Maddie Wade

Arnold P.
Peter (SBN: 120091)

1 apeter@peterlawgroup.com
Eyal Farahan (SBN: 314849) E-FILED
2 efarahan@peterlawgroup.com 7/26/2018 2:29 PM
PETER LAW GROUP FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
3 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 210 By: S.Garcia, Deputy
4 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

T: (310) 277-0010
5 F: (310) 432-0599
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

MADDIE WADE
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
10
11 Case No.: 18CECG02779
MADDIE WADE, an individual,
12
Plaintiff, UNLIMITED CIVIL ACTION
MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266
13
1230 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 210
14 v. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

PETER LAW GROUP
15 1. Wrongful Constructive Termination In

Violation Of Public Policy
16 2. Discrimination On The Basis Of Sex,
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a corporation
17 organized under the laws of the State of Gender, Gender Identity, and/or Gender
Washington, registered to and doing business in the Expression In Violation Of California
18 State of California; DUSTIN GUTHRIE, an Government Code § 12940(a)
individual; and Does 1-100, 3. Harassment On The Basis Of Sex, Gender,
19 Gender Identity, and/or Gender Expression
In Violation Of California Government
20 Defendants. Code § 12940(a)
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF MADDIE WADE AND IN THIS COMPLAINT FOR
2 DAMAGES ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
3 THE PARTIES
4 1. Plaintiff Maddie Wade (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of the State of California, County of
5 Fresno.
6 2. Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) is one of the largest and most
7 recognizable global brands. Founded in Seattle, Washington in 1971, Starbucks currently operates
8 approximately 30,000 locations worldwide.
9 3. Defendant Dustin Guthrie (“Guthrie”) is a manager and supervisor for
10 Starbucks and, during relevant times discussed below, was Plaintiff’s immediate
11 supervisor
12 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as
13 DOES 1 through 100 and, therefore, sues them by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and
14 believes and thereon alleges that said Defendants are in some manner legally responsible for the
PETER LAW GROUP
15 activities and damages alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names
16 and capacities when ascertained.
17 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, at all relevant times,
18 each of Defendants, whether named or fictitious, was the agent or employee of each of the other
19 Defendants, and in doing the things alleged to have been done in the Complaint, acted within the
20 scope of such agency or employment, or ratified the acts of the other.
21 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22 6. All claims asserted herein arose in Fresno County, California and, therefore, this Court
23 has jurisdiction over Defendant Starbucks and causes of action because, as alleged below, Defendants
24 inflicted harm upon Plaintiff in the County of Fresno, State of California.
25 7. Venue is proper in this court insofar as Defendants regularly conduct business in the
26 County of Fresno. Venue is further proper in this court insofar as the wrongful acts, injury and
27 transactions occurred in the County of Fresno.
28
2
1 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
2 8. Starbucks’ café employees are structured as follows: Employees with direct customer
3 contact and those who actually create beverages are referred to as “Baristas.” “Supervisors” oversee
4 Baristas and are generally responsible for the daily operations of the café for their shift. Managers
5 have responsibility for the entire café or several cafés. District Managers supervise Managers and
6 direct the operations of all cafés in their individual districts. There are typically 4 or 5 Supervisors at
7 each location, and each store has one Manager. “Assistant Manager” is a transitional position.
8 Supervisors are evaluated for a managerial position as Manager. There is a wide pay disparity
9 between Supervisor, on the one hand, and Assistant Manager and Manager, on the other. A
10 Supervisor is paid on an hourly basis and earns about $25,000 annually. An Assistant Manager is
11 paid a salary and typically earns a little more the minimum salary threshold to qualify as an exempt
12 employee, or about $46,000. A Store Manager is generally paid a salary of at least $55,000. If
13 Plaintiff had been promoted into an Assistant Manager and eventually into a Manager position, she
14 would have earned more than the typical Assistant Manager and Manger due to her long tenure with
PETER LAW GROUP
15 the company.
16 9. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant Starbucks nearly nine years ago.
17 Plaintiff was quickly recognized for her work ethic, loyalty and leadership skills and promoted to
18 Supervisor on or about late 2014. Plaintiff’s duties included making and selling Starbucks products,
19 opening and close the safe and supervising and evaluating Baristas. Plaintiff was born and lived as a
20 male until late 2017, after Plaintiff was diagnosed with “gender dysphoria” in or about October 2017.
21 Gender dysphoria is the condition of feeling one’s emotional and psychological identity as male or
22 female to be opposite to one’s biological sex.
23 I. Retaliatory Treatment Against Plaintiff At Herndon and Milburn Café
24 10. As of November 2016, Plaintiff was transferred to the Starbucks’ café located at
25 Herndon and Milburn streets (“Milburn Location”) in the City of Fresno. The Milburn Location was
26 referred to “the worst Starbucks in town” by many customers. The drive-thru time was about 15-20
27 minutes on average, far beyond company standards. Standards are 46 seconds during peak hours, and
28 55 seconds outside of peak hours.
3
1 11. The Milburn Location was ridden with poor management. For example, the previous
2 manager had been asked to step down by the District Manager for regularly not meeting expectations,
3 and there was no dedicated Manager assigned to the location. During this time, Plaintiff observed
4 that local and District Managers regularly deflected the blame onto their partners, instead of taking
5 proper action. It created a hostile relationship between the partners and management.
6 12. Starbucks utilized “EcoSure” audits performed by Ecolab, the global leader in water,
7 hygiene and energy technologies and services. The EcoSure Food Safety and Public Health
8 Programs measures a business’ compliance with food safety and public health risk and promotes a
9 culture of food safety. Unfortunately, Supervisors at the Milburn Location were not properly trained,
10 as demonstrated by one shift supervisor being asked to step down, and another being fired for theft
11 (along with two other Baristas).
12 13. Plaintiff picked up the slack for poorly trained Baristas and other Supervisors were
13 handing shifts over to her that were not run properly, which consumed a considerable amount of time
14 to correct. The poor leadership and lack of sensitivity for a diverse work place was evidenced by the
PETER LAW GROUP
15 assistant manager from Herndon/Marks, Nick Westburg (“Westburg”) at a supervisors’ meeting.
16 During the meeting, Westburg began to talk openly about how he hates men with long hair, which
17 was Plaintiff’s hair style at the time. Specifically, Westburg complained about how males with long
18 hair flip the hair out of their face as he made feminine hand gestures. This disregarded Starbucks’
19 policies on workplace behavior and harassment and created an uncomfortable moment for all of the
20 Supervisors in the meeting.
21 14. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Starbucks, she consistently had negative
22 interactions with Westburg. Westburg often came to the Milburn Location and Plaintiff would
23 regularly say hello to him. In return, Westburg gave Plaintiff a dirty look without acknowledging her
24 greeting and would immediately begin friendly chatter with someone else. Plaintiff also witnessed
25 Westburg loudly yelling at a Barista in the middle of the store, while customers were present, about
26 where the Barista had parked his car. Starbucks has a consistent pattern of promoting individuals
27 who do not exhibit compliance with appropriate workplace standards.
28
4
1 15. In January 2017, Natalie Sanchez (“Sanchez”) returned from maternity leave to find
2 the Milburn Location in disarray. However, she did little to improve the poor performance of the café
3 and looked for ways to simply blame the Baristas and Supervisors for the lack of managerial
4 leadership. Plaintiff complained to then District Manager Alisa Scott (“Scott”) about Sanchez’s
5 attitude, demeanor, and blame-shifting.
6 16. Not only did Sanchez’s conduct not improve, but she started retaliating against
7 Plaintiff because of her complaint. For example, Sanchez made unreasonable requests of Plaintiff
8 including in February 2017, Sanchez issuing a written “missed” count caused solely by a malfunction
9 in the Milburn Location which failed to transmit the count. Additionally, in March-June 2017, after
10 Plaintiff had worked a mid-shift of 7:00 am – 3:30 pm, Sanchez called Plaintiff at 3:45 a.m. who
11 stated she left her keys somewhere and needed Plaintiff to come open up the Milburn Location for
12 her. It took some time for Plaintiff to wake up and get dressed. Plaintiff drove to the store and started
13 doing some of the opening tasks for Sanchez who arrived after 4:30 a.m., the scheduled start time.
14 17. Starbucks allows Baristas to indicate the hours of their availability for their work.
PETER LAW GROUP
15 Indeed, Starbucks touts flexibility in scheduling as an employee perk. In or about March or April
16 2017, Plaintiff submitted her availability that would prevent her from working any more unhealthy
17 shifts, such as closing on a late Friday night and having to be back on Saturday at 7:00 a.m. This was
18 a completely reasonable request, as her hours of unavailability were a small fraction of those
19 implemented for other lead Supervisors. One lead Supervisor had in excess of 72 hours unavailable
20 and another stated a similar periods of unavailability. A few days after submitting her availability,
21 Sanchez acknowledged her unavailability request but refused to comply with it. Sanchez stated that
22 an unavailability request must meet the needs of the café, and if it does not suit the café’s needs,
23 Plaintiff may be asked to resign or find another café that can accommodate Plaintiff’s availability.
24 Plaintiff stated to Sanchez that she would appreciate Sanchez looking for another café, but that this
25 was disparate treatment as the two other Supervisors had significantly more unavailable hours than
26 Plaintiff.
27
28
5
1 18. Later on that same day, Plaintiff called Starbucks’ Partner Relations and spoke with
2 them about the situation. She asked them about the policy regarding scheduling and availability,
3 seeking their opinion on the matter. Plaintiff was told that she could submit a claim to be
4 investigated. However, Plaintiff did not submit the claim for fear of retaliation from Sanchez and/or
5 Scott.
6 19. A few days after she complained about disparate treatment regarding work
7 availability, Sanchez asked Plaintiff in passing if she wanted to a work a shift that she was not
8 scheduled for. Plaintiff was speaking with a customer as Sanchez asked her this question. While
9 Plaintiff said yes, she did not retain the question. Further Sanchez provided no further details as to
10 date and hours of the shift. Most importantly, Sanchez never updated the schedule (a frequently
11 recurring habit of hers). Therefore, Plaintiff did not know that Sanchez had scheduled Plaintiff for
12 said shift, and Plaintiff did not show up. Plaintiff received a call at 6:00 a.m. from a Barista asking if
13 Plaintiff was supposed to open that morning. Plaintiff sleepily responded “no, do you have the
14 schedule?” He said that the Baristas had been there, standing outside, since 4:30 AM, trying to
PETER LAW GROUP
15 contact Sanchez or any other supervisor that could open for them. They were unable to call Plaintiff
16 until that point because the employees at the Milburn Location did not have Plaintiff’s number, since
17 Sanchez had removed Plaintiff’s new phone number from the employee contact sheet.
18 20. The Barista who called Plaintiff just happened to have Plaintiff’s new number. After
19 the call, Plaintiff thought about it for a moment and remembered that Sanchez had asked her to work
20 a shift (which she believed was her own shift), but had never given her the details. Plaintiff double
21 checked the schedule and the online employee portal, as well as the daily coverage report, and her
22 name was nowhere to be found for said shift. Plaintiff immediately headed to work and got there
23 within 20 minutes. Another supervisor had already arrived, and had opened the store. However,
24 Plaintiff took over and worked the full shift. A few days after missing the beginning part of the
25 opening shift, Sanchez asked Plaintiff “What happened?” in passing. Plaintiff told Sanchez that she
26 did not know she was supposed to work, and that there was not any information on the schedules or
27 other appropriate places to put Plaintiff on notice. Sanchez responded with a foul look and walked
28 away.
6
1 21. The following week, Scott and Sanchez issued a Final Written Warning write-up to
2 Plaintiff for a no call/no show despite the fact that Plaintiff had never had any attendance-related
3 issues before, and that Sanchez did not post the details of the shift or give Plaintiff any of the details.
4 When Plaintiff objected to this irrational and unfair disciplinary action, both Sanchez and Scott
5 became extremely hostile and accused Plaintiff of being “non-compliant.” Further, as known to
6 Plaintiff and all other employees of Defendant, “non-compliance” is a known threat of termination.
7 22. Approximately within a month of the Final Warning, Sanchez advised Plaintiff that
8 Sanchez was transferring stores within the next two weeks, and that Therese Pellegrine
9 (“Pellegrine”), who managed the Starbucks location at Herndon/Marks streets would be a dual
10 manager, also managing the Milburn Location until a new Manager could be appointed. As soon as
11 Pellegrine took over, the environment at the Milburn Location changed immensely. Pellegrine
12 treated Plaintiff respectfully, morale improved, and the performance at the Milburn Location
13 improved. Pellegrine, working with Plaintiff, developed a team of Baristas who were capable of
14 doing their jobs, as opposed to the inexperienced Baristas under Sanchez. This simple management
PETER LAW GROUP
15 change made a huge difference and the entire team was flourishing and meeting expectations.
16 23. Plaintiff had a great rapport with Pellegrine and was transparent about the issues she
17 had with Sanchez and her concerns that Sanchez’s evaluation and disciplinary actions had
18 jeopardized Plaintiff’s future with the company. Plaintiff also shared with Pellegrine that she
19 anticipated a long-term career with Starbucks and hoped that she would be considered for an
20 Assistant Manager position and eventually higher managerial opportunities. Pellegrine informed
21 Plaintiff that Sanchez left a letter, singling out multiple employees including Plaintiff with negative
22 commentary. Pellegrine stated that she had no intention of reading this letter and preferred to form
23 her own opinions of people. Pellegrine assured Plaintiff that she was not only meeting but exceeding
24 her expectations, and that she did not see the person that Sanchez portrayed to her.
25 24. On her first day, Pellegrine asked Plaintiff how she would like to be scheduled.
26 Pellegrine reassured Plaintiff that the shifts she requested, in fact, were precisely those where she
27 would place a person with Plaintiff’s skills.
28
7
1 25. Plaintiff’s working relationship with Pellegrine only improved because she kept her
2 word, followed through on her promises, and continued give Plaintiff an opportunity to improve her
3 skill level so that she could eventually be promoted to the position of Assistant Manager. With
4 Plaintiff’s consistency in scheduling, Plaintiff’s role increased significantly as a part of the leadership
5 team and she began to connect with her own team members, which allowed her to drive them to
6 better themselves.
7 II. Discrimination, Harassment And Retaliation Against Plaintiff After Disclosing Her
8 Gender Dysphoria
9 A. Dustin Guthrie’s Appointment As Manager Of Milburn Location And
10 Transformation Location’s Performance
11 26. In July 2017, Dustin Guthrie (“Guthrie”) was appointed the manager for the Milburn
12 Location. Guthrie had a completely different demeanor than Pellegrine. For example, he used
13 profanity frequently but had excellent technical skills and knowledge of Starbucks operating
14 procedures.
PETER LAW GROUP
15 27. After working with Plaintiff for a short time, Guthrie let Plaintiff know she was the
16 most experienced lead in the store. Guthrie asked Plaintiff is she was interested in him taking her
17 under his wing and teaching her as much as possible. Guthrie wanted Plaintiff to take ownership of
18 certain responsibilities for the Milburn Location, such as the pull inventory, compliance with EcoSure
19 inspections, and compliance with the Quality Assurance Standards Audit (QASA) (another measure
20 used by Starbucks to monitor and improve food safety and cleanliness standards). Plaintiff needed to
21 develop these skills in order to earn the promotion to Assistant Manager and greater managerial
22 advancement. Guthrie also promised Plaintiff that he would secure an assessment for Plaintiff for the
23 Assistant Manager position.
24 28. Plaintiff and Guthrie worked so well together that Guthrie offered Plaintiff the
25 opportunity to assign to Plaintiff only opening shifts because that is where Guthrie needed his most
26 capable Supervisor. Plaintiff gladly accepted, as this was her goal all along because of the enhanced
27 learning and experiential opportunities. The performance of the Milburn Location skyrocketed,
28 quickly rising from one of the bottom three stores in the District to one of the top three. The Milburn
8
1 Location exceeded all performance metrics, including drive-thru times. Customers began
2 commenting that they valued the Milburn Location above most others because of the fast and friendly
3 customer focus.
4 B. Plaintiff Discloses His Gender Dysphoria To Guthrie And Requests
5 Accommodation For Medical Transition Process
6 29. Plaintiff felt extremely confident in her position with Starbucks. Guthrie was
7 providing Plaintiff with scheduling consistency, performance within the Milburn Location had
8 improved dramatically, and Plaintiff felt her career with Starbucks was on an upward trajectory.
9 Therefore, in or about September-October 2017, Plaintiff decided that it was an ideal time to advise
10 Guthrie and her colleagues about her gender dysphoria diagnosis and her desire to transition to
11 female. Plaintiff provided Guthrie detailed information about the gender transition process, including
12 the emotional extremes as side effects of the medication utilized. Plaintiff also discussed with
13 Guthrie that Plaintiff desired to be referred to with female pronouns of she, her, and herself but that if
14 Guthrie had a hard time referring to Plaintiff with her preferred female pronouns, he could instead use
PETER LAW GROUP
15 neutral pronouns or no pronouns when referring to Plaintiff.
16 C. Plaintiff Rejects Reduced Work Schedule And Reduction in Responsibility
17 30. Guthrie asked if Plaintiff would like to take on mid shifts and reduce her
18 responsibilities so that Plaintiff could focus more on herself and the gender transition. Plaintiff made
19 it clear that Guthrie’s suggestions were counter-productive. First, there are many benefits to working
20 an opening shift because Plaintiff would be able to easily have someone cover the second half of her
21 shift in case she needed to leave early for medical appointments or due to the physical effects of the
22 medication. Second, Plaintiff stated to Guthrie that she did not want to work fewer hours because she
23 still had expenses to pay and did not want derail her career aside because of the transition. Plaintiff
24 assured Guthrie that she could simultaneously complete the gender transition process and fulfill her
25 duties to her employer so long as she and Guthrie had open lines of communications.
26 31. Plaintiff advised Guthrie that she had thought about transferring locations, but wanted
27 to stay at the Milburn Location because she had never had such a great work environment at
28 Starbucks. Plaintiff also advised Guthrie that she would speak individually with each employee at
9
1 the Milburn Location to make sure there were no issues with her completing the transition process
2 while continuing in her position. Guthrie agreed, and Plaintiff eventually spoke to each employee.
3 Each employee told Plaintiff to not transfer, that they loved her, and wanted her to be there so that
4 she could be around supportive people during her transition.
5 D. Guthrie Negative Reaction To Plaintiff’s Disclosure Is Influenced By His Strong
6 Moral and Religious Views
7 32. The day after Plaintiff first informed Guthrie, he stated to Plaintiff that he was
8 struggling “wrapping his head” around the idea of Plaintiff’s gender transition because of Guthrie’s
9 religious views. Guthrie had previously indicated that he is a Christian and wanted a career in
10 politics. Guthrie also revealed that he told his girlfriend (who also worked for Starbucks) about
11 Plaintiff’s gender transition. Guthrie indicated that at one point, while talking about the situation
12 with his girlfriend, he looked up at the bulletin board he had just put up in his room because he had
13 empty space. He intended on putting “on the spot” cards there from employees. “On the spot” cards
14 are a mechanism that allows Starbucks’ employees to make positive comments about other
PETER LAW GROUP
15 employees. When looking at the bulletin board, Guthrie noticed that all of the cards on the bulletin
16 board were only from Plaintiff, nobody else, and that this helped him feel differently about Plaintiff’s
17 transition.
18 33. Guthrie holds strong political and religious views and believes that transgender
19 transition is either a myth and/or morally reprehensible. Guthrie maintains a video blog on uTube
20 and on Twitter in which he openly discusses his political, religious and moral views. Attached hereto
21 as Exhibit A are representative examples of Guthrie’s social media posts between July 2014 and
22 November 2017 (less two months after Plaintiff disclosed his gender dysphoria) which fully describe
23 Guthrie’s hostility to the notion that individuals may not personally identify with the gender that
24 correspond with their birth sex. A representative sample of Guthrie’s social media posts include the
25 following statements:
26 • Next to a photograph of John Wayne appears the following statement: CUTTING OFF
27 YOUR PECKER DOES NOT MAKE YOU A WOMAN…IT JUST MAKES YOU A GUY
28 WHO CUT OFF HIS DAMN PECKER

• Citing as “Leftist Logic” that “Men Can Be Women”
10
1 • Deriding Bruce Jenner as someone who just wanted to “cross dress without being judged”
2 • “Gender is not now, nor has it ever been a preference... Take your ‘purple penguins’ and
3 shove it up your ass!”
4 34. During the next 6-8 weeks, Plaintiff began the transition process. As Plaintiff had
5 previously advised Guthrie, Plaintiff occasionally left her shift early to attend doctor’s visits and on
6 occasion, felt unwell. Even so, Plaintiff always had her shift covered and the Milburn Location ran
7 seamlessly. Plaintiff spoke to Guthrie about using accrued sick pay for the time Plaintiff lost while
8 leaving early for medical appointments and other reasons associated with the gender transition.
9 Guthrie refused, indicating that she was required to use vacation hours instead. Shortly thereafter,
10 Guthrie spoke to Plaintiff about leaving early. Guthrie explained that he had a discussion with Scott
11 about the matter, and she informed Guthrie that this was a “correctable offense” and Supervisors
12 should not switch shifts with a non-equivalent employee (such as a Supervisor shift to a Barista).
13 Plaintiff refrained from leaving early again despite the hardships she faced and in spite of the fact that
14 Guthrie and other Managers would frequently leave their shifts early, switching their key-holding
PETER LAW GROUP
15 Manager shift with Supervisors and Baristas.
16 35. Plaintiff’s working relationship remained positive or improved with all employees at
17 the Milburn Location, except Guthrie. Plaintiff noticed that she saw Guthrie less frequently because
18 Guthrie would schedule his shifts so as to avoid contact with Plaintiff.
19 E. Guthrie Reduces Plaintiff’s Work Hours And Ignores Plaintiff’s Request That
20 She Be Referred To As A Female
21 36. Despite advising Guthrie that she wanted to maintain the same schedule and number
22 of hours she had been working when she disclosed her gender dysphoria and transition, with each
23 new schedule, Plaintiff’s opening shifts and total hours steadily decreased, and she went from
24 working about 38 hours a week down to 23.5 at its lowest point. Further, Guthrie began to limit his
25 contact and avoided interaction and communication with Plaintiff. Along with the reduction in
26 opening shifts and total hours, and Guthrie’s efforts to avoid social contact, Guthrie also refused to
27 refer to Plaintiff with female pronouns and as “Maddie” as Plaintiff had requested. Instead, Guthrie
28 continued to refer to Plaintiff as “Matt,” “Brother, and “Man.” Guthrie’s girlfriend also came into
11
1 the Milburn Location at least twice a day and simply stared at Plaintiff, without comment or
2 conversation with Plaintiff. This made Plaintiff extremely uncomfortable as an object of curiosity.
3 F. Guthrie’s Changed Demeanor And Reduced Communication Leads To
4 Elimination Of Plaintiff’s Assessment For Assistant Manager Position
5 37. The change in Guthrie’s attitude and demeanor made Plaintiff insecure in her
6 continued employment with Starbucks. Therefore, Plaintiff began asking other employees if they
7 saw any reasons why Plaintiff’s openings shifts were being eliminated and total work hours
8 decreased. Every single employee answered “no” and quite the contrary -- stated that Plaintiff was
9 doing a fantastic job and they liked working with her. However, whenever Plaintiff questioned
10 Guthrie about her performance, Guthrie curtly responded with “You are doing fine.”
11 38. Eventually, in or about December 2017, Plaintiff confronted Guthrie and asked him if
12 she was not meeting expectations. Guthrie assured Plaintiff that she was, in fact, meeting
13 expectations and had no complaints about Plaintiff’s performance. Guthrie then asked Plaintiff “Do
14 you feel like you’re being punished?” To which Plaintiff replied, “Yes.” Guthrie assured Plaintiff
PETER LAW GROUP
15 that was not the case but had no adequate explanation for the reduction in opening shifts and total
16 hours.
17 39. On or about late December 2017 or early January 2018, Guthrie asked Plaintiff if she
18 was sure she did not want to take a step back from development for Assistant Manager training so
19 that she could focus more on herself and her transition. Plaintiff responded that that she could do
20 both, and that she would like more hours. Guthrie said “okay, we’ll figure it out,” a phrase he used
21 often.
22 40. During the next 4-6 weeks, nothing changed with Guthrie. Plaintiff did not get an
23 increase in hours, sometimes working even fewer hour than before speaking with Guthrie. Further,
24 Guthrie continued to schedule himself to avoid contact with Plaintiff and did not treat Plaintiff with
25 the same rapport and demeanor as prior to Plaintiff’s transition process.
26 41. On or about late January or early February 2018, when Plaintiff realized things
27 weren’t going to change, Plaintiff wrote Guthrie a letter expressing her dismay and confusion and
28 even suggested that maybe it would be best at this point to take fewer hours. Plaintiff wrote this
12
1 letter out of confusion and distress, not because she actually wanted to work fewer hours. Guthrie did
2 not respond to this letter.
3
4 G. Plaintiff’s Complaints Are Further Ignored At New Location
5 42. Sensing and concluding that the situation with Guthrie would only deteriorate,
6 Plaintiff was forced to seek a transfer to another location. Plaintiff’s final day in the Milburn
7 Location was March 11, 2018, when Plaintiff commenced a leave of absence for facial feminization
8 surgery.
9 43. Plaintiff returned to work at a new Starbucks Location at Barstow and Blackstone
10 Streets in Fresno (“Barstow Location”) on May 14, 2018. About a week later, after getting settled in,
11 Plaintiff reminded her location Manager that she wanted to meet with her new District Manager, in
12 order to discuss her grievances and the treatment she received at the Milburn Location. Plaintiff’s
13 Manager indicated that she would arrange this meeting.

14 44. After requesting a meeting with the District Manager, Plaintiff’s Location Manager
PETER LAW GROUP
15 indicated that Guthrie had called her and wanted to meet with Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff declined
16 because she had already met and discussed her concerns with Guthrie three times without any
17 resolution.
18 III. Plaintiff’s Constructive Termination
19 45. Working at the Barstow Location was a challenge. The employees distrusted
20 management, with two Baristas having walked out in a matter of three weeks. There was a general
21 and blatant disregard for Starbucks’ policies from top to bottom. Customers at the Barstow Location
22 intentionally referred to Plaintiff as “sir” and “man,” in an effort to demean and embarrass her. While
23 Plaintiff acknowledges that Starbucks cannot necessarily control its clientele, Plaintiff was
24 demoralized and discouraged, and spoke to the Barstow Location Manager who dismissively laughed
25 about it and brushed aside Plaintiff’s concerns.
26 46. Plaintiff’s new District Manager, called Plaintiff on May 23, 2018 to schedule a time
27 to speak with Plaintiff. Plaintiff immediately texted the District Manager with available dates that
28 worked for her. Plaintiff never heard back.
13
1 47. Plaintiff felt that neither her location Manager or District Manager cared about her
2 feelings, the difficulties she was facing at the Barstow Location and how she had been treated at the
3 Milburn Location. Plaintiff conferred with her gender therapist who strongly suggested to Plaintiff
4 that she consider resigning, as the toxic workplace environment was adversely affecting her mental
5 and physical health. Therefore, heartbroken and with great stress and anxiety, Plaintiff resigned on
6 June 5, 2018.
7 48. The impact of her constructive termination has been shattering to Plaintiff. Along
8 with losing her income and the support and companionship of her co-workers, she also lost her health
9 insurance, which effectively stops her gender transition in its tracks; including hormone replacement
10 progression and already scheduled follow-up medical appointments. It prevents Plaintiff from having
11 needed adjustments to Plaintiff’s facial feminization surgery. Further, Plaintiff’s gender therapist
12 referred her to a stress therapist to ease Plaintiff’s harmed mental state as a result of exposure to the
13 toxic workplace environment – an appointment Plaintiff was unable to take because of the loss of
14 insurance. The loss of health insurance will cause Plaintiff to slide back into gender dysphoria.
PETER LAW GROUP
15 Plaintiff was relying on having health insurance for many years when she started her gender
16 transition. When Plaintiff started this process while with Starbucks, she was secure in her job status,
17 income, and healthcare. She would not have started the transition process without this security.
18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
19 WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION
20 IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
21 (As To Starbucks)
22 49. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs,
23 inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full.
24 50. At all times relevant to the facts alleged hereinabove, Plaintiff was employed by
25 Defendant Starbucks. Plaintiff was forced to resign because of the intolerable conditions created by
26 Starbucks’s response to Plaintiff’s gender dysphoria and medical transition. No person should be
27 required to work under the intolerable conditions Plaintiff experienced. Plaintiff’s wrongful
28 constructive termination violates public policy.
14
1 51. There is a nexus between Plaintiff’s gender dysphoria and wrongful constructive
2 termination.
3 52. Plaintiff’s damages are a direct result of Plaintiff’s wrongful constructive termination.
4 53. In engaging in the actions described above, Defendant Starbucks acted with
5 oppression and malice, intending to injure Plaintiff. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an
6 award of punitive damages sufficient to punish and deter Defendant Starbucks from engaging in such
7 conduct in the future, in an amount to be ascertained at trial.
8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
9 DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX, GENDER, GENDER IDENTITY,
10 AND/OR GENDER EXPRESSION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
11 CODE § 12940(a)
12 (As To Starbucks)

PETER LAW GROUP
15 55. Plaintiff has exhausted her available administrative remedies by filing a charge of
16 discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, a true and correct of
17 which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
18 56. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code 12940(a) et seq. was in full force
19 and effect and was binding upon Defendant Starbucks and Defendant Starbucks is an employer
20 within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
21 57. Defendant Starbucks discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex, gender,
22 gender identity, and/or gender expression, in violation of the California Fair Employment and
23 Housing Act.
24 58. Defendant Starbuck’s adverse action against Plaintiff was specifically motivated, at
25 least in part, by Plaintiff’s sex, gender, gender identity, and/or gender expression.
26 59. Defendant Starbucks unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff by reducing her hours
27 of work, refusing to promote her, and refusing to assess her, for the position of Assistant Manager
28
15
1 and constructively terminating her because of her sex, gender, gender identity, and/or gender
2 expression, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
3 60. The above conduct violates Government Code §§ 12945(a) et seq. and California
4 public policy, entitling Plaintiff to all available categories of damages.
5 61. By reason of the conduct of Defendant Starbucks, Plaintiff has necessarily retained
6 attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees
7 and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within
8 action.
9 62. The conduct of Defendant Starbucks as described herein was malicious, and/or
10 oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and for the
11 deleterious consequences of Defendant Starbucks’ actions.
12 63. In light of Defendant Starbucks’ willful, knowing, and intentional conduct against
13 Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to
14 proof. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney’s fees against Defendant.
PETER LAW GROUP
15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
16 HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF SEX, GENDER, GENDER IDENTITY,
17 AND/OR GENDER EXPRESSION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
18 CODE § 12940(a)
19 (As To Starbucks and Guthrie)
22 65. Plaintiff has exhausted her available administrative remedies by filing a charge of
23 discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, a true and correct of
24 which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
25 66. At all times herein mentioned, Government Code 12940(a) et seq. was in full force
26 and effect and was binding upon Defendant Starbucks and Defendant Starbucks is an employer
27 within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
28
16
1 67. Defendants Starbucks and Guthrie harassed Plaintiff on the basis of her sex, gender,
2 gender identity, and/or gender expression, in violation of the California Fair Employment and
3 Housing Act by permitting and refusing to take appropriate action against supervisor, fellow
4 employees and customers who mocked and derided Plaintiff’s gender dysphoria and medical
5 transition to female.
6 68. Defendants Starbucks and Guthrie’s adverse action against Plaintiff was specifically
7 motivated, at least in part, by Plaintiff’s sex, gender, gender identity, and/or gender expression.
8 69. The above conduct violates Government Code §§ 12945(a) et seq. and California
9 public policy, entitling Plaintiff to all available categories of damages.
10 70. By reason of the conduct of Defendants Starbucks and Guthrie, Plaintiff has
11 necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to
12 reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in
13 bringing the within action.

14 71. As a result of Defendants Starbucks’ and Guthrie’s actions, Plaintiff sustained

PETER LAW GROUP
15 economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result of Defendants Starbucks’ and Guthrie’s
16 actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, resulting in damages to be proven at trial.
17 72. The conduct of Defendants Starbucks and Guthrie as described herein was malicious,
18 and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and for the
19 deleterious consequences of Defendants Starbucks’ and Guthrie’s actions.
20 73. In light of Defendants Starbucks’ and Guthrie’s willful, knowing, and intentional
21 conduct against Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount
22 according to proof. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney’s fees against Defendants
23 Starbucks and Guthrie.
24 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

26
(As Against Starbucks And Guthrie)
27
inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full.
17
1 75. The conduct of Defendants Starbucks and Guthrie constitute extreme and outrageous
2 conduct against Plaintiff. Defendants Starbucks and Guthrie engaged in this conduct with the
3 intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress to
4 Plaintiff.
5 76. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants Starbucks and Guthrie, Plaintiff
6 has suffered and will continue to suffer severe and/or extreme emotional distress and emotional
7 injuries, including nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain,
8 discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiff’s damages will be ascertained at trial.
9 77. In committing the· foregoing acts, Defendants Starbucks and Guthrie are guilty of
10 oppression, fraud, and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff
11 to punitive damages in a sum appropriate to punish and make an example out of Defendants
12 Starbucks and Guthrie.
13 78. The acts of oppression, fraud, and/or malice, were engaged in by employees of
14 Defendant Starbucks and Defendant Starbucks had advance knowledge of the unfitness of each
PETER LAW GROUP
15 employee who acted with oppression, fraud, and/or malice, and/or authorized or ratified the wrongful
16 conduct for which an award of punitive damages is sought, and/or was personally guilty of
17 oppression, fraud, and/or malice.
18 79. The advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification, act of
19 oppression, fraud, and/or malice was committed by or on part of an officer, director, or managing
20 agent of Defendant Starbucks, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive and exemplary damages in
21 accordance with California Civil Code section 3294 in a sum appropriate to punish and make an
22 example of Defendants Starbucks and Guthrie.
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for relief as follows:
3 1. For general damages according to proof, however, in an amount no less than the
4 jurisdictional limit of this Court;
5 2. For special damages in amounts according to proof;
6 3. For punitive damages in amounts according to proof;
7 4. For attorneys’ fees as provided by law;
8 5. For prejudgment, post-judgment and other interest as provided by law;
9 6. For cost of suit incurred herein; and
10 7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and just.
11
12
13
14
PETER LAW GROUP
15 Dated: July 26, 2018 PETER LAW GROUP
16
17 By:
Arnold P. Peter
18 Eyal Farahan
Attorneys for Plaintiff
19 MADDIE WADE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
(800) 884-1684 I TDD (800) 700-2320
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
July 25, 2018
Eyal Farahan
1230 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 210
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney

DFEH Matter Number: 201807-03021325
Right to Sue: Wade / Starbucks Corporation et al.
Dear Eyal Farahan:
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for
information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice
of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.
Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing

DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH
(800) 884-1684 I TDD (800) 700-2320
July 25, 2018
RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

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,

DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH
(800) 884-1684 I TDD (800) 700-2320
July 25, 2018
Maddie Wade
105 W. Herndon Ave. Space 64
Pinedale, California 93650
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Maddie Wade,
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective July
25, 2018 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,

1 COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
3
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
4
In the Matter of the Complaint of
5 Maddie Wade DFEH No. 201807-03021325
6 Complainant,
7 vs.
8 Starbucks Corporation
2401 Utah Avenue S. 800
9 Seattle, Washington 98134
10 Dustin Guthrie
11 ,
12 Respondents
13
1. Respondent Starbucks Corporation is an employer subject to suit under the
14
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
15
2. Complainant Maddie Wade, resides in the City of Pinedale State of California.
16
3. Complainant alleges that on or about June 5, 2018, respondent took the following
17 adverse actions:
18
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's gender identity or
19 expression.
20 Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's gender identity

or expression and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, forced to quit,
21
denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied work
22 opportunities or assignments.
23 Additional Complaint Details:
24
25
26
27 -1-
Complaint – DFEH No. 201807-03021325
28 Date Filed: July 25, 2018
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Eyal Farahan, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based
3
on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
4
On July 25, 2018, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
5 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
6 Manhattan Beach, CA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -2-
Complaint – DFEH No. 201807-03021325
28 Date Filed: July 25, 2018

Maddie Wade

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Maddie Wade

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Arnold P.

Peter (SBN: 120091)

4 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

14 v. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

15 1. Wrongful Constructive Termination In

16 and capacities when ascertained.

20 scope of such agency or employment, or ratified the acts of the other.

21 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24 inflicted harm upon Plaintiff in the County of Fresno, State of California.

27 transactions occurred in the County of Fresno.

22 female to be opposite to one’s biological sex.

23 I. Retaliatory Treatment Against Plaintiff At Herndon and Milburn Café

28 55 seconds outside of peak hours.

15 assistant manager from Herndon/Marks, Nick Westburg (“Westburg”) at a supervisors’ meeting.

20 Supervisors in the meeting.

27 who do not exhibit compliance with appropriate workplace standards.

27 would place a person with Plaintiff’s skills.

23 Assistant Manager position.

15 neutral pronouns or no pronouns when referring to Plaintiff.

16 C. Plaintiff Rejects Reduced Work Schedule And Reduction in Responsibility

28 WHO CUT OFF HIS DAMN PECKER

15 Manager shift with Supervisors and Baristas.

18 Guthrie would schedule his shifts so as to avoid contact with Plaintiff.

20 She Be Referred To As A Female

25 the same rapport and demeanor as prior to Plaintiff’s transition process.

13 Manager indicated that she would arrange this meeting.

18 III. Plaintiff’s Constructive Termination

25 about it and brushed aside Plaintiff’s concerns.

28 worked for her. Plaintiff never heard back.

18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

19 WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION

20 IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

23 inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full.

28 constructive termination violates public policy.

14 inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full.

17 which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

16 HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF SEX, GENDER, GENDER IDENTITY,

17 AND/OR GENDER EXPRESSION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT

19 (As To Starbucks and Guthrie)

21 inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full.

24 which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

13 bringing the within action.

14 71. As a result of Defendants Starbucks’ and Guthrie’s actions, Plaintiff sustained

16 actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, resulting in damages to be proven at trial.

19 deleterious consequences of Defendants Starbucks’ and Guthrie’s actions.

23 Starbucks and Guthrie.

24 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

17 oppression, fraud, and/or malice.

22 example of Defendants Starbucks and Guthrie.

15 Dated: July 26, 2018 PETER LAW GROUP

July 25, 2018

RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney

Dear Eyal Farahan:

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

July 25, 2018

RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

No response to DFEH is requested or required.

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

July 25, 2018

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Maddie Wade,