John K. Rubiner - State Bar No.

155208
j kr@birdmarella.co~n
Jeremy D. Matz - State Bar No. 199401
j dm@birdmarella.coin
BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,
DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.
1875 Century Park East. 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-256 1
Telephone: (3 10) 20 1-2 100
Facsimile: (3 10) 20 1-2 110
Attorneys for Plaintiff Petra Starke

SUPERIOR COURT O F THE STATE O F CALIFORNIA

FOR T H E COUNTY O F LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT

PETRA STARKE, an individual,

Plaintiff,
VS.

BIKRAM YOGA COLLEGE OF INDIA,

LP, a California limited partnership;
BIKRAM CHOUDHURY YOGA, INC., a
California Corporation;
BIKRAM, INC., a California Corporation;
BIKRAM CHOUDHURY and
RAJASHREE CHOUDHURY, in their
capacities as trustees of the
CHOUDHURY FAMILY TRUST
DATED JUNE 28, 1995;
BIKRAM CHOUDHURY, an individual;
and DOES 1-25,

1
1

iidge C. Karlan

S~/Z~(O&

CASENO.

Complaint for:

(1) Breach of Contract;

(2) Hostile Work Environment Under
Cal. Gov't Code $512940, et seq.;
(3) Retaliation in Employment Under
Cal. Gov't Code $5 12940, et seq.;
(4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination
and Harassment;
(5) Wrongful Termination in Violation
of Public Policy;
(6) Violation of Cal. Labor Code $ 970;
(7) Nonpayment of Wages;
(8) Waiting Time Penalties; and
(9) Accounting
Demand for J u r y Trial

Defendants.
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

/c n . s y ~ n / ~b.c$77ki
i
r

\.

Date

3 173736 1

Complaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $#12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $ $ 12940. et seq., etc.

Plaintiff Petra Starke ("Plaintiff') alleges as follows:

I
INTRODUCTION

I.

Plaintiff is an accoinplished and successful lawyer who, in March 2013, was

hired to be the President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of defendant Bikraln Yoga
College of India, LP ("Yoga College"). One of Plaintiffs priinary jobs as President and

CEO was to assist Yoga College's sole owner and founder, defendant Bikraln Choudhury
("Choudhury"), in navigating the avalanche of sexual harassment and sexual assault
lawsuits tiled against him. But Choudhury's harass~nentand vindictiveness know no
bounds. In January 20 15, he trained his sights on Plaintiff after she internally reported,
within the company, even more acts of apparent sexual misconduct by Choudhury during a
business trip to New York and Atlantic City.
2.

In January 20 15, Yoga College and Choudhury intentionally stopped paying

Plaintiff her salary - thereby breaching a written contract that Yoga College had with
Plaintiff and constructively discharging her.
3.

Yoga College, Choudhury, and the other Defendants wrongfully fired and

retaliated against Plaintiff because she reported Choudhury's unlawful sexual rnisconduct
during the business trip. As a result of Defendants' discriminatory and unlawful conduct,
Plaintiff has suffered extensive financial and emotional hardship.
I1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they all reside

in California or were organized under California laws and do business in California.

Venue is proper in Los Angeles County in accordance with California Code of Civil
Procedure 8 395 because Plaintiff suffered injury in this county and Defendants maintain
.heir offices in this county.

1
Complaint for (1) Breach o f Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 3s 12940, et seq., etc.

I11

THE PARTIES
5.

Plaintiff was previously a resident of Washington. D.C. Since March 20 13.

'laintiff has been a resident of Los Angeles County.

6.

On information and belief, defendant Bikraln Yoga College of India, LP

"Yoga College") is, and at all relevant times was, a limited liability partnership organized
~ n d e the
r laws of the state of California with its principal place of business in Los Angeles.

7.

On information and belief, defendant Bikram Choudhury Yoga, Inc. ("Yoga

nc.") is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation organized under the laws of the state
~fCalifornia, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles.

8.
111 relevant

On inforlnation and belief, defendant Bikram, Inc. ("Bikram Inc.") is, and at
tiines was, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of California.

with its principal place of business in Los Angeles.

9.

Defendants Yoga College, Yoga Inc., and Bikrain Inc. are collectively

eeferred to in this Complaint as "the Entity Defendants".

10.

On information and belief, defendant Choudhury is, and at all relevant times

was, an individual and resident of Beverly Hills, California. On information and belief, he
s 7 1 years old. Choudhury is, and at all relevant times was, a trustee of the Choudhury
:amily Trust Dated June 28, 1995 ("Family Trust"). Choudhury is sued herein in his
ndividual capacity and in his capacity as a trustee of the Falnily Trust.
1 1.

On information and belief, defendant Rajashree Choudhury ("Ra.jashree") is,

~ n dat all relevant times was, an individual and resident of Beverly Hills. California.
bjashree is, and at all relevant times was, Choudhury's wife, a Yoga College executive,
~ n da trustee of the Family Trust. Rajashree is sued herein in her capacity as a trustee of
he Family Trust.
12.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the Falnily

'rust is the beneficial owner of the assets of the Entity Defendants, Choudhury, and
tajashree. Further, on information and belief, Choudhury and Rajashree amended and
2
Complaint for ( I ) Breach o f Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc.

restated the Family Trust on or about April 13, 2010.

13.

Defendant Choudhury, defendant Rajashree, and the Entity Defendants are

collectively referred to in this Complaint as "the Defendants".

14.

On infonnation and belief, Yoga College and Choudhury are, and at all

relevant times were, an "employer" within the meaning of California Government Code Stj
12926(d), 12940(a), and 12940(i)(4)(a).
15.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all

relevant times, there existed and still exists a unity of interest and ownership between and
among the Defendants. This unity is such that any individuality and separateness between
and among the Defendants ceased to exist before the times relevant to this Complaint, and
each Defendant was and is the alter ego of every other Defendant. Plaintiff is informed
and believes that (a) Choudhury, Rajashree, and/or the Family Trust withdrew funds from
the Entity Defendants' bank accounts for personal use; (b) Choudhury and/or Rajashree
withdrew funds from the Fainily Trust's bank accounts for personal use; and (c) the
Defendants failed to observe the proper corporate formalities. including but not limited to
holding annual meetings and maintaining separate financial books and accounts.
16.

Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that

Choudhury coinpletely controlled, dominated, managed, operated, and intermingled the

assets of each of the Entity Defendants and of the Family Trust, including by placing
various assets of the Entity Defendants and of the Fainily Trust into the names of other
cntities or himself in order to avoid the payment of obligations to creditors of the Entity
Defendants, the Fainily Trust, Choudhury, and each of them. Adherence to the fiction of
separate existence of the Entity Defendants, the Fainily Trust, and Choudhury from one
mother would permit an abuse of corporate privileges, sanction fraud, pro~noteinjustice,
2nd permit Defendants to benefit from the wronghl acts and o~nissionsalleged in this
Zomplaint.
17.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants Does 1

hrough 25, inclusive, and therefore sues them by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will
J

Complaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $S 12940. et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc.

amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they are ascertained.
18.

On information and belief, each of the fictitiously-naned Defendants is

negligently, contractually, and/or otherwise responsible in some inanner for the acts and
omissions alleged in this Complaint, and Plaintiffs damages as alleged were proximately
caused by those acts or omissions.

19.

On information and belief, at all relevant times each and every Defendant

was the agent. employee, andlor alter ego of every other Defendant, and in doing the things
alleged, each acted within the course and scope of such agency and employment, and with
the consent, provision, and authorization of each of the remaining Defendants. All actions
of each Defendant herein alleged were ratitied and approved by every other Defendant.
IV

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.

Bikram Yoga and Yoga College

20.

Bikraln Yoga is a system of yoga that Choudhury claims to have created

from various traditional yoga techniques. A Bikrain Yoga class runs for ninety minutes
and consists of the same series of twenty-six postures, including two breathing exercises.
Bikra~nYoga is practiced in a room heated to 10.5' F with approxilnately 40% humidity.
2 1.

Yoga College is not an academic institution. Instead, it is the business name

for the Bikram Yoga studios owned by Choudhury in the United States and around the
world, as well as for the entity that runs the "teacher training courses," which are courses
to train Bikrarn Yoga instructors. The Entity Defendants rely on Choudhury's charisma to
market the teacher training courses and franchise agreements for the Bikrain Yoga studios.
22.

Over the last several years, Yoga College, other Entity Defendants, and

Choudhury individually have been sued by several female Bikram Yoga practitioners,
students, instructors, and teacher trainees who were allegedly sexually harassed and/or
sexually assaulted by Choudhury. These lawsuits have caused the Defendants' public
image and reputation to deteriorate progressively and significantly. The lawsuits include:

Sarah Bazlghn v. Bikram Choudhury, et al. (LASC BC502424), Jane Doe 1 v. Bikram
4
Complaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc.

Choudhury, et al. (LASC BC508288), Larissa Anderson v. Bikraln Choudhzlry, et al.

(LASC BC5 17883), Jane Doe 2 v. Bikram Choudhury, et al. (LASC BC508089). Minakshi
Jufa-Bodden v. Bikram Choudhury, et al. (LASC BC5 1204 I), Ja17e Doe 3 v. Bikraln
Chozr~il.2zlry,et al. (BC5288 13). and Jill Lawler v. Bikram Clzozldhury, et al. (BC572579).
B.

Petra Starke

23.

Plaintiff is originally froin Czechoslovakia and was educated in Europe and

the United States. She has a juris doctor and advanced law degree from Georgetown
University in Washington, D.C. and a business degree from the Prague School of
Economics.
24.

Following law school, Plaintiff worked as an associate at a prestigious

Washington law firin and, later, within the United States Government in the Office of
White House Counsel and as General Counsel for the President's Council of Economic
Advisors.
C.

Yoga College's Recruitment of Plaintiff by False Statements and Promises

25.

Plaintiff began practicing Bikrain Yoga while working in Washington and,

through her involveinent as a practitioner, came to ineet Choudhury. In 20 13, when

Plaintiff began considering a job change, Choudhury, on behalf of hiinself and each of the
Entity Defendants, urged her to move to California to become President and CEO of Yoga
College. Choudhury falsely promised Plaintiff that, if she were to move across the country
for the position, she would have the authority that a President and CEO ordinarily has.
Choudhury also told Plaintiff that (a) he wanted her to obtain outside investors for his
:ompanies; (b) the books and records of the Entity Defendants followed standard
xcounting practices; and (c) the books and records were in a good condition that would
:nable Plaintiff to recruit investors.
26.

In fact, Choudhury lied to Plaintiff. Instead of giving her the authority he

xoinised, Choudhury refused to grant Plaintiff full access to the Entity Defendants' books
ind records and kept her out of all important financial decision-making. Moreover, as
31aintiffonly learned afier taking the job, the books and records of the Entity Defendants
5
Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S S 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc.

were a shambles. There were no meaninghl accounting controls, and the Entity
Defendants generated, but did not properly account for, enormous cash revenues.
Furthermore, Plaintiff learned that Choudhury iinproperly caused and used the Entity
Defendants and the Family Trust to pay for Inany of Choudhury's personal expenses. such
as for the Inany luxury autoinobiles that he collected.

D.

Plaintiffs Employment Agreement

27.

On May 2, 2013, Plaintiff and Yoga College entered into an Executive

Elnploylnent Agreeinent (the "Agreement"), which was effective as of March 15, 20 13. A
true and correct copy of the Agreeinent is attached as Exhibit A. The Agreement gave
Plaintiff an initial term of elnploylnent of three years, through March 15, 20 16.
28.

Under paragraph 2.4(a) of the Agreeinent, Plaintiff was to be paid an annual

base salary of $200,000. This paragraph also mandated a $50,000 salary increase each
time Yoga College achieved one of the goals specified in the paragraph. Yoga College
achieved three of those goals, but Yoga College never gave Plaintiff the corresponding
mandatory salary increases, which should have totaled $1 50,000. Consequently, Plaintiff's
current salary should be $350,000, and Yoga College owes her the unpaid salary increases
as set forth in the Agreement.

29.

Under paragraph 2.4(c) of the Agreeinent, in addition to her annual base

salary, Plaintiffwas entitled to "an annual cash payment equal to ten percent (10%) of the
increase, if any, in the Company's gross revenue for a calendar year over the amount of the
prior year's gross revenue

. . . ."

These amounts should have been paid in 2014 (for the

20 13 increase) and by March 1, 20 15 (for the 20 14 increase). The payments were not
made, and Yoga College still owes them to Plaintiff:
30.

Under paragraph 2.4(k) of the Agreement, Plaintiff was entitled to four

weeks of paid vacation annually.

3 1.

Under paragraph 3.1(b) of the Agreement, if Yoga College terminated

Plaintiffs e~nployinentother than for "Just Cause" (as defined in the Agreement), Yoga
College was obligated to pay Plaintiff her base salary (including the mandatory increases
6
,,
Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environnient Under Cal. Gov't Code $9 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc.

set forth in paragraph 2.4(a)) and any perforinance bonus that she would have earned from
the date of termination through March 15, 2016. Additionally, after terminating Plaintiffs
einploylnent other than for "Just Cause," Yoga College was obligated to inaintain all of
Plaintiffs health, dental. disability, and other benefits in force through March 15. 201 6.

E.

Choudhury's Direct Harassment of Plaintiff

32.

Froin the beginning of Plaintiffs employment, Choudhury engaged in

sexually inappropriate conduct on numerous occasions, which created a hostile work

environment.
33,

During business meetings with Plaintiff and others in Choudhury's office,

Choudhury had female einployees massage hiin and brush his hair.
34.

As Plaintiff learned, Choudhury also had feinale employees come to his

home to massage hiin and stay up late with hiin to watch Bollywood movies.
35.

Plaintiff attempted to stop this behavior and informed the einployees that

Choudhury's conduct in the workplace and at home was improper. Plaintiff also regularly
advised Choudhury to stop his inappropriate conduct. Plaintiff also told the einployees
that they were not required to massage Choudhury as part of their job. Subsequently,
Ra-jashreetold Plaintiff that Choudhury was angry with Plaintiff because Plaintiff "took
away his girls.''
36.

Choudhury required Plaintiff to come to his home and hotel roolns for

business meetings. During these meetings, Choudhury demanded that Plaintiff sit on his
bed with hiin. Choudhury's inappropriate behavior made Plaintiff very uncoinfortable.
37.

Choudhury regularly coln~nentedto Plaintiff about her personal appearance.

Plaintiff found these colninents inappropriate in a business setting and told Choudhury to
stop making them.
38.

Choudhury regularly made improper and hostile co~llinentsto Plaintiff. For

example, and without limitation, Choudhury once returned from a trip and told Plaintiff
that he had bought her inany mini-skirts. Choudhury asked Plaintiff to come to his home
to try on the mini-skirts and presumably inodel them for his entertainment. Plaintiff
7
Cotnplaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code
12940, et seq., etc.

resisted and told Choudhury that this conduct was improper. Choudhury also engaged in
racist tirades in Plaintiffs presence about "you fuclting white trash," and made colnlnents
about how races should not mix "because you should not mix oil with water." Plaintiff
found these co~nlnentshurtful and disrespectful because, as Choudhury knew, she has a
mixed-race marriage.

F.

Plaintiffs Participation in the Fair Employment and Housing Act Process

39.

From virtually her first day on the job, Plaintiffwas inanaging the crisis that

arose from the nu~lleroussexual harassment and sexual assault lawsuits that were filed
against Choudhury and the Entity Defendants.
40.

Given the nature of the allegations against Choudhury and the Entity

Defendants in those lawsuits, Plaintiff urged Choudhury to be careful about his

interactions with younger women.
41.

Against Plaintiffs advice, Choudhury chose to bring a 23-year old female

yoga instructor on a business trip with him to New York and Atlantic City in January
2015. Plaintiffwas also on the business trip.
42.

During a limousine ride Goln New York to Atlantic City, Plaintiff witnessed

Choudhury pressuring the instructor to massage him. Plaintiff also witnessed the
instructor's head in Choudhury's lap, with a ski jacket on top of her head, in what appeared
to be an act of oral sex. Upon arrival in Atlantic City, Plaintiff tried to ensure that the
instructor would have her own hotel room, separate from Choudhury, but Choudhury
overrode Plaintiff and had the instructor stay in his suite. Choudhury also successfully
pressured the instructor to join him for a couples massage in his suite, over the instructor's
wishes and Plaintiffs objection.
43.

Plaintiff was shocked by Choudhury's mistreatment of the instructor in the

lilnousine and at the hotel, and was concerned that his inisconduct could be construed as
sexual harassment and sexual assault - especially given the nature of the allegations in the
pending lawsuits. During the business trip, the instructor told Plaintiff that she was not
cornfortable with Choudhury's behavior, and Plaintiff confronted Choudhury directly
8

Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; ( 2 ) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 33 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S S 12940, et seq., etc.

about it. But rather than show appreciation for Plaintiff's good faith efforts to protect him
from yet another lawsuit, Choudhury instead got angry with Plaintiff and rejected her
efforts.
44.

TJpon returning to Los Angeles, Plaintiff told Rajashree about Choudhury's

inisconduct on the business trip. Plaintiff also told two other Yoga College employees.
45.

After verbally informing Rajashree and the other Yoga College e~nployees

about Choudhury's misconduct, Plaintiff also prepared a detailed ~nemorandumof the

to Rajashree and
events during the business trip. She provided a copy of the ine~norandu~n
to one of the other employees.
G.

Defendants' Retaliatory Firing of Plaintiff

46.

Immediately after Plaintiff made her complaint about Choudhury's

~nisconductduring the business trip, Defendants retaliated by stopping payment of her

salary and constructively tiring her. Defendants terminated Plaintiff's e~nployinent
without "Just Cause'' as defined in the Agreement. Defendants have yet to pay Plaintiff
any of the monies she is owed under the Agreement.

47.

Plaintiff has incurred substantial psychological and physical injuries as a

result of the discrimination and harassment she has suffered. Her sy~nptoinsinclude
depression, anxiety, emotional distress, physical sickness, and other psychological and
physical symptoms. Plaintiff is expected to continue to incur substantial expenses
addressing these in-juries with professionals.
48.

As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has

incurred substantial damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings and earning
capacity, pain and suffering, and past and future medical expenses.
49.

Before filing this Complaint, Plaintiff filed a timely coinplaint with the

California Department of Fair Einployrnent and Housing alleging that Defendants violated
the Fair Elnployment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), California Government Code

55

12900,

et seq. Plaintiff received a right to sue letter against Defendants from the California

Department of Fair Einployrnent and Housing.

9
Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $ 5 12940, et seq., etc.

II
CAUSES OF ACTION
(All Causes of Action are Alleged Against All Defendants)
4.

First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract

50.

Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

:hrough 49 of this Complaint.

5 1.

On or about May 2, 2013, but effective March 15, 2013, Plaintiff and

Defendants entered into the Agreement, whereby Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff for
~ e employment
r
as the President and CEO of Yoga College. A true and correct copy of
.he Agreement is attached as Exhibit A.
52.

Plaintiff has performed all of her obligations under the Agreement, except

.hose which she was prevented or excused from performing.

53.

Defendants have breached the Agreement in numerous ways, including but

lot limited to:

(a)

Failing and refusing to increase Plaintiff's salary as required by

'aragraph 2.4(a) of the Agreement, despite Yoga College's achievement of three goals that
riggered the mandatory salary increases;
(b)

Failing and refusing to make the annual cash payments required under

)aragraph 2.4(c), despite increases in Yoga College's annual gross revenue;

(c)

Failing and refusing to give Plaintiff the four weeks of paid annual

lacation required under paragraph 2.4(k), or to pay the monetary value of that vacation
iine; and
(d)

Failing and refusing to pay Plaintif'f'her base salary (including

:ontractually-required increases) and any performance bonus that she would have earned,
1s well as to maintain all of Plaintiff's health, dental, disability, and other benefits in force,

i-oin the date of termination through March 15, 20 16, as required under paragraph 3.1(b)
lecause Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment without "Just Cause" as defined in
he Agreement.
10

Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $S 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code
12940, et seq., etc.

54.

Plaintiff has suffered damages legally caused by Defendants' breaches of the

Agreement in an amount to be proven at trial.

B.

Second Cause of Action: Hostile Work Environment Under

Cal. Gov't Code $5 12940, el seq.

55.

Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 54 of this Complaint.

56.

Plaintiff is a protected employee under FEHA, codified in California

Government Code Section 12900, et seq.

57.

Defendants are covered e~nployersunder FEHA, etnploying more than five

persons, as required by California Government Code

58.

5 12926(d).

As detailed above, Defendants created a sexually harassing hostile work

environment for Plaintiff by committing, without limitation, the following acts:

(a)

Having female employees lnassage Choudhury and brush his hair

during business meetings in Plaintiffs presence;

(b)

Demanding that Plaintiff sit on Choudhury's bed with him during

business meetings at his home and hotel rooms;

(c)

Regularly commenting on Plaintiff's physical appearance throughout

the entirety of Plaintiffs employment;

(d)

Buying mini-skirts for Plaintiff and insisting that Plaintiff come to

Choudhury's home to try them on and presumably model them for Choudhury;
(e)

Demanding that a young fernale yoga instructor massage Choudhury,

2nd apparently perform oral sex on him, in a limousine and in Plaintiff's presence during a
3usiness trip;
(f)

Demanding that the young female yoga instructor stay in Choudhury's

lotel suite during the business trip, over Plaintiffs objection; and
(g)

Pressuring the young female yoga instructor to participate in a couples

nassage with Choudhury in his hotel suite during the business trip, over the instructor's
aishes and Plaintiffs objection.
11

Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc.

59.

As Choudhury effectively owned and/or controlled the other Defendants,

each Defendant had knowledge of Choudhury's conduct and failed to stop it.
60.

Plaintiff specifically informed Rajashree - an executive of Defendants

- of

Choudhury 's improper sexual misconduct.

6 1.

Despite having knowledge of Choudhury's misconduct, each Defendant

failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to stop the harassment.
Moreover, before the harassment happened, Defendants took no steps to protect
employees, including Plaintiffi; or to prevent such harassment from occurring or
continuing.
62.

Due to the aforementioned acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of

them, Plaintiff has directly and proxiinately suffered actual da~nagespursuant to California
Civil Code

3 3333, including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future earning

capacity, medical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other pecuniary losses not presently ascertained, for which
Plaintiffwill seek leave of Court to ainend when ascertained.
63.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and o~nissionsof Defendants, and

zach of them, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe elnotional and mental
distress, physical sickness and injury, and has incurred medical and professionals' bills for
the treatment of these injuries.
64.

Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional

limits of this Court.

65.

The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were willful,

nalicious, intentional, oppressive, and despicable and were done in willful and conscious
jisregard of the rights and welfare of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive
ind exemplary dainages in an amount to be determined at the tiine of trial.
66.

As a result of Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to

qeasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in California Government Code
$ 12965(b).
12

Con~plaintfor ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S S 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc.

C.

Third Cause Of Action: Retaliation in Employment Under

California Government Code $5 12940, et seq.

67.

Plaintif'f'repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 66 of this Complaint.

68.

From the time of the coininencement of her einployinent through January

201 5, Plaintiff was an einployee of Defendants.

69.

Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by (a) confronting Choudhury about

his mistreatinent of the young female yoga instructor during the business trip, and when
Choudhury got angry with Plaintiff for raising the issue, thereafter (b) informing Rajashree
and other Yoga College employees about it, and (c) preparing and submitting a
lnernoranduin describing her concerns to Rajashree and to another Yoga College
einployee.
70.

In retaliation against Plaintiff because she exercised her rights and

obligations and engaged in protected activity, Defendants intentionally and immediately

stopped paying her salary, and thereby constructively discharged her.

7 1.

The acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, violated California

Government Code

55

12940, et seq. These statutes imposed a duty upon Defendants, and

each of them, not to retaliate against people, such as Plaintiff, who raise potential
violations of the anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws in the workplace setting.
These statutes were intended to prevent the type of injury and dainages that Defendants
inflicted on Plaintiff. Plaintiff was, at all times mentioned herein, a inernber of the class of
people intended to be protected by these statutes. At all relevant tiines herein. Plaintiff
was an employee who participated in the anti-discrimination and anti-harassment process
~ n dwas therefore entitled to the protections of California Government Code $9 12940, et

Teq.
72.

Due to the aforementioned acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of

.hein, Plaintiff has directly and proximately suffered actual damages pursuant to California
2ivil Code

5 3333, including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future earning
13

Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $ 5 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S$ 12940, et seq., etc.

capacity. nledical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future,
attorneys' fees and costs. and other pecuniary losses not presently ascertained, for which
Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend when ascertained.

73.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and oinissions of Defendants. and

each of them, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe elnotional and mental
distress, physical sickness and injury, and has incurred medical and professionals' bills for
the treatment of these injuries.
74.

Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional

limits of this Court.

75.

The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were willful,

malicious, intentional, oppressive, and despicable and were done in willful and conscious
disregard of the rights and welfare of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding of punitive
and exe~nplarydamages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
76.

As a result of Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in California Government Code
$ 12965(b).

D.

Fourth Cause Of Action: Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment

77.

Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 76 of this Complaint.

78.

Plaintiff is a protected employee under FEHA, codified in California

Government Code Section 12900, et seq.

79.

Defendants are covered e~nployersunder FEHA, e~nployingmore than five

persons, as required by California Government Code

80.

12926(d).

Defendants owed Plaintiffa duty to prevent the discrimination and

harassment that Plaintiff suffered as alleged herein.

8 1.

Through the actions of their officers and e~nployeesin retaliating against

because she raised Choudhury's violations of

Plaintiff and terminating her e~nploy~nent
FEHA, based on his mistreatment of the felnale yoga instructor during the business trip,
14

Complaint for (1) Breach o f Conrract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S S 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $ 4 12940. et seq., etc.

Defendants have ratified and participated in the improper termination of Plaintiffs

employment.
82.

The conduct of Defendants, as alleged herein, in permitting and ratifying

their employees' discriininatory conduct against Plaintiff; constitutes a failure to prevent

discriinination and harassment within the meaning of FEHA, codified in California
Government Code

85

12940 and 12960. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'

failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount
of compensatory damages to be proven at trial, but which exceeds this Court's
jurisdictional minirnuin, including in-jury to her professional standing and reputation and
her future earning capacity.
83.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to prevent

discriinination and harassment, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer elnotional
distress, which Defendants knew Plaintiff would suffer after being terminated.
84.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to prevent

discriinination and harassment, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because

Defendants' conduct described herein was outrageous and was corninitted with oppression,
fraud, and malice, and because Defendants knew Plaintiffs supervisors were unfit to be
put in a position of authority over wornen.

85.

As a direct and proxiinate result of Defendants' intentional discrimination

and harassment, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
California Government Code
86.

12965(b).

As a direct and proxiinate result of Defendants' intentional discriinination

and harassment, Plaintiff is entitled to recover any consequential damages she has suffered.

E.

Fifth Cause Of Action: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

87.

Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 86 of this Complaint.

88.

Article I, Section 8 of the California Constitution reflects a fundainental

public policy of the State of California against gender discriinination, harassment, and
1
<
1J

Complaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code
12940. et seq., etc.

retaliation in employment.
89.

Similarly, FEHA reflects a fundamental public policy protecting elnployees

from retaliation for making a FEHA colnplaint about a superior.

90.

FEHA also reflects a fundamental public policy protecting einployees

against an employer's failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

9 1.

Defendants' treatment of Plaintiff and termination of Plaintiffs elnploylnent

constitutes violations of these public policies.

92.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of these public

policies, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions, including harassment and

termination from her position as Yoga College's President and CEO.
93.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of these public

policies. Plaintiff has been damaged in amounts to be proven at trial, but which exceed this
Court's jurisdictional minimum, including in-jury to her professional standing and
reputation and her future earning capacity.
94.

Defendants, and each of them, have committed the acts alleged herein

willfully, maliciously, and oppressively, and with the wrongful intention of injuring
Plaintiff. Defendants further acted with an improper and intentional motive amounting to
malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. As a result of Defendants'
conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants
and each of thein in an amount according to proof.
F.

Sixth Cause Of Action: Violation of California Labor Code 5 970

95.

Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 94 of this Complaint.

96.

Prior to March 20 13 (and specifically since the summer of 20 12), by means

of oral coinmunications, defendant Choudhury, speaking on his own behalf and on behalf
3f the Entity Defendants, told Plaintiff that, if she were to move across the country, she
would be given the position of President and CEO of Yoga College and would have the
luthority that that position ordinarily has. Choudhury also told Plaintiff that (a) he wanted
16
Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 5s 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code Stj 12940, et seq., etc.

her to obtain outside investors for his companies; (b) the books and records of the Entity
Defendants followed standard accounting practices; and (c) the books and records were in
a good condition that would enable Plaintiff to recruit investors.
97.

Defendants knew that these representations were false in that: (a) Choudhury

had no intention of allowing Plaintiff to act as President and CEO and never gave Plaintiff
sufficient access to financial documents or other materials or resources necessary for her to
carry out her duties in that position, including obtaining outside investors; (b) the books
and records of the Entity Defendants were a shambles; and (c) Defendants had no intention
to correct the books or records so that Plaintiff could attempt to obtain investors.
98.

In reliance upon Defendants' representations, and not knowing that they

were false, Plaintiff changed her place of residence by moving from Washington, D.C. to
Southern California for the purpose of working for Defendants as President and CEO.
99.

Over the course of her employinent with Defendants, Plaintiff learned that

Defendants' representations were false. Plaintiff learned that the Entity Defendants'
financial statements were unaudited, in disarray, and did not follow generally accepted
accounting practices. Moreover, Plaintiff learned that Defendants had no intention of
allowing her to act as the President and CEO, as they failed and refused to allow Plaintiff
sufficient access to financial documentation. Finally, in January 20 15, Defendants
constructively discharged Plaintiff by stopping payment of her salary.
100. As a proximate result of these false representations, Plaintiff was influenced
and persuaded to move from Washington, D.C. to Southern California. Plaintiff suffered
damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
10 1. Defendants, and each of them, have coinlnitted the acts alleged herein
willfully, maliciously, and oppressively, and with the wrongful intention of injuring
Plaintiff. Defendants further acted with an improper and intentional motive amounting to
malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. As a result of Defendants'
;onduct, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants
3nd each of them in an amount according to proof.
17

Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $ 5 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code SS 12940, et seq., etc.

102. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 972, Plaintiff is entitled to double damages
for Defendants' misconduct.

G.

Seventh Cause Of Action: Nonpayment of Wages

103. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 102 of this Complaint.

104.

Effective in or about January 201 5, Defendants constructively terminated

Plaintiff's employment.
105. As of January 2 1, 20 15, at the tiine that Defendants constructively
terminated Plaintiffs employment, Plaintiff had last been paid accrued wages on January
5,2015, and was owed wages for her work through January 21, 201 5, as well as a cash
payinent pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
106. In addition, as of January 2 1, 201 5, Plaintiff had accrued 40 days of paid
time off pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Consequently, Plaintiff was owed money
for the accrued paid tiine off.
107. At the time of termination, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any of the
amounts due as set forth above. Defendants' failure to pay the full amount due Plaintiff
upon her termination violates the provisions of California Labor Code

5 20 1.

Defendants

awe the final payments plus accrued paid tiine off and have failed and refused, and
;ontinue to fail and refuse, to pay the amounts due to Plaintiff.
108. Pursuant to California Labor Code

5 21 8.5, Plaintiffrequests that the court

lward her reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by her in this action.
109. Pursuant to California Labor Code 5 21 8.6, Plaintiff requests that the court
rward Plaintiff interest on all due and unpaid wages, at the legal rate specified by
Zalifornia Civil Code
H.

5 3289(b), accruing froin the date the wages were due and payable.

Eighth Cause Of Action: Waiting Time Penalties

110. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

hrough 109 of this complaint.

11 1.

Defendants' failure to pay wages as alleged above was willful in that

18

Complaint for ( I ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code ss12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code 9s 12940, et seq., etc.

Defendants knew the money was due to Plaintiff but refused to inake payment in order to
punish her for participating in the FEHA process. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to penalties
under California Labor Code 5 203, which provides that an employee's wages shall
continue as a penalty until paid or for a period of up to 30 days froin the tiine they were
due, whichever period is shorter.
112. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the sums owed at the time of her
termination and for inore than 30 days thereafter. Therefore. pursuant to California Labor
Code $ 203, Plaintiff is entitled to 30 times her daily rate of pay.

I.

Ninth Cause of Action: Accounting

1 13. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 1 12 of this Complaint.

1 14.

Under paragraph 2.4(c) of the Agreement, in addition to her annual base

salary, Plaintiff was entitled to "an annual cash payment equal to ten percent ( 1 0%) of the
increase, if any, in the Company's gross revenue for a calendar year over the amount of the
prior year's gross revenue . .. .

?.

1 15 .

Defendants have not paid Plaintiff anything pursuant to paragraph 2.4(c) of

the Agreement.
1 16. The amount of money due to Plaintiff under the Agreement is not fully

known to Plaintiff and cannot be ascertained without an accounting of Defendants'

revenues for the years 20 12 to the present.
1 17.

Plaintiff hereby demands that Defendants account for the aforementioned

revenues and pay the alnount found due to Plaintiff. Defendants have failed and refused,
and continue to fail and refuse, to render an accounting to or pay Plaintiff.
118. By reason of the above, Plaintiff is entitled to an accounting as between
Defendants and Plaintiff, and for payment over to Plaintiff of the alnount found due from
Defendants as a result of the accounting, with interest thereon froin and after the date due.

19

Coinplaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $5 12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code
12940, et seq., etc.

I11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them.

as follows:
1.

For general damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this

Court, according to proof;

.3

For medical and professionals' expenses and related items and expenses,

according to proof;
3.

For loss of earnings, according to proof';

4.

For punitive and exelnplary damages, according to proot

5.

For penalties pursuant to California Labor Code

6.

That Plaintiffs darnages be doubled as provided by California Labor Code

7.

That the Court (a) order Defendants to give a cornplete accounting of

5 203;

972;

Defendants' total revenues in the years 20 12 to the present, and (b) determine the amount,
if any. that Defendants actually owe Plaintiff pursuant to the ternls of the Agreement;

8.

For attorneys' fees pursuant to applicable statutes;

9.

For all other damages and/or civil penalties allowed by law;

10.

For costs of suit; and

1 1.

For such other further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: August 18,20 15

John K. Rubiner
Jeremy D. Matz
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
n'

,'L/

BY'

, 1/j//
/x:/I/l/~.L! 1

,/

' v '

John K. Rubiner
Attorneys for Plaintiff Petra Starke
I

20
Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; ( 2 ) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $$12940, et seql.; (3)
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $5 12940, et seq., etc.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all causes of action that may be tried by a jury.
DATED: August 1 8 , 2 0 15

John K. Rubiner
Jeremy D. Matz
Bird, Marella, Boxer. Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow P.C.

By:
'

Attorneys for Plaintiff Petra Starke

21

Colnplaint for ( 1 ) Breach of Contract; (2) Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code $S 12940, et seql.; ( 3 )
Hostile Work Environment Under Cal. Gov't Code S S 12940, et seq., etc.