Superior Court of the State of California County of San Francisco

Plaintiff Jessica Lee hereby alleges as follows against Michael Wilkins, Louis Corrigan, Kelly Mazzucco, and Kingsford Capital Management, LLC:

INTRODUCTION

1. For six years, Plaintiff Jessica Lee’s (“Lee” or “Plaintiff”) employer, Kingsford Capital Management, LLC (“Kingsford” or “Defendant”) regularly subjected her to a shocking and continuous pattern of sexual and racial harassment, a pervasive hostile work environment, and retaliation. Kingsford’s own leadership, including but not limited to Managing Partner Michael Wilkins, Managing Partner Louis Corrigan, and Chief Financial Officer Kelly Mazzucco, actively participated in and perpetuated a toxic culture of harassment and on a nearly daily basis targeted Lee – a financial analyst for the short-selling hedge fund – based on her sex and race.

2. Kingsford also repeatedly pressured Lee to participate in its rampant and abusive forms of short selling that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has banned. Such illegal actions include bear raiding, stock bashing, obtaining inside information, ghostwriting articles, and communicating under false pretenses.

3. Finally, after years of misclassifying and underpaying Lee as an independent contractor, Kingsford transitioned Lee to a salaried position. Yet, Kingsford paid her far less than her white, male peers, continued to subject her to a hostile work environment, and pressured her to violate securities laws.

4. Kingsford knew or should have known about the extensive, longstanding maltreatment and exploitation of Lee. Yet, Kingsford, and in particular Michael Wilkins, Louis Corrigan, and Kelly Mazzucco, took no meaningful steps to put a stop to or even address their own egregious behavior.

5. When Lee complained to Managing Partner Wilkins about Kingsford’s multiple violations of the law, he dared her to sue and/or report him. On at least one occasion, Wilkins told Lee that “lawsuits are a sport for rich people.” Wilkins also often said that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is “full of dumb goons.”

6. Lee was consistently praised for her quality work. Yet, when Lee complained about Kingsford’s harassment, discrimination, and illegal actions, she was terminated.

PARTIES

7. Lee is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that defendant Michael Wilkins (“Wilkins”) is a person subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12900 et seq. (“FEHA”) and Labor Code sections 1050 and 1102.5 in that Wilkins is a natural person. Wilkins, Managing Partner at Kingsford, was Lee’s supervisor and/or manager at all relevant times for purposes of this Complaint.

8. Lee is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that defendant Louis Corrigan (“Corrigan”) is a person subject to suit under FEHA and Labor Code sections 1050 and 1102.5 in that Corrigan is a natural person. Corrigan, former Managing Partner at Kingsford, was Lee’s supervisor and/or manager at all relevant times for purposes of this Complaint.

9. Lee is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that defendant Kelly Mazzucco (“Mazzucco”) is a person subject to suit under Labor Code sections 1050 and 1102.5 in that Mazzucco is a natural person. Mazzucco, former Chief Financial Officer at Kingsford, was Lee’s supervisor and/or manager at all relevant times for purposes of this Complaint. Upon information and belief, Mazzucco is a resident of San Francisco, California.

10. Kingsford, located in Point Richmond, California, is a “short-only” hedge fund, which pursues a short-selling investment strategy for its clients. Kingsford short-sells equity and equity-related securities that are publicly traded in the United States markets that Kingsford believes are overvalued. Kingsford makes profits based on its belief that a security’s price will decline. Upon information and belief, in 2017, Kingsford had at least $173,000,000 of regulatory assets under its management.

11. Lee is informed and believes that Kingsford is a corporation formed under the laws of California, that it regularly employs five or more persons within the state, and that it is generally subject to suit under FEHA and California Labor Code sections 1050 and 1102.5.

12. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Lee. Lee therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Lee further alleges that each of said fictitious defendants is in some manner responsible for the acts and occurrences herein set forth. Lee will amend this Complaint to show these defendants’ true names and capacities when they are ascertained, as well as the specific manner in which each fictitious defendant is responsible.

13. Lee is an Asian-American adult woman and resident of San Francisco, California. Lee dedicated herself to Kingsford from 2009 to 2015, successfully working as a financial analyst.

VENUE

14. Venue is proper because San Francisco County is a county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, pursuant to, inter alia, Government Code section 12965. 15. The venue provisions set forth in Government Code section 12965 are applicable both to Lee’s causes of action for violations of the Fair Employment Housing Act, and all non- FEHA causes of action concurrently pled herein. 16. Venue is further proper in San Francisco County as to all other causes of action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17. On or about May 26, 2016, Lee submitted an inquiry with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). On or about November 21, 2016, Lee submitted and the DFEH received a complaint and right-to-sue request form. Lee filed her complaint against Kingsford and Managing Partners Michael Wilkins and Louis Corrigan for harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. On December 9, 2016, the DFEH sent Lee a Right to Sue Letter. (Exhibit A).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

18. In 2009, Plaintiff Jessica Lee came to work for Kingsford Capital Management, LLC with a wealth of knowledge, financial acumen, and passion for the investment world. Lee graduated from the University of Minnesota in 2005 with a B.A. in Cognitive and Biological Psychology and a minor in Biology. Lee is also fluent in English, Mandarin and Cantonese, as well as traditional and simplified Chinese text. These skills made Lee an asset to Kingsford.

19. From 2009 to 2013, Chinese stocks constituted the majority of Kingsford’s portfolio; thereafter, the portfolio shifted to healthcare stocks. Lee was the only employee at Kingsford with Chinese language skills and a science background. Lee provided critical skills on many of Kingsford’s key investments. Lee’s assigned stocks in the biotech and healthcare sector required her to perform due diligence in both the United States and China and long hours of research to understand complex issues. As a result, Lee became an indispensable part of Kingsford’s workforce.

20. Lee was one of five investment professionals tasked to manage two hundred stocks.

21. During her career at Kingsford, Lee was an analyst working both a full day in the office and from home in the evenings writing reports and managing consultants in China. Because of Lee’s talent, Kingsford consistently gave Lee comparable work to the salaried Equity Analysts. Despite her dedication and high-quality work, Kingsford paid Lee hourly with no overtime or the rest periods that were legally required.

22. Kingsford’s salaried employees received paid time off, full healthcare benefits, and annual retirement contributions of $20,000 to $50,000. Lee repeatedly asked to be transitioned to a salaried employee as others had been. Kingsford instead continued to willfully misclassify her as an independent contractor and told her they would transition her to a salaried employee as soon as they could afford it. Lee’s pay was only fifteen (15) percent of that of the male analysts.

23. At the time Kingsford “could not afford” to transition Lee to a salaried position, it managed over one billion dollars. Company holiday parties were weekend affairs that included private jets to resorts, penthouse suites, and carved ice sculptures of the owners’ faces.

24. On or about February 4, 2015, Lee was finally offered a full-time salaried position as Equity Analyst. Lee soon realized Kingsford still paid her far less than her white, male peers. Lee pleaded with Kingsford’s management to pay her more and was either ignored or told that all that mattered were bonuses, and she would receive a large one at the end of the year.

25. During Lee’s employment at Kingsford, Lee was the victim of repeated sexual and racial harassment and a sexually and racially hostile work environment. Lee was also subjected to unlawful retaliation as a consequence of her complaints regarding the same. Further, Lee was the victim of whistleblower retaliation as a consequence of her complaints concerning Kingsford’s unlawful trading practices and other fraudulent activities.

26. As Lee’s complaints regarding the above increased in number and intensity, Kingsford had enough. Kingsford callously terminated Lee on November 27, 2015, just two weeks before year-end bonuses were paid. As Lee Tried to Advance her Career, Kingsford Subjected Her to Its Racist, Male Dominated, and Hypersexualized Culture

27. Throughout her six-year employment at Kingsford, Lee, an Asian-American, was the lone racial minority and woman on the investment team. The other two analysts are white males. The only other racial minorities at Kingsford’s offices worked in subordinate roles.

28. During Lee’s employment, the only female executive in the company was Chief Financial Officer Kelly Mazzucco (“Mazzucco”). Mazzuco made demeaning comments. For example, on a daily basis, Mazzucco made racist remarks about Ms. Brown and other African- Americans, e.g.: “Elizabeth is fat and lazy;” “They’re all like that;” “They’re all looking for handouts.” Mazzucco also, on an almost daily basis, directed racist remarks to Lee, including: “Asians are nerdy;” “Asians are nerds, they have no life;” “Asians are all so skinny. How much do you weigh?” When complaining about her nanny and housekeeper, Mazzucco told Lee: “I don’t want my children to be exposed to Asians or Mexicans because they don’t speak English well and they smell bad. No offense to you.” Lee was offended.

29. Lee later learned from her Kingsford colleagues that the firm had a culture that permitted this kind of racism. Kingsford fostered this behavior long before Lee joined the firm. For example, a colleague told Lee of one particularly offensive incident from the 2008 presidential election. Wilkins openly and loudly boasted his forecast: “America will never allow a black man to be elected as president!”

30. On numerous occasions, Lee was instructed to drive Mazzucco to and from work, and more than an hour out of her way to deliver Mazzucco to her personal cosmetic procedures and her children’s sports events. Mazzucco reprimanded Lee to “drive faster” and made remarks when other drivers honked, such as: “He’s probably thinking, look at that bad Asian driver!” Back in the office, Mazzucco seemingly relished telling Lee’s colleagues: “She’s a bad Asian driver!”

31. Top management at Kingsford not only failed to condemn the pervasive sexual and racial harassment directed toward Lee, they were active participants in creating a sexually and racially hostile work environment.

32. On an approximately weekly basis, Managing Partner Michael (“Mike”) Wilkins (“Wilkins”) made racist remarks about Chinese people in Lee’s presence, e.g.: “They’re not to be trusted;” “Chinese people are liars;” “They’re so gullible;” “Chinese people are ignorant;” “They’re so superstitious;” and “They don’t have any class.”

33. On repeated occasions, Managing Partner Louis Corrigan (“Corrigan”) also made derogatory racist remarks about Asians to Lee. Such comments included, “Wing, Wong. Ching, Chong. Two Wongs don’t make a right;” “Asians will eat anything . . . dogs, rats, antlers, snakes;” “China is gross;” “Chinese people are liars and cheaters;” and “Chinese people are stupid for believing in Chinese traditional medicine, roots, berries, stupid potions.”

34. On or around July 2015, while discussing the stock “FRAN,” a women’s apparel company with Corrigan in his office, Lee brought up the female staff’s favorable opinion of its products. Corrigan exclaimed, “Dot and Lisa are huge! If they like the store, the company’s in serious trouble. You’re the target market because of your slim Asian figure.”

Lee Was Forced to Endure Weekly Research Meetings, Where Wilkins and Corrigan Led Highly Inappropriate and Lewd Conversations

35. Throughout Lee’s employment, Wilkins directed Lee to translate articles and find out more information regarding sex stories in the Chinese media. On many occasions, Wilkins told Lee to research Chinese stories about brothels, crackdowns on porn, and government officials and their mistresses.

36. Wilkins discussed sex with Asian women and sex stories in the Chinese media. Wilkins referenced the demise of Bo Xilai’s son, whose Ferrari crashed while he played a sex game with two women. Wilkins referred to the two women killed in the accident as “cheap gold diggers.” At a research meeting, Wilkins brought up the sexual harassment case in New York against Chinese investor Benjamin Wei, referenced its lurid sexual details, and made comments such as: “She’s hot [referring to the sexual harassment victim];” and “It’s good to be a rich man!” Referencing another sexual harassment case in New York, Wilkins remarked: “She’s not hot, nobody would rape her;” and “She’s making it up.” All of these disgusting comments offended Lee and made her extremely uncomfortable.

37. On or about December 14, 2014, during the course of a meeting with Managing Partners Wilkins and Corrigan, two Equity Analysts, and Dan Yu, Lee’s male supervisors discussed K-Y Jelly, masturbation, pedophilia, and rape, and made various lewd hand gestures simulating male masturbation. During that meeting, Wilkins commented that he had “a hard on” for a certain stock. Lee felt acutely self-conscious and embarrassed, particularly as the only woman in that meeting.

38. In or around June 2015, while discussing the stock “DATE” (an online dating company in China), Wilkins turned the discussion to prostitution and the relative merits of dating Asian women. On another occasion in or around June 2015 when discussing the stocks “YY,” “YOKU,” “GAME,” and “GOMO” (all Chinese Internet companies), Wilkins incongruously turned the discussion to “poor desperate Chinese women who are willing to do anything.” Wilkins then instructed Lee: “Send me some links showing hot Asians!” The men in the meeting guffawed at Wilkins’ demand.

39. At a research meeting in approximately August 2015, when discussing the stock “NHTC” (a multi-level marketing company that promotes numerous products, one of which is a female lubricant), Corrigan instructed Lee: “Use it and let me know if it enhances arousal and pleasure.” Lee attempted to redirect the conversation by discussing other products promoted by the company, to no avail. After that meeting, Corrigan called Lee in her office and asked if she ordered the female lubricant. At the next research meeting, Corrigan asked Lee if she had used the female lubricant yet. Lee was mortified.

40. In or around September 2015, when discussing the stock “MP” (an online platform for booking yoga classes), Corrigan remarked suggestively: “They should have this for Asian massage parlors. You need to have reviews because different workers do different things and you need to know about the quality of the services.” He then laughed: “Then the company could talk about the horizontals instead of just the verticals.” While a couple of Lee’s male peers looked uncomfortable, nothing was said: Corrigan, after all, was the boss.

Kingsford Subjected Lee to Sexual Harassment and a Sexually Hostile Work Environment That Extended Beyond the Weekly Research Meetings

41. The above-mentioned sexually inappropriate discussions were not confined to Kingsford’s weekly research meetings. Indeed, throughout her employment, Wilkins repeatedly used any flimsy excuse to discuss the topic of sex with Asian women around Lee. Wilkins repeatedly told Lee: “Asian women are cheap;” “Asian women are easily replaceable;” and “Asian women are interchangeable.”

42. In approximately July 2013, during the Kingsford Batting Practice at AT&T Stadium, an annual company event, Corrigan approached Lee and her then boyfriend and asked: “Does she like it hard and ask for more?” Lee was humiliated and upset.

43. On several occasions, Wilkins chose to attend conferences that featured strip shows with Asian women and pool parties with female escorts. Following the conferences, back at the office, Wilkins and Equity Analyst Brian Harris lewdly and loudly discussed the women employed at those conferences. For instance, at an annual investment conference in Las Vegas, they were served by scantily clad young women bearing stock symbol tattoos; at an annual investment conference in Dana Point, young Asian women clad in tiny shorts and tops served them drinks during company presentations.

Kingsford’s Supervisors Relentlessly Harassed Lee Based on Her Sex

44. Until his departure in or around January 2012, Lee’s supervisor, Portfolio Manager Joe Voboril, subjected her to similarly inappropriate behavior. Approximately weekly, when Voboril summoned Lee to his office to discuss stocks, he also showed her photos of women and asked her to judge whether they had “fake or real boobs.” Voboril repeatedly queried: “Would you make out with her?;” and “Which one do you like best?” Lee,uncomfortable and unsure how to respond to her supervisor, did her best to redirect their discussion to stocks.

45. Voboril’s desktop wallpaper displayed a photograph of his wife in a bikini. On multiple occasions, Lee discovered Voboril staring at pornographic shots of naked women.

46. Throughout the time they worked together, Voboril boasted to Lee that he organized bachelor parties for men he didn’t even know because he had built a reputation for knowing how to host. He repeatedly informed her: “I like to hire girls in Vegas because the supply is so high and they’re desperate.” Voboril admitted he enjoyed the work because he could set up games where women competed for $20 in wet t-shirt contests, stating that he can put a pile of money on the floor and watch them scramble for it. He also bragged that he can set up tryouts where women are judged on how fun they are and how good their breasts and buttocks look. Voboril boasted there are separate categories for “real” and “fake boobs.” Voboril also stated he does not actually have to pay them because it’s an interview.

47. Voboril also repeatedly summoned Lee to his office, ostensibly to work, and instead asked her to help him pick strippers and sex workers from the responses he received to his Craigslist job posts.

48. On an approximately weekly basis, Voboril stretched his arm around Lee’s back after he asked her to look at something on his computer screen. In addition, on multiple occasions, Voboril approached Lee from behind in the kitchen and reached around her, purposefully leaning in and touching her backside. Lee always sidled away, intensely uncomfortable. Voboril also cornered Lee in the corridor outside the men’s bathroom and leaned forward as if to kiss her. Lee pivoted away immediately.

49. In approximately late May 2011, Voboril told Lee; “You should apply to be a girl at the bachelor party I’m hosting in Napa on June 4th.” Lee declined.

50. On or about May 17, 2011, Voboril invited Lee to work at another bachelor party he was hosting in Napa, stating: “We’re looking for hot girls to hang out, sit in the hot tub, and serve us drinks.” He added: “You’re only making $23 an hour here, you make a lot more in just one day!” Lee declined.

51. On May 20, 2011, Voboril pressed Lee: “nothing good coming in for pool girl search. You have any really hot friends?” When Lee responded: “Ha, I wish. All of my friends are older than 25,” Voboril suggested: “like 28, or 45?”

52. On June 3, 2011, Voboril emailed Lee: Currently trying to weigh two options. I have strippers coming, but the dudes think they’re just “temps that work at my office.” The girls are going to pretend to get really horny and then will start making out with each other. And then they will go into a room and tell the guys it’s actually strippers, and when they come they’ll do their show. A nice little twist. Also I could have 2-3 pretty decent looking chicks (hotter than strippers) come and be bartenders and just hang out in their swimsuits and go in and out of the hot tub, and stuff like that.

53. On June 7, 2011, Voboril emailed Lee about a bachelor party he organized the previous weekend: “had you been with us this weekend, there would have been major pressure for topless hot tubbing.” On June 8, 2011, he added: “it would have been a no then? It was really quite a party.” Lee responded evasively and in an effort to redirect the conversation: “I’m pretty shy.”

54. In approximately Fall 2011, Voboril told Lee he wanted to email her from the personal account he used under a false identity, “Joe Langer,” and asked for her own personal email under a pseudonym. This made Lee uncomfortable but she felt she could not reject Voboril’s request. After learning Lee’s alter ego was Asian (“Jess Ng”), Voboril emailed her as Joe Langer on October 7, 2011 at 1:04 p.m.: “Is that an Asian stereotype? That they’re good at keeping secrets? Important to know if we’re gonna have a secret relationship.” Lee did not respond to his overture. At 1:21 p.m., Voboril emailed further: “I made up the account to plan [a] bachelor party and hire strippers and things like that. So is this the start of our secret relationship then?” When Lee was again non-responsive to his overture, Voboril emailed at 3:30 p.m.: “You keep dodging my question about a secret affair.” Lee responded by referencing his marriage.

55. On October 18, 2011 at 9:41 a.m., following Lee’s return from a family wedding in rural Minnesota, Voboril emailed asking for “at least one scandalous story.” Lee proffered that for $24, the groom removed his shirt during a dollar dance. At 12:20 p.m., Voboril emailed: “What kind of show could I get for $30.” At 12:41 p.m. he added: “or even 47 dollar bills.” At 1:03 p.m. he emailed: “no response?” At 3:21 p.m., Lee responded: “depends on the talent right?” Two minutes later, Voboril wrote: “aren’t we talking about you? …I would rate your talent level high….Boring response by the way.”

56. On October 25, 2011, under the subject line “opinion,” Voboril emailed Lee a link containing a classified ad from Redbook entitled “Garden Of The Goddess” and the message: “need opinion for dancer for bachelor party (helping a buddy find a person). What do you think of this person? careful when opening.” On other occasions, Voboril emailed Lee photos of scantily-clad women (e.g., a revealing Maxim photo of a model wearing only a necklace, with the caption: “If there’s forty things we love here, well one of them is definitely super hot Eurasian swimsuit models, including Jessica …possessor of just one ridiculously hot bikini body,” and other photos of bikini-clad women he purportedly knew.)

57. In approximately January 2012, Voboril made sexual advances toward Lee. On multiple occasions when she was in his office to discuss stocks, Voboril asked Lee if she was in an “open relationship” with her boyfriend and told her: “I’ve had sex with women of every race except Chinese.”

58. Lee was forced to walk a difficult tightrope: she had to get along with her boss and be a part of the boy’s club without compromising herself on the one hand or incurring her employer’s animosity on the other. Indeed, even though Voboril recognized his conduct as inappropriate – and even apologized and promised to stop sending emails since “all this banter might make you uncomfortable” – he persisted.

59. In approximately May 2015, Joe Peta joined Kingsford as Director of Marketing/Trading. In approximately June 2015, Lee attended a Kingsford Batting Practice event at AT&T Stadium. As she networked with former Kingsford Portfolio Manager Cory Johnson, Peta looked Lee up and down. Peta turned the conversation from stocks to strippers while Lee was present. Lee was embarrassed and walked away.

60. Almost immediately after his hiring, Peta commenced ogling Lee lecherously at work. Lee felt so uncomfortable that she switched her work attire from occasional skirts and heels to exclusively pants, flats, and big scarves.

Wilkins Directs Lee to Work Closely with Manuel Asensio, Who Repeatedly Harassed Lee With Kingsford’s Knowledge

61. From approximately June 2009 through 2014, Wilkins directed Lee to work closely on several stocks with Manuel Asensio, the Founder, Chairman and President of Asensio & Company, Inc. Asensio is a money manager and financier based in New York. Asensio and his firm were fined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for short-selling, trade reporting, and internet advertising violations. In 2006, the National Adjudicatory Council of the NASD (which is now the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or “FINRA”) barred Asensio “from association with any NASD member in any capacity” and fined him. Asensio worked in Kingsford’s offices several times per year between 2009 to 2014 and provided Lee with most of her assignments. When Lee asked Wilkins whether Asensio is her boss or if she should report to others, Wilkins stated bluntly: “Manuel’s at the top.” Wilkins made it clear to Lee that she needed to foster this relationship in order to succeed at Kingsford.

62. Asensio immediately commenced sexually harassing Lee. From 2009 to 2014, Asensio would stare at Lee in a lewd, lascivious and predatory manner every time she worked for him. Asensio routinely ogled Lee up and down her body and whistled at her when he saw her approaching. Lee, who is 30 years younger than Asensio and was in a committed relationship at the time, was distressed by Asensio’s outrageous and constant behavior.

63. From 2009 to 2014, Asensio made remarks to Lee about her appearance and her sex life, such as: “You have such a tight body;” “What do you do to stay in shape?;” “Have you only been with white men?;” “White men don’t know what they’re doing in bed;” and “Only Cuban men know how to give a woman pleasure.”

64. In or around summer 2010, Asensio asked Lee for assistance with his printer. Specifically, Asensio asked that Lee plug a cord in under his desk. When she did so, Asensio leered and said, “Ooh, you should stay down there.” Even though Lisa Littrell, the ExecutiveAssistant/Office Manager responsible for Kingsford’s Human Resources, witnessed this, she failed to stop it. She later told Lee: “Sorry you have to deal with that. He’s Cuban, it’s just his culture.”

65. Throughout 2010, Asensio repeatedly called Lee at the office and on her cell phone as late as 10:00 PM, pestering her about her boyfriend: “Are you serious with this guy?,” and “I think you should leave him.” Lee responded she was serious with her boyfriend and she would not leave him. When she did not answer her phone, Asensio emailed and texted her. Asensio’s unsolicited advances were so flagrant that Managing Partner Corrigan repeatedly teased Lee about it in the office, advising: “You should tell Manuel you’re only into bald guys,” and alternatively, “You should be Manuel’s fourth wife.”

66. Lee complained to Wilkins that Asensio was repeatedly calling her. Wilkins nonchalantly dismissed Lee’s complaint: “Yes, that’s just Manuel. He’s off. He never sleeps.”

67. Asensio’s sexual overtures were physical as well. At the Kingsford Batting Practice company event on or about July 7, 2010, Asensio greeted Lee with a kiss and hug and grabbed and groped her buttocks. Lee abruptly moved away. Asensio then approached Lee from behind and caressed her waist. Lee again pulled away. Later that evening, Wilkins’ wife Sheila exclaimed: “Manuel is hot for you! You are so his type.” Lee politely expressed her disinterest.

68. Later in the summer of 2010, Lee informed Wilkins she was uncomfortable meeting Asensio outside the office because he repeatedly called her and made passes at her. Wilkins again dismissed Lee’s concerns and told Lee she had to work closely with him.

69. In approximately January 2014, Lee was instructed to reach out and meet with Asensio in New York City while she was there for a wedding. At Asensio’s suggestion, Lee agreed to meet with him at his “office” on January 24 at 4:30 PM, after market close. Asensio pushed the meeting to later that evening. When Lee arrived, she discovered the address she was provided was Asensio’s home. Asensio answered the door in fuzzy slippers, pajamas, and a drink in hand. Alone in the home together, Asensio gave Lee a tour of his Manhattan penthouse. Asensio confided in Lee about his divorce, offered her wine, and cornered her in his wine cellar. Lee maneuvered out of his grasp and into the hallway. Asensio called after her and insisted theyneeded to discuss work at a nearby restaurant. Incredibly uncomfortable and wanting to be anywhere but in Asensio’s house, but also realizing the gravity of maintaining her professional relationship with Asensio, Lee agreed.

70. During dinner, Asensio sat uncomfortably close to Lee. Asensio pressed his leg against hers, touched her thigh, and stroked her back. At the end of the meal, Asensio grabbed Lee, hugged her and stroked her back. Lee, at her breaking point of discomfort, pulled away and left abruptly, claiming she had friends waiting. The following morning at 6:55 AM, Asensio emailed Lee: Good morning. I hope you enjoy (sic) the rest of your evening. It was wonder to see you; 30 is a great age for a woman and you are a very thoughtful intelligent young lady! I am SURE you will find your passion!

71. Lee did not respond to Asensio’s email. Asensio subsequently texted Lee that morning to invite her to yoga. Lee did not respond.

72. On March 3, 2014, Asensio emailed: “How are you Jessica?” When Lee responded in a friendly but professional manner, i.e., “I’ve got a heavy work load but I’m doing alright I think,” Asensio responded in pertinent part: “[I]t’s nice to hear from you I was saddened that we did not see each other again and I remember having tried to reach you but I don’t remember ever getting a response.” Thereafter, Asensio ceased sending Lee projects.

73. On September 15, 2014, Lee emailed Asensio requesting work. Asensio responded dismissively: “Good Morning. Yes. Please speak to Mike.” When she did so, Wilkins insisted Lee speak to Asensio. Lee did not receive further assignments with or communications from Asensio.

Lee Complained to Human Resources and Her Supervisors

74. Lee’s supervisors and coworkers observed daily the pervasive hostile work environment or were witnesses to specific instances of Lee being subject to sexual harassment. Yet, no one did anything. Still, Lee made her voice heard and complained, as described above and below.

75. During her employment, Lee repeatedly complained to Wilkins and Human Resources concerning the ongoing and virulent sexual and racial harassment she experienced at Kingsford. Her complaints were ignored.

76. On December 14, 2014, following yet another graphic and sexually lewd research meeting as set forth above, Lee emailed Lisa Littrell, the Executive Assistant/Office Manager responsible for Human Resources, complaining about sexually inappropriate comments at the meeting. Littrell did not respond.

77. On or about January 27, 2015, Lee invited Littrell to sit in on a research meeting so she could witness the hostile work environment first-hand. Littrell refused.

78. On July 1, 2015 at 6:11 a.m., Director of Marketing Joe Peta emailed the investment team, including Wilkins and CAEO Brian Cooney: “More stock traders than Communists in China? That’s like telling me there’s more priests than strippers in Vegas.” Peta was yet another male who adopted Kingsford’s sexist culture. Peta was quickly promoted and paid, seemingly based on his ability to entertain Wilkins and laugh at Wilkins’ inappropriate jokes. Lee forwarded the email exchange to HR. Once again, Littrell was non-responsive.

Kingsford Engaged in Illegal Manipulation of Stock Prices and Lee Refused to Participate

79. Throughout her employment, Lee believed that, Kingsford illegally manipulated stock prices through aggressive forms of short-selling that are banned by the SEC. For example, Wilkins directed Lee to cultivate sexual relationships with industry experts in order to improperly and illegally obtain insider information about companies (i.e., by acting under false pretenses or blatantly asking them for inside information), plant false negative information about companies, and get a “quick buck” by forcing companies’ stocks to plummet. Lee refused on multiple occasions.

80. In January 2015, CFO Mazzucco pressured Lee to sign a code of ethics form in anticipation of an audit. The code of ethics was used to make sure Kingsford was in compliance with SEC laws and, in particular, to show Kingsford was not engaging in insider trading. Lee repeatedly told Mazzucco she felt uncomfortable signing the forms because Kingsford repeatedly instructed her to act in direct contravention of the code of ethics. For example, the paperwork required Lee to affirm that she never used a personal email address or LinkedIn to contact experts or analysts. Yet, Wilkins directed her to do just that on multiple occasions. On or around March 2, 2015, Mazzucco came to Lee’s desk and threatened that if she did not sign the paperwork, Wilkins would fire her.

81. On or about August 10, 2015, Lee was given a mid-year performance review for the first time in her employment history. During the review, Mr. Wilkins praised Lee’s performance. However, Wilkins enticed Lee with a multi-million dollar bonus comparable to her coworkers if she would perform illegal tasks: “Our previous analyst made a $5 million bonus in just one year. We reward people when they get us good results.” Wilkins repeatedly conveyed this desperation by directing Lee to write negative stories about companies and pay reporters who would publish them. Wilkins also stated, “You need to make the catalyst. Force the stocks down! With the borrow cost so high we can’t sit and wait for the stocks to move.” Lee continued to believe that, if she persisted in producing high quality and legal work, Kingsford would reward her accordingly.

82. During the August 10, 2015 review, Wilkins told Lee to write a negative report that China Finance Online Co. (“JRJC”) was failing and intentionally cause the stock price to fall. Wilkins instructed Lee to feed information that she believed untrue to a reporter at The New York Times. Specifically, Lee was asked to leak information that JRJC’s CEO Ling Wang had been detained and was accused of accounting fraud and other criminal activity. Wilkins told Lee to do so because he wanted Kingsford to short-sell JRJC’s stock and make a profit. Lee researched this topic, but found that a different “Wang” unrelated to JRJC and with a different Chinese character, was involved. Wilkins told Lee, “No one will know the difference; it’s a Chinese company. No one can read Chinese anyway. If anything, it will look like an honest mistake.” Lee was furious. She spent long hours making sure her facts were accurate and Wilkins was pressuring her to fabricate this story. Lee refused.

83. During the same meeting in approximately August 2015, Wilkins directed Lee to continue talking to her contacts, Josh Pollack, a specialist in DNA sequencing who worked with Pacific Biosciences (“PACB”), and his father, a journalist at The New York Times who writes about stocks and previously wrote about Pacific Biosciences. PACB is a publicly traded biotechnology company based in Menlo Park, California, that develops and manufactures systems for gene sequencing. As a start-up, the company raised nearly $400 million; it raised nearly $200 million more in an initial public offering of stock in October 2010. Wilkins wanted Lee to encourage a story that the company was failing. Specifically, Wilkins directed Lee to give The New York Times “confidential information” from an “anonymous source” that PACB’s new DNA sequencing machine was not going to sell, which was decidedly false based on the research Lee had done. Wilkins also directed Lee to meet with Josh Pollack over oysters and champagne so he would plant the story with his father. Wilkins also directed Lee to pass this same false information to Seeking Alpha blogger, Adam Gefvert. Again, Lee refused.

84. During her employment, Lee also informed Wilkins and Mazzucco that she was uncomfortable meeting with Josh Pollack off-hours regarding PACB because he was interested in having a romantic relationship with Lee. Lee wanted to hire Josh Pollack as an expert so the business nature of their relationship was clear. Kingsford refused to do so. Instead, Wilkins told Lee to string Pollack along and pretend she was interested in him. Lee cancelled future meetings with Josh Pollack.

85. After Wilkins pressured Lee to spread false information about PACB and Lee refused, PACB’s stock doubled in value. Wilkins faulted Lee for not forcing the stock price down and refusing to obtain inside information.

86. In approximately September 2015 at a company-wide meeting, Wilkins once again directed Lee to write a negative report about JRJC. She again refused.

87. During the same August 2015 review, Wilkins made it clear to Lee that she needed to produce more work like other analysts that Lee believed was a violation of securities laws.

Kingsford’s Illegal Manipulation of Stock Prices Is Rampant Throughout the Company

88. Lee is aware of multiple other instances in which Kingsford illegally manipulated stock prices. To facilitate illegal stock manipulation and insider trading, Kingsford paid for a disguised phone number and IP address using software called “Anonymizer.” Analysts, including Lee, were repeatedly instructed to use false names and false email addresses,. These types of acts were explicitly highlighted and prohibited in Kingsford’s Insider Trading Attestation form. Kingsford also paid journalists, who falsely disclosed that they were independent and not paid by any hedge funds. Kingsford also employed other techniques to gain insider information, such as hiring private investigators to dig through people’s trash for nonpublic information.

89. In the Summer of 2015, Kingsford hired a consultant. Kingsford used this consultant to organize a “bear raid” by writing a negative blog post about a drug and alcohol rehabilitation company named AAC. In so doing, Kingsford paid the consultant to visit an AAC facility under false pretenses, as a potential patient. He then gathered information on the company by presenting himself as someone in need of AAC’s services. During the 2015 annual Batting Practice event, Lee witnessed Wilkins and the consultant telling attendees to short AAC because a negative story would be published soon.

90. Just days after the consultant left his job with Kingsford, he wrote the post under the guise of an “independent” website. AAC’s stock plummeted the day the report was released. Wilkins announced, “This is the type of aggressiveness we need!”

91. The consultant continued to work in tandem with Kingsford to illegally manipulate stock prices. In 2016, the consultant even got caught writing false and misleading information about a company, which caused its stock to slide from $5 a share to $2.77 in one day. The story was not supported by facts. Still, Wilkins took credit for this lucrative short in the annual company Christmas card and gift, which featured the successes of the year.

92. The above are just a few instances of Kingsford’s oft-repeated illegal manipulation of the stock market and insider trading while Lee was employed there. Wilkins demanded that Lee employ the tactics described above, but Lee refused.

Kingsford Illegally Misappropriated “Soft Dollars” and Lee Complained About This Conduct

93. Throughout her employment, Kingsford consistently and illegally used investors’ funds (i.e., “soft dollars”) to pay Lee and other employees, some of whom were not merely consultants. Lee had reason to believe that this practice was illegal.

94. In approximately late 2014, when Lee asked Executive Assistant/ Office Manager Lisa Littrell in Payroll why she had not been paid in over two months, Littrell admitted: “Because we don’t have any soft dollars. I can’t tell you exactly when it’s going to happen but we’ll be getting more in soon.” Lee subsequently overheard Littrell inform former trader Dusty Wise they needed more soft dollars. When Wise responded, “I can’t do anything about it, we’re not doing that many trades,” Wilkins instructed: “Just put in more trades so you can boost the soft dollar account.”

95. On or about April 14, 2015, Lee complained to Mazzucco about this misappropriation of soft dollars. Mazzucco responded: “If you don’t drop this, we’ll fire you. You’ll lose your job and we won’t be fined much.” Indeed, Kingsford regularly conserved soft dollars to pay its employees. Mazzucco added ominously: “Kingsford is your only reference so you won’t get another job in the industry.”

Kingsford Pressured Lee to Improperly Gain Insider Industry Knowledge, Putting Her in Sexually Compromising Positions

96. During her employment, Kingsford pressured Lee to meet with various technology experts outside of work and lure them to provide inside information. Lee repeatedly suggested instead that Kingsford use one of the expert network services specifically designed to lawfully provide such information for a fee. Indeed, both Lee and Equity Analyst Brian Harris used an expert network service to legitimately gain knowledge about companies Kingsford was considering investing in. However, Wilkins refused to pay for such information. Wilkins was reluctant to have a paper trail because the use of these networks invites scrutiny from the SEC. Wilkins told Lee: “We don’t get real information that way. The experts from the networks are guarded and don’t give you anything good.” Wilkins ordered Lee to meet with company insiders from current and potential investments: “Push them for information while at a late dinner or drinks.” Unfortunately, it became clear Wilkins and Kingsford intended Lee to gain information by trading sexual favors instead.

97. Wilkins instructed Lee to contact the interim CFO at a technology company. Lee was instructed to take the CFO to a French restaurant and expense wine and seafood to Kingsford’s account. The following day, Wilkins asked, “What did you get out of him? What are their earnings going to be like this quarter? Should we buy or sell?” Lee responded that she did not think the CFO could provide her that information, but that her professional opinion was that the company was a short. Lee based this opinion on her financial analysis of the company. This recommendation led to a profit for Wilkins and Kingsford. When the stock price fell, Wilkins sent Lee an email congratulating her and told Lee to repeat this success. Wilkins falsely attributed the success to insider trading, saying, “You need to thank your contact. Take him out to dinner and drinks.” Lee declined.

98. Lee complained to CFO Mazzucco about how uncomfortable it made her and her boyfriend that she was required to wine and dine experts “off the clock,” particularly because several of those experts propositioned her. Lee received text messages late into the night asking what she was wearing and requesting photos of a sexy Halloween costume. Lee asked Mazzucco if Kingsford could provide her a company-issued phone instead of requiring her to give out her personal cell number for work. Instead of stopping the harassment Lee endured or even responding to Lee’s pleas for help, Mazzucco couched the expert’s romantic advances as a compliment to Lee: “People like talking with you because you are young and cute. No one wants to talk with Brian Harris because he is a boring guy and has no personality.” Regarding the late night meetings Kingsford required of her, Mazzucco said: “Your boyfriend should be more understanding and stop being so possessive. Just explain that it’s an important part of your job.”

99. Similarly, on or about May 4, 2014, Lee complained to Corrigan and CAO Cooney that Kingsford needed to pay analysts since “the dynamic was off” when she otherwise met with them outside of work. Lee complained: “These guys think we’re on a date.” Corrigan and Cooney ostensibly agreed and advised Lee to raise the issue with Wilkins, but were otherwise non-responsive. Lee complained directly to Wilkins. He replied: “I’ll pay them when you get something good out of them.”

100. In approximately June 2015, Wilkins instructed Lee to contact Brean Capital Wall Street Analyst Jonathan Aschoff “off the record” and see if she could discover any “helpful information.” Wilkins also directed Lee to develop and use her personal connection with Aschoff to have negative articles with sell ratings published. When Lee subsequently contacted Aschoff at Wilkins’ direction, Aschoff insisted they meet in person at dinner.

101. On Lee’s first call with Aschoff, she found him off-putting and sexist. Aschoff made a joke about women’s breasts when discussing a biotech company that was developing a drug for breast cancer. Lee did not laugh. Aschoff responded: “Oh, you don’t get it. I’m used to talking with men.” Aschoff continued, “There are no female equity analysts and especially not at hedge funds. It’s sexy. How did you get your job?” Lee was offended, and she initially felt she had no obligation to entertain Aschoff’s sexist remarks or laugh at his “jokes.” However, Lee later learned from Wilkins that Aschoff was a valuable contact for short sellers and, as a result, Lee needed to treat him well.

102. Lee complained to Kingsford on more than one occasion, urging her employers to pay Aschoff so he knew Lee was meeting him in a professional rather than personal capacity. Once again, Kingsford refused. In approximately June or July 2015, Lee met Aschoff for dinner. Aschoff suggested they take an evening stroll around Chinatown and find the best duck. Lee instead suggested they meet at Crystal Jade in the Embarcadero business center. This location would be public and a professional setting. Aschoff was high when he arrived. During the course of dinner, Aschoff was flirtatious. Aschoff touched her leg and said, “This is why I like Asian women. They are soft and smooth.” Aschoff went on to say, “Asians age well but I’m a perfectionist and when women get old they just don’t look as good.” Aschoff went even further, explaining that he just hired a 21-year old Asian, stating, “She agreed to take a weekend trip to my cabin but I have not slept with her yet … Her English isn’t the best so I have to correct her grammar, but she’s hot. So there is a trade off … I like that her apartment is near the office. That could be convenient!”

103. When Lee subsequently informed Mr. Wilkins she was uncomfortable meeting with Aschoff in the evenings outside of work because of his flirtatious and inappropriate behavior, Wilkins still insisted she do so.

104. As noted above, on or about August 10, 2015, Lee was given a mid-year performance review. During the review, Lee once again advised Wilkins that Kingsford needed to pay sell-side analysts, complaining that when she met industry insiders otherwise, they assumed it was a date since they were “off the clock.”

105. On September 28, 2015, Aschoff invited Lee to dinner on October 13. Lee did not respond and was reluctant to meet him. However, Mr. Wilkins insisted she do so to discuss the stocks KERX, ARNA and TGTX INO.

106. On or about October 13, 2015, Lee had dinner with Aschoff at Alembic in San Francisco, California. After, Aschoff asked Lee to share marijuana-laced chocolate with him. Lee politely declined. Aschoff then insisted on walking Lee home. Once there, Aschoff hugged and kissed Lee on the cheek and asked to come inside. Lee refused.

107. After the October 13, 2015 dinner, Lee informed Wilkins that Aschoff was high, made inappropriate overtures to her and that she rejected him. Lee also refused to meet with Aschoff again. Wilkins was irate. He also said, “It should be easier to get real information then since he’s relaxed … Next time ask him which stocks he plans to downgrade.” Wilkins’ reaction devastated Lee. It was apparent that Wilkins preferred to disregard her safety and push her to meet with a man who sexually harassed her, than risk a valuable contact.

Lee Was Paid Less Than Her White, Male Peers and Discriminated Against Based on Her Gender and Race

108. During her employment, Lee repeatedly complained to Managing Partner Wilkins, CFO Kelly Mazzucco, and Human Resources regarding her false designation as an independent contractor, and asked for commensurate pay and benefits as a salaried employee. After all, Lee’s responsibilities were largely the same as those of an Equity Analyst. Further, Wilkins repeatedly introduced Lee in investor meetings as an analyst who covered retail and healthcare stocks. Another white, male Equity Analyst earned over $1.3M. The CAO, Brian Cooney, had no college degree and made $500,000. Lee made approximately $60,000 for substantially the same work. Further, Lee was deprived of benefits afforded to her male peers. However, Wilkins repeatedly told Lee that Kingsford could not afford to hire another full-time employee. When Lee spoke to CFO Mazzucco about being hired as an employee so she could receive health benefits, Mazzucco replied: “You should get married to get health insurance.” Mazzucco was otherwise non-responsive.

109. Moreover, Wilkins repeatedly complimented Lee on her research and reports, stating that her work was superior to Consultant/Analyst Rob Kennedy, routinely asking Lee to mentor Kennedy on his work. During this time, Mr. Kennedy was paid approximately twice Lee’s hourly rate.

110. Wilkins also routinely authorized Harris to attend various investment conferences, while Lee was excluded from the same. On multiple occasions, Harris was able to develop important industry contacts and obtain access to stocks that were extremely lucrative.

111. In approximately January 2012, Portfolio Manager Joe Voboril left Kingsford. About one year later, Portfolio Manager David Scially retired from Kingsford. Lee assumed both Voboril and Scially’s responsibilities. Despite the fact that Lee continued to perform her original duties as an Analyst and performed the duties of two Portfolio Managers, Lee was neither promoted nor given a raise.

112. On or about December 12, 2014, Wilkins announced KCM was planning to hire someone full-time to market the firm.

113. That week, Lee asked Corrigan that she be hired as a salaried employee. Lee further spoke to Mazzucco concerning the same on or about January 27, 2015. At a firm-wide meeting, Wilkins stated that hiring Lee as a salaried employee was long overdue.

114. On or about February 4, 2015, Kingsford finally offered Lee a full-time, salaried Analyst position. However, Lee was offered significantly less compensation than her peers, i.e., an $80,000 salary, a discretionary year-end and IRA bonus, three weeks paid vacation, and health care benefits. Brian Harris received four to five weeks of paid vacations and additional benefits that were not offered to Lee.

115. In approximately February 2015, Lee complained to Executive Assistant/Office Manager Lisa Littrell about her discriminatory pay. To her surprise, Ms. Littrell confirmed: “You’re being underpaid. You should negotiate for a higher salary,” and advised Lee to speak directly to Wilkins.

116. On or about March 3, 2015, Lee asked Mazzucco why Kingsford paid the other analysts more than her. Mazzucco demanded, “How would you know? Who told you? Brian Harris is your only comparator. He is an Equity Analyst.” Mazzucco assured Lee that the bonus is what matters and that she could earn a $5M bonus like Cory Johnson. When Lee subsequently objected that the proposed salary did not seem comparable to her peers, Mazzucco retorted: “You need to be happy with your salary or leave.” After Lee left her office, Mazzucco promptly summoned Brian Harris to her office and spoke to him behind closed doors.

117. On or about April 14, 2015, Lee again spoke to Mazzucco and demanded a salary commensurate with that enjoyed by her peers. Mazzucco instead pressured Lee to sign the February 4 offer. When Lee pointed out that Kingsford’s willful misclassification of her employment status was unlawful, and further pointed out that it was wrong for Kingsford to treat her Caucasian male peers so much more favorably, Mazzucco retorted: “If you don’t drop this, we will fire you.”

118. In approximately May 2015, prior to Lee signing her offer letter, she asked Wilkins if she was being paid as much as the other Equity Analysts. Wilkins told her, “I can’t make any promises yet, but you are on track for a big bonus this year. Base salary is not what matters here.” Wilkins then warned Lee, “If you don’t sign this offer letter for $80,000 today, you will be fired.”

Lee is Terminated in Retaliation for her Complaints

119. In or around May 2015, Lee drafted an email to Wilkins about several of her complaints about Kingsford. Instead of sending the email, Lee spoke to Wilkins in person. Lee outlined the reasons why she felt she was not being treated fairly by Kingsford and how Kingsford was conducting illegal activity, particularly its willful misclassification of her as an independent contractor. Lee also said, “I’ve worked for you for 6 years. You have denied me healthcare. I had to buy medication from India. This is the USA. Employers are responsible for healthcare.” After she spoke, Wilkins taunted Lee: “Sounds like you have a good case. You should sue us.”

120. On November 25, 2015, Wilkins summoned Lee to his office and told her she was being “laid off,” effective immediately. When Lee asked why, Wilkins said: “We’re not getting the results we need from you.” Lee pressed for more information. Wilkins referenced Lee’s failure to plant false information about JRJC and to obtain insider information about PACB. Specifically, Wilkins told Lee that she should have used her connections on PACB. Lee responded, “Right, that would have been illegal. You must have heard of insider trading!” Wilkins responded, “You would have been fine. No one gets caught.” Wilkins also asked Lee why she did not destroy the value of JRJC. Lee replied, “There was nothing negative we could write about.” Lee further explained that she refused to fabricate a story and would not put her name on anything that is false. Wilkins replied exasperatingly, “I told you! You didn’t need to. You just needed to send me a link to the Chinese article about a Wang . . . any Wang. I would do the rest. It would have never been traced back to you.” While Wilkins terminated Lee’s employment, he coldly warned her, “You said you wanted a better salary. We’ll see how you do.” Wilkins’ statement was a threat that she would not fare well in the job market without Wilkins’ endorsement.

121. On November 26, 2015, Corrigan told Lee he had no authority to intervene on her behalf as the termination was Wilkins’ decision. However, Corrigan suggested Lee was “not being as aggressive” as Corrigan was, referencing his own “success” with the company Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc. (“CBMG”). Corrigan confided to Lee that he had paid a professor $1,500 for a negative and false quote about CBMG. The stock consequently fell. Kingsford had enjoyed extraordinary profits due to Corrigan’s unlawful manipulation of CBMG’s stock valuation. “This is our business!” Corrigan remarked to Lee. “That’s how we make our money.”

122. On November 27, 2015, Wilkins met with Lee again, and without provocation or cause, told her “it was best to part ways.” Lee was fired two weeks before year-end bonuses were paid. Although many of her stocks generated strong returns for the firm, she received nothing. Indicative of Lee’s successes in 2015, Kingsford’s Christmas card and gift highlighted the most lucrative investments.

123. Lee’s termination was the product of ongoing gender and racial harassment, and in retaliation for her complaints concerning such harassment and Kingsford’s illegal practices.

Kingsford Prevents Lee From Obtaining New Employment

124. After Lee’s termination, she applied for jobs at investment firms to no avail. The short-only investment community is a small one, Kingsford has an extraordinary amount of influence in the industry, and she was apprehensive about Kingsford sullying her reputation. After all, as described above, both Mazzucco and Wilkins told her she’d never find a job in the industry again if she continued complaining.

125. Nevertheless, Lee made it to the third and final interview at one firm. Lee left her interview feeling positive. She had received encouraging words from her interviewers. The interviewers also asked her specifically about her work at Kingsford. The last step was for the firm to perform a reference check. Immediately thereafter, Lee was rejected. The firm’s Human Resources department would not tell her why they rejected her. Lee has inquired with or applied to other investment firms and has not been offered a position for a single one.

126. Based on Wilkins’ and Mazzucco’s comments and threats to her, Lee has a good faith reason to believe that Kingsford has made misrepresentations about her in order to prevent her from obtaining employment.

Kingsford’s Unlawful Termination of Lee Caused Her Significant Damages

127. As a direct consequence of Kingsford’s sexual and racial harassment, sexually and racially hostile work environment, and retaliation, Lee has suffered emotional distress. This includes debilitating depression, acute anxiety, nightmares, insomnia, and shock. Lee has now suffered the loss of her career, as well as her income.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940)
(Against Kingsford, Michael Wilkins, Louis Corrigan, and Kelly Mazzucco)

128. Lee incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

129. Defendants’ conduct described above constitutes violations of FEHA in that Lee was subjected to a hostile work environment sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. Lee both reasonably and actually considered the work environment to be hostile and abusive. All of the harassment Lee experienced was unwanted.

130. Further, as described above, Kingsford discriminated against Lee based on her gender and race through disparate treatment, disparate compensation, disparate benefits, and a failure to promote. Kingsford discriminated against Lee in compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Kingsford’s conduct described above constitutes violations of FEHA.

131. Kingsford’s conduct described above constitutes violations of FEHA in that Lee was subject to retaliation for making complaints regarding her treatment on the basis of her sex and Kingsford’s illegal conduct, and Kingsford failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.

132. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful actions against Lee, as alleged above, she has been harmed in that Lee has suffered the loss of wages, benefits, and additional amounts of money she would have received if she had not been subject to said wrongful actions. As a result of such violations of FEHA and consequent harm, Lee has suffered damages in an amount according to proof.

133. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ actions against Lee, as alleged above, Lee has been harmed in that she has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress. As a result of such violations of FEHA and consequent harm, Lee has suffered damages in an amount according to proof.

134. The above-cited actions of Defendants were done with malice, fraud and/or oppression, and in reckless disregard of Lee’s rights under FEHA. Specifically, Defendants intentionally engaged in the wrongful acts described above and/or ratified said intentional conduct.

135. WHEREFORE, Lee prays for relief as set forth below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Whistleblower Retaliation
(Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5)
(Against Kingsford, Michael Wilkins, Louis Corrigan, and Kelly Mazzucco)

136. Lee incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

137. Lee was an employee of Kingsford.

138. Kingsford terminated Lee.

139. Lee had a reasonable basis to believe that Kingsford acted unlawfully, violating a listed law, rule, or regulation of the SEC, including but not limited to Sections 9 and 10 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 206 of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940. Lee also subjectively and objectively believed that the conduct being reported violated other laws, including employment laws. By making numerous complaints to her supervisors regarding Kingsford’s illegal practices, Lee engaged in protected activities.

140. Defendants’ conduct described above constitutes violations of Labor Code section 1102.5 in that Lee was subject to retaliation for making complaints about Kingsford’s illegal practices.

141. There is a causal link between Lee’s protected activity and Defendants’ retaliatory actions described above.

142. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful actions against Lee, as alleged above, she has been harmed in that Lee has suffered the loss of wages, benefits, and additional amounts of money she would have received if she had not been subject to said wrongful actions. Lee has also been harmed in that she has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress. As a result of such actions and consequent harm, Lee has suffered damages in an amount according to proof.

143. WHEREFORE, Lee prays for relief as set forth below.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California Labor Code § 1050
(Cal. Labor Code § 1050)
(Against Kingsford, Michael Wilkins, Louis Corrigan, and Kelly Mazzucco)

144. Lee incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

145. California Labor code section 1050 et seq. permits an employee to pursue a civil claim against her former employer for misrepresentations made after she left her employment that preclude her from finding future employment.

146. As set forth above, Kingsford, including Wilkins and Mazzucco, threatened Lee that she would never get a job in the industry again. Upon information and belief, Kingsford, including but not limited to Wilkins and Mazzucco, made false and disparaging remarks to third parties about Lee’s work performance.

147. Kingsford actively sought to prevent Lee from finding future employment in her industry by making the false representations described above.

148. Kingsford’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Lee’s harm.

149. As a result of Kingsford’s actions, Lee has suffered special and general damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
(Against Kingsford)

150. Lee incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

151. Lee was an employee of Kingsford.

152. Lee refused to participate in Kingsford’s blatant stock market manipulation, use of insider information, and other fraudulent activities in violation of federal securities laws, and Lee took a position adverse to the employer regarding such illegal activity.

153. The activities described above would result in a violation of federal securities laws, rules and regulations, and state laws.

154. Lee also suffered pervasive sexual and racial harassment and a hostile work environment and complained about such illegal conduct numerous times.

155. The activities described in above would result in a violation of, among other laws, FEHA.

156. Lee was terminated.

157. Lee’s refusal to participate in the activities described above was a contributing factor in Kingsford’s decision to terminate her.

158. As a proximate result of Kingsford’s actions against Lee, as alleged above, Lee has been harmed in that she has suffered the loss of wages, benefits, and additional amounts of money she would have received if she had not been subject to said treatment. Lee has also been harmed in that she has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress. As a result of such conduct, Lee has suffered damages in an amount according to proof.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Promissory Estoppel
(Against Kingsford)

159. Lee incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

160. Kingsford clearly represented to Lee on multiple occasions, as described above, that Lee would receive a multi-million dollar bonus comparable to her co-workers.

161. In making the representations that Kingsford did, Kingsford knew or should have known that Lee would be reasonably induced to rely on Kingsford’s representations by not looking for other, more lucrative employment elsewhere. Kingsford also knew or should have known that Lee would rely on Kingsford’s representations and continue to put her full time and effort into making a profit for Kingsford.

162. In justifiable reliance on Kingsford’s promise to pay Lee a multi-million dollar bonus comparable to her coworkers, Lee both forewent seeking other, more lucrative employment elsewhere, and continued to put her full time and effort into making a profit for Kingsford.

163. Kingsford terminated Lee’s employment just two weeks before annual bonuses were paid. Kingsford never paid Lee the bonus she was promised.

164. Justice requires that Lee be compensated for Kingsford’s unfulfilled promise.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief against Defendants as follows:

a. For back pay, front pay, and other monetary relief according to proof;
b. Economic damages, including the amount Lee would have been paid if Defendants had not discriminated against her in compensation or terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
c. For general damages, including emotional distress, according to proof;
d. For punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants for its wrongful conduct and to set an example for others;
e. An injunction against Defendants and their officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with Defendants from engaging in each of the practices complained of in this complaint;
f. All penalties that may be imposed by California law, including but not limited to the $10,000 penalty provided for under Labor Code section 1102.5(f).
g. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including expert witness fees) pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b) and all other applicable
authority;
h. For treble damages pursuant to Labor Code § 1054;
i. For costs of suit herein incurred;
j. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
and
k. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.