Jessica Wyman vs. Yasuhisa Yaz Iida of Rakuten USA - Sexual Harassment Complaint

Joshua D. Gruenberg, Esq. (SBN 163281)
Aisling S. Gilliland, Esq. (SBN 163321)
Sarah E. Gallagher, Esq. (SB 320487)
GRUENBERG LAW
2155 FIRST AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA92101-2013
TELEPHONE'619) 230-1234
TELECOPIER: (619) 230-1074
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JESSICA WYMAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) CENTRAL DIVISION
10 JESSICA WYMAN,an individual,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff,
RAKUTENUSA, INC., an unknown business
entity; YASUHISAIIDA,an individual; and
DOES I through 25, inclusive,
Defendants.
) Case No.
)
) PLAINTIFF)S COMPLAINTFOR:
)
) 1. SEXUALHARASSMENT [Cal. Gov't
) Code (J 12940(j)];
) 2. GENDER DISCRIMINATION[Cal.
Gov't Code (J 12940(a)];
)
3. FAILURETO PREVENT
HARASSMENT [Cal. Gov't Code IJ'
12940(k)];
) 4. RETALIATION[Cal. Gov't Code (J
) 12940(h)];
5. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION; and
)
6. INTENTIONALINFLICTIONOF
)
EMOTIONALDISTRESS.
)
) [JURY TRIALDEMANDED]
)
21 COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF,alleging against Defendants as follows:
22 GENERAL ALLEGATIONSCOMMONTO ALLCAUSES OF ACTION
23 1. PlaintiffJESSICA WYMAN(hereinafter "Plaintiff'r"WYMAN")is a natural person
24
25
who is, and at all relevant times was, a resident ofthe United States and a domiciliary of
the State ofCalifornia.
26 2. Plaintiffis informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant RAKUTENUSA,
27
28 ///
INC., (hereinalter "RAKUTEN*')is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was, an
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES
I

unknown California business entity authorized for and doing business in the State of
California, County ofSan Diego.
Plaintiffbelieves and thereon alleges that at all relevant times herein mentioned
Defendant YASUHISA"YAZ"IIDA(hereinafter "IIDA"),was and is the President of
RAKUTEN, USA, INC. and Plaintiffs supervisor.
Plaintiffis ignorant ofthe true names and capacities ofthe Defendants sued herein as
DOES I to 25, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffwill
amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities when they are ascertained.
Plaintiffis informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each fictitiously named
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
Defendant is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and
Plaintiffs injuries and damages as herein alleged are directly, proximately and/or legally
caused by Defendants.
Plaintiffis informed and believes and thereon alleges that the aforementioned DOES are
somehow responsible for the acts alleged herein as the agents, employers, representatives
or employees ofother named Defendants, and in doing the acts herein alleged were
acting within the scope oftheir agency, employment or representative capacity of said
named Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
The tortious acts and omissions alleged to have occurred herein were performed by
Defendant's management level employees. Defendants allowed and/or condoned a
continuing pattern ofunlawful practices, and have caused, and willcontinue to cause,
Plaintiffeconomic damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
Defendants had constructive knowledge ofthe tortious acts and/or omissions alleged
23
24
25 9.
26
27
28
herein as the result ofparticipating in the wrongful acts or ratifying or affirming the acts
once heard or known of.
Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, oppressively,
and with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil
motive amounting to malice or despicable conduct. Alternatively, Defendants'rongful
conduct was carried out with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights.
2

1 10. Such tortious acts were authorized or ratified by upper-level managerial employees of
Defendants. The actions ofDefendants, and each ofthem, against the Plaintiffconstitute
unlawful practices in violation ofCalifornia law, and have caused, and willcontinue to
cause Plaintiffloss ofearnings, loss ofemployment benefits, and other losses in amounts
to be proven at trial.
6 11. Plaintifffiled a complaint with the Department ofFair Employment and Housing on
January 2, 2019 and on that same day received a Right-To-Sue Letter. The Complaint and
letter are collectively attached hereto as "ExhibitA."
SPECIFIC FACTUALALLEGATIONS
10 12. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
the preceding paragraphs as though fullyset forth herein.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
13. RAKUTENfunctions as an international market place, delivering a broad selection of
internet services to consumers throughout the U.S. and the world. RAKUTENfocuses on
partnering with merchants to drive sales through the establishment ofan online
connection with consumers.
14. On or about February 29, 2016, Plaintiffbegan her employment at RAKUTEN,in the
position ofExecutive Assistant to the Chief Human Resources Officer ("CHRO"), Nadia
Rawlinson ("Rawlinson"), and to the President ofRAKUTENUSA, YASUHISA"YAZ"
IIDA("IIDA.")
20 15. From the beginning ofPlaintiffs employment, IIDAtook a keen interest in Plaintiff.
21
22
23
Rawlinson left her employment with RAKUTENshortly after Plaintiffs employment
began. From this point forward, IIDAinstructed Plaintiffto report directly to him, as
IIDAwas Plaintiffs supervisor.
24 16. PlaintifFs responsibilities at RAKUTENincluded assisting the Chief Executive Office
26
("CEO"), the Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), the CHRO and President IIDAin daily
tasks and scheduling.
27 17. Plaintiffhas excelled at her job since her hire in February of2016, as recognized by
28 RAKUTEN. Plaintiffhas received steady positive performance reviews as well as oral
3

and written praise from her coworkers and superiors. Plaintiffwas nicknamed "Oracle"
by her coworkers in reference to her gift ofproviding business strategy and valued advice
on management practices and cultural direction. Plaintiffis seen as a leader by many and
is often the first person her coworkers turn to for advice, direction, and answers.
Throughout her employment, Plaintiffhas been valued and committed to RAKUTEN.
6 18. From the outset ofher employment, Plaintiffs supervisor, President IIDA,frequently
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
invited her to dinner at high-end restaurants around the San Francisco area. Plaintiffhas
accepted IIDA'srepeated invitations because she feels compelled to maintain a strong
professional relationship with her direct supervisor and does not want to be perceived as
unmotivated or unfriendly. Further, aware ofthe fast-paced and competitive culture of
RAKUTENand as a single mother, Plaintiffparticipated in these dinners in order to
maintain her job security. Plaintiffrelies on her job to support herself and her child.
During Plaintiff's dinners with IIDA,IIDAoften over indulged in alcohol and on several
occasions, became highly intoxicated in front ofPlaintiff. This made Plaintiff
uncomfortable.
19. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, IIDAand Plaintiffcommunicated through Viber, a
communication application owned by RAKUTEN. Plaintiffoften felt uncomfortable with
IIDA'smessages. For example, IIDAhas sent Plaintiffnumerous kiss emojis, which
Plaintifffelt were inappropriate in light ofthe professional context oftheir conversations.
Plaintiffrefused to engage or mirror IIDA'sunwanted flirtationand feels that IIDAtakes
advantage ofhis position as Plaintiff's supervisor.
22 20. On or about June 8, 2016, Plaintiffand IIDAtraveled to Orange County, California on a
23
24
25
business trip to view corporate apartments for RAKUTEN.Thereafter, Plaintifffully
furnished and decorated the corporate apartment Plaintiffand IIDAhad selected in
Laguna Beach for RAKUTEN'S corporate use.
26 21. Thereafter, on or around June 16, 2016, IIDAtold Plaintiffthat he needed to visit Lauren
27
28
Duffey's house, RAKUTEN's former Director ofCorporate Communications, to see how
clean and organized it was. Plaintifffound IIDA'sinterest in the upkeep ofDuffey's
4

personal space odd. Although Plaintiffwas still new to RAKUTEN, she quickly noticed
that the boundary lines between personal and professional were consistently crossed
under IIDA'sleadership. After Plaintiffand IIDAmet at Duffey's home, they all went to
the Big 4 Restaurant in San Francisco for dinner.
5 22. On or about August 19, 2016, IIDAagain told Plaintiffto meet him at his apartment
around 8:00 a.m. to discuss the redecoration project.
7 23. On or about November 3, 2016, IIDAinvited Plaintiffto dinner for Plaintiffs birthday.
C
C
N
z 0
Q g z
~g
ciN
LQ
O
z
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
During dinner, IIDAtold Plaintiffthat he and his wife had mutually agreed to an open
relationship and that they were both free to see other people. IIDAnever wore his
wedding ring while in the US. Plaintifffound IIDA'scomments highly inappropriate and
was very uncomfortable discussing these personal details with IIDA.
24. Thereafter, on or around December 21, 2016, IIDApulled Plaintiffinto a RAKUTEN
conference room to give Plaintiffa $ 150 bottle ofred wine for Christmas. Plaintifffelt
uncomfortable with this extravagant gesture but feared she would insult IIDAifshe did
not accept the gift.
25. Also on December 21, 2016, while at RAKUTEN's offices, IIDAinvited Plaintiffto a
Christmas dinner in San Francisco. While at dinner, IIDAcompared Plaintiffto his
college girlfriend. IIDAtold Plaintiffabout their similarities, saying they are both
American, blonde and blue-eyed. IIDAcontinued to say how he regrets not marrying the
former girlfriend. IIDAalso mentioned how he falls asleep early and "missed a lot of
opportunities." Plaintiffwas overwhelmed by the blurred lines ofpersonal and
professional subject matter which routinely took place during dinners with IIDA.
Plaintiffunderstood IIDAto be making an advance by comparing her to another woman
he wished to have married. Following dinner, IIDAgave Plaintiffan unsolicited tight
embrace, which lasted for an uncomfortably long duration oftime. As IIDAembraced
Plaintiff, he pressed his body against her chest and firmlygrasped Plaintiff. Plaintifffelt
powerless to stop IIDAand could not get out ofhis hold.
28 ///
5

1 26. The next day, on or about December 22, 2016, IIDAoffered
Plaintiff
hi United Miles
and insisted that she upgrade her Christmas vacation flightto Italy from Economy to
Business Class. Plaintiffgratefully accepted the miles and thanked IIDAfor his
generosity. Plaintiffwanted to maintain her professional relationship with IIDA.
5 27. On or about February 10, 2017, IIDAagain requested Plaintiffmeet at him his apartment
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
to redecorate. Plaintifffound IIDA'songoing personal requests inappropriate and outside
her duties with RAKUTEN.Nonetheless, Plaintiffcomplied with IIDA'spersonal request
as he was her supervisor at RAKUTEN. While in the master bedroom, IIDAlooked to
the bed and asked Plaintiff, "Which side ofthe bed do you sleep on?" Plaintiffresponded,
"I sleep on the left." Plaintifffelt uncomfortable and quickly moved away from the room
to avoid further suggestive remarks from IIDA.
28. Thereafter, on or about April25, 2017, IIDAcalled Plaintiffinto his office to discuss his
meeting with Clare McCown, RAKUTEN's Associate General Counsel. IIDAtold
Plaintiffthat McCown is investigating him and another employee, Lauren Duffey, for
pregnancy discrimination allegations brought by RAKUTEN's former Head ofHuman
Resources, Jeri Doris ("Doris"). Plaintiffwas unsure as to the purpose ofthis
conversation and was uncomfortable with IIDAsharing another employee's private
complaints. Ultimately, after about a month ofinvestigation, the employee's complaints
were seemingly dismissed. Following the investigation, Plaintiffis informed and believes
that IIDAstrategically placed Duffey under the complaining employee's supervision.
IIDAappeared certain that this reorganization move would force Duffey to quit, as she
had previously complained to IIDAabout working under the employee. As IIDA
intended, Duffey subsequently quit RAKUTENin or around August 2017.
24 29. Plaintiffquickly learned that since IIDAdid not like confrontation, he relied on strategy
25
26
27
and manipulation to achieve solutions to inconvenient problems. IIDA'sconduct
intimidated Plaintiffand made her insecure about her job and future under IIDA's
leadership at RAKUTEN.Plaintiffbegan to feel helpless.
28 ///
6

I 30. On or about April27, 2017, Plaintiffreceived 13 Yen stocks from RAKUTEN. Prior to
distribution ofthe stocks, IIDAcommunicated to Plaintiffthat he had asked the Board of
Directors to issue the stocks to Plaintiffbecause ofher great performance at RAKUTEN.
4 31. On or about June 16, 2017, in an effort to get Plaintiffon her own and in his apartment,
IIDAtold Plaintiffto meet him at his apartment around 8:00 AMto discuss his plans to
redecorate.
7 32. In or about July of2017, IIDAasked Plaintiffto represent him in the purchase ofa
y5
F
LO
CC illED
10
12
cu 13
14
„c
O
16A
K
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
condominium in the San Francisco area. Although this request was outside the scope of
Plaintiffs duties, Plaintiffdid not feel she could reject the request from her direct
supervisor and President ofRAKUTEN. Thereafter, Plaintiffmet with a San Francisco
real estate agent to view condominiums for IIDA.Plaintiffholds a California real estate
license and represented IIDAas a buyer's agent. Together, IIDAand Plaintifflooked at
home options for IIDAin San Francisco. While viewing homes, IIDAmentioned to
Plaintiff, "you can have a key to stay here ifcommuting becomes too much." Plaintifffelt
uncomfortable with this invitation and was unsure how to respond. After viewing
condominiums, IIDAinvited Plaintiffto dinner and karaoke with his friends in San
Francisco. Upon leaving the restaurant, IIDAagain, without any encouragement from
Plaintiff, leaned in and gave Plaintiffa tight unsolicited embrace. Plaintiffwas
uncomfortable and concerned that IIDAwas crossing appropriate boundaries with her.
IIDA'sphysical contact with Plaintiffwas unwanted. However, based on her knowledge
ofhow prior complaints at RAKUTENwere handled and in fear oflosing her job and
livelihood, Plaintiffdid not make any complaints to RAKUTEN's human resource
department at the time. Plaintiffbelieves IIDAwas grooming Plaindfffor a more
personal relationship.
25 33. On or about August 31, 2017, Plaintiffcommunicated to IIDAher concerns and
26
27
28
discomfort with the office culture and unhealthy work environment at RAKUTENUSA.
Plaintifftold IIDAthat she had already procured another job offer from a different
company that would allow her to work from home and be closer to her son. IIDApleaded
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTFOR OAMAGES
7

10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
with Plaintiflto stay at RAKUTENand asked, "What can I do to have you not leave? I
don't want you to leave the company." As Plaintiff's supervisor and RAKUTEN's
President, IIDAwas in a position to act on Plaintiffs complaints. Plaintiff's complaints
and concerns were known at this time. In response to IIDA'surging Plaintiffto stay at
RAKUTEN,Plaintifftold IIDAthat she would need a new position in the company that
protected her from harassment and more opportunities to work remotely so that she could
spend more time with her young son. IIDAtold Plaintiffto set up a meeting with Wes
Kubik, former head ofHuman Resources, who would arrange a new position with an
entirely different job description. IIDAtold Plaintiff, "We just signed with the [Golden
State] Warriors, and I willgive you that to do since it is in Oakland and closer to where
you live."
34. Thereafter, Plaintiffmet with Kubik and IIDAtwo more times, including for a dinner on
or about October 5, 2017 to review and design Plaintiffs new role. Afterthe dinner,
unsolicited and unprompted, IIDAagain provided Plaintiffwith an unsolicited hug and
kiss. Plaintiffwas disgusted with IIDA'sunwanted conduct and became incredibly
uncomfortable. IIDA'sbehavior was unwavering despite Plaintiff's visible discomfort.
Plaintiffcould not believe she was still having to deal with IIDA'sconduct, specifically
followinga dinner discussing new job responsibilities because she had complained about
inappropriate and harassing conduct.
20 35. On or about November 15, 2017, Plaintiffsigned the offer letter for her new position at
21
22
23
24
25
RAKUTEN, Director ofCorporate Hospitality, with a start date ofNovember I, 2017.
The new position specified Defendant YAZIIDA,President ofAmericas, to remain as
Plaintiffs supervisor and included a substantial raise. In addition, as a bonus for
Plaintiff's outstanding work performance, the RAKUTENBoard of Directors approved a
distribution of21 Yen Stock to Plaintiff, to be granted in April2018.
26 36. The next day, on or about November 16, 2017, IIDAsent two bouquets ofbirthday
27 flowers to Plaintiffs personal residence. Plaintifffound ithighly inappropriate to receive
these flowers from her supervisor.
8

I 37. On or about December 15, 2017, Plaintiffreferred IIDAto a friend who specializes in
Reiki. IIDAhad told Plaintiffthat he was looking to clear negative energy from the
pregnancy discrimination allegations. Plaintiffrecommended that he try the practice of
Reiki. After the session, IIDAinvited Plaintiffmultiple times to a joint Reiki session,
even suggesting that he would pay for them. Plaintiffdeclined IIDA'soffer.
6 38. On December 25, 2017, IIDAcame over to Plaintiff's house to join Plaintiffand her
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
father for Christmas dinner. IIDAhad given Plaintiffa bottle ofVeuve Clicquot
Champagne that the former COO ofRAKUTENhad given him for Christmas, saying that
he would like to have it at her house on Christmas Day. IIDAadditionally gave Plaintiff
an iPhone 8 as a Christmas gift. The followingevening, IIDAinvited Plaintiffto another
Christmas dinner in San Francisco. Atdinner, IIDAtold Plaintiffthat he was having
doubts about divorcing his wife because it was easier and less costly to remain married.
IIDAthen told Plaintiffhe and his wife would continue to live separately and uphold
their agreement to date others. Later that evening, IIDApushed his boundaries with
Plaintiffeven further by firmlygripping her in an unwelcomed embrace. He then
spontaneously leaned in and pressed his lips against her cheek. The kiss on the cheek
escalated Plaintiffs concerns and discomfort, as she became afraid that the unsolicited
physical advancements from IIDAwould continue to intensify. At no point did Plaintiff
acquiesce to this behavior.
20 39. Also during 2017, IIDAcalled Plaintiffinto his office to tell her he has been urinating a
21
22
23
lot and that it "burns" when he pees. Plaintiffwas extremely uncomfortable with IIDA
sharing this information. When IIDAasked Plaintifffor recommendations, Plaintiff
suggested cranberry juice, and IIDArequested Plaintiffget him some.
24 40. On or around January 12, 2018, IIDAinvited Plaintiffto dinner and Karaoke. At the end
25
26
27
28
ofthe evening, IIDAdrunkenly stepped towards Plaintiff, tightly embraced her, then
pressed his lips against her cheek. Plaintifffelt uncomfortable with this exchange and
quickly pulled away to buffer the embrace saying, "We are like family,"or words to that
effect. Plaintiffmade this family reference to IIDArepeatedly throughout their
9

professional relationship, particularly in circumstances where she felt that IIDAwas
acting inappropriately or forward, hoping he would "get the message." Plaintiffwas
continually concerned with her career and fearful that her complaints would fall on deaf
ears, or worse, result in her losing her job.
5 41. The next day, on or around January 13, 2018, IIDAextended a personal invitation to
Plaintiffto see his favorite Jazz musician. Upon leaving, IIDAagain embraced Plaintiffs
body and pressed his lips against her cheek. Plaintifffelt increasingly uncomfortable.
8 42. On or about February 15, 2018, Plaintiffmet with Mario Pinho, RAKUTEN's CFO, and
10
Kubik to discuss possible loan options to finance Plaintiffs ongoing child custody battle
with her ex-husband.
11 43. Later in February 2018, Plaintiffmet with IIDAto further discuss loan options with
12
13
14
15
16
17
RAKUTEN.IIDAoffered to front the custody costs as a giftto Plaintiff, offering to
provide as much funds as necessary to hire the best attorney. IIDAtold Plaintiff, "Ihave
so much money just sitting in my accounts doing nothing. I might as well use it to help
you," or words to that effect. IIDAthen continued, "Please only focus on this case and
don't worry about focusing on work right now. This is your priority,"or words to that
effect. Plaintifffelt overwhelmed by IIDA'soffer but accepted out offear offacing a
18 court appearance without an attorney.
19 44. On or about March 30, 2018, IIDAattempted to gift Plaintiff$5,000 cash. Plaintiff
20
21
22
resisted IIDA'sgesture and insisted the $5,000 be a loan. Plaintiffdid not feel
comfortable receiving money Irom IIDAon a personal level. IIDAwas inserting himself
more and more into Plaintiffs personal life.
23 45. On or about May 30, 2018, Plaintiffpicked up IIDAat his apartment to attend a Golden
24
25
26
27
28
State Warriors VIP Party in Oakland. While in the car, IIDAmentioned that he would
like to find a girlfriend. He asked Plaintiff, "What is a good way to start dating? I am
looking for someone that is American and looks kind oflike you," or words to that effect.
Plaintiffbecame immediately uncomfortable by IIDA'squestions. Seeking to take the
focus offofherself and convey that she had no interest herself, Plaintiffreplied, "Have
10

you ever looked into a high-end matchmaker agency that specializes in high-profile
executives looking for relationships? Best way for you to go. I can help you look for an
agency," or words to that effect. IIDAthen replied, "Oh, maybe." Throughout the night,
IIDAsupplied Plaintiffwith drinks and insisted they take pictures together. IIDAput his
arm around Plaintiffin front ofthe trophies and grabbed Plaintifftightly. After the event,
Plaintifftook a Lyfthome. While waiting for the Lyft,IIDAleaned into Plaintiff, tightly
grabbed her and again pressed his lips against her cheek. He then turned to Plaintiffand
said, "I had a wonderful time with you, as always," or words to that effect.
9 46. On or around June 12, 2018, IIDAinvited Plaintiffto a YMCAGala Event. Throughout
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the evening, IIDAinsisted that they take pictures together. IIDAasked Plaintiffto go out
again soon for dinner at WAKOsushi. Upon walking outside to leave, IIDAagain firmly
embraced Plaintiffand pressed his lips against her cheek, saying, "Iwould love to do this
again soon," or words to that effect. Plaintiffcould not believe IIDA'sunwanted,
sexually harassing behavior continued.
47. From March 2018 through July 2018, IIDAmet with Plaintiffrepeatedly to discuss her
child custody battle against her ex-husband. IIDAwould always say, "Iwish there was
more I could do for you. I care about you so very much," and "Don't worry about work
right now and focus on your case," or words to that effect. Afterevery meeting, IIDA
would advance towards Plaintiffand tightly embrace her, while pressing his body into
hers. This made Plaintifffeel demeaned and uncomfortable, especially because it was at
work in a communal conference room. These inappropriate physical encounters with
IIDAmade Plaintiffafraid, as she worried on-looking coworkers could get the wrong
idea about her character and intentions. Plaintiffcould not believe IIDAcontinued this
conduct, while at RAKUTEN's office, especially given that she had never reciprocated
his advances.
26 48. On or about August 28, 2018, IIDAgave Plaintifftwo 2-Day park Hopper tickets to
Disneyland.
28 ///
ll

1 49. On or about August 30, 2018, Plaintiffgave IIDAa check in the amount of$5,000 to
reimburse IIDAfor the retainer fee he had given Plaintiffmonths prior. Plaintifftold
IIDA,"Thank you very much for all your support, means a lot to me." IIDAresponded
with a surprised expression and appeared taken aback by Plaintiffs gesture. IIDA
accepted the check, then proceeded to give Plaintiffa tight unwelcomed embrace before
leaving the room.
7 50. On or about September 13, 2018, Plaintiffhad lunch with IIDAin his conference room.
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Plaintiffcasually shared with IIDAan idea she had on how to improve RAKUTEN
culture through the company's CSR program. She expressed to IIDAher interest in
implementing a "Culture Brand Ambassador" project that would emphasize uniting
employees to achieve a "One Rakuten" culture. Plaintiffalso complained to IIDAabout
ongoing conflicts with Kristen Gambetta ("Gambetta"), RAKUTEN's Director ofSports
and Marketing, regarding her tendency to micro-manage Plaintiffs work performance.
IIDApromised Plaintiffthat he would have a conversation with Gambetta and let her
know that she and Plaintiffwere "equal level" managers. IIDAalso told Plaintiffthat he
loved the "Culture Brand Ambassador" idea and that he was on his way to Japan that
evening and would enquire as to whether headquarters was interested in the culture and
CSR initiative. He mentioned to Plaintiffthat he was already thinking ofsomething in
that department and saw that there was a great need for it.
20 51. Shortly thereafter, on or around September 19, 2018, Plaintiffreceived a Viber
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
communication from her Department leader, Gambetta, saying, "Hey there, I know we
haven't had a chance to talk about the move-in role for next year, but just wanted to say
that I love working with you and while I willbe super sad for you to move offour team, I
am so glad you willget to do something that aligns more to your passion areas and
Rakuten is so freaking lucky to have you and your energy. I asked Yaz that we still sit by
each other. Ha." Plaintiffresponded in complete shock with, "Waitwhat?!?" Plaintiff
was confused and concerned. Plaintiffhad no knowledge ofwhat IIDAhad told
management in Japan about her Brand Ambassador idea and had no idea she had been re-
lz

assigned. Further, Plaintiffdid not know her current role or position at RAKUTENafter
receiving this message from Gambetta. Plaintifffelt IIDAwas manipulating and
controlling Plaintiffs career to serve his own ends as he had done previously with other
employees.
5 52. On or around September 26, 2018, IIDAinvited Plaintiffto a baseball game and
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
remarked that an MLBagent would be there. Plaintiffhired childcare and cancelled plans
in order to attend what she believed was a work event. When Plaintiffarrived at IIDA'S
apartment, she was frustrated to find that the event was not work-related but rather a
casual outing with IIDAand 2 ofhis friends. At the end ofthe night, IIDAtightly
embraced Plaintiffin his apartment garage, and said "love you." IIDAthen proceeded to
press his lips against Plaintiff's cheek. After this encounter, Plaintiffwas convinced that
IIDAhad crossed the line and grew increasingly anxious. Plaintiffs fears were becoming
reality. Plaintifffeared that ifshe were to tell IIDAthat she had a boyfriend, he might
retaliate against her and harm her career. Plaintifffelt helpless. Plaintiffwanted IIDA's
unwanted and harassing conduct to stop.
53. The followingday, on or around September 27, 2018, Plaintifftold IIDAthat she was
going to Disneyland at the end ofOctober with her son, Will,and her boyfriend, Johnny,
for an early birthday present. Plaintiffthanked IIDAfor the tickets. IIDA'sreaction was
exactly what Plaintiffhad feared. IIDAwas unhappy to learn Plaintiffhad a boy&lend
and in response launched a retaliatory campaign against Plaintiff. Although Plaintiffhas
been an exemplary employee for RAKUTENsince 2016, IIDAbegan giving Plaintiff
poor performance reviews and feedback. Further, as was consistent with his pattern, IIDA
changed Plaintiffs line ofreporting from himself to Gambetta, with whom he knew
Plaintiffhad previously had issues.
25 54. Soon thereafter, on or about October I, 2018, Plaintifforganized the Warriors Kick-Off
26
27
28
Employee Event, which was hosted by the Warriors at the RAKUTENUSA office in San
Mateo, California. Following the event, IIDAsent Plaintiffa Viber message that stated,
"We should talk about how to manage and operate an event like the one today." Plaintiff
13

was confused, as she had received positive feedback from HR regarding the event's
success, and several other employees complimented her on her management ofthe event.
Plaintiffbelieved IIDAwas targeting her and retaliating against her because she refused
to submit to his previous sexual advances.
5 55. On or about October 11, 2018, during her mid-term review meeting, Plaintifflearned that
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
IIDAhad provided her with an incomplete mid-term review, as he made no comment
regarding her performance despite being her supervisor for most ofthe period. This was
in stark contrast from the previous positive reviews IIDAprovided Plaintiffbefore her
complaints and informing IIDabout her boyfriend. IIDAthen told Plaintiffin person that
she could no longer report to him, effective immediately. When Plaintiffrequested an
explanation, IIDAtold her he "cared for her too much." IIDAthen told Plaintiffthat he
would be sad ifshe left the company, but ifthat was what
Plaintiff
ha to do, itwould be
her choice. IIDAalso told Plaintiffthat he was concerned that he had been showing her
favoritism. Plaintiffasked IIDAwhy he had suddenly changed his opinion ofher
performance and value to RAKUTEN. She reminded IIDAofhow he pleaded with her to
stay last year, when she had a competing job offer, and he convinced her to stay. Finally,
Plaintiffasked IIDAifthe incomplete review would be her final midterm review and he
responded "yes." Frustrated, Plaintiffasked IIDA,"Why is this [favoritism] my fault?"
IIDAnever responded, and never provided Plaintiffa complete written review. No
further follow-up discussion took place regarding Plaintiffs performance until November
14, 2018. Plaintiffbecame increasingly fearful that her employment at RAKUTENmay
come to an end or the retaliation would increase.
23 56. IIDA'sretaliation against Plaintiffcontinued at the Warriors home opening Game, on or
24
25
26
27
28 ///
about October 16, 2018. Throughout the night, Plaintiffnoticed IIDAshuffled around in
an effort to avoid her. Because Plaintiffhosted Warrior events at the corporate suite,
IIDAalways asked Plaintifffor parking passes to the games. This time however, IIDA
asked another team member. When IIDAasked Plaintiffwho was watching her son while
l4

she was at the game, Plaintiffresponded, "Myboyfriend, Johnny." IIDAnodded his head
and responded "ok."The conversation abruptly ended after this exchange.
3 57. The followingday, on October 17„2018, for the first time, Plaintiffreceived a negative
mid-term review form IIDA. IIDAstated that "Jessica inconsistently meets
expectations," and "Jessica can be very effective and productive when she can focus, but
it has been challenging to do so in Hl. Hope she is able to focus in H2." IIDAhad no
good faith basis for providing Plaintiffwith a negative review and did so only in
retaliation for Plaintiffnot returning his affections and sexual advances.
9 58. From October 17, 2018 to November 14, 2018, IIDA,who was still Plaintiffs supervisor,
Z
C
Z
CC
Z
lh
CC lll
CC
Cl
CV
C
CC
O
n
Cl
O
CC
CC
Z
C
Vl
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
consistently ignored Plaintiffand avoided eye contact with her. Plaintiffbecame persona
non grata and felt IIDAwas negatively impacting her ability to perform her duties for
RAKUTEN.
59. On November I, 2018, IIDAcancelled Plaintiffs biweekly Group Sports Team meeting
by going home sick.
60. On November 14, 2018, a month after IIDAgave Plaintiffa poor performance review,
Plaintiffreceived a Viber message from IIDAstating, "HiJess, just wanted to give you a
heads-up that I willset up a I:I with you to followup on our conversation about your
career. Hopefully we can meet before Thanksgiving. Speak soonl" Plaintiffresponded
with: "Noted. I would also like to include in that meeting a follow-up discussion from the
midterm review meeting.*'1
61. Also on November 14, 2018, IIDAinstructed Gambetta, RAKUTEN's Director ofSports
22
23
24
25
and Marketing, to scratch the CSR program, a program that falls under Plaintiffs job
responsibilities. Plaintifflearned ofthis change in the team catch-up meeting at 3:00 PM.
Defendant IIDAwas retaliating against Plaintiffby decreasing her duties and
responsibilities. Plaintiffbelieved IIDAwas systematically removing Plaintiffs value
and RAKUTEN'sneed for her services.
27 62. That same day, on November 14, 2018, in his conference room, IIDApressured Plaintiff
28 to part ways with RAKUTENby strategically placing her under direct reporting lines to
IS

10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
Gambetta, the Team Director that Plaintiffcomplained to IIDAabout a month prior.
IIDAtold Plaintiffthat she would no longer be reporting to him starting January I, 2019
and instructed her to report to Gambetta. IIDAtold Plaintiffthat there were no other
positions available and that her only options were to either stay and report to Gambetta in
2019 or "part ways" with RAKUTENand accept her severance package. Shocked and
confused, Plaintiffresponded, "we are already talking about severance?" Plaintifftold
IIDAthat she would opt to stay under Gambetta, since this was her only option for
staying with RAKUTEN.Plaintiffalso told IIDAthat she was aware ofthe strategy he
was playing, as this was the same retaliating and manipulating tactic he used against
RAKUTEN's former Head ofHuman Resources, who filed a pregnancy discrimination
claim against him, as well as RAKUTEN's former Director ofCorporate
Communications, who was also involved in the pregnancy discrimination claim. Plaintiff
complained to IIDAthat she was once a Director ofHR and that sabotaging her career at
RAKUTEN,because she did not return IIDA'saffections, was illegal. IIDAand
RAKUTENwere aware ofPlaintiff's concerns and had a substantiated belief that he was
engaging in unlawful and unwanted harassing and retaliatory behavior.
63. Plaintiffthen asked IIDAquestions about her poor performance review, requesting that
he elaborate about the comment referring to her lack offocus. IIDAresponded by
fabricating excuses, saying that Plaintifffailed to distribute Warrior T-Shirts and that she
socialized too much in the work place. Plaintiffresponded, "Ifthere were any issues or
problems with focus or performance, you should have, as a manager, made an effort to
speak and meet with me about them. You have had every opportunity to talk to me. Not
once was a meeting set up to review my goals or performance concerns this year." IIDA
replied, "That is my fault and I should have done a better job and willdo so going
forward." Plaintiffreplied, "Iwillno longer be reporting to you, so it seems a bit too late
for that." The meeting ended after 30 minutes, and Plaintiffleft the office around 6:30
PM that evening confused, very upset and uncomfortable. Plaintifffelt isolated and
28 ///
16

64.
defeated by IIDA'sescalating aggressive retaliation against her. Plaintifffelt certain that
IIDAwas pushing her out ofRAKUTEN.
On or about November 15, 2018, IIDAset up a one-on-one meeting with Gambetta to
review Plaintiffs new reporting line. Later on November 15, 2018, at the bi-weekly
meeting with the Group Sports Team, HDAacted overly happy and out-of-character.
Plaintiffnoticed that he went out ofhis way to compliment everyone but Plaintiffand
avoided eye contact with her. To this day, Plaintiffremains unsure ofher new job title or
position at RAKUTEN.
65. On or about November 28, 2018, IIDAheld a meeting with team members, Gambetta and
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
66.
67.
Julian Toedter, RAKUTEN's Senior Manager of Sports and Entertainment. During the
meeting, IIDAdiscussed Nami Ito who had transferred from the Japan RAKUTENteam
to be placed on the Golden State Warriors cheerleading team at RAKUTENUSA.
RAKUTENsponsored Ito's work visa for the upcoming year and placed her in a PR and
communications role on Plaintiffs team.
On December 3, 2018 Plaintiffreceived the following Viber message from Toedter:
"Wanted to see when might be a good time to schedule a catch up with you regarding
Nami. Kristen and I spoke to her last week. She's expressed an interest in Asakai and
Events/Hospitality. Thought this could be helpful as there's always so much going on,
perhaps she could support you here with a project or 2 over time... and free your time up
as well. What do you think?** Plaintiffimmediately felt uncomfortable and recognized
the escalating retaliation by HDA. Plaintiffwas convinced IIDAwas pushing her out of
the company by systematically removing her duties and responsibilities.
On December 6, 2018, three days after learning Plaintiffplanned to file a lawsuit against
24
25
26
27
RAKUTEN,Connie Linardakis ("Linardakis"), RAKUTEN's Head ofHuman Resources
Department, summoned Plaintiffto her office to inform her that she would be reporting
to Kristen Gambetta. Linardakis also informed Plaintiff that RAKUTENintended to take
Plaintiffs allegations ofharassment and retaliation "seriously" and would be opening an
"outside
investigation.*'LAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES
I7

I 68. Also on December 6, 2018, and in direct retaliation for Plaintiffresisting IIDA's
10
advances and complaining about IIDA'ssexual harassment, Toedter met with Plaintiffto
transfer several roles and responsibilities from Plaintiffto Ido. Toedter asserted to
Plaintiffthat the purpose ofRAKUTENreducing Plaintiffs responsibilities was to "free
up some of [Plaintiffs] time." IIDAhad directed Toedter to reassign Plaintiffs job
responsibilities under "hospitality and merchandise" to Ido. As Defendants'etaliatory
campaign against Plaintiffgrows more aggressive, Plaintiffs role and position at
RAKUTENis quickly becoming obsolete. This is the same pattern Plaintifffeared and
why she determined not to report the misconduct for so long, choosing instead to
graciously put up with IIDA'sunwanted behavior.
11 69. Finally on December 6, 2018,
Plaintiff
ha lunch with Cindy Granger ("Granger" ),
R
IQ
C
)
I"Vl
Z CC
IC Ic
CI
CC cI
CC
C
CV
C
C
R
CC
CI
3C
Cl
CI
IC
CI
K
CC
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
RAKUTEN's Event Manager and Head ofClubs. Granger told Plaintiffthat IIDAhad
asked her the previous week about a club that Plaintiffled, known as the "health and
wellness" club. IIDAtold Granger, "the club is too expensive and needs to be cut." IIDA
had never been involved in club costs until then and had previously approved the health
and wellness club, as it was hosted by the Reiki master Plaintiffhad referred IIDAto, and
IIDAhad practiced with. Due to Defendants'ngoing retaliation, Plaintiffnow faced
losing her position as head ofthe health and wellness club, her only remaining leadership
role at RAKUTEN.
20 70. On December 7, 2018, Plaintiffarrived at work to learn RAKUTENhad officially
21
22
24
25
26
27
28 ///
reorganized her into a position subordinate to Gambetta. Throughout Plaintiff's 19-year
career, she had always worked for C-level executives. Plaintiffhad a forward moving
career track and was close to becoming a director at RAKUTEN.Throughout Plaintiff's
19-year career, she had never been fired or laid off This was Plaintiffs first time being
demoted and forced to work under an employee inher same level position. Plaintifffelt
humiliated by the demotion and frustrated by the harm IIDA'sand RAKUTEN's
retaliatory campaign was bringing to her career, reputation, and health.
18

I 71. On December 10, 2018, Plaintiffreceived a message from team member Jon Bach
("Bach") requesting a hospitality update for IIDA. Plaintiffresponded with, "What
exactly is he looking for in regards to a hospitality update?" Bach responded, "I believe
it's just a breakdown ofwho has used what and which companies have been invited.
Already put together a couple slides, but a couple usages that I'm not sure about." IIDA
rarely asked employees for updates unless the update was part ofa bi-weekly sports
meeting. IIDA'ssudden micromanagement ofPlaintiffs duties is demonstrative ofhis
retaliatory motive to ensure Plaintiffwas pressured to accept RAKUTEN's severance
request and/or to build a case against her for termination.
10 72. Thereafter, on or about December 12, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Linardakis, RAKUTEN's Head
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ofHuman Resources, emailed Plaintiffto schedule an internal investigation meeting at
LittlerMendelson, a defense firmwith offices located in San Francisco. On information
and belief, Littlerattorney Natalie Pierce previously represented RAKUTEN in recent
pregnancy discrimination cases. Linardakis invited Plaintiffto meet with its outside
counsel with fullknowledge that Plaintiffwas represented by her own counsel, as she had
received notice ofPlaintifFs complaint on December 3, 2018. Linardakis emailed
Plaintiffthe followingmessage: "Jessica, with the holidays coming up, I wanted to get
your availability to meet with the external investigator after December 17th. Can you
give me an outline oftime blocks or days through December 28th?" Plaintiffresponded
at I:21 PM, "Connie, can you tell me where the investigation willtake place?" Linardakis
replied, "Ithink it can be off-site in the San Francisco office ofLittler. Whatever is more
comfortable for you." RAKUTENHR attempted to manipulate Plaintiffinto cooperating
with an "external investigator," hosted at the firm of Plaintiffs outside counsel, without
presence ofher own counsel.
25 73. In addition to the unwanted and retaliatory conduct Plaintiffwas subjected to by IIDA,
26
27
the unethical and negligent handling ofPlaintiff's complaint by RAKUTENhas caused
severe mental, physical, and emotional harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiffsuffers from a chronic
medical conditional known as Crohn's Disease. Crohn*s disease is an inflammatory
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
19

bowel disease (IBD)which causes inflammation ofthe digestive tract and can lead to
abdominal pain, severe diarrhea, fatigue, weight loss and malnutrition. Stress and anxiety
can trigger a "flare up" ofCrohn's disease resulting in painful aggravation of symptoms.
Plaintiffhas endured severe emotional and mental distress over the past two years due to
ongoing harassment, discrimination, and retaliation while under the supervision of
RAKUTENPRESIDENT, YAZIIDA.Recently, Plaintiffsuffered a painful flare-up of
her Crohn's disease due to stress and anxiety caused by Defendants'ngoing retaliation
and discrimination against her.
9 74. Immediately followingRAKUTENand Littler'sjoined efforts to summon Plaintiffto an
'M
C)
cu
Cl
fg 'H
N
0
%~KC
5~+cC m ~
U H (jN
0
R
C
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unethical "external investigation" at the Littler San Francisco office without her counsel,
Plaintiffexperienced a painful Crohn's flare-up due to stress. Hours after the incident,
Plaintiffcontacted her Gastroenterologist at UCSF to schedule an emergency medical
appointment. Plaintiffsought treatment from her specialist the following day on
December 13, 2018. Plaintiff's doctor has opined that there is a direct correlation
between Plaintiffs Chron's disease flare ups and the stress she is enduring at
RAKUTEN.
75. RAKUTEN's reckless handling ofPlaintiff's complaint is intentional and purposeful and
demonstrative ofa pattern ofmanipulative strategies, scare tactics and unethical
"investigations.'* For example, Jeri Doris ("Doris"), a former RAKUTENemployee and
Head ofHuman Resources, who also brought forth discrimination claims against
RAKUTENPRESIDENT, YAZIIDA,was also the target ofRAKUTEN's
discrimination and retaliation. Immediately afler Doris brought forth her claims against
IIDA,IIDAretaliated against Doris and sabotaged her career by staging a reorganization
ofher reporting line, which he hoped would destine Doris for failure. While Doris was
out on maternity leave, IIDAviolated California law by demoting Doris from Head of
HR at RAKUTENto a lower position, which entailed party and event planning
responsibilities. IIDAthen appointed Andrew Marshall, RAKUTEN's Global Head of
Human Resources, to Doris's position. To further sabotage Doris's career at RAKUTEN,
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTFOR DAMAGfS
20

IIDAthen placed Lauren Duffey, an employee who had a notorious tumultuous
relationship with Doris, under Doris's chain ofcommand.
3 76. Thereafter, in or about October 2017, while Doris was still on maternity leave,
RAKUTENattempted to force Doris into an unethical "external investigation" with
Julius Turman, a third-party attorney/investigator from Constangy Brooks, Smith &
Prophete, a national labor and employment law defense firm, hired by RAKUTEN.The
investigator repeatedly strong-armed Doris into interviews with the first attempt
occurring while Doris was in the emergency room delivering her newborn child and the
second attempt four days aIIer giving birth to her child.
10 77. Ultimately, Doris's pregnancy discrimination complaints against RAKUTENwere never
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
resolved, and RAKUTENabruptly ended Doris's investigation without any warning or
remedy. In defense ofits inaction, RAKUTENclaimed Doris was "non-participatory" in
the investigation. Surprised and confused, Doris continued to work at RAKUTENin
order to support her family. Eventually after months ofstress and animosity at
RAKUTEN,Doris sought employment elsewhere.
78. After Plaintiffwitnessed RAKUTEN'sbotched investigation ofDoris's claims of
discrimination, RAKUTEN'sunethical HR tactics and IIDA'suntouchable position of
power, Plaintiffwas filledwith stress and anxiety. Plaintiffcontinued to endure IIDA's
inappropriate harassment and discrimination for fear oflosing her job. Plaintiffis a single
mother and the sole provider ofher family. Plaintiffalso knew and feared that all
complaints made to HR and compliance were "hotlined" directly to PRESIDENT YAZ
IIDA.IIDAwould then immediately begin his unlawful tactical game ofreorganization
chess, with the ultimate objective being the demise ofthe complaining employee's
professional career at RAKUTEN. Plaintifffelt completely unprotected given that the
individual that was subjecting her to unwanted and harassing behavior was RAKUTEN's
President.
27 79. Plaintiffis informed and believes that between December 2017 and December 3, 2018,
28 four female employees have brought forth legal claims ofdiscrimination against
2I

10
RAKUTENPRESIDENT YAZIIDA.Allfour women were under direct reporting lines
to supervisor IIDAand worked on the same team. The first was Jeri Doris, followed by
Victoria Wu, Maya Eberhard, and now PlaintiffJessica Wyman. Doris, Wu, and
Eberhard brought forth claims ofpregnancy discrimination against IIDA.With each
employee and every complaint, RAKUTENrepeated the same cycle ofunethical and
bogus investigations followed by IIDA'sretaliatory backlash and infamous
reorganization oflines ofreporting. The hastiness ofthe investigations and sudden
disappearance ofthese women from RAKUTEN,signal a clear warning to the remaining
female employees at RAKUTEN:to keep quiet about claims ofharassment or
discrimination.
11 80. RAKUTEN,a multi-billion-dollartech company, vigorously promotes itself as a
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
supporter ofwomen, while behind closed doors, RAKUTENis run by men who toy with
female employees to stroke their own egos and maneuver them around like chess pieces
for personal amusement and disposal. RAKUTENholds itself out to the global media as
a promoter ofwomen's empowerment through lavish sports events, such as its co-
sponsorships with the NBAWarriors for Women's history month, all while illegally
discriminating against its own female employees who choose to have children and take
on leadership positions. RAKUTEN,a company that annually teams up with the San
Francisco Warriors every year to host its "Most Valuable Mom" event to celebrate
struggling hardworking mothers, simultaneously continues to sexually harass,
discriminate and retaliate against its own female employees. Ironically, RAKUTEN
further intends to pour more money into boosting its facade of female activism through
the launch ofa female empowerment campaign, all while illegally undermining and
sabotaging the success offemale professionals within their own company.
PLAINTIFF'SCOMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES
22

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUALHARASSMENTv. AllDefendants
[Cah Gov't Code Il 12940(j)]
81. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
82. Plaintiffwas at all times material hereto an employee covered by California Government
Code tj12940 et seq., which prohibits harassment in employment on the basis ofsex.
83. Defendants are, and at all times material hereto were, an employer and/or person within
the meaning ofthe Fair Employment and Housing Act and, as such, are barred from
harassing Plaintiffon the basis ofher sex, as set forth in California Government Code
section 12940(j).
84. Plaintiffwas subjected to unwanted and harassing conduct on the basis ofher sex, as set
forth herein.
85. The harassing conduct was intense and incessant.
86. A reasonable woman in Plaintiff's circumstances would have considered the work
environment to be hostile or abusive, and PlaintifFdid, in fact, consider the work
environment to be hostile or abusive.
87. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants'onduct, Plaintiffhas
sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings, employment benefits,
employment opportunities, and Plaintiffhas suffered other economic losses in an amount
to be determined at time oftrial. Plaintiffhas sought to mitigate these damages.
88. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result ofDefendants'onduct, Plaintiffsuffered
emotional distress, to her damage, in a sum to be established according to proof.
89. As a result ofDefendants'eliberate, outrageous, despicable conduct, Plaintiffis entitled
to recover punitive and exemplary damages in an amount commensurate with
Defendants'rongful acts and sufficient to punish and deter future similar reprehensible
conduct.
23

1 90. In addition to such other damages as may properly be recovered herein, Plaintiffis
entitled to recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code
section 12965.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
GENDER DISCRIMINATIONv. Defendant RAKUTEN
[Cal. Gov't Code 1'1 12940 et sert.1
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
92. Atall times mentioned herein, California Government Code section 12940, er seq. was in
fullforce and effect and was binding on Defendant. This section provides that it is
unlawful for Defendant, as an employer, to discriminate against an employee on the basis
ofgender.
93. Plaintiffperformed work for Defendant, as an employee, as stated herein.
94. In taking the adverse actions against Plaintiffas alleged herein, Defendant has violated
this statute.
95. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result ofDefendant's conduct. Plaintiffhas
sustained and continues to sustain substantial loss in earnings, employment benefits,
employment opportunities, and Plaintiffhas suffered economic losses in an amount to be
determined at trial. Plaintiffhas sought to mitigate these damages.
96. As a proximate result ofDefendant's willful,knowing, and intentional discrimination of
Plaintiff, Plaintiffhas suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress,
loss ofreputation, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum
to be established according to proof.
97. As a result ofDefendant's deliberate, outrageous, and despicable conduct. Plaintiffis
entitled to recover punitive and exemplary damages in an amount commensurate with
each ofDefendant's wrongful acts and sufficient to punish and deter future similar
28
PLAINTIFF'SCOMPLAiNTFOR DAMAGES
24

reprehensible conduct. Plaintiffhas incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and
attorney fees.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURETO PREVENT HARASSMENTv. Defendant RAKUTEN
[CaL Gov't Code I'I 12940(h)]
8 99. Plaintiffwas subjected to discriminatory and harassing conduct on the basis ofher sex, as
10
set forth herein. Plaintiffwas also subjected to retaliation for opposing said
discrimination and harassment.
11 100. Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination, harassment, and
«0
««
z««
O
«
«i
««
««
««
Z
««
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
retaliation, as described herein.
101. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result ofDefendant's conduct, Plaintiffhas
employment opportunities, and Plaintiffhas suffered other economic losses in an amount
to be determined at time oftrial. Plaintiffhas sought to mitigate these damages.
102. As a further direct, foreseeable, and proximate result ofDefendant's conduct, Plaintiff
has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, loss ofreputation,
and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum to be established
according to proof.
21 103. As a result ofDefendant's deliberate, outrageous, despicable conduct, Plaintiffis entitled
22
23
24
Defendant's wrongful acts and sufficient to punish and deter future similar reprehensible
conduct.
26
27
entitled to recover attorney fees and costs pursuant California Government Code section
12965.
28 ///
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAFNT FOR OAMAGES
25

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATIONv. Defendant RAKUTEN
[Cal. Gov't Code tl 12940(h)]
6 106. At all times mentioned herein, California Government Code section 12940(h) was in full
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
force and effect and was binding on Defendant. This section requires Defendant, as an
employer, to refrain from retaliating against any employee who has opposed any
practices forbidden under California Government Code section 12940, or because the
employee has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under California
Government Code section 12940(h).
107. Defendant, by and through its employees and agents, engaged in conduct that, taken as a
whole, materially and adversely affected the terms and conditions ofPlaintiff's
employment, as stated herein, up to and including subjecting Plaintiffto negative
employee reviews, changed job duties, reduced responsibility, altered supervisorial chain
ofcommand and isolation.
108. Plaintiffbelieves and thereon alleges that her opposition to the sexual harassment
perpetuated by IIDAwas a motivating reason for Defendant engaging in conduct that,
taken as a whole, materially and adversely affected the terms and conditions ofPlaintiffs
employment, as stated herein, up to and including, subjecting Plaintiffto negative
employee reviews, changed job duties, reduced responsibility, altered supervisorial chain
ofcommand and isolation.
23 109. Defendant's conduct ofretaliating against Plaintiffin the terms, conditions, and
24
25
privileges ofher employment, as stated herein, violates California Government Code
section 12940(h).
26 110. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result ofDefendant's conduct, Plaintiffhas
28 ///
26

employment opportunities, and other economic losses in an amount to be determined at
time oftrial. Plaintiffhas sought to mitigate these damages.
3 111. As a further direct, foreseeable, and proximate result ofDefendant's conduct, Plaintiff
has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, loss ofreputation,
and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum to be established
according to proof.
7 112. As a result ofDefendant's deliberate, outrageous, despicable conduct, Plaintiffis entitled
10
Defendant's wrongful acts and sufficient to punish and deter future similar reprehensible
conduct.
12
13
14
15
16
17
entitled to recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code
section 12965.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT SUPERUISION v. Defendant RAKUTEN
18 115. Plaintiffperformed work for Defendant, as an employee, as stated herein.
19 116. Defendant has a legal duty to supervise all employees.
20 117. Defendant's employees took part in unlawful discriminatory conduct, including actions to
21
22
harass Plaintiffon the basis ofher sex in an effort to humiliate and embarrass her, as
stated herein.
23 118. Defendant knew or should have known that its employees were engaging in unlawful
discriminatory practices, as stated herein.
25 119. Defendant failed to take reasonable steps necessary to prevent the unlawful
26 discriminatory conduct described herein.
27 120. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result ofDefendant's conduct, Plaintiffhas
28 sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings, employment benefits,
27

employment opportunities, and other economic losses in an amount to be determined at
time oftrial. Plaintiffhas sought to mitigate these damages.
3 121. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result ofDefendant's conduct, Plaintiffhas
suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental pain and
anguish, all to her damage in a sum to be established according to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONALINFLICTIONOF EMOTIONALDISTRESS
v. AllDefendants
10 the preceding paragraphs as though fullyset forth herein.
11 123. Defendants'ntentional conduct, as set forth herein, was extreme and outrageous.
12
13
14
15
16
17
124. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiffto suffer extreme emotional distress. Plaintiff
suffered extreme emotional distress.
125. As a further direct, foreseeable, and proximate result ofDefendants'onduct, Plaintiff
has sustained and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, loss ofreputation,
and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to Plaintiff's damage in an amount
according to proof at trial.
18 126. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively
19
20
21
22
with the wrongful intention ofinjuring Plaintifffrom an improper and evil motive
amounting to malice and in conscious disregard ofPlaintiffs rights. Plaintiffis thus
entitled to recover exemplary and punitive damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
23
24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for the followingrelief:
25
26
27
28
1. For compensatory damages, including loss ofwages, promotional opportunities,
benefits, and other opportunities ofemployment, according to proof;
2. For special damages in an amount according to proof;
3. For mental and emotional distress damages;
2S

4. For back pay, fiont pay, and other monetary relief;
S. For punitive damages in an amount necessary to make an example of, and to
punish, defendants, and to deter future similar misconduct;
6. I'or costs of suit, including attorney's fees as permitted by law, including those
available pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code I'I 12965(b);
7. For an award ofinterest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate as
permitted by law, including those permitted by Cal. Gov't Code tj 12965(b);
8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just under all the
circumstances.
10 PLAINTIFFJESSICA WYMANdemands a jury trial on all issues in this case.
m
CV
tQ
N
0
A ~Z
Vl
I-
Z
A
A
K
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DATED: January 2, 2019 GRVENBERG LAW
JOSHUA D. GRUENBERG
AISLING S. GILLILAND
SARAI-I E. GALLAGI-IER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JESSICA WYMAN
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTI'Oa DAMAGES
29

EXHIBITA
(I) PLAINTIFF'S CHARGE FILED WITHTHE DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
3 EMPLOYMENTANDHOUSING (DFEH).
(2) PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO SUE LETTER FROM THE DFEH.
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30

COMPLAINTOF EMPLOYMENTDISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENTAND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code, it 12900 et seq.)
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Jessica Wyman DFEH No. 201901-04669102
vs.
Complainant,
10
11
12
13
RAKUTEN USA, INC.
800 CONCAR DRIVE
SAN MATEO, California 94402
YASUHISA IIDA
800 CONCAR DRIVE
SAN MATEO, California 94402
Respondents
14
15
1. Respondent RAKUTEN USA, INC. is an employer subject to suit under the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, I) 12900 et seq.).
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Complainant Jessica Wyman, resides in the City of San Diego State of
California.
3. Complainant alleges that on or about December 10, 2018, respondent took the
following adverse actions:
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, sexual
harassment- hostile environment, sexual harassment- quid pro quo.
Date Filed: January 2, 201 9
-1-
Complaint —DFEH No. 20190 1-04669 1 02
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's sex/gender,
sexual harassment- quid pro quo and as a result of the discrimination was
reprimanded, demoted, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or
retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied work opportunities or
assignments.
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted
any form of discrimination or harassment and as a result was denied hire or

promotion, reprimanded, demoted, denied a work environment free of discrimination
and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege.
10
Additional Complaint Details: Upon information and belief, Claimant Jessica
Wyman is an employee of Respondent RAKUTEN USA, INC. Since February of
2016, Claimant has experienced sexual harassment, gender discrimination and
retaliation at the hands of her supervisor, Respondent IIDA. Such harassment,
discrimination and retaliation includes, but is not limited to, unwanted and uninvited
touching, hugging and kissing; inappropriate and unwanted suggestive remarks;
unsolicited expensive gifts and dinner invitations; loss of job duties and
responsibilities for resisting and complaining about such harassment, an altered
chain of command and negative reviews from IIDA. Respondent RAKUTEN has
failed to prevent such harassment and retaliation and has negligently supervised its
President YASUHISA IIDA.
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28 Date Filed: January 2, 2019
-2-
Complaint —DFEH No. 20 190 1-04669102

1 VERIFICATION
I, Sarah Gallagher, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based
on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
On January 2, 2019, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.
San Diego, CA
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Date Filed: January 2, 201 9
-3-
Complaint —DEEH No. 201901-04669102

srntenscnusnawa I a «r' * dn I rr
DEPARTIVIENToF FAIR EMPLoYMENTffg HoUsING
22188ausen prlve, Suite10011)KGrave l CA193738
(800) 884 1884 (Voice) l (800) 700 2320 (Tyy) (
CaBfornia's Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I email: contact.centergrdfeh.ca.gov
January 2, 2019
Jessica Wyman
2155 1st Avenue
San Diego, California 92101
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
DFEH Matter Number: 201901-04669102
Right to Sue: Wyman / RAKUTEN USA, INC. et al.
Dear Jessica Wyman,
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective
January 2, 2019 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 letter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact 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 and Housing

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT&HOUSING
2218 Kansan Drive, Suite 10D I Elk Grove I CA I 95738
(80D) 884-1884 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (yfy) (
Californra's Relay Senrlce at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I email; contarhcenterdrdfeh.ca.gov
arnvrANOA EOMUNO a. AAOWNIA
DIAECIOA KEVIN KI IH
January 2, 2019
RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint
DFEH Matter Number: 201901-04669102
Right to Sue: Wyman / RAKUTEN USA, INC. et al.
To All Respondent(s):
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,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing

Jessica Wyman vs. Yasuhisa Yaz Iida of Rakuten USA - Sexual Harassment Complaint

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Jessica Wyman vs. Yasuhisa Yaz Iida of Rakuten USA - Sexual Harassment Complaint

Similar to Jessica Wyman vs. Yasuhisa Yaz Iida of Rakuten USA - Sexual Harassment Complaint (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jessica Wyman vs. Yasuhisa Yaz Iida of Rakuten USA - Sexual Harassment Complaint