Grant v. F5 Networks

Case 2:20-cv-00355 Document 1-1 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 12
FILED
2020 FEB 04 09:47 AM
1 KING COUNTY
2 SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
3 E-FILED
4 CASE #: 20-2-03035-0 SEA
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
17 IN THE COUNTY OF KING
18
19 CAMBRIA GRANT, an individual.
20 NO.
21
Plaintiff,
22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
24 vs.
25
26 F5 NETWORKS, INC., a Washington
27 Corporation;
28
29
30 Defendant.
31
32
33
34
I. INTRODUCTION
35
36 1.1 Plaintiff, Cambria Grant (“Grant” or “Plaintiff”), requests damages and
37
38 attorneys’ fees and costs for the wrongful conduct of her former employer, F5 Networks, Inc.
39
40 (“F5” or “Defendant”). While employed by Defendant, Plaintiff suffered pregnancy
41
42
43
discrimination and retaliation, pregnancy accommodation discrimination, family medical
44
45 leave discrimination, interference, and retaliation, hostile work environment, and wrongful
46
47
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

1001 Fourth Ave, Suite 3200
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 1 Seattle, Washington 98154
(206) 400-7722
1 termination. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has sustained damages in amounts

2
3
to be proven at trial.
4
5
6 II. PARTIES
7
8 2.1 Grant is an individual residing in Puyallup, Washington. Grant was employed
9
10 by Defendant from approximately May 7, 2018 until October 3, 2019.
11
12
13 2.2 F5 is a Washington corporation that conducts business in King County and
14
15 throughout Washington State. F5 is an “employer” subject to Washington state statutes
16
17 governing employment discrimination including, but not limited to, the Washington State
18
19
20
Law Against Discrimination, Ch. 49.60 RCW.
21
22 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23
24 3.1 At all times material to this action, Defendant conducted business in King
25
26
County, Washington.
27
28
29 3.2 All or a substantial portion of the acts complained of herein occurred in King
30
31 County, Washington.
32
33 3.3 This action has been filed within the applicable statutory time periods.
34
35
36 3.4 Jurisdiction and venue are proper.
37
38 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
39
40 4.1 In April 2018, F5 offered Grant employment as an Executive Assistant,
41
42
43
providing support to Senior Vice President David Helfer (“Helfer”) and Vice President Mike
44
45 Rau (“Rau”).
46
47
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722
1 4.2 In late July 2018, Grant discovered that she was pregnant and, by late August
2
3
2018, Grant announced to Helfer and several other F5 employees that she was expecting.
4
5
6 4.3 Prior to announcing her pregnancy, Grant was considered a valuable member
7
8 of the F5 team. Both Helfer and Rau repeatedly commended Grant for her work and
9
10 commitment to the job.
11
12
13 4.4 Shortly after announcing her pregnancy, Grant began to experience hostility
14
15 from other Executive Administrative employees on her team.
16
17 4.5 For example, Grant was repeatedly told by Executive Administrative
18
19
20
Assistants Lisa Toscano (“Toscano”) and Kimberly Butler (“Butler”), that Grant should not
21
22 work from home, despite the company’s liberal telecommuting policy, and that her “job
23
24 security” would be compromised if she was not “seen” by her executive team leadership.
25
26
Prior to announcing her pregnancy, neither Toscano nor Butler expressed any concern about
27
28
29 Grant telecommuting – something both Toscano and Butler did frequently and without
30
31 reproach.
32
33 4.6 By late August 2018, Helfer was transferred to a new position and Grant
34
35
36 began supporting Vice President Eli Krohn (“Krohn”) and Regional Vice President Araldo
37
38 Menegon (“Menegon”), in addition to Vice President Rau, who was about to be promoted to
39
40 Senior Vice President.
41
42
43
4.7 Despite no longer working for Helfer, Grant reached out to Helfer and
44
45 expressed her concern about Toscano and Butler treating Grant in a hostile manner and the
46
47 concern that Grant would lose her job if she utilized the company’s telecommuting policy or
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722
1 took paid time off for prenatal appointments. In response, Helfer offered to help Grant and
2
3
encouraged her to reach out for other Executive Administrative positions within the company
4
5
6 where Grant would not have to work with the female Executive Administrative Assistants on
7
8 her current team.
9
10 4.8 At the advice of Helfer, Grant began seeking Executive Administrative
11
12
13 positions with openings. Grant tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain lateral transfers to General
14
15 Manager James Feger (“Feger”) or Chief Strategy Officer Tom Fountain (“Fountain”) desks
16
17 to no avail.
18
19
20
4.9 While working for Krohn, Menegon, and Rau, Grant was repeatedly
21
22 scrutinized for telecommuting despite her colleagues telecommuting without reproach. She
23
24 was similarly tracked by fellow employees, who in turn reported her whereabouts to Krohn.
25
26
4.10 On multiple occasions throughout the fall of 2018, Krohn questioned Grant’s
27
28
29 telecommuting and time reporting. On information and belief, no other similarly situated
30
31 employees were so tracked.
32
33 4.11 In addition to being scrutinized for her time reporting and telecommuting,
34
35
36 Grant was repeatedly left out of important company events, such as Rau’s promotion
37
38 ceremony to Senior Vice President. Often times, Grant would discover that an event was
39
40 occurring and inquire about attending, only to be told that she could attend and that her lack
41
42
43
of a formal invitation was simply an oversight.
44
45 4.12 In December 2018, Butler informed Grant that she was being demoted to an
46
47 Administrative Assistant, despite retaining her Executive Administrative salary, and would
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722
1 no longer be supporting Senior Vice President Rau. Instead, Grant would continue to support
2
3
Vice President Krohn as well as Vice President Barry Russell (“Russell”) and Vice President
4
5
6 Colleen McMillan (“McMillan”). Another Administrative Assistant, who previously had no
7
8 executive administrative experience, was informed that she would begin supporting Senior
9
10 Vice President Rau. On information and belief, that Administrative Assistant continues to
11
12
13 provide support to Senior Vice President Rau.
14
15 4.13 From February 28, 2019 through August 26, 2019, Grant took family medical
16
17 leave. Grant’s leave was extended due to the high-risk nature of her pregnancy and the
18
19
20
severity of her delivery and resulting complications. Despite being on family medical leave,
21
22 Krohn expected Grant to be accessible and assist with things like expense reports. As a
23
24 result, Grant was forced to perform work for F5, which she was not paid for, while on leave.
25
26
4.14 During Grant’s leave, but prior to her return to the office, Krohn and Butler
27
28
29 began discussing a new requirement for Grant upon her return from leave: no telecommuting.
30
31 Krohn went as far as to confirm with Butler that Grant’s role would now “require in-office
32
33 working hours.” Prior to Grant’s leave, she had never been informed that her position
34
35
36 required in-office working hours. On information and belief, no other employee was
37
38 required to be in-office as a condition of the employee’s continued employment.
39
40 4.15 On August 26, 2019, Grant returned to the office and discovered that she was
41
42
43
going to be required to assist another Vice President, Brad Stauffer (“Stauffer”), in addition
44
45 to the three other Vice Presidents she was currently staffing. At that time, Grant returned to
46
47
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722
1 work with work restrictions of being able to use the restroom more frequently and attending
2
3
medical appointments.
4
5
6 4.16 On August 29, 2019, Grant met with Human Resource Business Partner Jamal
7
8 Jeremiah (“Jeremiah”) and expressed her concern about returning to a job that had
9
10 significantly changed since she departed on leave. During that conversation Grant
11
12
13 emphasized that she had been demoted from an Executive Assistant to an Administrative
14
15 Assistant prior to her leave. She also emphasized that she was being asked to take on
16
17 additional job duties and requirements following her return to work, such as providing
18
19
20
support to another Vice President.
21
22 4.17 Shortly after meeting with Jeremiah, Grant met with Krohn and Butler about
23
24 the disproportionate amount of work Grant had been saddled with and her demotion
25
26
following the announcement of her pregnancy. In response, Butler told Grant that the
27
28
29 company “needed to extract value out of [Grant] because [Grant] was still being paid an
30
31 Executive Assistant salary” even though the company was treating her like an Administrative
32
33 Assistant. Grant asked Butler why she was not being allowed to return to work with Senior
34
35
36 Vice President Rau, at which point Butler informed Grant that she would never work with
37
38 Rau again.
39
40 4.18 In addition to returning to a drastically different position with the company
41
42
43
following her leave, Grant returned to an overtly hostile work environment. On multiple
44
45 occasions Toscano made comments about the amount of time Grant spent “pumping” or
46
47 away from her desk – when Grant was in the restroom. Butler similarly came by Grant’s
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722
1 desk throughout the day to make sure she was in her seat and working. Both women
2
3
similarly discouraged Grant from attending company events and emphasized that Grant “had
4
5
6 a baby” so it was understandable if she chose to not attend events. While this was occurring,
7
8 both women kept Krohn informed of Grant’s whereabouts.
9
10 4.19 On multiple occasions in September 2019, Grant was again scrutinized for her
11
12
13 time reporting and use of telecommuting.
14
15 . 4.20 In September 2019, Grant reached out to Jeremiah and expressed her concern
16
17 about being targeted in the office for pumping and being away from her desk to use the
18
19
20
restroom. She emphasized that she was working in a hostile work environment and that her
21
22 every movement was being watched and tracked when no other employee was being watched
23
24 or tracked. While Jeremiah promised to look into the situation and follow-up with Grant, he
25
26
did neither.
27
28
29 4.21 Meanwhile, Grant reached out to Jeremiah and complained that Krohn had
30
31 informed her that she was no longer allowed to telecommute in order to attend medical
32
33 appointments, one of her return to work accommodations. Grant emphasized to Jeremiah
34
35
36 that she needed to attend medical appointments and wanted to meet with Jeremiah and
37
38 discuss possible use of additional protected leave or some reasonable alternative. Grant
39
40 copied Krohn on her email to Jeremiah.
41
42
43
4.22 In response to Grant’s email, Krohn emailed Jeremiah and Butler, among
44
45 others, and expressed how “problematic” Grant’s request was. In turn, Butler and Jeremiah
46
47
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722
1 agreed that Grant’s request was “problematic” and that they needed “to figure out a way
2
3
forward as soon as possible.”
4
5
6 4.23 On September 24, 2019, Grant spoke with Jeremiah and was informed that she
7
8 could still use the company’s telecommuting policy and that any discrepancies with time
9
10 reporting were the result of poor communication that simply needed to be worked on.
11
12
13 Jeremiah did not address any of Grant’s concerns about pregnancy discrimination or the
14
15 hostile work environment created by Toscano and Butler.
16
17 4.24 On September 27, 2019, Grant spoke with Jeremiah again and asked that she
18
19
20
be removed from her department due to the ongoing hostility and lack of meaningful
21
22 intervention. Jeremiah indicated that he would look into the request. Grant never heard
23
24 anything further from Jeremiah.
25
26
4.25 On October 3, 2019, Grant was informed that her Executive Administrative
27
28
29 position was eliminated.
30
31 4.26 Less than two weeks before Grant’s position elimination, Krohn sent multiple
32
33 emails recommending his wife’s friend for open Executive Administrative positions at F5,
34
35
36 including one for Chief Strategy Officer Tom Fountain.
37
38 4.27 In emails sent to his wife during September 2019, before Grant’s alleged
39
40 position elimination, Krohn boasted that there “were several EA roles open/about to open.”
41
42
43
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
44
45 A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION IN
46 VIOLATION OF RCW 49.60 et seq. and WAC 162-30-020.
47
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722
1 5.1 Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1.1 through 4.27 of the Complaint and hereby
2
3
incorporates the same by reference.
4
5
6 5.2 Plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against and wrongfully terminated
7
8 on the basis of her pregnancy, in violation of RCW 49.60 et seq. and WAC 162-30-020,
9
10 thereby entitling her to damages, including damages for past and future wage and benefits
11
12
13 loss, emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
14
15 B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – PREGNANCY ACCOMMODATION
16 DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF RCW 43.10.005
17
19
20
21 incorporates the same by reference.
22
23 5.4 Plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against and wrongfully denied
24
25 basic pregnancy related accommodations, in violation of RCW 43.10.005, thereby entitling
26
27
28
her to damages, including damages for past and future wage and benefits loss, emotional
29
30 distress, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
31
32 C. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION –– HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT BASED
33 ON GENDER AND PREGNANCY IN VIOLATION OF RCW 49.60 et seq.
34
35
37
39
40 5.6 Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to a hostile work environment on the
41
42
43
basis of her gender and pregnancy, in violation of RCW 49.60 et seq., thereby entitling her to
44
45 damages including damages for past and future wage and benefits loss, emotional distress,
46
47 and attorneys’ fees and costs.
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722
1 D. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – DISCRIMINATION, INTERFERENCE,

2 AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE
3
ACT, 29 U.S. §§ 2601–2654.
4
5
7
9
10 5.8 Plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against and wrongfully terminated
11
12
13 for seeking and taking protected leave, in violation of 29 U.S. §§ 2601–2654, thereby
14
15 entitling her to damages including damages for past and future wage and benefit loss,
16
17 liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
18
19
20
5.9 Plaintiff alleges that while she was on family medical leave, Defendant
21
22 interfered with and restrained her exercise of protected leave, in violation of 29 U.S. §§
23
24 2601–2654, thereby entitling her to damages including damages for past and future wage and
25
26
benefit loss, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
27
28
29 5.10 Plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against for seeking and taking
30
31 protected leave, in violation of 29 U.S. §§ 2601–2654, thereby entitling her to damages
32
33 including damages for past and future wage and benefit loss, liquidated damages, and
34
35
36 attorneys’ fees and costs.
37
38 E. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - RETALIATION
39
41
42
43
incorporates the same by reference.
44
45 5.12 Plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against for reporting illegal conduct on
46
47 the part of her employer and for exercising her rights under the Washington Law Against
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722
1 Discrimination, RCW 49.60 et seq., WAC 162-30-020, and RCW 43.10.005, thereby
2
3
entitling her to damages including damages for past and future wage and benefits loss,
4
5
6 emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
7
8 VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
9
10 WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
11
12
13 A. Damages for past and future wage and benefits loss;
14
15 B. Damages for loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering, mental anguish,
16
17 emotional distress, and humiliation;
18
19
20
C. Liquidated damages;
21
22 D. Prejudgment interest in an amount to be proved at trial;
23
24 E. Compensation for any tax penalty associated with a recovery;
25
26
F. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost; and
27
28
29 G. Whatever further and additional relief the court shall deem just and equitable.
30
31 DATED this 4th day of February, 2020.
32
33 MBE Law Group PLLC
34
35
36 s/ Lisa Burke
37 Lisa Burke, WSBA No. 42859
38
39 s/ David Martin
40 David Martin, WSBA No. 38325
41
42
43
1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 3200
44 Seattle, WA 98154
45 Telephone: 206.400.7722
46 Facsimile: 206.400.7742
47
Email: lburke@mbelg.com
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722
1 Email: dmartin@mbelg.com
2
3
Attorneys for Plaintiff Grant
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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

(206) 400-7722

Grant v. F5 Networks

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Grant v. F5 Networks

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 2:20-cv-00355 Document 1-1 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 12

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

1 termination. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has sustained damages in amounts

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

1 D. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – DISCRIMINATION, INTERFERENCE,

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

MBE LAW GROUP PLLC

S-ar putea să vă placă și