Lillard v Starbucks Corporation

Filing 9

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Starbucks Corporation by Berlin Lillard.(Bemis, Wendy) Modified on 5/22/2008 (Benson, A). (Entered: 05/21/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Wendy R. Bemis (SBN 218432) Heather N. Tanner (SBN 235672) LAW OFFICES OF BEMIS & ASSOCIATES 140 Geary Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff, BERLIN LILLARD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.: 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM PLAINTIFF'S FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

BERLIN LILLARD, an individual;

1. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Plaintiffs, 2. Violation of Government Code §12940, et seq. (Discrimination based on Disability); v. 3. Violation of Government Code §12940, et seq. (Discrimination based on Race); STARBUCKS, Inc., a Washington Corporation 4. Violation of Government Code § 12940, et seq. doing business in California; and DOES 1-100, (Failure to Prevent Racial Harassment and inclusive, Maintain a Work Environment Free From Such Harassment); Defendants. 5. Violation of Government Code § 12940, et seq. (Disparate Impact Based On Race); 6. Violation of Government Code §12940, et seq. (Retaliation); 7. Violation of Government Code § 12940, et seq. (Hostile Work Environment); 8. Violation of Government Code § 12940, et seq. (Harassment); 9. Defamation; 10. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 11. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PUNITIVE DAMAGES REQUESTED

Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 P

laintiff alleges: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, BERLIN LILLARD ("Plaintiff") is an adult, African-American male, and at all

times relevant herein, was a resident of Bay Point, California. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was also employed by the Starbucks located in Vallejo, California. 2. Defendant STARBUCKS, INC. ("Defendant STARBUCKS") is a Washington

corporation duly authorized and conducting business in the State of California, and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned,

Defendants, and each of them, were the agents and employees of their codefendants and in doing the things alleged in this complaint, were acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment. Defendant STARBUCKS is the employer of co-defendants DOES 1 through 100, and employs said co-defendants as a supervisor over Plaintiff; and therefore, Defendant STARBUCKS is liable for the discriminatory and harassing acts conducted by its supervisors under the principles of respondent superior. 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1

through 100, inclusive; and therefore, sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by such unlawful conduct. JURISDICTION & VENUE 5. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to and under the provisions of the Fair Employment

and Housing Act, California Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. ("FEHA"); the California Constitution, Article I, § 1; and other California common and statutory laws. 6. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional threshold of this Court.
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 7

.

At all times set forth hereinafter, Defendant STARBUCKS has employed 50 or more

employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year and is otherwise subject to the provisions of FEHA and other applicable laws. 8. Defendant STARBUCKS is, and at all times relevant hereto, has been an "employer" as

defined by FEHA. 9. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to the State of California, California Code of Civil

Procedure § 410.10. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that witnesses and evidence

relevant to this case are located in Vallejo, California and at other locations in the State of California. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that there is no alternative forum in

which Plaintiff could file this case without suffering prejudice to his civil and common law rights to be free from unlawful discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and other wrongful conduct directed against him. 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the relative costs and burdens

to the parties herein favors the filing of this lawsuit in this Court, in that Defendant suffers no burden or hardship by having to defend this case in this Court. However, Plaintiff would suffer severe and undue burden and hardship if he were required to file in an alternative forum, if any there be. Such burden and hardship on Plaintiff includes, but is not limited to, prohibitive monetary expenses for travel, obtaining counsel in a different venue and/or jurisdiction, increased expenses to investigate and obtain evidence and depose and interview witnesses. 13. State policy favors jurisdiction and venue in Solano County, California because the State

of California has a policy of protecting California residents and ensuring the applicability of the FEHA, and other applicable California laws. 14. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and events set forth in this Complaint

occurred in whole or in part in the Vallejo, California; and because Plaintiff's place of employment with Defendant STARBUCKS was located in Vallejo, California.
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 3

1 2

ENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 15. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 14, as

though fully set forth herein.
3

16.
4 5

From on or about November 7, 2005 until on or about January 9, 2007, Plaintiff worked

for Defendant STARBUCKS as an assistant manager and a manager in training. 17.
6 7

When Defendant STARBUCKS hired Plaintiff, Defendant STARBUCKS promised

Plaintiff four things: (1) that if Plaintiff completed his training satisfactorily, he would receive a promotion to manager and a raise to coincide with that promotion, within eight months; (2) that
8

Plaintiff would receive a store to manage within one year; (3) that after the initial training period,
9

Plaintiff could transfer to a Starbucks store closer to his home in Bay Point, California; and (4) that
10

Defendant STARBUCKS was a dynamic place to work with equal opportunities for minorities in
11

management positions. Plaintiff accepted the position in reliance on Defendant STARBUCKS'
12

promises.
13

18.
14 15

In or around July 2006, Plaintiff completed Starbucks' eight month management training

course. Plaintiff performed all tasks required of him and received positive performance reviews. Plaintiff's direct manager also recommended Plaintiff for a management position upon completion of
16

the training program.
17

19.
18 19

After Plaintiff's completion of the eight month training program for his promotion to

manager, Plaintiff's manager recommended to Ms. Jessica Apple, the district manager, that Plaintiff receive his promotion as he was ready and had fulfilled all his requirements.
20

20.
21 22

At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff performed his duties as an assistant manager and

manager in training well and without incident, receiving numerous good performance reviews and accolades in recognition for his performance.
23

21.
24 25

Plaintiff did not receive his promised promotion even though the promise to promote

Plaintiff was reaffirmed multiple times when Plaintiff questioned whether he would receive it. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant STARBUCKS had no intention of
26

fulfilling its promises to promote him to the position of manager. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
27 28 29 30 31 G

Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 t

hereon alleges, that African Americans were not represented in management in the region in which Plaintiff was employed. In fact, Plaintiff is informed and believes and there on alleges that there was only one African American in his region in a position higher than his, and Defendant STARBUCKS had no African American managers in Plaintiff's region. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that African Americans were disciplined more severely and/or terminated for conduct that similarly situated Caucasian coworkers engaged in and for which they were not disciplined and/or terminated. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, in the Northern California region where Plaintiff LILLARD worked, there were no African American managers. In fact, there was only one African American in the whole region that had a position higher than assistant manager. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, Plaintiff was one of three African Americans training for management in his region. All three were terminated after fulfilling Starbucks' training requirements and before being promoted to manager. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that at all times during Plaintiff's

employment with Defendant STARBUCKS treated Plaintiff, and other African Americans, in a discriminatory manner due to their race. Defendant STARBUCKS punished African Americans more frequently and more harshly than their non-African American co-workers engaging in the same, similar or more egregious conduct. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant STARBUCKS also terminated African Americans (including Plaintiff) more frequently and on the basis of their race than their non-African American co-workers. 23. Plaintiff is and was, at all times relevant herein, a diabetic. Diabetes is a physical

disability as defined by California Government Code §12926.1(c). 24. Understaffing and poor working conditions at Starbucks caused Defendant STARBUCKS

to require Plaintiff to work for multiple shifts at a time consisting of long hours, often unplanned, causing complications with Plaintiff's health care. The stress resulting from the poor working conditions and long, unplanned hours caused Plaintiff to become ill and his stress-related illness was complicated and made life threatening by Plaintiff's diabetes, resulting in his doctor taking him out of
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 w

ork in or around November 2006, with a return date of January 2, 2007. 25. Plaintiff applied for and received medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act

(FMLA) for his doctor prescribed medical leave. 26. Although, Plaintiff was on medical leave, due to stress and diabetic complications,

Defendant STARBUCKS' managers and staff called him continuously at home urging Plaintiff to return to work even though it was against his doctor's orders, in order to help Defendant STARBUCKS deal with its short staffing issue. Plaintiff did not return to work against his doctor's orders. 27. During Plaintiff's medical leave, agents and managers from STARBUCKS defamed

Plaintiff by telling his co-workers and STARBUCKS' guests that Plaintiff was not really sick, but that he had taken medical leave fraudulently to start his own business. In fact, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant's district manager, Jessica Apple, informed several of Plaintiff's coworkers and/or guests that Plaintiff was not sick, but required "personal time" to take care of family issues. When Defendant and its agents and managers made said defamatory statements, they knew and/or had reason to know said statements were not true because they had a note from Plaintiff's doctor prescribing Plaintiff's leave and Defendant's approved said leave on that basis. 28. While Plaintiff was on medical leave, his wife went to Starbucks at the location where

Plaintiff was trained in Concord. Mr. John Smiley was the manager in charge of the store at the Concord location and he trained Plaintiff. Mr. Smiley was present when Ms. Lillard ordered her drink. Plaintiff was not present. Ms. Lillard ordered a coffee beverage at the drive through window from Mr. Millward, a co-worker that was trained during the same time as Plaintiff. Ms. Lillard handed Mr. Millward the money for the drink. Before Mr. Millward returned Ms. Lillard's change, Mr. Millward suggested that Ms. Lillard use Plaintiff's employee discount for her purchase; he even pointed out the Plaintiff's employee card was in the car and visible from the drive-through window. Ms. Lillard accepted the discount which amounted to $1.20. 29. Plaintiff returned to work, as scheduled on January 2, 2007. Several days prior to his

return to work, Plaintiff met with Ms. Jessica Apple, the area manager to discuss his return and turn in
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 h

is paper work so that there were no delays in his return. During his conversation with Ms. Apple, Plaintiff, again, asked about his promised promotion to management. Ms. Apple promised Plaintiff she would discuss it with him shortly after his return. 30. On or about January 5, 2007, Plaintiff's manager instructed Plaintiff to meet with Ms.

Apple who was waiting in the lobby seating area in the middle of the store. Said meeting was very public, as it was in the middle of the store during the after-lunch rush. After some small talk, Ms. Apple, in a voice loud enough to be heard by customers, told Plaintiff that he was suspended for "an improper use of his employee discount." Plaintiff was unaware of any use of his employee discount as he was not present when Mr. Millward suggested its use. Ms. Apple indicated the company would do an investigation. 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that no investigation, or no

adequate investigation into the use of Plaintiff's discount occurred. Neither Plaintiff nor Mrs. Lillard were questioned about the use of Plaintiff's employee discount. 32. On or about January 8, 2007, Ms. Apple terminated Plaintiff for "the improper use of

employee discounts." 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant's reason for

termination was pretextual as Defendant has no written policy about the use or improper use of employee discounts. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Starbucks' employees using another person's employee discount was a wide-spread and accepted practice in the stores. Plaintiff's own managers trained him and his co-workers to use other co-workers employee' numbers whenever they wanted to give a discount, regardless of whether or not the coworker was actually in the store at the time. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant STARBUCKS management staff taught and encouraged employees to use employee discounts to "comp" customers that were their favorites, to resolve customer complaints or to those whom they wanted to give a discount. store he visited in his region.
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 7

Plaintiff noticed this same practice was used at every

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3

4.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that neither Mr. Millward nor Mr.

Smiley were disciplined and/or terminated, despite the event occurring at the store for which Mr. Smiley was responsible and that Mr. Smiley was aware that the discount was being offered and despite the fact that the discount was given at Mr. Millward's invitation and insistence. Both Mr. Millward and Mr. Smiley are Caucasian. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Mr. Millward and Mr. Smiley are not disabled and have not taken FMLA leave. 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant STARBUCKS

wrongfully terminated him, Defendant, its agents, and management staff, again, slandered Plaintiff stating to co-workers at staff meetings, and to customers that he was terminated for theft. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at the time said slandering statements were made, Defendant, and its agents, managers and employees had no reason to believe that said statement was true and, in fact, had reason to believe that Plaintiff was not terminated for theft. 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant's termination of

Plaintiff was wrongful, discriminatory and in violation of public policy. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant used the excuse "improper use of employee discounts" as a pretext to hide its discriminatory motives for terminating Plaintiff. 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant, in fact, wrongfully

terminated Plaintiff due to his race, because Defendant STARBUCKS did not intend to promote an African American male because of his race, because of Plaintiff's disability, in retaliation for Plaintiff taking medical leave and not returning early despite Defendant's insistence, and in retaliation for Plaintiff taking medical leave pursuant to Family Medical Leave Act. 38. Defendant STARBUCKS subjected Plaintiff to severe and pervasive harassment,

discrimination, and retaliation on the basis of his disability and his race and in retaliation for taking FMLA leave during his employment. Such incidents include, but are not limited to, those events enumerated below. The list of events, enumerated in Paragraph 21 of this Complaint and the other events discussed herein, are merely those which Plaintiff has chosen to enumerate for purposes of
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 i

llustration. The list is not comprehensive and does not represent the only events of discrimination, harassment, and otherwise unlawful behavior to which Plaintiff was subjected or which he witnessed. Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminatory, harassing, and otherwise unlawful behavior. Plaintiff incorporates herein such conduct, both known and unknown, and reserves the right to more specifically identify and prove additional unlawful acts. 39. The incidents of Defendant's harassment, discrimination and retaliation of Plaintiff, and

each of them, include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Breaching its promise to Plaintiff and failing to promote Plaintiff to manager once his training was complete and to give Plaintiff the coinciding raise; b. Breaching its promise to Plaintiff and failing to assign Plaintiff to a store to manage; c. Breaching its promise to Plaintiff to transfer Plaintiff to a store closer to Plaintiff's home once Plaintiff's training was completed; d. Requiring Plaintiff to work extra back-to-back shifts without giving Plaintiff notice; e. Requiring Plaintiff to work unassisted by any management staff or any co-workers to manage a Starbucks' location and by failing to send emergency coverage to assist with the store's operation; f. Unfairly punishing Plaintiff for conduct attributable to his Caucasian co-workers and/or failing to punish the Caucasian co-workers. Examples of said discriminatory application of discipline include, but are not limited to: i. On one occasion, Plaintiff was disciplined when his Caucasian manager left the store in which Plaintiff was working, without telling Plaintiff. When the Caucasian manager left the store, she left the safe open. She was not disciplined. Plaintiff was disciplined for his manager's conduct; ii. On another occasion Plaintiff was required to work in the STARBUCKS at a busy location, completely alone, without any employees or co-management staff, for an entire day. Plaintiff called for help multiple times from his
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 C

aucasian counterparts in management, and was refused help. The store was especially busy due to a near-by event. The non-assisting managers were not disciplined; however, Plaintiff was disciplined at the end of the day for his store not being clean; iii. After Mr. Millward insisted Ms. Lillard accept Plaintiff's employee discount with her beverage order, neither Mr. Millward, nor his manager were disciplined; however, Plaintiff was terminated for Mr. Millward's conduct. g. Forcing Plaintiff to bring doctor's notes every time he was out sick and by not requiring non-disabled co-workers to bring doctor's notes for every sick day used; h. Defaming Plaintiff when he was out on medical leave; i. Breaching Plaintiff's medical privacy rights and sharing Plaintiff's medical information; j. Harassing Plaintiff to come back into work while he was out on medical leave; k. Wrongfully terminating Plaintiff in retaliation for taking FMLA leave and not returning to work during his prescribed medical leave; l. Defaming Plaintiff after his termination as to the cause of termination;

40.

Defendant's aforesaid conduct was discriminatory and harassing and changed the terms

and conditions of Plaintiff's employment. Further, the aforesaid conduct created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff. 41. As a result of the above-mentioned incidents of harassment, retaliation and otherwise

unlawful and outrageous conduct, Plaintiff has suffered severe and pervasive emotional distress and will present evidence of the same at trial in this action. 42. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff made a complaint to the California Department

of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") against Defendant, and on or about March 28, 2007 Plaintiff received his Notice of Right to Sue.
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 4

3.

On or about November 19, 2007, Defendant STARBUCKS breached California Labor

Code §432 and 1198.5(a) when Plaintiff requested, in writing, copies of each document he signed and the ability to view his personnel file. Defendant STARBUCKS has failed and refused to produce said documents or to allow Plaintiff to inspect his personnel file in violation of said statutes. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY 44. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-43 as though fully set forth herein. 45. 46. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. California has a fundamental, substantial, and well-established public policy as codified

and expressed in California Government Code §12940, et seq. (FEHA) against the retaliation and termination of persons based solely on their race, their disability, and/or in retaliation for taking authorized FMLA medical leave. Defendant violated California's fundamental public policy when it terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for the foregoing. 47. Plaintiff suffered from discrimination, as alleged above and incorporated herein by

reference, throughout his employment with Defendant. Plaintiff complained to Defendant about the harassment and discrimination that he suffered. Defendant failed and refused to investigate, or properly investigate Plaintiff's complaints, but instead, retaliated against him for said complaints. 48. 49. On or about January 8, 2007, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, Defendant' wrongfully terminated

Plaintiff, in that Defendant terminated him for an illegal reason. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges, the termination was not based on Plaintiff's job performance, a justified business necessity, or otherwise protected by California law. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Defendant terminated Plaintiff because of his race, his disability and/or in retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints of harassment and discrimination and/or in retaliation for taking his authorized FMLA medical leave.
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 5

0.

Defendant's conduct has caused Plaintiff injury, damage, loss and harm, including but not

limited to loss of income, humiliation, embarrassment, severe mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all of which amount to Plaintiff's damage which totals exceed the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proven at trial. 51. Defendant committed these acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and

oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, ad acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights and thus an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. Further the actions directed at Plaintiff were carried out by supervising employees acting in a deliberate, callous and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover and herein prays for punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (DISPARATE TREATMENT) CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940 ET. SEQ 52. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-51 as though fully

set forth herein. 53. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA (California Government Code §12940 et seq.) was

in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant. FEHA requires Defendant to refrain from discrimination against, and harassment of, an employee on the basis of, among other things, disability. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff made a complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and received his Notice of Right to Sue. 54. At all times during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant STARBUCKS, Plaintiff was

protected by California State law from discrimination, harassment, or termination based solely on, or motivated by, disability. At all times during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant STARBUCKS, Defendant knew of Plaintiff's disability that limited Plaintiff's ability to work in highly stressful
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 s

ituations. 55. Plaintiff was able to work for Defendant STARBUCKS with reasonable accommodations

for his diabetic treatment. 56. In or around November 2006, Plaintiff's doctor ordered Plaintiff to take a temporary

medical leave to deal with a stress related condition which was complicated by Plaintiff's disability. 57. Defendant made numerous decisions which adversely affected Plaintiff in regards to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment. Such adverse employment actions include, but are certainly not limited to: a.) unjustifiably requiring Plaintiff to bring medical documentation for every absence, while not requiring Plaintiff's non-disabled co-workers to do the same; b.) harassing Plaintiff to come back to work early while Plaintiff was on doctor prescribed, and Defendant approved, medical leave in order to deal with Defendant's under-staffed and poor working conditions; c.) by defaming Plaintiff when he was on medical leave telling co-workers and customers that Plaintiff was faking his illness and was really on leave to start a business; and d.) by retaliating against Plaintiff for taking medical leave and wrongfully terminating him. 58. Plaintiff's disability and medical leave were motivating factors in Defendant's acts as alleged above and incorporated herein by reference. 59. As a proximate and actual result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff was harmed. Defendant STARBUCKS' above-alleged conduct was extreme and outrageous and has caused Plaintiff injury, damage, loss and harm, including but not limited to, loss of income, humiliation, embarrassment, and severe mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all which amount to Plaintiffs' damage which totals in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proven at trial. 60. Defendant STARBUCKS' conduct was malicious and oppressive, in that it was conduct

carried on by the defendant in willful and conscious disregard of the Plaintiff's rights and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship. Thus, an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. 61. As a result of Defendant STARBUCKS discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff has
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 n

o complete or adequate remedy at law as Defendant continues to engage in said alleged wrongful practices, therefore, Plaintiff requests, in addition to damages for past acts: a) That Plaintiff be made whole and afforded all benefits attended thereto that

would have been afforded to Plaintiff but for said discrimination; and, b) That Defendant STARBUCKS, its agents, managers, supervisors, employees,

and those acting in concert with Defendant be enjoined permanently from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, polices, usages and customs set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (DISPARATE TREATMENT) CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940 ET. SEQ 62. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-61 as though fully

set forth herein. 63. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA (California Government Code §12940 et seq.) was

in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant. FEHA requires Defendant to refrain from discrimination against, and harassment of, an employee on the basis of, among other things, race, color, or ethnicity. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff made a complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and received his Notice of Right to Sue. 64. At all times during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant STARBUCKS, Plaintiff was

protected by California State law from discrimination, harassment, or termination based solely on, or motivated by, his race. 65. At all times during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant STARBUCKS, Plaintiff was

protected under FEHA for discrimination on the basis of his race. Plaintiff is an African American. 66. Defendant made numerous decisions which adversely affected Plaintiff in regards to the

terms, conditions and privileges of employment. Such adverse employment actions include, but are certainly, not limited to, each and every act alleged in Paragraph 40 above and incorporated herein by
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 r

eference. 67. Plaintiff's race was a motivating factor in the Defendant's acts as alleged above and

incorporated herein by reference. 68. As a proximate and actual result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff was

harmed. Defendant STARBUCKS' above-alleged conduct was extreme and outrageous and has caused Plaintiff injury, damage, loss and harm, including but not limited to, loss of income, humiliation, embarrassment, and severe mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all which amount to Plaintiffs' damage which totals in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proven at trial. 69. Defendant STARBUCKS' conduct was malicious and oppressive, in that it was conduct

carried on by the defendant in willful and conscious disregard of the Plaintiff's rights and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship. Thus, an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. 70. As a result of Defendant STARBUCKS discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff has

no complete or adequate remedy at law as Defendant continues to engage in said alleged wrongful practices, therefore, Plaintiff requests, in addition to damages for past acts: a) That Plaintiff be made whole and afforded all benefits attended thereto that

would have been afforded to Plaintiff but for said discrimination; and, b) That Defendant STARBUCKS, its agents, managers, supervisors, employees,

and those acting in concert with Defendant be enjoined permanently from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, polices, usages and customs set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. FOURTHCAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMIATION OR HARRASSMENT CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(k) 71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-70 as though fully set forth herein. 72. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA (California Government Code §12940 et seq.) was
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 i

n full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant. FEHA requires Defendant to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff made a complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and received his Notice of Right to Sue. 73. Defendant made numerous decisions which adversely affected Plaintiff in regards to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment. Such adverse employment actions include, but are certainly, not limited to, each and every act alleged in Paragraph 40 above and incorporated herein by reference on the basis of Plaintiff's race, disability, and FMLA leave. 74. Defendant STARBUCKS failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment,

discrimination, and retaliation of Plaintiff. 75. As a proximate and actual result of Defendant's failure to prevent discriminatory,

harassing or retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff was harmed. Defendant STARBUCKS' above-alleged conduct was extreme and outrageous and has caused Plaintiff injury, damage, loss and harm, including but not limited to, loss of income, humiliation, embarrassment, and severe mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all which amount to Plaintiffs' damage which totals in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proven at trial. 76. Defendant STARBUCKS' failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent

harassment, discrimination and retaliation was malicious and oppressive, in that it was conduct carried on by Defendant in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship. Thus, an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. 77. As a result of Defendant STARBUCKS discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff has

no complete or adequate remedy at law as Defendant continues to engage in said alleged wrongful practices, therefore, Plaintiff requests, in addition to damages for past acts: a) That Plaintiff be made whole and afforded all benefits attended thereto that

would have been afforded to Plaintiff but for said failures to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and,
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

b)

That Defendant STARBUCKS, its agents, managers, supervisors, employees,

and those acting in concert with Defendant be enjoined permanently from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, polices, usages and customs set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION DISPARATE IMPACT CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 12940 (a) 78. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-77 as though fully

set forth herein. 79. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA (California Government Code §12940(a), et seq.)

was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant. FEHA requires Defendant STARBUCKS to refrain from discrimination against, and harassment of, an employee on the basis of, among other things, race, color, or ethnicity. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff made a complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and received his Notice of Right to Sue. 80. Defendant STARBUCKS had an employment practice of hiring individuals as assistant

managers while simultaneously training said employees for management positions. Said hiring and promotional policy has a disproportionate adverse effect on African American applicants. 81. Plaintiff is an African American and therefore protected from the disparate impact of

Defendant STARBUCKS' hiring and promotional policy. 82. As a proximate and actual result of Defendant's discriminatory policy, Plaintiff was

harmed. Defendant STARBUCKS' above-alleged conduct was extreme and outrageous and has caused Plaintiff injury, damage, loss and harm, including but not limited to, loss of income, humiliation, embarrassment, and severe mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all which amount to Plaintiffs' damage which totals in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proven at trial. 83. Defendant STARBUCKS' conduct was malicious and oppressive, in that it was conduct
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

arried on by the defendant in willful and conscious disregard of the Plaintiff's rights and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship. Thus, an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. 84. As a result of Defendant STARBUCKS discriminatory policy as alleged above and

incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff has no complete or adequate remedy at law as Defendant continues to engage in said alleged wrongful practices, therefore, Plaintiff requests, in addition to damages for past acts: a) That Plaintiff be made whole and afforded all benefits attended thereto that would have

been afforded to Plaintiff but for said discriminatory policy; and, b) That Defendant STARBUCKS, its agents, managers, supervisors, employees, and those

acting in concert with Defendant be enjoined permanently from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, polices, usages and customs set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 12940(h) 85. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-84 as though fully

set forth herein. 86. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA (California Government Code §12940 et seq.) was

in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant. FEHA requires Defendant to refrain from retaliation against, an employee on the basis of, among other things, race and disability. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff made a complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and received his Notice of Right to Sue. 87. Also at all times herein mentioned the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was in full

force and effect and was binding upon Defendant. FMLA requires Defendant to refrain from retaliation against an employee for taking FMLA leave. 88. Defendant STARBUCKS engaged in conduct that, taken as a whole, materially and

adversely affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiff 's employment, including but not limited those
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 18

c

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

cts included in Paragraph 40, incorporated herein by reference. 89. Plaintiff's race was a motivating factor in the Defendant's acts and failures to act as

alleged above and incorporated herein by reference. In addition, or in the alternative, Plaintiff's disability and/or Plaintiff's taking FMLA leave were motivating factors for Defendant's acts or failures to act which constitute adverse employment actions. 90. As a proximate and actual result of Defendant's retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff was harmed.

Defendant STARBUCKS' above-alleged conduct was extreme and outrageous and has caused Plaintiff injury, damage, loss and harm, including but not limited to, loss of income, humiliation, embarrassment, and severe mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all which amount to Plaintiffs' damage which totals in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proven at trial. 91. Defendant STARBUCKS' conduct was malicious and oppressive, in that it was conduct

carried on by the defendant in willful and conscious disregard of the Plaintiff's rights and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship. Thus, an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. 92. As a result of Defendant STARBUCKS discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff has

no complete or adequate remedy at law as Defendant continues to engage in said alleged wrongful practices, therefore, Plaintiff requests, in addition to damages for past acts: a) That Plaintiff be made whole and afforded all benefits attended thereto that

would have been afforded to Plaintiff but for said discrimination; and, b) That Defendant STARBUCKS, its agents, managers, supervisors, employees,

and those acting in concert with Defendant be enjoined permanently from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, polices, usages and customs set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

/// ///
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 19

a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 12940 93. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-92 as though fully

set forth herein. 94. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA (California Government Code §12940 et seq.) was

in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant. FEHA requires Defendant to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff made a complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and received his Notice of Right to Sue. 95. Plaintiff was subjected to harassment based on his disability at STARBUCKS, causing a

hostile or abusive work environment. Said acts of harassment, include but are not limited to the acts mentioned in Paragraph 40 above and incorporated herein by reference. 96. 97. Defendant STARBUCKS' harassing conduct was severe and/or pervasive. A reasonable person with a disability in Plaintiff's circumstances would have considered

the work environment to be hostile and/or abusive. 98. Plaintiff considered the work environment to be hostile and/or abusive and it had the

purpose and effect of altering the conditions of Plaintiff's employment and created an intimidating, hostile, abusive, and offensive working environment. 99. Defendant STARBUCKS' supervisors not only engaged in the harassing conduct, but

Defendant STARBUCKS' agents and other supervisors knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. 100. As a proximate and actual result of Defendant's harassment, Plaintiff was harmed. Defendant STARBUCKS' above-alleged conduct was extreme and outrageous and has caused Plaintiff injury, damage, loss and harm, including but not limited to, loss of income, humiliation, embarrassment, and severe mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all which amount to Plaintiffs' damage which totals in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 t

o be proven at trial. 101. Defendant STARBUCKS' conduct was malicious and oppressive, in that it was conduct carried on by the defendant in willful and conscious disregard of the Plaintiff's rights and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship. Thus, an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. 102. As a result of Defendant STARBUCKS harassment as alleged herein, Plaintiff has no complete or adequate remedy at law as Defendant continues to engage in said alleged wrongful practices, therefore, Plaintiff requests, in addition to damages for past acts: a) That Plaintiff be made whole and afforded all benefits attended thereto that would have

been afforded to Plaintiff but for said harassment; and, b) That Defendant STARBUCKS, its agents, managers, supervisors, employees, and those

acting in concert with Defendant be enjoined permanently from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, polices, usages and customs set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION HARASSMENT 103. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-102 as though fully set forth herein. 104. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA (California Government Code §12940 et seq.) was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant. FEHA requires Defendant to refrain from harassment of an employee on the basis of disability, among other things. 105. Defendant and its acts and failures to act alleged above and incorporated herein by reference were harassment on the basis of disability as defined by the California Government Code §12940, et seq. 106. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted, harassing conduct because he was associated with a protected status. 107. Defendant STARBUCKS' harassing conduct was so severe, widespread, and/or persistent
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 t

hat it altered the terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to, depriving Plaintiff of a ''discrimination-free workplace'' as required pursuant to 2 Cal. Code Reg. § 7286.5(f)(3) and further created an abusive working environment. 108. Defendant STARBUCKS, its agents, and/or supervisors, having actual or reasonably perceived authority over Plaintiff, engaged in said harassing conduct and/or further endorsed it by their failure to act. 109. Defendant STARBUCKS, its agents and/or supervisors, knew or should have known of the harassing conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. 110. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's conduct and breaches of the duties owed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff was damaged and suffered severe emotional distress, including embarrassment, humiliation, indignity and anxiety. The exact amount of Plaintiff's damages will be proven at trial but exceeds the minimal jurisdiction requirement of this court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION DEFAMATION 111. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-110 as though fully set forth herein. 112. Defendant STARBUCKS, its agents, and/or supervisors made statements to Plaintiff's coworkers and restaurant patrons about: a.) Plaintiff faking his FMLA leave in order to start a business; b.) the reason for Plaintiff's termination (i.e., that it was theft); and, c) Plaintiff's termination being due to Plaintiff misusing his employee discount in order to purchase an expensive coffee appliance for his wife. 113. The persons to whom Defendant STARBUCKS and its management staff relayed the aforesaid defamatory statements reasonably understood that the statements were about Plaintiff. 114. The persons to whom Defendant STARBUCKS and its management staff relayed the aforesaid defamatory statements reasonably understood the statements to mean that Plaintiff had
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ommitted a crime or crimes by defrauding his employer as to the basis for his FMLA leave and the crime of theft. 115. The aforesaid statements were false. 116. Defendant STARBUCKS, its agents and/or supervisors failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statements. 117. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant STARBUCKS' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff was damaged, by including but not limited to, harm to Plaintiff's trade, profession, or occupation; expenses Plaintiff had to pay as a result of the defamatory statements; harm to Plaintiff's reputation; and emotional distress, including shame, mortification, and hurt feelings. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 118. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-117 as though fully set forth herein. 119. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA (California Government Code §12940, et seq.) was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendant. FEHA requires Defendant to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff made a complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and received his Notice of Right to Sue. 120. Defendant engaged in the outrageous and unprivileged conduct alleged above and incorporated herein by reference. 121. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's outrageous, unprivileged, and extreme conduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, including humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety and indignity all to Plaintiff's general damage in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of the jurisdictional amount of this Court. 122. Defendant STARBUCKS' conduct was intentional and malicious. Said conduct was done
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 23

c

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 f

or the purpose of causing Plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress and was done with knowledge that Plaintiff's emotional and physical distress would thereby increase. In failing to correct, prevent or refrain from said discriminatory and harassing conduct, Defendant's conduct was malicious and oppressive, in that it was conduct carried on by the Defendant in willful and conscious disregard of the Plaintiff's rights and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship. Thus, an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified as against Defendant STARBUCKS WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, and each of them, pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 123. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-122 as though fully set forth herein. 124. Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to provide Plaintiff with a discrimination-free work environment and to further protect Plaintiff from discriminatory and harassing acts of Defendant, its supervisors and/or agents. 125. Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiff by allowing, endorsing, failing to respond to and/or to prevent harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff. 126. Defendant should have known that its failure to exercise due care in the performance of its duties, alleged above and incorporated herein by reference, would cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress. Such conduct, as alleged in paragraph 40, above, and incorporated herein by reference, was conducted outside the expected and agreed upon course and/or scope of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant STARBUCKS. 127. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant's conduct and breaches of the duties owed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff was damaged and suffered severe emotional distress, including embarrassment, humiliation, indignity and anxiety. The exact amount of Plaintiff's damages will be proven at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

RAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff makes the following demand: (a) That process be issued and served as provided by law, requiring Defendants, and each of them,

to appear and answer or face judgment; (b) For general, special, actual, compensatory and/or nominal damages, as against both Defendants,

in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $2,000,000.00; (c) For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial sufficient to punish, penalize and/or

deter Defendant STARBUCKS; (d) (e) For costs and expenses of this litigation; For reasonable attorneys' fees in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure Section

1021.5 and California Government Code § 12940 et seq.; (g) (h) For pre and post-judgment interest; and, For all such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. LAW OFFICES OF BEMIS & ASSOCIATES

Dated: May 13, 2008

____________________________ WENDY R. BEMIS Attorneys for Plaintiff BERLIN LILLARD

/// /// ///

Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 25

P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY.

Dated: May 13, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF BEMIS & ASSOCIATES

____________________________ WENDY R. BEMIS Attorneys for Plaintiff BERLIN LILLARD

Lillard v. Starbucks Case No. 2:08-CV-00719-GEB-KJM FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT 26