male peers began excluding her from Ads team meetings and there were
`
`rumors that she was not getting along with the Product team. To accommodate her male
`
`colleagues, she had to step back, adjust her behavior, and accept not participating in subsequent
`
`discussions. She was punished for the type of assertive behavior for which male executives are
`
`rewarded.
`
`32.
`
`Ms. Brougher’s mid-year performance review was mixed. Mr. Silbermann’s
`
`acknowledgement of her accomplishments focused on her relationships, such as her focus on
`engagement, having an operationally focused team, attracting talent, and promoting the “Care
`
`with Candor” value. He omitted her concrete success in driving revenue, which had risen from
`
`less than $500 million to over $1.1 billion during her tenure. He also critiqued her style.
`
`Without identifying substantive examples, Mr. Silbermann encouraged her to be proactive and
`
`collaborative.
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`,
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434—0513|www.rez|aw.com
`
`—L
`
`OCOCD‘IOU'IAOON
`
`33.
`
`Ms. Brougher spent September and October of 2019 working with her team to
`
`craft a series of detailed revenue programs that made Pinterest’s fourth quarter the biggest ever.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Ms. Brougher returned from an eight—week medical leave in January 2020.
`
`Around January 2020, Mr. Morgenfeld became increasingly disrespectful to
`
`Ms. Brougher. He frequently ignored her and undermined her authority by talking directly to her
`
`team members. He did this even on projects she was leading. In one meeting, Mr. Morgenfeld
`
`disparaged her in front of her peers by sarcastically asking, “What is your job anyway?”
`
`36.
`
`Discrimination at the highest levels of public companies is often subtle and
`
`sophisticated. It can take the form of a male executive undermining his female colleague’s work.
`
`If the company did not meet its revenue goals for one week, Mr. Morgenfeld would passive
`
`aggressively tell her that a good leader does what they say they will do. Most of Mr. Morgenfeld
`
`and Ms. Brougher’s one-on-one meetings were taken off calendar, shutting down avenues for
`
`communication between them.
`
`37.
`
`Pinterest did nothing to stop Mr. Morgenfeld’s discriminatory and harassing
`
`conduct, and instead it permitted his behavior to continue. This is an archetype of male
`
`dominated culture where bad behavior from male executives is tolerated.
`
`38.
`
`Furthermore, Pinterest’s culture of relying on informal one-on-one meetings
`
`instead of encouraging group dialog operated to exclude Ms. Brougher. Often Mr. Silbermann
`
`would wait to make key strategy decisions until after the meetings Ms. Brougher attended. Later
`
`he would meet with one or two male colleagues and together they would make the decision —
`
`without Ms. Brougher in the room. Her experience is common to women and minorities who
`
`often do not have informal handshake relationships with their male celleagues and are regularly
`
`excluded from the rooms where decisions are made.
`
`39.
`
`An example of this was Mr. Silbermann’s decision not to invite Ms. Brougher on
`
`Pinterest’s IPO roadshow. His decision was not based on her qualifications. Ms. Brougher was
`
`managing approximately half of the company as COO, was responsible for all of Pinterest’s
`
`revenue, had prior roadshow experience, and knew many of the investors. Nevertheless,
`
`Mr. Silbermann told her to stay back at the company and invited his buddy, the Head of Global
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434—0513Iwww.rezlaw.com
`
`_X
`
`Communication, a man, to the roadshow. This person was superfluous because his role
`
`OOCDNOU'ILOJN
`
`NNNNNNNNNAAA—‘AAA—x—k—ACD‘JOJCH-hCON—‘OCOOONCDU'ILOONA
`
`overlapped with the Head of Investor Relations, who also attended.
`
`40.
`
`It perpetuates gender inequities for a CEO to elevate his buddies when his buddies
`
`are all men.
`
`41.
`
`In Ms. Brougher’s case, Pinterest’s pattern of consistently elevating male voices
`
`over female voices set the stage for the company’s retaliation against her.
`
`42.
`
`Despite Mr. Morgenfeld’s efforts to undermine her, in January, Ms. Brougher had
`
`every reason to be confident in her role at Pinterest. In her January performance review,
`
`Mr. Silbermann highlighted that she had made progress on building her cross-functional
`
`relationships. M's. Brougher invited Mr. Silbermann to provide her feedback in real time so that
`
`she could address any concerns.
`
`43.
`
`Then in February, Ms. Brougher received a peer review that Mr. Morgenfeld had
`
`written about her (she was not asked to review him). Mr. Morgenfeld’s only comment on her
`
`2019 achievements was: “Seems to be a champion for diversity issues.” By focusing only on
`
`“diversity,” Mr. Morgenfeld was giving a decidedly backhanded compliment, because he ignored
`
`and therefore demeaned Ms. Brougher’s many significant accomplishments as C00 in 2019,
`
`including: scaling the business team to transition from a private to a public company, diversifying
`
`Pinterest’s advertiser base, and leading an effort to expand the company’s monetization efforts in
`
`Europe. His snide comment was further enfeebled by his use of the verb “seems,” which cast
`
`doubt on whether she really did champion diversity (her only perceived accomplishment) or
`
`merely seemed to do so.
`
`44.
`Ms. Brougher certainly cares about diversity and mentorship. However, she had
`not led any diversity initiatives and had no formal role in that area. So the fact that
`
`Mr. Morgenfeld ignored her business accomplishments leading operations and focused only on
`
`diversity was deeply offensive. Reducing a female executive’s achievements to “diversity” is a
`
`common ferm of gender discrimination.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZlEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rez|aw.com
`
`A
`
`OCOOOVODUI-hOON
`
`45.
`
`Ms. Brougher texted Mr. Silbermann that she was upset by Mr. Morgenfeld’s
`
`reductive feedback. His tone-deaf response was to suggest that she approach the problem with
`
`“curiosity.”
`
`46.
`
`Ms. Brougher tried to address her concerns directly with Mr. Morgenfeld. During
`
`a videoconference on February 21, 2020, she reiterated her goal of working collaboratively with
`
`him. She explained that she wanted to better understand his peer feedback and asked him why
`
`his only comment about her achievements was that she was a “champion for diversity.”
`
`47.
`
`Mr. Morgenfeld responded defensively, asserting that she was a champion of
`
`women’s issues. Ms. Brougher was taken aback. She candidly responded that being a female
`
`executive does not make her a champion of women’s issues, nor is that the appropriate measure
`
`of her capabilities as C00.
`
`48.
`
`Mr.~Morgenfeld became angry, raising his voice, and calling her a liar. He
`
`bragged about his “impeccable” record on diversity. He again questioned the value she brought
`
`to the company. Then, he childishly hung up on her. Ms. Brougher had never before felt so
`
`disrespected and frankly threatened than she did after this call.
`
`49.
`
`Ms. Brougher texted Mr. Silbermann immediately and told him that her
`
`conversation with Mr. Morgenfeld had not gone well.
`
`50.
`
`On February 24, Chief Human Resources Officer J0 Dennis met with
`
`Ms. Brougher to discuss her call with Mr. Morgenfeld. Ms. Brougher explained that she was
`
`offended by Mr. Morgenfeld reducing her accomplishments to “diversity” in the peer feedback
`
`portion of the performance review. Ms. Dennis agreed that it was inappropriate for
`
`Mr. Morgenfeld to have used “diversity” as the main criteria to evaluate Ms. Brougher’s
`
`performance as COO. Ms. Brougher emphasized that she liked her job and wanted to find a way
`to work with Mr. Morgenfeld but explained that because of his behavior during their last
`
`conversation, she was uncomfortable meeting with him without someone else in the room until
`
`this was resolved.
`
`51.
`
`Ms. Brougher asked for Ms. Dennis’ help navigating this relationship. Instead,
`
`Ms. Dennis immediately began managing Ms. Brougher’s concern as a possible legal issue and
`
`l 0
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET.SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rezlaw.com
`
`—l
`
`escalated her complaint to in-house counsel, instead oftrying to mediate the disagreement
`
`between the employees.
`
`OCOOJNOUUI-hooN
`
`52.
`
`The same day, Ms. Brougher met with Mr. Silbermann for a regular one-on-one.
`
`As they went through a long agenda, the topic of Ms. Brougher’s call with Mr. Morgenfeld came
`
`up. Again, Ms. Brougher explained to Mr. Silbermann that Mr. Morgenfeld’s comments toward
`
`her were demeaning and offensive and that she felt tired of the abuse and was uncomfortable
`
`meeting with Mr. Morgenfeld without a witness present because of his hostility toward her.
`
`Astonishingly, Mr. Silbermann responded that the situation was analogous to an old couple
`
`fighting over who would make coffee — another gendered remark that trivialized her concern
`
`about sex discrimination by comparing it to a wife’s complaint about domestic trouble. It was
`
`1 1
`
`not. Mr. Silbermann deflected his responsibility to manage his employees, saying that he would
`
`12
`
`let Ms. Dennis work it out. He made clear that he did not want to get involved and was happy to
`
`13 hide behind HR.
`
`14
`
`53.
`
`In the midst of Ms. Brougher’s efforts to address the discriminatory conduct,'the
`
`15 COVID—l9 crisis took the entire executive team’s focus. As COO, Ms. Brougher rose to the
`
`16
`
`occasion and did a tremendous job responding to the crisis.
`
`17
`
`54.
`
`On March 26, Ms. Dennis contacted Ms. Brougher. Ms. Dennis flip-flopped and
`
`18 stated that Mr. Morgenfeld’s feedback was appropriate because he believed his statement to be
`
`19 true, i.e. that Ms. Brougher was seen as an advocate for diversity. This missed the point.
`
`20 Ms. Dennis did not propose any action to address the disagreement. Instead, she placed the
`
`21
`
`burden on Ms. Brougher, saying, “Let me know if you’d like to discuss further, very happy to
`
`22 jump on a call with you, or with you and [Mr. Morgenfeld].”
`
`23
`
`55.
`
`Ms. Brougher responded reiterating her concerns about being only seen as
`
`24 “championing women issues” and about being undermined at work. She asked for Ms. Dennis’
`
`25 help, saying that she was “[h]appy todo whatever you will suggest.”
`
`26
`
`56.
`
`A week later, Ms. Dennis reached out to warn her that her role would be changing.
`
`27 Ms. Dennis tried to insulate Mr. Silbermann from any pushback by assuring Ms. Brougher that he
`
`28 “cared” about her. On April 2, while the company was still responding to the COVID-l 9 crisis,
`
`1 1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`~
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rez|aw.com
`
`1
`
`OOmVQUI-hwh)
`
`Mr. Silbermann called he