A Summary Of the Lawsuit

  • Lowe's wife made employment intolerable
  • The wife verbally  harassed the nanny with sexual innuendoes 
  • The Lowe's didn't pay overtime
  • When the first nanny sued, they sued the second nanny to frighten her

At this point Laura Boyse, who was frightened over retaliation, and being sued by Rob Lowe, was forced to get an attorney.

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant. LAURA BOYSE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT O F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR T HE COUNTY O F LOS ANGELES

ROB LOWE, an individual; and SHERYL LOWE, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

LAURA BOYCE, an individual; and

DOES I through 25, inclusive,

Defendant.

LAURA BOYCE,

Cross-Complainant

vs.

ROB LOWE, an individual; SHERYL

LOWE, an individual, and ROES I through

25 inclusive.

Cross-Defendants.

I

CASE NO: BC 388579

CROSS COMPLAINT BY LAURA

BOYCE AGAINST ROB LOWE,

SHERYL LOWE AND ROES I

THROUGH 25 INCLUSIVE

  SEXUAL HARASSMENT

(Violation of Gov't Code

$12940e t seq.)

WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE

TERMINATION IN

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC

POLICY

ABUSE OF PROCESS

UNPAID OFF-THE-CLOCK

WORK

UNPAID OVERTIME

WAGES

UNPAID MEAL PERIODS

UNPAID REST PERIODS

VIOLATION OF LABOR

MISCLASSIFICATIONS  

 VIOLATION OF LABOR

CODE $203

I l. conversion

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

L Cross-ComplainaLnAt URA BOYCE, (hereinafte"rB OYCE'or "Cross-

Complainant"f)o r herc omplainta gainsCt ross-DefendanRtsO B LOWE, an individual,

SHBRYL LOWE, an individual,a ndR OESI through2 5, inclusivea llegea sf ollows:

NATTJBE OF'THE AgTTON

2, The rich and famous are not above the law. They are not granted any special

immunities the rich and famous just like any other individual  nda ny o ther employer m, ust n ot

subject t heir employees to a sexually hostile and offensive work environment.T  hey must abide b y

the CaliforniaF air Employmenta nd HousingA ct just like any other anployer. If &e rich and

famous wish to employ individuals to caler to their every need, thcy must also refrain from

violating Califomia's wage and hour laws.

3. When the rich and famous s uspestth at an employeem ay providet estimonya dverse

to them, the rich and famous try to hide behind a purported "Confidentiality Agreerment."

4, Unfortunatelya, ss etf orthh ereint his is exactlyw hato ccurredin thism atter.C ross-

Defendant Sheryl Lowe n ot only sexuallyh arasseadn df ailedt o properlyp ay Cross-Complainant

LAURA BOYCE,b ut Cross-Defendanht Seryl Lowe a nd h er h usband  PlaintiffRob [.oweh ave

now sued her in effort to chill her free speech rights a nd thwart any adverse testimony supporting

anothecr o-worker'sc laimso f sexual harassment.

qRELIMINARY- FACTUAL STAT EMENT

5. Cross-ComplainanLtA URA BOYCE (hereinafter eferredt o as "Cross-

Complainant"o r "Boyce") is, and at all relevantt imesm entionedh ereinw as,a residento f the

Countyo f LosA ngelesS, tateo f California.

6. Cross-Complainanist informeda ndb elieves,a ndb asedt hereona llegest hat Cross-

CRO55C OMPIAJNTO F I.AURAS OYCEA GAINsTR OSL OWEA ND SHERYLL OWE

 

 

DefendanRt OB LOWE is an individual r esidingi n the Countyo f SantaB arbaraa t all times

relevant herein.

7. Cross-Complainanist informed   nd b elieves,a ndb asedt hereona llegest hat Cross-

Defendant SHERYL LOWE is an individual r esidingi n the Countyo f SantaB arbaraa t atl times

relevanth erein.

8, Cross-Complainanist informeda ndb elievesa ndb asedt hereona llegest hat Cross-

DefendantsR OB Al{D SHERYL LOWE were,a t all timesr elevanth erein,C ross-Complainant's

employer.

9. The tnre namesa ndc apacitiesw, hetheri ndividual, associateo r otherwise,o f

Cross-Defendantssu edh ereina sR OES I through2 5, inclusive,a rec urrentlyu nJcnownto Cross-

Complainantw, ho therefores uess aidC ross-Defendanbtsy suchf ictitious names. Cross

Complainanits informeda nd believesa, ndb asedt hereona llegest,h at eacho f the Cross-

Defendantsd esignatedh ereina sa ROE is legallyr esponsiblein somer nannerf or the eve,ntsa nd

happeningsre ferredt o herein,a ndc ausedir yury and damagep roximatelyt herebyt o Cross-

Complainanat sh ereinaftera lleged. Cross-Complainanwti ll seekl eaveo f Court to amendt his

complaintt o showt he true namesa ndc apacitieso f the Cross-Defendantdse signatedh ereina s

ROES when the same have been ascertained.

10. Wheneveirn this complainrte ferencies madet o "Cross-Defendantasn, de acho f

thsm," sucha llegations hallb e deemedto meant he actso f Cross-Defendantsa,c tingi ndividually,

jointly, and/or severally.

I l. Cross-Complainanist informeda ndb elieves,a ndb asedt hereona lleges,t hat at all

timesm entionedh erein,e acho f the Cross-Defendanwtsa s the agent,s ervanta nde rnployeec, oventurera

ndc o-conspiratoor f eacho f the remainingC ross-Defendantas,n d was at all timesh erein

mentioneda, ctingw ithin the courses, cope,p u{posec, onsentk, nowledge,r atificationa nd

authorizationo f sucha gencye, mployrnenjto, int venturea nd conspiracy.

12. At all timesr elevanht ereinC, ross-Defendanetsn gagedC ross-Complainaanst a n

independenct ontractora, ndn ot an ernployee.I n fact, ths natureo f the working relationship

28 betweenC ross-Complainanaln dC ross-Defendanwtsa sa n employmentr elationshipo f an

CROSSC OMPI.AINTO F I.AURAB OYCEA GAINSTR O8 LOWEA ND SHERYLL OWE

5

employeea nde mployer,a s thoset ermsa reu sedi n Labor Code$ 2750( Contracto f Employment.)

That sectionp rovides: "The contracto f ernploymenits a eontmctb y which one,w ho is ealledt he

employer,e ngagesa nother,w ho is calledt he employeet,o do somethingf or the benefito f the

employer or a third person."

13. Cross-Complainant BO YCE worked f or Cross-Defendant bse tween A prit 2007a nd

Novernber 16,20A7 as a Nanny. At all times during her employment with Cross-Defendants,

Cross-Complainant 's ho urs a nd w orking conditions w ere r egulatedb y Title 8, Califomia Codeo f

RegulationsS ectionI I 150,I ndusbialW elfareC ommissionO rderN o. 2001 RegulatingW ages,

Hoursa nd W orking C onditionsfo r Household O ccupation(s" WageO rderN o. 15").

her_job

14. Cross-Complainant' wa employed as a Nanny,  included but weren't limited to, preparing

meal taking  care o f the dogs ,unlocking the offices, getting Cross-Defendantts' o sons ready

for school  driving the Cross-Defendants two sons to school, packing the Cross-Defendants  and

their sons') suit cases for trips, doing laundry and cleaning when traveling with Cross-Defendants,

and grocery shopping.

I 5. Cross-Defendant paid Cross-Complainant hourly wage o f $ 16.00 per hour.

Cross-Complainant typically worked from 6:00a .m. until 9:00 or l0:00 p.m., Thursda1ath rough

Monday. Cross-Defendapnat idC ross-Complainaint c ash a nd b y check.

16. Cross-Defendanrtes gularly e mployed o ne ( I ) or more persons b, ringing Cross-

Defendant within the p rovisionso f Government-Cod$e1 2900e t seq.p rohibitinge rnployerosr

their agentsf rom discriminatinga gainsot r harassinge mployeeso n the basiso f their sex.

17. Cross-ComplainanBtO YCE filed a complainto f discriminationi n ernployment

with the CaliforniaD epartmenot f Fair Employmenat nd Housing( hereinafter efei:edt o as

"DFEH") againsCt ross-Defendanotns April 30,2008. On April 30,2008,t he DFEH issuedit s

Noticeo f Rightt o Suea uthorizingth el awsuit,a ndC ross-Complainatnimt ely filed this astion,

BOYCEh ast hereforee xhaustehde ra vailablea dministrativree mediesa ndt imely filed this action

within thep rescribepde riods ubsequentot issuancoef theN oticeo f Rightt o Sue.

u/

CROSSC OMPTAINTO F LAURAE OYCEA GAINSTR OBL OWEA ND SHERYLL OWE

I  

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Sexual Harassment in Violation of California Gov't Code $1294Q et seq.

AgainstA II Cross-Defendantasn d ROES l-25, incluslve)

18. BOYCE r epeat sa ndr eallegetsh e a llegation cso ntainedin paragmphIs through

l7 andi neorporatelsh e sameb y referencca st houghf ully set forttr herein.

19. This action is brought under the Califomia Fair Employment and Housing Act

("FEHA') Governance Ct ode$ 12940s, ub division(a ), which prohibits discrimination against

person in the terms, conditions o, r privilege o f employment n the basis o f the person's s ex,

subdivision(i ), which prohibit harassment of an employee because o f her sex, and t he

corresponding regulations o f the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission.

Lascious

20. Throughoutt he courseo f Cross-ComplainanBto yce'se mploymentw ith Cross-

DefendanlS berylL owe, Boyce w as s ubjected to an extreme  sexually offensive and hostile work

environment by Cross-Defendant Sheryl Lowe. Cross-Defendant Shery Lowe behaved henelf in

a sexually perverted disgusting and crude manner. Cross-Defendant Sheryl Lowe made

numerous sexually  rude, lascivious and racially derogatory comments. The last sexually and

racially offensive comment made b y Cross-Defendant Sheryl Lowe o n Novernber1 6,2 007,a s

described below, forced Cross-Complainant to resign her employment his conduct and these

statement constituted harassment the workplace that was severe or peverasive.

 

Sexual content

     
 

21. Examples of the sexually offensive and hostile conduct engaged in by Cross-

Defendant SHERYL LOWE beginning in or about April 2007 and continuing through on or about

Novernber1 6,2007 include, but aren't limited to:

 

 

a. walking a round naked completely exposing herself to Cross-Complainant;

b. asking Cross-Complainant questions about he size of Cross-Complainant's boyfriend's penis;

c. making comments about Cross-Complainant' boyfriend's penis;

d. asking Cross-Complainant questions about how Cross-Complainant had  sex  with her boy friend given his height( 7 fl.); her boy friend w as a n NBA player.

e. using her forearm to gesture the size o f Cross-Complainant' s boy friend's penis

f, asking Cross-Complainan questions about how she and her boyfriend had sex and whether they had oral sex;

g. making comments such as," you are so little and he is so big. Does it hurt?" and " How do you handle it?"

h. while on a trip to Kaui from in or about June 26 to July 16,2007, Cross-Defendant Sheryl Lowe laughingly said that her husband's" cock-rings were broken last night" and showed them to Cross-Complainant Boyce;

i. would talk about her sex life with her husband Rob Lowe;

j, would talk about the size of her children's penises and

k. on November1 6,2007, Cross-Complainant called to advise Sheryl  Lowe  that she wasn't feeling well and would be in to work the following day( Saturday November1 7,2007). As Cross-Complainant was speaking with the Manager, Carol Andrade, she heard C ross- Defendant Sheryl Lowe in the background telling and laughing into the phone, "she got strep throat from sucking nigger dick I mean black dick."

 

 
     

 

 

22. The last incident described above w as the proverbial straw and caused C ross-

Complainan to resign her employment. Cross-Complainantr  tould no longer tolerate Cross-

Defendant Sheryl Lowe's disgusting racially and sexually offensive behavior.

Child begged the Jewess to stop dirty talk

23. On many occasion Cross-Complainant had advised Cross-Defendant Sheryl Lowe

that she did not want to engage in that type of (sexual) conversation.

24. The above-describe unwanted unwelcome and uninvited s ex-based harassment

created an intimidating, oppressive hostile, abusive, and offensive work environment which

interfered with Cross-Complainant BOYCE's emotional well being and h er ability to perform h er

work.

25. The conduct o f Cross-Defendanatss alleged i n this Complaint,c onstihrtesa n

unlawful employment practicein violation o f GovernmenCt ode$ 12940s, ubdivision(sa ) andf i).

26. As a direct and p roximate r esulto f the harassmenbt y Cross-DefendantsB,O YCE

2E hass uffereda ndc ontinuesto sufferp hysicali njury and illnessa nd extremea nds everem ental

CROSSC OMPI.AINTO F LAUM EOYCEA GAINSTR OBL OWEA ND SHERYTL OWE

I  

anguisha nde motionald istress.B OYCE is therebye ntitledt o generala nd compensatoryd amages,

27, BOYCE is informed and believes and based the reon a llegesth att he outrageous

conduct o f Cross-Defendant SHERYL LOWE as described here in was done w th fraud,

oppression and malice and with a conscious disregard fo r her rights to be free from sex-based

harassment and with the intent, design, and purpose o f injuring her. Cross-Defendants a,u thorized,

condoneda, nd/orr atified the unlawful conductb y failing to take immediatea nd appropriate

correctivea ction.B y reasont hereo{,B OYCE is entitledt o punitive or exernplaryd amagesfr om

Cross'Defendantisn an amounta ppropriateto punisha nd makea n exampleo f Cross-Defendants,

28. As a further,d irect andp roximater esulto f Cross-Defendantsv'i olation of

Califomiac overnr?enCl ode$ 12900e, t.s., ash eretofored escribedB, oycE hasb een

compelledt o retaint he serviceso f counseli n an effort to enforcel he termsa nd conditionso f her

employmenrte lationship w ith Cross-Defendanatsn,d h ast herebyin curreda, ndw ill continuet o

incur, legal fees and costs, the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to her.

BOYCE will therefores eekl eaveo f Courtt o amendt his Cross-Complainint thatr egardw hent he

sames hall be fully and finally ascertainedB, OYCE requeststh at attorneysf eesb e awarded

pursuantto CaliforniaG ovemmqnCt ode$ 12965.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Pubtic Policy Against AII Cross-

Defendantsa nd ROES l-25, inclusive)

29, Cross-ComplainaBnOt YCEr epeatsa ndr eallegesth ea llegationsc ontainedin

paragraphsI through2 8 and incorporatesth e sameb y referencea s thoughf ulty set forth herein.

30' Cross-Complainainst i nformed a nd believes th at a s s etf orth aboves hew as f orced

to resignh er ernployment because o f the sexually hostile and o ffensive w ork environment c reated

by Cross-Defendant Sheryl L owe.

31. It is the p ublicp olicyo f the Stateo f Califomia,a se xprresseind the CatiforniaF air

Employmenat ndH ousingA ct, CalifomiaSovemmenCt o& $12900e t seg.,t hate rnptoyeessh all

not be subjectedto sexualh arassmenbty their employers.A s allegedh ereinaboveC, ross-

Defendantws ereC ross-Complainasn te' mployer.

CROSSC OMPISINTO F TAURAB OYCEA CAINSTR OBL OWA NO SHERVLI- OWE

4

3

32. As a directa ndp roximatere sulto f Cross-Defendantwsi' llful, knowinga nd

intentionalh arassmenCt, ross-Complainanhta s s uffereda nd will continue t o suffer p ain and

suffering, e xtremea nd severe m entata nguisha, nde motionatd i stress.C ross-Complainanht a s

further s uffereda nd will continue t o suffer a loss   of earnings a nd other enployment benefits refitsa nd

job opportunities. Cross-Complainanist hereby e ntitledt o general a nd compensatordy amagesin

amounts to be proven at trial,

33. Cross-Complainanist informeda ndb elievesa ndb asedt hereona llegest hat the

outrageoucso nducot f Cross-DefendandtEs scribeadb ovew asd onew ith malice,f rauda nd

oppressioann dw ith consciouds isregardfo r his rightsa ndw ith the intent,d esigna ndp urposeo f

injuring Cross'ComplainantC. ross-Defendantths, roughit s officers,m anaginga gentsa nd/ori ts

supervisorsa, uthorizedc, ondoneda nd/orr atified the untawful conducto f all of the other Cross-

Defendantsn amedi n this action. By reasont hereof,C ross-Complainanist entitledt o punitive or

exemplaryd amagesfr om all Cross-Defendanitns a sum accordingt o proof at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Abuseo f ProcessA gainstA ll Cross-Defendantasn d ROES l-25, inctusive)

34' Cross-ComplainaBnOt YCEr epeatsa ndr eallegesth e allegationcso ntainedin

paragraphsl through3 3 and incorporatetsh e sameb y referencea st houghf ully set forth herein.

35. Cross'ComplainanBt OYCEw orkedf or Cross-Defendanftrso m April 2002

throughN ovember1 6,2007. Hert ermo f employmenot verlappedw ith thato f anothere mployee,

Jessicac ibson, who alsow orked for cross-Defendantass a nanny.

36. BetweenN ovember1 6,2Q07a ndM arch3 1, 2008,B OYCE hadn everb een

contactedb y Cross-Defendantfso r any reasonw hatsoever.I n fact, Cross-Defendanthsa d failed to

pay BOYCE her last paycheck,

37, Cross-ComplainaBnOt YCEi s informeda ndb elievesth ato n or aboutM arch2 6,

2007,a ttorneyJ ohnB . Richardsn otified Cross-Defendantths rought heir counsel,t hat Jessica

Gibsonh ads exualh arassmenatn dw agea ndh our claimsa gainstt hem. Attomey Richards

providedC ross-Defendantwsi th a draft complaintw hich includeds exualh arassmenat llegations,

someo f whichi nvolveds exualcomrnenmtsa det o Cross-ComplainaBntO YCE.

CROSSC OMPLAINOT FL AURAB OYCEA CAINSTR OEL OWCA NOS rrrNVtr Offi

I

 

Nanny's Last Pay Check

38. On March3 l, 2008,C ross-Complainarnetc eiveda telephonc  voice message from

Cross-Defendant Sheryl  Lowe, stating:

"Um, Irvas just talking to xxxxx [namer edacted]a nd shes aid you never picked u p your

pay a  nd I *a{t!to get you paid.I don't want any weirdness t here. I didn't want you to

resent u s or think that we-w ere trying t o not pay you and I just found that out. I'acruallyd id

not know until the end of last week so... furd also I have a friend in L.A. who is lookin! for

somepart time work and I didn't know if you had a job and I wanted to talk to you about

that. Let you know some of the stuff. And um.,. I jlsl had a couple of things. fley we're

going away, you want to go? [laugh] Call me. I really want to talk to you. It's been too

long and p leased on't be a strange r and there's no weirdness on my part. I hope there's

none on yours. Okay, so call me xxxxxxx [number redacted]. I am leaving for India this

weekend so call me today if y_ou can. Today is Monday. I am going to be around packing

and I so want to talk to you. Bye.

The Lowes Sue The Nanny

39. Cross-Complainant BOYCE did not return Cross-Defendant Sheryl Lowe's call.

40. Then, unexpectedly on April 7,2008  Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants Rob and

Sheryl Lowe sued BOYCE i n Los Angeles Superior Court alleging:( l) breach of written contact;

(2) defamation(;3 ) breach of duty o f loyalty;( 4) breach of fiduciary duty;( 5) intentional infliction

of emotional i stress(;6 ) negligent infliction emotional  i stress(;7 ) intentional

misrepresentation; d( 8) negligent is representation.

41. Cross-Defendants seda legal process in a wrongful manner, not proper in the

regular conduct of a proceeding t, o accomplish a purpose f or which it was not designed  to wit:

chill a person's free speech rights to testify about unlawful employment practices.

42. Cross-Defendanats c ted with an ulterior motive, to wit, to interfere with and/or

impede BOYCE's right to testify truthfully regarding the work environment t Cross-Defendants'

employment.

43. Cross-Defendants'willfual cl was not properi n the regularc onducto f the

proceedingsg iven that Cross-Defendanwtse rew ell awaret hat BOYCE had similarly been

subjectedto a sexuallyh ostilea ndo ffensivew ork environment.

44. Cross-defendanmt'sis useo f thel egalp rocessw asa causeo f injury,d amage,losos r

harmt o Cross-ComplainaBntO YCE.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unpaid Off-The-Clock Work Against All Cross-Defendantsa nd ROES l-25, inclusive)

CROSSC OMPIAINTO F IAURA BOYCEA GAINSTR OBI OWE AND SHERYLT OWE

45. Cross-Complainanret peatsa ndr eallegesth e allegationss ontainedin paragraphsI

throughl 7 andi ncorporatesth e sameb y referencea st houghf ully set forth herein.

Not paid for hours worked

46. Wage O rder | 5 requires employent o pay non-exempt employees for all hours

worked. The Wage Orderd efines" hours workedn a s" the time during which a n employee is

subject o the control o f an employer and includesa ll the time the onployee i s sufferedo r

permitted to work, whether o r not required to do so."

47. During the course o f Cross-Complainants  employment with Cross-Defendants,

Cross-Complainant as required b y Cross-Defendant os regularly work up to l6 hours p er day,

and only paid for 12 hours. When traveling, Cross-Complainant worked up to 16 hours, but was

paid only for l0 hours.

48. Cross-Defendanhtsa vet hereforef ailed to compensate C ross-Complainanfto r all

houn worked. As a resulto f Cross-Defendanctso' nductin requiringC ross-Complainatnot work

offthe clock,C ross-Complainahnat ss ustaineadn dw ill sustaind amagesin the amounto f her

regular $ 18.00 hour wage for all hours worked that were not paid by Cross-Defendants.

49. Although on or aboutA pril 7, 2008,C ross-Defendant tse ndereda check t o Gibson

purportedly for owed wages and overtime, it was only paid after a demand for payment was made

by Gibson's a ttomey. Furthermoren, o accountingw as providedb y Cross-Defendants.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Uupaid Overtime Wages A gainstA ll Cross-Defendantasn d ROES l-25, inclusive)

50. Cross-Complainarnetp eatsa ndr eallegetsh e allegations c ontainedin paragraphIs

throughl 7 and 4549 and incorporates th e same b y referencea st houghf ully set forth herein.

51. This action is brought under Labor Code $l194, which provides that any

employeer eceivingl esst hant he legalo vertimec ompensationa pplicablet o the ernployeeis

entitledt o recoverin a civil actiont he unpaidb alanceo f the full amount o f this overtime

compensation including interest the reon reasonable attorneys f ees,a ndc ostso f suit,T his action

is also brought under LaborC ode$ 515 andS ection3 (A) of WageO rder 12,which requires

employers to pay employees on e-and-one-half (l 1/2) times their regular hourly r ate f or all those

hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in one work week and/or i n excess o f eight (8) in one

CROSSC OMNNNT OF I.AURAE OYCEA GAINSTR O8 IOWE AND SHERYLL OWE

I

2

3

 

work day,a nd two (2) timest he regularr atco f pay for hoursw orked in excesso f twelve (12)

hoursp er day,u nlesss uche mployeesa rec xempt& om the requirementso f WageO rder 12.

52, During the courseo f Cross-Complainante's m ployment w ith Cross-Defendants,

Cross-Complainanret gularly w orkedi n excesso f 40 hours( especiallyw hen traveling)p er week

andr egularlyw orkeda pproximatelyl5 houn per day.

53. Duringt he courseo f Cross-Complainanet'ms ploymenwt ith Cross-Defendants,

in additiont o and separatefr om Cross-Defendantfsa'i lure to compensateC ross-Complainanhte r

straight time hourly wage for those hours worked as alleged in the Third Cause of Action, above,

Cross-Defendanatsls of ailed to compensataet an overtimer ate for hoursw orked in excesso f 8

hoursp er day and/or4 0 per weeka sr equiredu ndert he aforementionedla bor regulations.

54. As a resulto f Cross-Defendants'conduinct r equiringC ross-Complainantot work

in excesso f 8 hoursp er work day without payrngl -ll2 or doublet imes their regularh our rate,

Cross-Complainahnat ss ustaineadn dw ill sustaind amagesin the amounto f l-l/2 or doublet ime

her regular hourly rate for all overtime hours worked together with interest thereon and attomeys'

fees and costs of suit.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unpaid Meal Periods A gainstA ll Cross-Defendant asn d ROES l-25, inclusive)

55. Cross-Complainanret peatsa ndr eallegesth e allegation sc ontainedi n paragnphsl

ttrough 17,a nd4 5-55a nd incorporatesth e sameb y referencea s thoughf ully set forth herein.

56. This actioni s broughtu nderL aborC ode$ $226.7s, ubd.( a) and5 12a ndS ection

ll(A) of WageO rder1 5,w hichp rovidesth ate mployersm ustp rovidee mployeews ho work

moret hans ix (6) hoursp er day with a thirty (30) minutem ealp eriodw hereint he ernployeeis

relievedo f all duties.T his actioni s furtherb roughtb y Cross-Complainanutn derL aborC ode

9226.?s, ubd.( b) andS ectionI l(B) of WageO rder1 5,w hichp rovidest hati f an ernployefra ilst o

providea n employeew ith a thirty (30) minutem ealp eriod,t he employers hallp ay the ernployee

one hour of pay for each work day that a thirty (30) minute meal period was missed.

57. Cross-Complainanwt as n ot regularly p rovided w ittr thirty (30) minute meal p eriods

duringh ere mploymenwt ith Cross-Defendants.

l l

CROSSC OMPTAINTO F I.AURAB OYCEA GAINSTR O8 IOWE AND SHERYLT OWE

I  

58. As a direet andp roximater esuho f Cross-Defendants'conduacst a llegeda bove,

Cross'Complainanht ass ustainedd amagesin the amounto f one hour of wagesf or eachd ay she

missed her thirry (30) minute meal periods.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unpaid Rest Periods AgainstA ll Cross-Defendantasn d ROES l-25,Inclusive)

59. Cross-Complainanret peatsa ndr eallegesth e allegationsc ontainedin paragmphsI

through1 7, and4 5-58 and incorporatesth e sameb y referencea s thoughf ully set forth herein,

60. This actioni s broughtu nderL aborC ode$ 226.7.s ubd.( a) andS ectionl 2(A) of

WageO rder 15,w hich providest hat employerss hall authorizea ndp ermit employeesto take a

rest period of ten ( l0) minutes for each four (4) hours, or major fraction thereof, worked. This

action is further brought under Labor Code $226.7, subd. (b) and Section t2(B) of Wage Order

15,w hichp rovidest hati f an employefra ils to providea n employeew ith a restp eriod,t he

employers hall pay the employeeo neh our of pay for eachw ork day that a restp eriodw as

missed.

61. Cross-Complainanwt asn ot providedr estp eriodsd uring her employmentw ith

Cross'Defendants.

62. As a direct andp roximater esulto f Cross-Defendants'conduacst allegeda bove,

Cross-Complainanhta ss ustainedd amagesin the amounto f oneh our of wagesf or eachd ay she

missed her rest periods.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION  ...

(Violation of Labor Code No W-2s filed  $226 Against All Cross'Defendants and ROES l-25, inclusive)

63. Cross-Complainarnetp eatsa ndr eallegetsh e allegationcso ntainedin paragraphIs

through1 7,a nd 45-62a nd incorporatesth es ameb y referencea s thoughf ully set forth herein.

64. This aetion is brought under Labor Code 9226, which sets reporting

requirementsfo r employersw henp ayrngw ages,in cluding, "Every employer shall, sernimonthly

or at the time of each payment of wages furnish each o f his or her employee.s, . an itemized

statement in writing showing( l) gross wages eamed,( 2) total hours worked b y the ernployee,

except for any employee whose compensation solely based on a salary and who is exempt from

CROSSC OMPLAINTO F LAURAE OYCEA CAINSTR OBL OWEA ND SHERYTL OWE

I  

paymenot f overtimeu nders ubdivision(a )o f Section5 15o r anya pplicableo rdero f the Industrial

WelfareC ommission,..(.8 ) the namea nda ddresso f the legal entity that is the anployer, and( 9)

all applicableh ourly ratesi n effectd uringt he pay perioda ndt he correspondingn umbero f hours

workeda t eachh ourly rateb y the anployee." Subdivision( e) provides," An ernployees uffering

injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision

(a) is entitledt o recovert he greatero f all actuald amageso r fifty dollars( $50) for the initial pay

period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars (S 100) per employee for each violation

in a subsequenpta yp eriod,n ot exceedinagn aggregatpee naltyo ffour thousandd ollars( $4,000),

andi s entitledt o an awardo f costsa ndr easonablaet tomey'sf ees." Iubdivision (g) provides,, ,fur

employeem aya lsob ring an actionf or injunctiver elief to ensurec ompliancew ith this sectiona, nd

is entitledt o an awardo f costsa ndr easonablaet torney'sfe es."

65. Cross-Defendanktnso winglya ndi ntentionallyfa iledt o providep aycheck

deductions tatementtsh at compliedw ith LaborC ode$ 226r o Cross-Complainanbty , inter alia,

failingt o providea nyp aycheckd eductions tatements.

66. Cross-Complainanhta sb eend amagedb y Cross-Defendantf'sa ih.uesto comply

with LaborC ode$ 226b y, inter alia, not realizingt he total amounto f straight-timea nd/oro vertime

wages to which she was entitled.

67. As a directa ndp roximatere sulto f Cross-Defendanctso'n ducta sa llegeda bove,

Cross-Complainanist entitledt o a civil penaltyo f fifty dollars( $50) for ths initial pay period,a nd

oneh undredd ollars( $t00) for eachs ubsequenpta yp eriodf or whichC ross-Defendanvtiso lated

the reportingr equirementso f LaborC ode$ 226,u p to a maximumo f $4,000,t ogetherw ith interest

thereona nda ttomey'sf eesa nd costs.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTON

(Misclassification as Independent Contractor Against all Cross Defendants

and ROES l-25 inclusive)

68' Cross-Complainanret peatsa ndr eallegesth e allegationsc ontainedi n paragraphst

through| 7, and 45-67a ndi ncorporateth e sameb y referencea s thoughf utty set forth herein.

69. During the period during which Cross-Complain worked for Cross-Defendanls,

 Cross-Complainawnat sa n employeeo f Cross-Defendanatss,d efinedb y LaborC odeg 2750,

HoweverC, ross-Defendanptus rposefullmy isclassifieCd ross-Complainaanst a n "lndependent

Contractor"b ecauseb, y so doing,C ross-Defendanltosw eredt heir costo f doing businessb y means

of, but not limited to, the following:

Payroll Taxes

a. Cross-Defendants did not report or pay the employer's share of federal or state

payroll taxes with respect o any of the funds paid to Cross-Complainant's  required b y federal

and state law; for Cross-Cornplainant;

b. Cross-Defendants did not provide or pay for Workers Compensation insurance for

Cross-Complainant.

c. Cross-Defendantds i d not provideo r pay for State Disability insurance fo r Cross-

Complainanta; nd,

d. Cross-Defendants di d not provide o r pay for benefitst o Cross-Complainantht at

othero f Cross-Defendant esm' ployees re ceived.

70. As a direct a nd p roximate r esulto f the aforementionevdio lation so f California

law committedb y Cross-DefendantCs,r oss-Complainanhta ss uffered,a nd continuest o suffer,

substantiallo ssesr elatcdt o the losso f the FICA  employer's share of payroll taxes, the use and enjoyment

of such employee benefits, a nd expenseas nda ttorneysf'e esi n seekingt o compelC ross-

Defendantsto fully performt heir obligationu nders tatel aw.

71. Cross-Defendanftasi'l uret o classi$C ross-Complainaanst a n employeei,n

violationo f Califomial aw, wask nowinga ndi ntentionalC. ross-Defendanhtsa ver efusedto

classifuC ross-Complainanats an employeefo r falsea nd fraudulentr easonsT. he decisiont o

misclassifrC ross-Complainaanst a n "independencto ntractorw" asm ade,m aintaineda, nd

enforcedb y Cross-Defendanatsn,d w asd onew illfully, maliciouslyo, ppressivelya,n d

fraudulentlyw, ith the wrongfula ndd eliberatein tentiono f injuringC ross-Complainanatn, dw ith a

consciousd isregardfo r ther ightso f Cross-Complainaunnt derC alifomial aws,a ll of which has

deprivedC ross'Cornplainaonft herp ropertya ndl egalr ights.T hereforei,n additiont o all

othert ypeso f reliefr equestehde rein,C ross-Complainainst e ntitledt o recoverp unitivea nd

exemplaryd amageisn amountsa ccordingto proofa t timeo f trial.

CROSSC OMPLAINTO F LAURAB OYCEA GAINSTR OBI OWE AND SHERYLL OW

2

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Labor Code$ 203A gainstA ll Cross-Defendantasn d ROES l-25, inclusive)

72. Cross-Complainant repeatsa ndr eallagesth e allegation sc ontainedi n paragraphst

through1 7 and4 5-71 and incorporatetsh e sameb y referencea s thoughf ully set forth herein.

73. This action is brought under Labor Code $203, which, at all times retevant herein,

providedt hat if an employer willfully fails to pay any wages of an employee who is discharged o r

quits, the wages of such employee shall continue as from the due date thereof at the same rate

until paid o r until an action there foris commenced for not more than 3 0 days.

74. More thant hirty daysh avep asts inceC ross-Complainanwt as dischargedo r quit

her employmenwt ith Cross-Defendants.

75. As a resulto f Cross-Defendants'willfcuol nductin not paytngs traight-timea nd

overtimew agesC ross'Complainanfto r all hoursw orked,C ross-Complainanist entitledt o thirty

days wages as penalty wages under Labor Code 9203.

ELEVENTH Cf{,USE OF ACTION

(ConversionA gninst AII Cross-Defendantss nd ROES l-25, inclusive)

76. Cross-Complainanret peatsa ndr eallegesth e allegationsc ontainedin paragraphsI

throughl 7 and 45-75a nd incorporatesth e sameb y referensea st houghf ully set forth herein.

77. Cross-Defendants wrongfully withheld from Cross-Complainanat,  and failed to pay

to her wages and other compensation which was due to her as straight  t imc hourly wages, overtime

wages, and premiums for missed meal and rest breaks.

78. At all relevantt imesh erein,C ross-Defcndanthsa d andc ontinuedt o havea legal

obligationim posedb y statuteto payC ross-Cornplainaanltl straightt ime hourlyw ageso, vertime

wagesa, ndp remiumsfo r missedm eala ndr estb reaksd ue,T hesew agesa ndc ompensation

belongedto Cross-Complainaantt t het imc the labora nds ervicesw erep rovidedt o Cross-

Defendantsa, nda ccordinglys uchw agesa ndc ompensationa re the propertyo f Cross-Complainant.

79. Cross-Defendanktsn owingly andi ntentionallyf ailed to pay to Cross-Complainant

straight time hourly wages, overtime wages, and premiums for missed meal and rest breaks. Cross-

Defendantisn tentionallyc onvertd thew agesa nd c ompensatiodnu et o Cross-ComplainabnVt ( l)

, _ 15 , . . . . .

withholdin ge arned s traight t ime hourly wages overtime wages, a nd premiumsf or missed m eal

and r est b reaks d ue to Cross-Complainanat,n dt hen( 2) taking the earneds raight time hourly

wages, overtime wages! and premiums for missed meal and rest breaks due to Cross-Complainant,

andu singt hes amef or Cross-Defendants'owusne a nd b enefit.

80' Cross-Defendanctso nverteds uche arneds traightt ime hourly wages,o vertime

wages'a ndp remiumsf or missedm eala ndr estb reaksd ue to Cross-Complainanats p art of an

intentionala ndd eliberates chemeto maximizep rofits at the expenseo f Cross-Complainant.

81. Cross'Complainanhta sb eeni njuredb y Cross-Defendantisn't entionalc onversion

of suchw agesa nd compensationC, ross-Complainanist entitledt o atl moniesc onvertedb y Cross-

Defendantsw, ith interestt hereona sw ell asa nya nd all profits, whetherd irect or indirect,w hich

Cross-Defendanatcsq uiredb y theiru nlawfulc onversion.

82' In committingt he foregoinga cts,C ross-Defendanwtse reg uilty of oppression,

fraudo r malice,a ndt herefore,in additiont o the actuald amagesc ausedt hereby,C ross-

Complainanits entitledl o recoverd amagesfo r the sakeo f examplea ndb y way of punishing

Cross-Defendants.

WHER"EFORE,C ross-Complainanptr aysj udgmentb e enteredin her favor againstC ross-

Defendantsa,n de acho f them,a sf ollows:

l. For specialg, enerala, ndc ompensatordya magesin, cludingl ostw agesa nd

benefits,a nde rnotionadl istressd amagesi,n excesso f 550,000.00a, ccordingt o proof;

2. For attomeysf eesa ndc ostsp ursuantt o Califomia Gov't Code $12965.

3. For unpaids traightt ime wages,a ccordingt o proof;,t ogetherw itlr interestt hereon;

4- For 30-dayp enaltiesu nderL aborc ode $203,a ccordingt o proof;

5. For oneh ouro f payf or eachw orkdayt hata mealp eriodw asm isseda, ccordingto

proof;

6. For oneh ouro f payf or eachw orkdayt hata restp eriodw asm isseda, ccordingto

proof;

7. For a wage premium of fifty dollars ($50) for the first period fior which

Cross-Defendanftas iled to supplyC ross-Complainanwti th paycheckd eductions tatementsin

cRossc oMpr-ArNoTF LAURBa oycEA GArNsRr oBL owEa ruos HeRvltMI

 

 

violationo fLabor Code$ 226a ndo neh undredd ollan ($100)f or eachs ubsequenpta yperiodf or

which Cross-Defendantfsa iled to supplyC ross-Complainanwt ith paycheckd eductions taternents

in violation of Labor Code $226;

8. For punitive or exernplaryd amages;

9. Forattorneys'feese,x pcnseasn dc ostsu nderL aborC ode$ $226a nd I 194;

10, For interesut nderL aborC ode$ $218.6,226a, nd I 194;a nd,

I L For sucho thera nd furtherr elief as the Court deemsju st andp roper.

DATED April 2} ALLRED, MAROKO& COLDBERG

l7

for DefendanUCross-Comapinl ant

CROSSC OMPTAINTO F I.AURAS OYCEA GAINSTR OBL OWEA ND SHERYLL OWE

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,C OTJNTYO F LOSA NGELES

I am employedi n the Countyo f Los Angeles,S tateo f Califomia, I am ovcr the ageo f

l8 andn ot a partyt o thew ithin action;m y businesas ddressis : 6300W ilshireB oulevard,

Suite 1500, los Angeles, Califomia 90048.

On April 30, 2008,I servedt he foregoingd ocurnendt escribeda s CROSS

COMPLAINT OF LAURA BOYCE AGAINST ROB LOWE AND SIIERYL LOWE on

interestepda niesi n this action

t ] by placingt rue copiest hereofe nclosedin sealed envelopesa ddresseda s statedo n the

attachedm ailingl ist:

tX] by placing[ ] the original [X] a truec opy thereofe nclosedin sealede nvelopesa t Los

furgeles,C aliforniaa ddresseads f ollows:

StantonL . Stein,E sq.

DREIE& STE|N, KAHAN, BROWI\E, WOODS, GEORGE LLP

The Water Garden

l62A 26'hS treet6, o Floor,N orthT ower

Santa Monica, CA 90404

Phone(:3 10)8 2E-9050

Fax: (310)8 28-9101

t I BY MAIL: I causeds uche nvelopew ith postageth ereonfu lly prepaidt o be placedi n

the United Statesm ail at Los Angeles,C alifiornia.

t I BY FAX: by transmittinga true copyv ia facsimileh ansmissionf rom telecopier

number( 323)6 53-1660lo cateda t 6300W ilshireB lvd., Ste.1 500,L os Angeles,

California 90048, to the following:

lxl BY PERSONAL $ERVICE: I causeds uche nvelopet o be personallys ervedo n the

Addressee(sto) theo ffrceso f thea ddressee(s),

Exeeutedo n April30,2008 at LosA ngelesC, alifomia.

lxl State I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that

the above is true and correst.

t ] Fcderal I declaret hat.l am employedin the office of a membero f the bar of this

Courta t whosed irectiont hes ervicew asm ade.

Aneie O. Paz

PRINT NAME

 

 

 

 

 Judicial Index