9/7/2018
`
`JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850)
`EVE CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709)
`PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081)
`ALTSHULERBERZON LLP
`177 Post Street, Suite 300
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Telephone:
`(415) 421-7151
`Facsimile:
`(415) 362-8064
`E-mail:jfinbergaltshulerberzon.corn
`ecervantez@altshulerberzon.corn
`pthoreen@altshulerberzon.corn
`
`JOHN MULLAN(SBN 221149)
`MICHELLELEE (SBN 266167)
`ERIN PULASKI (SBN 270998)
`WILLIAMMCELHINNY(SBN 296259)
`Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff& Lowe, LLP
`351 California Street, Suite 700
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 434-9800
`Telephone:
`Facsimile:
`(415) 434-0513
`Email:
`jtm@rezlaw.corn
`mglrezlaw.
`corn
`emprezlaw.corn
`wpm@rezlaw.corn
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs RONG JEWETT,
`SOPHY WANG, XIANMURRAY,
`ELIZABETHSUE PETERSEN, MARILYN
`CLARK,AND MANJARIKANTon behalf of
`themselves and all others similarly situated
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
`
`RONG JEWETT, SOPHY WANG, XIAN
`MURRAY,ELIZABETHSUE PETERSEN,
`MARILYNCLARK, AND MANJARI KANT
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`ORACLE AMERICA,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 17-CIV-02669
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`1. Violation of California Equal Pay Act, as
`amended (Labor Code )$ 1197.5, 1194.5)
`2. Failure to Pay AllWages Due to Discharged
`and Quitting Employees (Labor Code $ $ 201-
`203, 1194.5)
`3. Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices (Bus.
`k Prof. Code tj17200 et seq.)
`4. Declaratory Judgment (C.C.P, $ 1060 et seq.)
`5. Penalties under the Labor Code Private
`Attorneys General Act (Labor Code $ $2698-
`2699.5)
`
`JURY TRIALDEMANDED
`
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Plaintiffs Rong Jewett, Sophy Wang, Xian Murray, Elizabeth Sue Petersen, Marilyn Clark,
`
`and Manjari Kant (collectively "Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated, are informed and believe, and thereon allege, as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class
`defined as all women employed by Defendant Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle" or "Defendant" ) in
`California at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filingof the original
`Complaint in this action through the date oftrial in this action ("Class Period" ) in Information
`Technology, Product Development, or Support job functions ("Covered Positions" ).
`
`2.
`
`Throughout the Class Period and throughout California, Oracle has discriminated
`
`against
`
`its female employees by systematically paying them lower wage rates than Oracle pays
`
`to male employees performing equal and substantially similar work under similar working
`conditions, in violation of the California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Labor Code (1197.5, as amended.
`
`Oracle's failure to pay women and men equal wages for performing equal and substantially
`
`similar work is not justified by any lawful reason.
`
`3.
`
`At all relevant times, Oracle has known or sliould have known of this pay disparity
`
`between its female and male employees, yet Oracle has taken no action to equalize men and
`
`women's pay for equal and substantially similar work. Oracle's failure to pay female employees the
`
`same wage rates paid to male employees for equal and substantially similar work has been and is
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20 willful.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`4.
`
`As a result of Oracle's discriminatory and unlawful pay policies and/or practices,
`Plaintiffs and class members have been denied fair wages for all work performed during the
`
`Class Period and are entitled to wages due, interest thereon, and liquidated damages, plus
`
`interest.
`
`In addition to damages, Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining
`
`25 Oracle from continuing to pay women less than men for substantially similar work.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`2
`TI-IIRDAMENDED COMPLAINT;CASE NO. I 7-CIV-02669
`
`

`

`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because Defendant is a corporation that
`
`maintains its headquarters
`
`in California, is licensed to do business in California, regularly conducts
`
`business
`
`in Californi, and committed and continues to commit the unlawful acts alleged herein in
`
`California.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure )$ 395
`in the County of San
`and 395.5 because Defendant is a corporation that maintains its headquarters
`
`Mateo and because a substantial part of the unlawful acts alleged herein occurred and continue to
`
`occur in this County.
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`PlaintiffRong Jewett is a woman who was employed by Oracle as an application
`
`engineer (also known as "application developer" ) and senior application engineer (also known as
`"senior application developer" ), which are both Covered Positions, at Oracle's headquarters
`
`located
`
`in Redwood Shores from approximately April2012 to approximately July 2016. PlaintiffJewett and
`
`1
`
`10
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15 male employees in the same establishment performed equal work on jobs the performance of which
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`
`required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which were performed under similar working
`
`conditions, from at least the beginning of the class period through December 31, 2015. Plaintiff
`
`Jewett and male employees performed substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of
`
`skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, from at least
`
`January 1, 2016 until the end ofPlaintiffJewett's employment. On information and belief, Oracle
`
`paid PlaintiffJewett less than men for equal work through December 31, 2015, and for substantially
`
`similar work from January 1, 2016 until the end of PlaintiffJewett's employment.
`
`8.
`
`PlaintiffSophy Wang is a woman who was employed by Oracle as an application
`
`engineer (also known as "application developer" ), senior application engineer (also known as
`"senior application developer" ), project lead, and principal application engineer (also known as
`
`"principal application developer" ), which are all Covered Positions, at Oracle's headquarters
`
`located
`
`in Redwood Shores from approximately October 2008 to approximately March 2017. Plaintiff
`
`28 Wang and male employees in the same establishment performed equal work on jobs the performance
`
`3
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`

`

`of which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which were performed under similar
`
`working conditions, from at least the beginning of the class period through December 31, 2015.
`
`PlaintiffWang and male employees performed substantially similar work, when viewed as a
`
`composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, from
`at least January I, 2016 until the end ofPlaintiffWang's employment. On information and belief,
`
`Oracle paid PlaintiffWang less than men for equal work through December 31, 2015, and for
`
`substantially similar work from January I, 2016 until the end ofPlaintiffWang's employment.
`
`9.
`
`PlaintiffXian Murray is a woman who was employed by Oracle as a software
`
`engineer, senior engineer, and project lead, which are all Covered Positions, at Oracle's headquarters
`
`10
`
`12
`
`located in Redwood Shores from approximately March 2011 through approximately October 2016.
`
`PlaintiffMurray and male employees in the same establishment performed equal work on jobs the
`
`performance of which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which were performed
`
`under similar working conditions, from at least the beginning of the class period through December
`
`31, 2015. PlaintiffMurray and male employees performed substantially similar work, when viewed
`
`15
`
`as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions,
`
`from at least January 1, 2016 until the end ofPlaintiffMurray's employment, On information and
`
`17
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`belief, Oracle paid PlaintiffMurray less than men for equal work through December 31, 2015, and
`
`for substantially similar work from January 1, 2016 until the end ofPlaintiffMurray's employment.
`
`10.
`
`PlaintiffElizabeth Sue Petersen is a woman who was employed by Oracle as a Senior
`
`Technical Support Engineer from 2005 to 2015 and a Principal Technical Support Engineer from
`
`2015 to May 2018. Both Senior Technical Support Engineer and Principal Technical Support
`
`Engineer are Covered Positions in Oracle's Support job function. Before beginning work for Oracle,
`
`23 Ms. Petersen was employed by PeopleSoft Corp., which was acquired by Oracle. When Oracle
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`acquired PeopleSoft, Ms. Petersen became an employee of Oracle. Oracle paid Ms. Petersen as an
`
`initial salary the salary she had been making at PeopleSoft. Ms, Petersen worked in Oracle's
`
`Pleasanton office for several years, worked from home for a period of time, and worked out of
`
`Oracle's Santa Clara office. PlaintiffPetersen and male employees in the same establishment
`
`performed equal work on jobs thc performance of which required equal skill, effort, and
`
`4
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`

`

`responsibility, and which were performed under similar working conditions, from at least the
`
`beginning of the class period through December 31, 2015. PlaintiffPetersen and male employees
`
`performed substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility,
`
`and performed under similar working conditions, from at least January 1, 2016 until the end of
`
`PlaintiffPetersen's employment. Oracle paid Petersen less than men for equal work through
`
`December 31, 2015, and for substantially similar work from January I, 2016 until the end of
`
`PlaintiffPetersen's employment.
`
`11.
`
`PlaintiffMarilyn Clark is a woman who is employed by Oracle as a Database
`
`Administrator 3 from March 2006 through February 2007 and as a Database Administrator 4 (a.k.a.
`
`10
`
`Principal Database Administrator) from March 2007 through September 2015, when she retired
`
`Both Database Administrator 3 and Database Administrator 4 are Covered Positions in Oracle's
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Information Technology job function. Before beginning work for Oracle, Ms. Clark was employed
`
`by PeopleSofi Corp., which was acquired by Oracle. When Oracle acquired PeopleSoft, Ms. Clark
`became an employee of Oracle. Oracle paid Ms. Clark as an initial salary the salary she had been
`
`making at PeopleSoft. Ms. Clark worked in Oracle's Pleasanton, California office. PlaintiffClark
`
`and male employees in the same establishment performed equal work on jobs the performance of
`
`which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which were performed under similar
`
`18 working conditions, from at least the beginning of the class period through September 30, 2015,
`
`19 when she retired. Oracle paid PlaintiffClark less than men for equal work through September 30,
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2015.
`
`12.
`
`PlaintiffManjari Kant is a woman who was employed by Oracle as Software QA
`Engineer (10820 QA Analyst 2 IC2, March 2005 —August 2005); Senior Software QA Engineer
`
`(10830 QA Analyst 3 IC3, Sept 2005-July 2006); Principle Software QA Engineer (10840 QA
`
`Analyst 4 IC4, July 2006- June 2014); and Senior Principle Software QA Engineer (10841 QA
`
`Analyst 5 IC5, June 2014-June 2017) in Oracle's Product Development Function. Before beginning
`
`work at Oracle, Ms. Kant was employed by PeopleSofi Corp., which was acquired by Oracle. When
`
`27 Oracle acquired PeopleSoft, Ms. Kant became an employee at Oracle. Oracle paid Ms. Kant as an
`
`initial salary the salary she had been paid at PeopleSoft. Ms. Kant worked in Oracle's Pleasanton,
`
`5
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`

`

`CA Office. PlaintiffKant and male employees in the same establishment performed equal work on
`
`jobs the performance of which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which were
`
`performed under similar working conditions, &om at least the beginning of the class period
`
`31, 2015. PlaintiffKant and male employees performed substantially similar work, when
`
`through'ecember
`
`viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working
`
`conditions, from at least January I, 2016 until the end ofPlaintiffKant's employment in June 2017.
`
`On information and belief, Oracle paid PlaintiffKant less than men for equal work through
`
`December 31, 2015, and for substantially similar work from January 1, 2016 until the end of
`
`PlaintiffKant's employment in June 2017.
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Oracle America, Inc. is a corporation that develops and markets software
`
`and hardware products and also sells services related to those products. Oracle's headquarters
`
`are
`
`located at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, California 94065. Upon information and belief,
`
`13 Oracle employs over 7,000 employees at its Redwood Shores headquarters
`
`and also has employees
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`at its 14 other office locations throughout California.
`
`FACTUALALLEGATIONS
`
`14.
`
`On January 17, 2017, the United States Department of Labor's Office of Federal
`
`Contract Compliance Programs ("OFCCP") filed an administrative complaint against Oracle based
`
`on its compliance review of Oracle's headquarters
`
`in Redwood Shores, California, which found
`
`"systemic discrimination against women" and "gross disparities in pay" even after controlling for
`
`job title, full-time status, exempt status, global career level, job specialty, estimated prior work
`
`experience, and company tenure. OFCCP's compliance audit of Oracle's Redwood Shores
`
`headquarters
`
`found that from at least January I, 2014 onward, and on information and belief from
`
`2013 onward, Oracle discriminated against qualified female employees in its Information
`
`Technology, Product Development, and Support lines of business or job functions (covering 80 job
`
`titles) based upon sex by paying them less than male employees employed in similar roles.
`Regardless of employees'ffice locations, Oracle employees with the same job title
`
`15.
`
`employed in Information Technology, Product Development, or Support job functions throughout
`California have performed, from the beginning of the Class Period until at least December 31, 2015,
`
`6
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`

`

`equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and
`
`performed under similar working conditions, and from at least January 1, 2016 until the present,
`
`substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and
`
`performed under similar working conditions.
`
`16.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Oracle's central administrative officers based in its
`
`Redwood Shores headquarters have maintained centralized control over employees'erms
`
`and
`
`conditions of employment, including, without limitation,job and location assignment, career
`
`progression, promotion, and compensation policies, practices and procedures.
`
`17.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Oracle's corporate headquarters has maintained
`
`10
`
`responsibility for hiring employees, setting wages, and assigning the location of employment across
`
`all of its California offices.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`18.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Oracle's compensation policies and practices have been
`
`and continue to be centrally determined and uniformly applied to all of Oracle's employees
`
`throughout its California office locations.
`
`l 9.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Oracle has maintained and continues to maintain a
`
`centrally determined and uniformly applied set of policies and/or practices for determining
`
`employees'age rates throughout California, including centralized policies and/or practices for
`
`setting employees'nitial pay, and centralized policies and/or practices for giving employees pay
`
`raises. For example, Oracle's corporate headquarters administers a centralized pay structure
`
`requiring that employees'alaries
`
`be restricted to corporate-imposed compensation ranges. These
`
`compensation ranges are set on a company-wide basis and apply across all of Oracle's California
`
`offices.
`
`20.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, all compensation decisions concerning Oracle's
`
`California employees have been and continue to be subject to approval by Oracle's central
`
`administrative officers based in headquarters.
`
`Salary increases are dictated by payroll budgets
`
`established by corporate headquarters,
`
`and must be approved by central management. Similarly,
`
`Oracle has applied uniform promotion policies and practices to its employees throughout California,
`
`including its requirement that promotions must be approved by Oracle's corporate headquarters.
`
`7
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`

`

`21.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Oracle has maintained and continues to maintain a
`
`centrally determined and uniformly applied policy and/or practice throughout California of not
`
`adjusting employees'age rates to ensure that it does not pay its female employees less than its
`
`male employees for substantially equal or similar work.
`
`22.
`
`From the beginning ofthe Class Period until at least December 31, 2015, Oracle has
`
`paid women less than men in the same establishment
`
`(as interpreted to mean all of Oracle's office
`
`locations in California, in light of the allegations in paragraphs
`
`12 through 18) for equal work on
`
`jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under
`
`similar working conditions. From at least January I, 2016 until the present, Oracle has paid women
`
`less than men for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and
`
`responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions
`
`23.
`
`Oracle is required to maintain records of the wages and wage rates, job
`classifications, and other terms and conditions of employment of all of its employees throughout
`
`California. Oracle therefore knew or should have known that it paid female employees in the
`Covered Positions less than it paid their male counterparts f'r performing equal and substantially
`similar work, yet Oracle took no steps to eliminate its unlawful and discriminatory pay practices at
`
`any time during the Class Period.
`
`CLASS ACTIONALLEGATIONS
`
`Plaintiffs bring their first through third causes of action on behalf of themselves and
`24.
`on behalf of the following proposed class ("Class" ):
`
`Allwomen employed by Oracle in California in Information Technology, Product
`Development, or Support job functions at any time during the time period beginning four
`years prior to the filingofthe original Complaint through the date of trial in this action.
`
`25.
`
`This action is appropriately suited for a class action because:
`
`The proposed Class is numerous and ascertainable. On information and
`
`belief, the proposed Class includes thousands of current and former female Oracle employees
`
`located across California, and therefore joinder of all individual Class members would be
`
`impractical.
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`77
`
`78
`
`8
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`

`

`b.
`
`This action involves questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and all
`
`Class members which predominate over any individual issues,
`
`including but not limited to: (a)
`
`whether Oracle had a systemic policy and/or practice, from the beginning of the Class Period until at
`
`least December 31, 2015, of paying its female employees at wage rates lower than those paid to its
`
`male employees in the same establishment
`
`(as interpreted to mean all of Oracle's office locations in
`
`California, in light ofthe allegations in paragraphs 12 through 18) for equal work on jobs the
`
`performance of which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which were performed
`
`under similar working conditions; (b) whether Oracle has had a systemic policy and/or practice,
`
`from at least January 1, 2016 to the present, ofpaying its female employees at wage rates lower than
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`those paid to its male employees performing substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite
`of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar conditions; (c) whether Oracle's
`systemic policy and/or practice ofpaying its female employees at wage rates lower than those paid
`
`to their male counterparts violates the California Equal Pay Act, as amended, Cal. Labor Code
`
`$ 1197.5; and (d) whether Oracle's systemic policy and/or practice ofpaying its female employees at
`
`wage rates lower than those paid to their male counterparts was willful. These common questions of
`
`law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members in this action.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`c.
`
`Plaintiffs Jewett's, Wang's, Murray's, Petersen's, Clark's, and Kant's claims
`are typical of Class members'laims because they are women who were employed by Oracle in
`19 California during the Class Period in one or more of the Covered Positions, and, on information and
`
`belief, were paid less than male employees for equal and substantially similar work. Upon
`
`information and belief, Oracle has applied uniform wage rate policies and practices to its employees
`
`throughout California at all times throughout the Class Period.
`
`d.
`
`Plaintiffs Jewett, Wang, Murray, Petersen, Clark, and Kant are able to fairly
`
`and adequately protect the interests of all members of the class because it is in Plaintiffs'est
`
`interests to prosecute the claims alleged herein to obtain full compensation due to the Class for all
`
`work performed, and to obtain injunctive relief to protect the Class from further discriminatory wage
`
`rates going forward. Plaintiffs have selected counsel who have the requisite resources and ability to
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`9
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`

`

`prosecute this case as a class action and are experienced labor and employment attorneys who have
`
`successfully litigated other cases involving similar issues,
`
`including in class actions.
`
`e.
`
`This suit is properly maintained as a class action under C.C.P. $ 382 because
`
`Oracle has implemented an unlawful wage rate scheme that is generally applicable to the Class,
`
`making it appropriate to issue final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect
`
`to the Class as a whole. This suit is also properly maintained as a class action because the common
`
`questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the
`
`class. For all these and other reasons, a class action is superior to other available methods for the
`
`fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy set forth herein.
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of the California Equal Pay Act, as amended
`Cal. Labor Code tj)1197.5, 1194.5
`(Brought by AllPlaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Plaintiff Class)
`
`Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and
`26.
`every preceding paragraph as iffully set forth herein.
`Oracle has discriminated against Plaintiffs and all Class members in violation of
`
`27.
`
`California Labor Code )1197.5 by paying its female employees at wage rates less than the wage
`
`17
`
`rates paid to male employees for equal and substantially similar work throughout the Class
`
`Period. Specifically, from the beginning of the Class Period until at least December 31, 2015,
`
`19 Oracle has paid women less than men in the same establishment
`
`(as interpreted to mean all of
`
`20 Oracle's office locations in California, in light of the allegations in paragraphs 14 through 20) for
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`equal work on jobs the performance of which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and
`
`which were performed under similar working conditions. From at least January 1, 2016 until the
`
`present, Oracle has paid women less than men for substantially similar work, when viewed as a
`
`composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions,
`
`28.
`
`Oracle willfullyviolated California Labor Code )1197.5 by intentionally, knowingly,
`
`and deliberately paying women less than men for equal and substantially similar work throughout
`
`the Class Period.
`
`10
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`

`

`29.
`
`As a result of Oracle's conduct, violation of California Labor Code (1197.5, and/or
`
`Oracle's willful,knowing, and intentional discrimination, Plaintiffs and Class members have
`
`suffered and willcontinue to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings,
`
`lost benefits, and
`
`other financial loss, as well as non-economic damages.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class members are therefore entitled to all legal and equitable remedies
`
`available under law, including wages,
`
`interest, and liquidated damages.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Failure to Pay AllWages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees
`Cal. Labor Code t'Itt201-203, 1194.5
`(Brought by AllPlaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Plaintiff Class)
`Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and
`31.
`every preceding paragraph as iffully set forth herein.
`to California Labor Code $ /201, 202, and 203, Oracle is required to pay all
`
`Pursuant
`
`32.
`
`mandates
`
`earned and unpaid wages to an employee who is discharged or quits. California Labor Code $ 201
`that ifan employer discharges an employee,
`the time of discharge are due and payable immediately. California Labor Code $ 202 mandates
`that
`ifan employee quits, the employee's wages accrued and unpaid at the time of quitting are due and
`
`the employee's wages accrued and unpaid at
`
`payable no later than 72 hours after the employee quits his or her employment, unless the employee
`
`provided at least 72 hours of notice ofhis or her intention to quit, in which case the wages are due
`
`immediately at the time of quitting.
`California Labor Code tI'203 provides that ifan employer willfullyfails to pay in
`accordance with California Labor Code 1I'$201 and 202 any wages of an employee who is discharged
`
`33.
`
`or who quits, the employer is liable for waiting time penalties in the form of continued compensation
`
`to the employee at the same rate for up to 30 work days.
`
`34.
`
`By intentionally and deliberately paying Plaintiffs and Class members lower wages
`
`than wages paid to their male counterparts for performing equal and substantially similar work,
`
`Oracle has willfullyfailed and continues to fail to pay all accrued wages due to Plaintiffs and Class
`members who have been discharged or who have quit, in violation of Labor Code ) )201 and 202,
`
`respectively.
`
`II
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`35.
`
`As a result of Oracle's unlawful actions and omissions, Plaintiffs and former
`
`employee Class members are entitled to all available statutory penalties,
`
`including the waiting time
`
`penalties provided in California Labor Code )203, together with interest thereon, as well as other
`
`available remedies.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code ('117200 et seq.
`(Brought by AllPlaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the PlaintiffClass)
`Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and
`36.
`every preceding paragraph as iffully set forth herein.
`Oracle's policies and/or practices of paying female employees less than male
`
`37.
`
`employees for equal and substantially similar work performed and of failing to timely pay female
`
`employees who are discharged or who quit all wages earned and due constitute business practices
`
`because Oracle's acts and omissions as alleged herein have been done repeatedly over a significant
`
`period of time, and in a systematic manner,
`
`to the detriment ofPlaintiffs and Class members.
`
`38.
`
`Oracle's acts and omissions, as alleged herein, violate the California Equal Pay Act,
`
`as amended, Labor Code )1197.5, and California Labor Code [$201, 202, and 203, and therefore
`constitute unlawful business practices prohibited by Business & Professions Code $ 17200 et seq.
`
`39,
`
`Oracle's acts and omissions; as alleged herein, constitute unfair business practices
`
`prohibited by Business & Professions Code (17200 et seq. Oracle's business practice of paying
`
`women less than men for equal and substantially similar work causes harm to Plaintiffs and Class
`
`members that outweighs any reason Oracle may have for doing so. Oracle's business practice as
`
`alleged herein is also immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and offensive to the established
`
`public policies of ensuring women and men are paid equally for performing equal and substantially
`
`similar work, as reflected in both the California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Labor Code $ 1197.5, and the
`
`federal Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. )206(d), and ensuring women are not discriminated against in the
`
`workplace, as reflected in both the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code
`$ 12940 et seq., and Title VIIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. $2000e et seq.
`
`'12
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`40.
`
`As a result of its unlawful and/or unfair business practices, Oracle has reaped and
`
`continues to reap unfair and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiffs and Class members.
`
`Accordingly, Oracle should be disgorged of its illegal profits, and Plaintiffs and Class members are
`
`entitled to restitution with interest of such ill-gotten profits in an amount according to proof at the
`time of trial.
`
`41.
`
`Oracle's unlawful and/or unfair business practices entitle Plaintiffs and Class
`
`members to preliminary and permanent
`
`injunctive relief and other equitable relief available under
`
`law.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Declaratory Judgment
`Cal. C.C.P.
`It 1060 et seq.
`(Brought by AllPlaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Plaintiff Class)
`
`Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and
`42.
`every preceding paragraph as iffullyset forth herein.
`An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties relating to
`the legal rights and duties of the parties as set forth above, for which Plaintiffs desire a declaration of
`rights and other relief available pursuant to the California Declaratory Judgment Act, C.C.P. II1060
`
`43.
`
`et set/,
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`44.
`
`A declaratory judgment is necessary and proper in that Plaintiffs contend that Oracle
`
`has committed and continues to commit the violations set forth above and, on information and belief,
`20 Oracle will deny that it has done so and/or willcontinue to commit such acts.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Representative Action for Civil Penalties
`Cal. Labor Code (jIt 269S- 2699.5
`(Brought by Plaintiffs Jewett and Wang on Behalf of Themselves, AllSimilarly Aggrieved
`Current and Former Oracle Employees, and the State)
`Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and
`45.
`every preceding paragraph as iffully set forth herein.
`Plaintiffs Jewett and Wang are each an "aggrieved employee" within the meaning of
`
`46.
`
`27 California Labor Code $ 2699(c), and are each a proper representative to bring a civil action on
`behalf of herself and other current and former employees of Oracle pursuant
`
`to the procedures
`
`13
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 17-CIV-02669
`
`

`

`1
`
`specified in California Labor Code $ 2699.3, because Plaintiffs Jewett and Wang were employed by
`
`2 Oracle and the alleged violations of California Labor Code I'I(201-203 and 1197.5 were committed
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`] 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`by Oracle against
`them.
`47., Pursuant
`Code $ I'I2698-2699.5, Plaintiffs seek to recover civilpenalties in the amount of $ 100 for each
`
`to the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Labor
`
`aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation, and $200 for each aggrieved employees
`per pay period for each subsequent violation of California Labor Code II1197.5 as alleged herein.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys'ees
`
`and costs
`
`pursuant to California Labor Code $2699(g)(I).
`
`49.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to California Labor Code $ 2699.3, Plaintiffs Jewett and Wang gave written
`notice by online filingwith the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA")
`and by certified mail to Oracle of the specific provisions of the California Labor Code alleged to
`
`have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violations. More than
`
`14
`
`sixty-five (65) calendar days have passed since the postmark date ofPlaintiffs