king-v-att

1 LOUIS R. MILLER (State Bar No. 54141) [email protected]

2 AMNON Z. SIEGEL (State Bar No. 234981) asiegel@ millerbarondess.com

3 LAUREN R. WRIGHT (State Bar No. 280809) lwright@ millerbarondess.com

4 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 1999 A venue of the Stars, Suite 1000

5 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (31 0) 552-4400

6 Facsimile: (31 0) 552-8400 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Knoyme King

CONFORMED COPY ORIGINAL IIILJ:D

Supe>for Cdort Ot C:olll~,nl County OCI.OSAftt

1 Plaintiff Knoyme King ("King") alleges against Defendants AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T, 2 Inc. (together, "AT&T"), Randall L. Stephenson ("Stephenson"), Joyce Roche ("Roche"), Aaron 3 Slator ("Slator"), John Stankey ("Stankey"), Ryan Smith ("Smith"), Jeff Weber ("Weber"), Daniel

4 York ("York"), and Does 1 through 10, inclusive (collectively, "Defendants"), as follows:

5 INTRODUCTION

6 1. Plaintiff Knoyme King, a 50-year-old African American woman, has worked at

7 AT&T for over 30 years. King has witnessed-and experienced- race and age discrimination and

8 harassment by senior AT&T executives (all of whom are White males).

9 2. Defendant Aaron Slator is one of King' s bosses. Slator is a racist and is particularly

10 bigoted against African Americans. In furtherance of his racist acts, Slator exposed King and

11 another African American subordinate to the racially derogatory and discriminatory images below

12 (attached as Exhibits A & B hereto): "- 13 Ill _, _,

~ 14 Ill V'l u.J

0 z

15 Ill 0 c:::: <

t:O 16 Ill c:::: u.J _, _,

17 Ill ~ 18 Il l

19 Ill

20 Ill

21 Ill

22 Ill

23 Ill

24 Ill

25 Ill

26 Il l

27 Ill

28 Ill

254439.5 1 COMPLAINT

"-....J ....J

Vl Vl u.J Cl z 0

~

Exhibit B

1 This image was also found on Slator's work phone by an African American colleague.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 c:... 13 ..... .....

~ Vl 14 ...., 0 z 15 0

~

1 3. These images, put out by Slator who is the President of AT&T, are beyond 2 offensive. When Slator sent the picture of the African child via text message, he referred to it as

3 an "oldie but goodie." Slator transmitted these images on his work phone, evidencing deep-rooted

4 racial bigotry in his place of employment.

5 4. These messages evoke the type of revolting racism that existed in this country

6 when slavery was abolished in 1865 . Whites objectified African Americans for ridicule, mockery 7 and sex; they called them the "N-word"; and viewed them as primitive and subhuman. This high-

8 ranking AT&T executive-Slator-condones the use of the "N-word." This attitude is consistent

9 with the demenor Slator portrays at the office and is reflected in his discriminatory employment

10 practices.

11 5. As AT &T's President of Content and Advertising Sales, Slator has a powetful

12 influence over the television and entertainment industry. He is the head of AT&T's Television c.. 13 ...J ...J

Division, U-Verse. He reports to Defendant Stephenson, the Chairman and Chief Executive ~

14 Vl w Officer of the parent company, AT&T, Inc. He also has a close working relationship with Cl z

15 0 0:::

Defendant Stankey, AT&T Inc.'s Chief Strategy Officer. Slator manages AT&T's multi-billion <

c:o 16 0::: dollar budget for content acquisition, and he has final decision-making authority over what w ...J ...J 17 ~ programming AT&T distributes to its 6 million subscribers on its U-Verse television platform. He

18 also has the power to hire and fire employees.

19 6. Slator' s discriminatory animus is part of a course of conduct at AT&T that has

20 been condoned, encouraged and ratified throughout the years by the highest levels at AT&T.

21 Indeed, AT&T Inc.'s board members and high-level executives-including Defendants

22 Stephenson, Roche, and Stankey-have known about Slator's racism and these appalling

23 messages on his work phone for some time, but have done nothing about them. Instead of

24 terminating Slator or otherwise properly dealing with his racist conduct, AT&T engaged in an

25 illegal coverup. By covering for Slator, AT&T has facilitated and enabled his racism. AT&T

26 Inc.'s know ledge, ratification and illegal scheme to cover up Slator' s racist practices ties the

27 parent company-and Defendants Stephenson, Roche and Stankey-into the racial discrimination

28 in this case.


7. Recently, in October 2014, King applied for a job opening to act as Slator's 2 executive assistant. King had performed the tasks of that role in the past. She was recommended

3 for the position by Slator's previous executive assistant. Nevertheless, Slator hired someone with

4 no experience to fill the role: He hired Susie Bercerra, a younger, non-African American

5 candidate who was having a romantic affair with Slator. The message was clear. Despite her

6 experience and recommendation, King was deemed unqualified for the job because of her race, 7 because of her age and because she was not engaging in a romantic relationship with her boss.

8 8. King has been discriminated against in her compensation at AT&T. During her 30

9 years at AT&T, King received minimal pay raises. A lesser-experienced, white colleague in a

10 lower-level position than King received higher pay raises each year.

11 9. No matter how hard she works or how well she performs her job, King was given 12 short shrift due to the color of her skin.

"- 13 ...J ...J

10. During her 30 years of employment with AT&T-more than ten of which were vi V'l 14 w served under the individual Defendants named herein (AT&T President Slator and his 0 z 15 0 c::::

predecessors, Defendants Weber and York)- King has repeatedly been passed over for

1 efforts on an illegal cover-up. For example, when AT&T and its board members were made aware

2 of the racist images on Slator's company cell phone, AT&T's supposedly third party Equal

3 Employment Opportunity Consultant interviewed AT&T employees to determine whether anyone

4 other than Slator' s executive assistant had seen the images. AT&T wanted to ensure that it could

5 keep Slator' s racism under wraps. AT&T has allowed Slator to continue-unabated and

6 unchecked-in his position as President.

7 13. King has endured years of discrimination at the hands of Defendants Slator, Weber

8 and York-conduct that was condoned and ratified by AT&T and its board members and high-

9 level executives, Defendants Stephenson, Roche, and Stankey.

10 14. King seeks to put an end to Slator' s and AT&T' s ongoing discrimination, and to

11 recover damages for the harm and suffering she has incurred.

12 PARTIES "- 13 ...J ...J

15. Plaintiff King is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, a resident of the v) Vl 14 LJ.J County of Los Angeles in the State of California. King is, and at all times mentioned herein was, 0 z 15 0 0:::

an employee of Defendant AT&T Services, Inc., located in Los Angeles, California. <

!::0 16 0::: 16. AT&T Services, Inc. and AT&T, Inc. are Delaware corporations with their LJ.J ...J ...J 17 ~ principal places of business in Dallas, Texas. AT&T Services, Inc. also has an office and operates

18 in Los Angeles, California, where King is employed. AT&T, Inc. is the parent company of,

19 among others, AT&T Services, Inc., which reports directly to AT&T, Inc. AT&T, Inc. is headed

20 up by a Board of Directors, which is responsible for establishing and enforcing company-wide

21 policies and practices, including with regard to anti-discrimination and other employment policies.

22 17. King is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times

23 herein Defendant Stephenson is and was a resident of the State of Texas and the County of Dallas.


25 herein Defendant Roche is and was a resident of the State of Georgia and the County of Chatham.


27 herein , Defendant Slator is and was a resident of the State of California and the County of Los

28 Angeles.


c:... ...J ...J

~ Vl U-l 0 z 0 c:::: <

c:Q c:::: U-l ...J ...J

~


2 herein Defendant Stephenson is and was a resident of the State of Texas and the County of Dallas.


4 herein, Defendant Smith is and was a resident of the State of California and the County of Los

5 Angeles.

6 22. King is informed and believes, and ori that basis alleges, that at all relevant times

7 herein, Defendant Weber is and was a resident of the State of California and the County of Los

8 Angeles.


10 herein, Defendant York is and was a resident of the State of California and the County of Los

11 Angeles.

12 24. King is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants Does 1

13 through 10, inclusive, are individually and/or jointly liable to King for the wrongs alleged herein . 14 The true names and capacities , whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of

15 Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to King at this time. Accordingly, King

16 sues Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, by fictitious names and will amend this Complaint

17 to allege their true names and capacities after they are ascertained.

18 25. King alleges that each of the Defendants is, and at all times relevant to this

19 Complaint was, the employee, agent, employer, partner, joint venturer, alter ego, affiliate, 20 principal, and/or co-conspirator of the other Defendants and, in doing the acts alleged herein, was

21 acting within the course and scope of such positions at the direction of, and/or with the

22 permission, knowledge, consent and/or ratification of, the other Defendants. As such, each

23 Defendant, through its acts and omissions, is responsible for the wrongdoing alleged herein and

24 for the damages suffered by King.

25

26 26.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Pursuant to Article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution, subject matter 27 jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles , State of 28 California.


c.. ...J ...J

Vl Vl UJ 0 z 0

~ <

c:o ~ w ...J ...J

1 27. Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure, venue is proper in this county

2 because this is where Defendants are located, do business and/or where the unlawful acts giving

3 rise to this action occurred. Venue is further proper in this county because it was the county where

4 King worked and was paid.

5

6 A.

7

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

King Has Been a Loyal And Dedicated AT&T Employee For Over 30 Years

28. King was hired by AT&T in 1985, when she was twenty years old. She began as

8 an operator, and worked her way up to her current position as Content Coordinator in AT&T' s U-

9 Verse group. King has been a part of the U-Verse team almost since its inception, joining the 10 team in February 2005.

11 29. In her role as Content Coordinator, King is responsible for handling vendor

12 payments, organizing executive schedules, and managing executives ' desks. King currently

13 reports to Defendants Slator and Smith. Smith is Slator's right-hand man and Vice President of

14 Content at AT&T. Before Slator took over the President of Content and Advertising Sales

15 position in June 2013, King reported to Defendant Weber; before that, she reported to Defendant

16 York.

17 30. In her 30 years at AT&T, King has received consistently positive reviews-

18 meeting or exceeding expectations each year. Only recently, when King complained to AT&T

19 Human Resources, did King begin to receive negative feedback.

20 31. King is good at her job and has worked hard. Despite this, AT&T and its board 21 members have sat by idly while King's superiors have discriminated against and harassed King.

22 B. AT &T's Top Executives Have a Practice of Discriminating on the Basis of Race

23 32. During Defendant York's tenure as AT&T's President of Content and Advertising

24 Sales (2005-2012) , King was one of just two African American employees in the office. The other 25 African American, Denita Willoughby, was already there when York arrived. York did everything

26 in his power to oust Willougby; eventually, forcing her out by hiring a White male to take over her

27 job duties and paying him more money than Willougby. 28


c:... .....

.....

vi Vl L.LJ 0 z 0

~ < ~

~ L.LJ .....

.....

~

3 3. When York was preparing to depart AT&T, he finally agreed to hire "diverse"

2 employees. At the time, King was the only African American. York wanted to avoid word

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

getting out that the Los Angeles branch of AT&T, which was responsible for choosing the

television content distributed to millions of Americans, consisted of a nearly all-white group.

34. AT&T hired an African American woman as Executive Assistant to the President

of Content and Advertising Sales (she is referred to herein as "EA''). EA started after York left, while Defendant Weber was heading the office; she left not long after Slator took over.

35. King witnessed and was aware of the mistreatment and abuse suffered by EA as a

result of her skin color. As soon as Slator assumed the role of President of Content and

Advertising Sales, he sought to push EA out and hire Susie Becerra- a younger, non-African

American female with whom Slator was romantically involved.

36. Slator looked for ways to get rid of EA. He encouraged EA to resign. EA told

Slator that she did not want to give up her position at AT&T.

37. Unable to convince EA to resign, Slator began complaining about EA 's work and

treating her poorly-all with the aim of forcing EA to quit her job so he could hire his younger, non-African American mistress, Susie Becerra, in her place.

1. EA Sees the Racist Images on Slator's Phone

38. As part of her job duties, Slator asked EA to transfer data from his old company cellular telephone to his new one. While completing this task, EA came across the images

depicted at Paragraph 2 above (also attached hereto as Exhibits A & B). The text messages found on Slator's company cell phone are attached hereto as Exhibit C. Slator text messaged the image

of the African child with the words "It's Friday Niggas" written across the top (Ex. A) to a friend , 23 referring to it as an "oldie but goodie." Ex. C.

24 39. Slator knew that this material was on his company phone, but nevertheless asked

25 EA, an African American woman, to perform the data transfer. Slator knew that EA would be

26 subjected to these racist words and images. 27 40. The fact that Slator- a high-level AT&T executive with authority over hiring,

28 firing and promotional decisions-condones the use of racist language (sending an image of a


c.. ...J ...J

.n V) w 0 z 0 0::

Vl Vl u.J Cl z 0 c:t: <

1::0 c:t: u.J -'

-'

1 47. Astonishingly, despite AT&T and its board members' awareness of Slator's racial

2 discrimination and role in pushing EA out the door, AT&T allowed Slator to hire her replacement.

3 AT&T knew about the racially offensive messages on Slator's phone; yet it took no steps to

4 ensure the position would be filled on objective, non-discriminatory terms. 5 3. After EA Left, Slator Mistreated King

6 48. Following EA's departure, Slator turned on King. Slator knew that King and EA

7 had been friendly, and they were both African Americans. Slator was rude and dismissive to

8 King. He ignored her when they were in close proximity and was generally dismissive and short

9 with her. In addition, instead of using King who was in the same office to fulfill EA' s duties,

10 Slator had someone in Dallas, Texas remotely perform these tasks until Susie Becerra arrived.

11 49. On October 20, 2014, Slator brought King into his office to let her know that he

12 had given the executive assistant job to Susie Becerra. Slator was rude to King. When King 13 asked why Slator had been mistreating her, Slator started yelling at King. King was so frightened

14 that she thought Slator might strike her.

15 50. King was denied the promotion because of her race, because of her age, and

16 because she was not in a romantic relationship with Slator. Instead, the job went to Susie Becerra, 17 a younger, non-African American female, who was romantically involved with the decision-

18 maker: Slator.

19 51. Had King known about the racist culture at AT&T, she would have left years ago

20 and obtained a position at another company without the racial bias and discrimination that

21 permeates AT&T.

22 52. AT&T has a pattern and practice of deciding who will fill job openings before the 23 positions are posted; well-qualified candidates like King do not stand a chance.

24 4. King Receives Smaller Raises Than Her Non-African American Colleagues

25 53. In addition to being denied promotional opportunities, King has been discriminated

26 against in terms of her compensation. Given her consistently good job performance, King 27 received a pay raise each year she worked at AT&T. But these pay raises were minimal and less

28 than her white counterparts.


~ ...J ...J

V1 V1 u.J 0 z 0 c:::

c.. .....

.....

v) V') u.J Cl z 0 "'

1 c. AT&T's Nefarious Scheme To Cover Up Clear-Cut Racism

2 67 . AT&T has a racism problem. Its top executives push out African American

3 employees; strip African American employees of job duties based on race; reject African 4 American applicants in favor of lesser-qualified, non- African American candidates; and

5 discriminate against African Americans in terms of compensation.

6 68. AT&T' s current top programming official, Slator, harbors racial animus toward

7 African Americans. AT&T' s EEO Consultant, HR Department, and its Board member, Roche,

8 were given the racist images and messages on Slater's phone. On information and belief, Roche

9 shared this information with AT&T CEO and Chairman of the Board, Stephenson. On

10 information and belief, Defendant Stankey also saw, or was made aware of, the offensive images

11 and messages on Slater's company phone.

12 69. The appropriate reaction-the morally responsible and legally required one-"- 13 ..J ..J

would have been for AT&T to take steps to remedy this past, and to prevent future, racism by its ~

14 V"l u.J top television content executive. AT&T did not do this . Instead, AT&T's engaged in an illegal 0 z 0 15 c:::

cover-up, to ensure that its racism remained hidden-even at the expense of long-term, loyal <

t:O 16 c::: African American employees such as King and EA. u.J ..J ..J 17

:::;; 70. After EA had initiated a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity

18 Commission, AT&T implemented the cover-up. To avoid publicity, on information and belief,

19 AT&T paid EA a substantial sum of money on the condition she keep quiet and not disclose

20 AT&T' s racist practices.

21 71. Soon thereafter, AT&T's EEO Consultant, Stephanie Davis , began reaching out to

22 AT&T employees, including King, to carry out AT&T's cover-up. AT&T wanted to determine

23 whether other employees had been exposed to the racist images and messages on Slater's cell

24 phone and/or EA 's complaints about Slator.

25 72. AT&T was deliberately attempting to conceal Slater's racism. AT&T wanted to

26 ensure that the images on Slater's phone never saw the light of day.

27 73. In discussing EA 's departure, AT&T's EEO Consultant asked King whether she

28 had seen any photographs, referring to the images on Slater's work phone. Concerned about


c.. ...J ...J

Vl Vl u.J 0 z 0

~ <

c:o ~ I.U ...J ...J

1 possible retaliation, King said nothing about the images. AT&T thought it had succeeded in its

2 illegal cover-up. King complained to Ms. Davis about EA's mistreatment and abuse by Slator, as

3 she was aware of and had witnessed much of it.

4 74. AT&T led King to believe that her conversations with the EEO Consultant would

5 be confidential; in fact, AT&T's EEO Consultant website, to which AT&T employees are directed

6 to submit complaints, indicates that it is intended to be "a confidential and anonymous online

7 process to report suspected or actual violations of AT&T' s Code of Business Conduct, EEO

8 policies and other Company policies."

9 75. During King' s conversations with the EEO Consultant, King disclosed that since

10 EA left AT&T, King felt Slator had been retaliating against King because she was the same race

11 as EA. King also mentioned her concerns regarding unequal compensation and pay raises.

12 76. Despite the assurances of confidentiality, King later discovered that Ms. Davis had

13 disclosed the substance of their conversation to others at AT&T, including Bob Reed .

14 77. Shortly after the racist images on Slator' s phone were brought to the attention of

15 AT&T's upper echelon, including Roche, AT&T held human resources training for the U-Verse

16 team. The training was part of AT&T' s concealment and cover-up; Slator did not even attend.

17 78. After King witnessed how board member Joyce Roche ignored EA's cry for help

18 but instead helped to covered up the racism and harassment, King felt she could not trust the board

19 members as well as Jessie Jackson, AI Sharpton, the NAACP, The Urban League and other so-

20 called civil rights organizations. King was very disappointed these so-called civil rights

21 organizations had taken donations from AT&T and had given AT&T sham diversity awards in

22 exchange for those donations. None of those so-called civil rights organizations ever asked any of

23 the African American employees at AT&T if they were happy or felt they were being mistreated.

24 King was completely disgusted by these organizations because they honored AT&T for small

25 donations even though AT&T does not respect or honor Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday as a

26 national holiday. African American AT&T employees have to forfeit one of their own personal

27 vacation days to honor the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday. Mrs. King reserves the right to

28 name these organizations as defendants.


"-

-' ..J

Vl Vl L.U

0 z 0 0::

"-...J ...J

Vl Vl u.J 0 z 0 .,:

-< ~ .,: u.J ...J ...J

1 87. In a meeting with EA, Slator disparaged King, questioning King's skills and ability

2 based on her age. King had disclosed to Slator that she was working to obtain her Masters in

3 Business Administration ("MBA"). Rather than encouraging King, Slator mocked her. Slator told 4 EA: "What's the point of her [King] getting her MBA? At her age, she isn ' t going anywhere in

5 this company." Slator also stated: "Diversity candidate or not, she' s too old. She 's not going any

6 further; trust me."

7 88. By comparison, Slator encouraged younger AT&T employees to pursue Masters

8 degrees. When EA told Slator that a secretary was putting together an application for an MBA

9 program, Slator asked: "How old is she?" EA told Slator that the secretary was in her early

10 twenties. Slator nodded and said "good." Slator's employment decisions (e.g. , hiring, firing ,

11 promotions) were infected by this animosity toward older employees.

12 89. King was using her free time to take MBA classes at night. Once she learned of

13 Slator' s discriminatory comments, she was discouraged and dissuaded from continuing her MBA

14 program.

15 E.

16

Defendant Weber Subjected King to a Hostile Working Environment 90 . During Weber's tenure as AT&T's top programming official (2012-2013), Weber

17 engaged in at least one illicit relationship with another AT&T employee. Weber favored and

18 treated that employee better than other AT&T employees, including King. And the employee took

19 advantage of her relationship with Weber, treating King and other employees with disrespect and

20 pawning off her work on others-knowing she could get away with her inappropriate behavior

21 because of her romantic involvement with the boss.

22 91. Under Weber's reign, there was an unspoken office quid pro quo policy: The

23 secret to success was not excelling at work, but rather engaging in a sexual relationship with your

24 superior. King and others who did not participate in such behavior were denied opportunities to

25 succeed and to rise in the ranks at AT&T. On information and belief, King also received lower

26 pay raises than the AT&T employee who was romantically involved with Weber, although King

27 was perfonning her job duties as well as-or better than-this employee. 28 92. Eventually, the relationship between Weber and the AT&T employee deteriorated.


c.. ....! ....!

Vl Vl w 0 z 0 a:: -<

c::Q a:: w ....! ....!

1 Disgruntled by the termination of their illicit relationship, Weber pushed the AT&T employee out

2 the door. In other words, once the relationship was over, so too was the AT&T employee's job. 3 This was the environment at AT&T.

93. 4 AT&T was aware of Weber's relationship with the AT&T employee and the ways

5 in which the relationship adversely affected the office environment. Nevertheless, AT&T took no

6 steps to institute or enforce an office policy prohibiting such relationships or to ensure that

7 employees who refused to engage in such relationships were not mistreated. Indeed, as discussed

8 below, AT&T condoned and ratified romantic relationships between AT&T employees and high-

9 level executives on future occasions as well.

10 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

11 94. On April 26, 2015, King filed a timely complaint of discrimination against

12 Defendants with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") pursuant to the Fair

13 Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). King received an immediate right-to-sue letter from

14 DFEH on April 26, 2015. A true and correct copy of the DFEH right-to-sue letter is attached as

15 Exhibit D.

16

17

18

19 95.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Unlawful Discrimination on the Basis of Race in Violation of FEHA

(Against AT&T Services, Inc. and Does 1-10) King hereby repeats, realleges and incorporates each foregoing and subsequent

20 paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. and further alleges as follows:

21 96. As described hereinabove, the actions of Defendants constitute unlawful

22 discrimination on the basis of race against King. King is informed and believes, and based

23 thereon alleges, that in perpetuating the above-described conduct, Defendants and/or their

24 managers, agents or employees engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful discrimination on

25 account of race in violation of FEHA, including but not limited to California Government Code

26 section 12940(a).

27 97. During the course of King's employment, Defendants engaged in, condoned, or

28 ratified severe, pervasive and unlawful race discrimination by stripping King of job duties she had


previously performed; materially changing the conditions of her employment; refusing to promote

2 King to executive assistant and other positions , instead giving these jobs to younger, non-African 3 American employees who were more junior in education and experience to King; by giving King 4 unequal pay raises compared to her non-African American colleagues; and by encouraging King

5 voluntarily to take early retirement, all on the basis of race.

6 98. As a proximate result of Defendants ' unlawful conduct, King has suffered and

7 continues to sustain substantial losses in earning and other employment benefits. King has also

8 suffered and continues to suffer emotional, physical and mental injuries, and loss of reputation. 9 King's damages are in excess of $100 million, to be determined according to proof at trial.

10 99. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were malicious, willful, oppressive,

11 despicable, and in conscious disregard of King's rights and the resulting harm to her. King is

12 therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish AT&T-a multi-billion-

j 13 dollar company-and make an example of it. Vl Vl 1-U 0 z 0

~ <

t:Q ~ 1-U _, _,

14 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

15 Unlawful Harassment on the Basis of Race in Violation of FEHA

16 (Against AT&T Inc., AT&T Services, Inc., Stephenson, Roche, York, Slator, Smith, and 17 Does 1-10) 18 100. King hereby repeats, realleges and incorporates each foregoing and subsequent


20 101. As described hereinabove, the actions of Defendants constitute unlawful

21 harassment on the basis of race against King. This harassment created a hostile, intimidating and

22 oppressive work environment for King, whereby the conditions of her employment were adversely

23 affected. The race-based harassment was pervasive. King was repeatedly subjected to 24 discriminatory conduct on the basis of her race, including, but not limited to, being retaliated

25 against, mistreated and stripped of job duties after EA left AT&T, simply because King was the 26 same race as EA; being denied promotional opportunities that instead went to lesser-qualified,

27 non-African American candidates; and being denied equal pay to her non-African American .

28 colleagues. King also witnessed Slator's discriminatory treatment of EA on the basis of race, and


"-...J ...J

~ V) L.U 0 z 0

~ <

c:o ~ L.U ...J ...J

~

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

feared for her job because Slator did not like King simply because she was African American. Moreover, Defendants displayed favoritism to employees outside King's protected class and

discouraged African Americans from pursuing equal opportunity in the workplace.

102. As alleged herein, Defendants Stephenson, Roche, York, Slator and Smith each

participated in, assisted, or encouraged the harassing conduct described above.

103. The harassment by Defendants as described in this Complaint violated FEHA,

including but not limited to Government Code section 12940(j). 104. King complained about the harassment she suffered to her supervisor, Defendant

Smith and to Bob Reed, a member of AT&T's human resources department. King also

complained on several occasions about perceived racial discrimination to AT&T's outside EEO

Consultant, Davis, who (contrary to AT &T's promises of confidentiality) relayed King's complaints to AT&T. AT&T ratified the acts of Defendants Slator, Weber and York because it

did nothing to prevent further harassment by the individual Defendants, nor did it prevent their

retaliation and interference with King's career advancement.

105. AT&T knew or should have known of the conduct by Defendants Slator, Weber

and York described herein. In fact, AT&T human resource representatives, board members and

high-level executives (Defendants Roche, Stephenson and Stankey) were made aware of the severe and pervasive racism Slator perpetuated in the office, and yet AT&T took no steps to

remedy the harm that had already occurred or to prevent future harm. Instead, AT&T engaged in

a nefarious and deliberate cover-up in order to hide the racism that permeated AT&T' s Los

21 Angeles office.




26 107. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were malicious , willful , oppressive,


28 therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish AT&T-a multi-billion-


c.. ...J ...J

Vl Vl u.J 0 z 0 0::

"-...J ...J

vi Vl 1-U 0 z 0 0::

1 119. AT&T knew or should have known of the conduct by Defendants Slator and Y ark

2 described herein.

3 120. As a proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, King has suffered and





9 therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish AT &T-a multi-billion-

10 dollar company- and its high-level executives- who make millions per year- and make an

11 example of them.

12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION "- 13 _, _, Unlawful Harassment on the Basis of Sex in Violation of FEHA vi

14 Vl u.J (Against AT&T Services, Inc., Slator, Weber and Does 1-10) Cl z

15 0 0:::

122. King hereby repeats, realleges and incorporates each foregoing and subsequent

c:.. ....J ....J

V) V) u.J 0 z 0

131. As alleged herein , Defendants , and each of them, and/or their managers, agents and

2 employees knew or reasonably should have known that employees of Defendant AT&T,

3 individually and together in varying combinations, were engaging in the conduct set forth above.

4 132. FEHA prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for engaging in

5 a protected activity. Disclosure of and opposition to an employer's race and age discrimination is

6 a protected activity under FEHA, California Government Code section 12940(a). 7 133. King made complaints to AT&T's third-party EEO Consultant, Stephanie Davis ,

8 which were disclosed to AT&T, including that King was harassed and discriminated against on the

9 basis of race and age by Defendant Slator and that King received discriminatory pay raises as

10 compared to her non-African American colleagues. King made these same complaints to Ryan

11 Smith and to Bob Reed, AT&T's human resources representative.

12 134. In violation of FEHA, AT&T retaliated against King for complaining about the "- 13 -I -I

above discrimination and harassment, including by giving her negative performance reviews and v1

14 V) u.J lower annual pay raises than her non- African American colleagues. Defendant Slator treated C! z

15 0 0::

King with animosity following her complaint regarding unequal and unfair treatment. Even

1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 Aiding and Abetting FEHA Violations

3 (Against Defendants AT&T Inc., Roche, Stephenson, Stankey, and Does 1-10) 4 137. King hereby repeats , realleges and incorporates each foregoing and subsequent


6 138. As alleged herein , Defendant Slator discriminated against and harassed King and

7 other African American employees on the basis of race, in violation of FEHA, California

8 Government Code sections 12940(a) and 129400). 9 139. As alleged herein , Defendants AT&T Inc., Roche, Stephenson, and Stankey had

10 knowledge of Slator's discriminatory conduct and harassment and knew that such conduct

11 constituted a breach of the duties owed to AT&T's employees, including King. Defendants

12 AT&T Inc., Roche, Stephenson, Stankey further knew that Slator's conduct constituted a violation

13 ofFEHA.

14 140. Defendants AT&T Inc. , Roche, Stephenson, and Stankey knew that Slator would

15 continue to discriminate against and harass African American employees, including King.

16 Defendants AT&T Inc., Roche, Stephenson, and Stankey gave substantial assistance and

17 encouragement to Slator to violate King's rights under FEHA. As alleged herein, Defendants

18 AT&T Inc., Roche, Stephenson, and Stankey engaged in a widespread, illegal cover-up to hide

19 Slator' s racist conduct. These defendants used everything at their disposal to carry out this cover-

20 up, including, among other things: paying off EA for her silence; engaging the EEO Consultant

21 immediately after EA left to interview King and other employees about Slator's racism; making

22 sure that the racist images would not be revealed to the public; using AT&T's HR department to

23 do sham training and pulling King aside to interview her; and encouraging AT&T to find a way to

24 force King out of the company. By taking affirmative steps to whitewash Slator's discrimination

25 and harassment, Defendants AT&T Inc. , Roche, Stephenson, and Stankey substantially assisted

26 and encouraged Slator to continue such conduct in the future.

27 141. Defendants AT&T Inc. , Roche, Stephenson, and Stankey's aiding and abetting, as

28 described in this Complaint, violated FEHA, including but not limited to Government Code


1 section 12940(i).



4 suffered and continues to suffer emotional, physical and mental injuries, and loss of reputation. 5 King' s damages are in excess of $100 million, to be determined according to proof at trial.


7 despicable, and in conscious disregard of King' s rights and the resulting harm to her. King is

8 therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish AT&T- a multi-billion-

9 dollar company- and its high-level executives-who make millions per year-and make an

10 example of them.

11 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12 Failure to Take Reasonable Steps to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in "- 13 _, _, Violation of FEHA vi Vl 14 w (Against Defendants AT&T Services, Inc. and Does 1-10) 0 z

15 0 c

"-...J ...J

Vl Vl w Cl z 0 c::::

Vl Vl I.U

0 z 0 c::::

V") V") U-J

a z 0 0::

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff Knoyme King hereby demands a jury trial.

3

4 DATED: April 27,2015 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP

5

6 By: ------------------------------------

7 LOUIS R. MILLER Attorneys for Plaintiff Knoyme King

8

9

10

11

12 c.. 13 ...J ...J

~ V) 14 U-1 0 z 0 15

~ <

c:o 16 ~ U-1 ...J ...J 17 ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


EXHIBIT A

No Service~ 2:49PM

(Back 2 of 2

--- -- --

-

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBITC

No Service~ 2:52PM

( Back (3)

They say Corp Dev is AT& Ts brats!

I heard about V quitting last week- I'm like wow, oh well better for you!

I won't say anything

u 100% t

Contact

Read 7/25/13

Send

No Service~ 2:36PM

Well yay on getting them here :) I can totally do it next week?? Let me know

iMessage Thu, Sep 26, 1:09 PM

I heard Lori Lee give you a shout out!!

I was thinking of you! Ha, I came into the office and was like I wonder how my Nugget is doing?

Send

No Service~ 2:36PM o ~ 100% t

( Back (5)

I was thinking of you! Ha, I came into the office and was like I wonder how my Nugg:et is doing?

Sun, Sep 29, 11 :03 AM

Sorry to bother you on the weekend please apologize to the girls for me. lts not working out for me living~ here, I am thinking I may be moving soon :(

Contact

Want to talk in a bit?

I can t :( but maybe tomorrow?

Send

No Service~ 2:36PM o ~ 100% t

( Back (5) Contact

I can't :( but maybe tomorrow?

Just dude

Job is good

So, you want to go back to Dallas?

No just move I'm no quitter

Send

No Service~ 2:48PM o 100% t

( Back (3) Contact

so I' calhn yseJ e doc or'' no

BVIG

Classic.

Send

No Service ~ 2:51PM

( Back (3)

Okie see you

Tue, Jun 4, 9:14AM

Congrats!!!!

I'll have my buddy close!!!

And my Sophie

Oh sorry it's Susie got my number changed

Tue, Jun 4, 6:13 PM

Ugh duh!!!!

o 100 % t

Contact

Send

No Service~ 2:51PM

( Back (3)

Tue, Jun 4, 6:13 PM

Ugh duh!l!!

Ok

Wed, Jun 5, 11:31 AM

Let me know when you land

Wed, Jun 5, 12:44 PM

You have plans tomorrow Qi_g ht?_Qodg_er _ _9?Jl1 f}_?

Contact

Send

No Service~ 2:52PM

( Back (3) Thu, Jul 25, 11 :54 AM

Hi Aaron, just saying hello! Hope all is well are your girls here yet?

Contact

Read 7/25/13

Send

EXHIBITD

SIAJE.OE..CALIE.OHliiiAJJlusioess. Consumer Ser.vices.andJ:lousina.Aaency

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING 2218 Kausen Drive. Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758 800-884-1684 I TDD 800-700-2320 www.dfeh.ca.gov I email: contact [email protected]

April 26, 20 I 5

Amnon Siegel 1999 A venue Of The Stars Los Angeles California 90067

RE: Notice to Complainant or Complainant's Attorney DFEH Matter Number: 540184-156645 Right to Sue: King I A TandT Services Inc.

Dear Complainant or Complainant's Attorney:

GD.\lEHliiDB-EDMUliiD_G.JlElOWN,JH.

DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH

Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue. Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these documents on the employer. You or your attorney must serve the complaint. If you do not have an attorney, you must serve the complaint yourself. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California.

Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it meets procedural or statutory requirements.

Sincerely,

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758 800-884-1684 I TDD 800-700-2320 www.dfeh.ca.gov I email: [email protected]

April 26, 2015

RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint DFEH Matter Number: 540184-156645 Right to Sue: King I A TandT Services Inc.

To All Respondent(s):

DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH

Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.

Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact information.

No response to DFEH is requested or required.

Sincerely,


SIAIE.OE CALIEOONIAJJlusiness. Consumer..Sentices_andJ:jousina.Aaency DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING 2218 Kausen Drive. Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758 800-884-1684 I TDD 800-700-2320 www.dfeh.ca.gov I email : [email protected]

April 26, 2015

Knoyme King 1817 N. Evergreen St. Burbank California 91505

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 540184-156645 Right to Sue: King I A TandT Services Inc.

Dear Knoyme King,

GQEilliOREDMUND.G.JlRQIAIN_JR_

DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH

This Jetter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective April 26, 2015 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint.

This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this Jetter.

To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must visit the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier.

Sincerely,


DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HoUSING 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758 800-884-1684 I TOO 800-700-2320 www.dfeh.ca.gov I email : [email protected]

Enclosures

cc: A TandT Inc.

A TandT Inc. Randall Stephenson

A TandT Inc. Joyce Roche

ATandT Inc. John Stankey

A TandT Services, Inc. Aaron Slator

A TandT Services, Inc. Ryan Smith

Daniel York

Jeff Weber

GQ'LEHNORQMllliQGJlR~JH_

DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

H9021

COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act

(Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.)

In the Matter of the Complaint of Knoyme King, Complainant. 1817 N. Evergreen St. Burbank California 91505

vs.

A TandT Services Inc. Respondent. 1880 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067

Complainant all eges:

DFEH No. 540184-156645

I. Respondent ATandT Services Inc. is a Private Employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.) . Complainant believes respondent is subject to the FEHA.

2. On or around April17, 2015, complainant alleges that respondent took the following adverse actions against complainant: Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation Denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, Denied equal pay, Denied promotion, Other, Stripped of job duties. Complainant believes respondent committed these actions because of their: Age- 40 and over, Association with a member of a protected class, Color, Engagement in Protected Activity, Race, Sex- Gender .

3. Complainant Knoyme King resides in the City of Burbank, State of California. If complaint includes co-respondents please see below.

-5-Complaint- DFEH No. 540184-156645

Date Filed : April 26, 2015

2 Co-Respondents: ATandT Inc. 3 208 S. Akard St.

Dallas Texas 75202 4

ATandT Inc. 5 Randall Stephenson

208 S. Akard St.

6 Dallas Texas 75202

7 ATandT Inc. Joyce Roche 208 S. Akard St.

8 Dallas Texas 75202

9 ATandT Inc. John Stankey

10 208 S. Akard Dall as Texas 75202

I I ATandT Services, Inc . 12 Aaron Slator 1880 Century Park East

13 Los Angeles California 90067

ATandT Services, Inc. 14 Ryan Smith

1880 Century Park East

15 Los Angeles California 90067

16 Daniel York 17 2330 East Imperial Hwy El Segundo California 90245

18 Jeff Weber

19 9665 Wi lshire Blvd ., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills California 90212

20

21

22

-6-Complaint-DFEH No. 540184-156645

Date Fi led: April 26, 2015

H902 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Additional Complaint Details:

While employed by ATandT Services, Inc., Plaintiff Knoyme King was denied a workplace free from discrimination and harassment, denied equal pay, denied promotions, and stripped of job duties due to her race, age and sex. King was given lower raises than similarly situated white employees, was denied promotions that instead went to lesser-qualified, younger, white employees who were engaged in romantic relationships with the person making hiring decisions, and was stripped of job duties because of her race and because of her association with other African American employees. The statements and conduct of Kings superiors (including Defendants Slator, Weber and York) constitute direct evidence of discrimination in violation of FEHA. Among other things, Defendant York told King that it was "too late" for King to go any further at ATandT, Defendant Weber treated King less favorably than employees with whom he was engaged in sexual relationships, and Defendant Slator told King she was "too old" to succeed at ATandT, pushed another African American employee out of the company, and transmitted racist images from his company-issued cell phone, which King and other African American employees were given access to , and Defendant Smith perpetuated Defendant Slators discriminatory attitude and conduct, among other discriminatory acts. Defendants also retaliated against King when she complained of perceived FEHA violations, including discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, age and sex. Defendants ATandT Inc. , Roche, Stephenson and Stankey aided and abetted Defendant Slators FEHA violations. These Defendants knew that Slator had engaged in the above-described discriminatory and harassing conduct and had seen or knew of the racist images on Slators company phone. Defendants ATandT Inc., Roche, Stephenson and Stankey gave substantial assistance and encouragement to Slator by engaging in a widespread, illegal cover-up to hide Slators racist conduct. Defendant ATandT Services, Inc. failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA, including by failing to take appropriate steps to train its employees and supervisors, by failing to enforce anti-discrimination and harassment policies, failing to investigate complaints of harassment and discrimination, and failing to take prompt and appropriate disciplinary action, including against Defendants York, Slator, and Weber.

-7-Complaint- DFEH No. 540184- /56645

Date Fi led : Apri l 26, 20 15

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

H 9021

VERIFICATION

I, Amnon Siegel , am the Attorney for Complainant in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters , I believe it to be true.

On April 26, 2015, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

-8-Complaint- DFEH No. 540184-156645

Date Filed: April 26,2015

Los Angeles, CA Amnon Siegel

king-v-att

Documents

slator slator

ill vl u

slator exposed king

demenor slator

ranking att executiveslator

president of att

j vl vl u

defendant aaron slator