SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CLAIRE HEADLEY, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR:
INTRODUCTION 1) This case is brought to challenge Scientology’s longstanding refusal to comply with various laws, including state and federal labor laws. In addition to suffering illegal working conditions and wages, Plaintiff was ordered and coerced to have abortions by Defendants’ management. Plaintiff had to terminate pregnancies to keep her position and small income as Defendants’ servant. Defendant Scientology enterprises do not want employees missing time for babies and maternity leave. 2) The U.S. Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have issued opinions supporting plaintiff’s case. Defendants are subject to labor laws and other neutral laws of general applicability. The goals of this case include stopping the practice of ordering female employees to have abortions, and clearing the path for workers of Scientology organizations to obtain the compensation due them under state and federal labor laws. Plaintiff also seeks payment for her work at minimum wage and overtime rates. 3) Defendant Church of Scientology International (CSI) represents itself to be the “Mother Church” of Scientology. CSI has its principal office and apparent headquarters in Los Angeles, California. The County of Los Angeles is an appropriate venue for this action. Religious Technology Center (hereinafter “RTC) purports to be the owner or managing agent for various copyrights and trademarks allegedly owned by the Scientology enterprise. 4) Religious Technology Center (hereinafter “RTC”) purports to be a California non-profit corporation. RTC’s role in the Scientology enterprise is to supposedly control access and use of L. Ron Hubbard’s intellectual property interests. RTC is the alleged owner or managing agent for various copyrights, trademarks or other intellectual property interests allegedly owned by, or licensed to, the Scientology enterprise. 5) Plaintiff Claire Headley worked for defendants at below minimum wage compensation from 1991 to 2005. Plaintiff’s work duties were clerical, commercial or secular in nature. Plaintiff is currently a resident of Los Angeles, California. 6) At times herein material, and continuing, Defendants CSI and RTC were and are enterprises conducting business, and employers paying employees to conduct said business, within the State of California and in interstate commerce. Accordingly, said Defendants are subject to California and Federal laws concerning their work force, working conditions, business practices, minimum wage, payment for overtime and the protection of minors. As alleged in more detail herein, Defendants have systematically ignored and violated said laws to the damage of Plaintiff Headley and others similarly situated. 7) Plaintiff is uncertain with respect to the identity of all persons or entities responsible and liable for this wrongful conduct and names said potential parties as Doe Defendants as authorized by California law. 8) Defendants CSI and RTC, related Scientology entities and potential Doe Defendants, apparently claim that workers such as Plaintiff are not entitled to the benefits and protections of law including the labor laws. Defendants’ claim to be above the law in the name of religion is without merit. The question of Scientology’s status as a bona fide religion is subject to serious dispute, especially when one studies Scientology’s history of adopting a religious cloaking to avoid governmental regulation and scrutiny, and L. Ron Hubbard’s early writings disclaiming religious status, however, the religion issue is not dispositive of Scientology’s claim to be free of most legal obligations. The weight of authority is contrary to Defendants’ self-granted immunity from state and federal labor laws. As stated by the California Supreme Court, “ to permit religious beliefs to excuse acts contrary to law… would be to make professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court 32 Cal. 4th 527, 541 (2004) (Citing the U.S. Supreme Court) Scientology perceives itself to be a law unto itself. If not challenged, it becomes so. This case presents such a challenge. 9) This case involves unlawful business practices, including labor code violations, and presents a claim under the California Unfair Compensation Law. Business and Professions Code §17200 makes essentially all business torts and statutory violations, including violations of federal law, independently actionable under the California body of law on unfair competition and business practices. The California Supreme Court has expressly ruled that labor code violations are actionable under this law. The difference between what was paid as wages and what should have been paid under minimum wage and overtime laws qualifies as restitution damages under B&P Code §17203. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. 23 Cal.4th 163, 177-179 (2000) 10) The core facts cannot seriously be disputed. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 1991 to 2005 and was not paid minimum wage or overtime. Plaintiff worked long hours including 100+ hour weeks at below minimum wage, no compensation for overtime and insufficient time off. The work week was seven days not six as required by law. In the course of, and by reason of her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was ordered to have abortions, at her expense, and in fact intimidated into having abortions she did not want. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants continue to ignore labor laws and coerce pregnant workers into forced abortions. 11) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-profit and religious entities must abide by labor laws including laws on wages and employment of minors. In the Alamo case (cited below), the court also found that persons performing work for a religious entity are covered by the labor laws even if they claim not to want or deserve the protection of the labor laws. Workers of religious entities are protected by the labor laws irrespective of whether workers consider themselves to be employees. The protection of labor laws cannot be waived. Persons working with the expectation of compensation or even slight reward (sustenance) are employees as a matter of economic reality according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Sec. of Labor, 471 US 290 (1985). In accord, Mitchell v. Pilgrim Holiness Church Corp. 210 F.2d 879 (7th Cir. 1954). See also, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (Child Labor). 12) The California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have confirmed in well-considered opinions that religions are not exempt from laws of general applicability such as the labor laws. There is no constitutional right to exemption from minimum wage and child labor laws. See e.g. Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 397 F.3d 790, 792 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 3 U.S. Supreme Court cases) and North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. 4th 1145 (2008). ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 13) Plaintiff Headley worked for Defendants until January, 2005. At times herein material, Plaintiff performed clerical duties including being a secretary or office administrator for David Miscavige, the head of the Scientology enterprise. 14) While working for Defendants, Plaintiff was told she had essentially no rights as an employee. Plaintiff was forced to sign various documents over the years under duress and not given copies of said documents. Plaintiff suspects that documents forced upon her are replete with nonsensical and unconscionable terms that were obtained by duress and intimidation and for which there was no consideration or “meeting of the minds”. Plaintiff continued to work under unlawful conditions, and signed whatever was demanded, in large part, because she was wrongly convinced by Defendant CSI into believing that she had no legal rights or viable options. Plaintiff was intimidated and coerced into working for Defendants, and staying in the trap, by numerous coercive practices including threats of disconnection from family, threats of corporal punishment and threats of debt bondage. According to Defendants, Plaintiff would owe a massive debt to Defendants if she breached her contract and covenants of employment. 15) While working for Defendants, Plaintiff Headley’s life was effectively controlled by the management of the Scientology enterprise and Defendants. Among other things, at times herein material, Plaintiff was watched and guarded so as to prevent her escape, or make it prohibitively difficult. When she finally escaped, she was followed and confronted with threats at a bus station. 16) Defendants CSI and RTC, and Does, have a duty to inform employees of their rights under the labor laws. Not only did Defendants not advise employees of rights, Defendants mislead its employees about their rights. Workers such as Plaintiff Headley were told that Scientology does not have to pay them minimum wage or give them any rights because “it’s a church”, and/or workers have waived rights. Plaintiff came to accept such misinformation while working for CSI. Defendant CSI has been on notice that workers are entitled to at least the protection of Federal labor laws since the publication of the Alamo case in 1985, however, CSI has failed to follow the labor laws or give its workers proper notice of their true legal rights under labor laws. Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Sec. of Labor, 471 US 290 (1985). 17) The First Amendment does not exempt religious organizations from minimum wage and child labor laws. Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 397 F.3d 790, 792 (9th Cir. 2003). In accord, North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, 44 Cal 4th 1145 (2008). Plaintiff is entitled to the protection of the law as against the improper conduct of Defendants. Defendant had a duty owed to Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated to comply with the state and federal labor laws. Defendant intentionally, consciously and wrongfully made a tactical decision to ignore the labor laws, take its chances with a compliant and intimidated work force, and hope that the running of statutes of limitations would in the long run save Defendants millions of dollars. 18) Defendants have claimed that Plaintiff Headley, and apparently all of CSI and RTC’s low level workers, have waived any right to the protection of the labor laws; however, as a matter of state and federal law, such rights cannot be waived. As cited below, the right to minimum wage under state law is especially made not waivable by statute. The Alamo case cited above is one of numerous cases that establish that the rights in question are not waivable. In addition to statutory and Supreme Court authority, any such purported written waiver of employment rights, a bogus recitation of fiction as fact, would not be enforceable on numerous other grounds including duress, menace, illegality and lack of consideration. Plaintiff was entitled to at least minimum wage and overtime for her work even if there was an agreement to the contrary. (Labor Code §1194) Further, it is a misdemeanor for an employer to require a waiver of compensation rights. (Labor Code §206) In addition to the Alamo case, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the protections of the federal labor laws cannot be abridged or waived in Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981). Under controlling laws, Defendant had a non-waivable duty to comply with wage and minor labor laws. Defendant breached said duty. Further, Plaintiff Headley made no voluntary or effective waiver of pertinent rights. 19) Pursuant to California Minimum Wage Order NW-2007, Defendant CSI was required to pay Plaintiff minimum wage and overtime compensation without any deduction for the purported value of room and board furnished to Plaintiff. In computing unpaid wages, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of minimum wages, overtime and penalties due without offset. In any event, the real value of the meager existence provided by CSI would not satisfy the minimum wage and overtime requirements. 20) In attempting to control, and underpay, its employees such as former employee Plaintiff Headley, Defendant CSI, RTC and Doe Defendants, engaged in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices. These improper activities include, but are not limited to, a) intimidation by assault, threat and menace, b) failure to pay minimum wage, c) failure to pay overtime, d) failure to give proper breaks, rest periods and days off, e) depriving minors of required education, f) working minor employees illegal hours at illegal tasks, g) not paying full wages upon termination, h) typically demanding releases for wages due or to become due in violation of Labor Code §203(i) and i) refusing employees access to their files and coercing workers to sign all requested documents upon demand and refusing to give workers copies of required documents. 21) Defendant CSI has engaged in additional unlawful and unfair business practices actionable under B&P Code §17200. Further investigation may disclose additional violations of law and unfair business practices committed by Defendant. In addition to the unlawful and unfair practice described above, one or more Defendants has committed the following unlawful or unfair practices:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF B&P CODE §17200 ET. SEQ 22) Plaintiff Headley realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs in their entirety. 23) Defendant CSI, RTC and Doe Defendants have engaged in illegal and unfair business practices in violation of B&P Code §17200, including but not limited to violations of state and Federal labor laws. The California Supreme Court has held that failure to pay proper wages is actionable and that restitution of wages unlawfully withheld, or not paid when due, is a remedy authorized by B&P Code §17200 and 17203. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. 23 Cal.4th 163, 177-179 (2000) 24) Plaintiff Headley has suffered injury in fact and has standing to sue under B&P Code §17203 for herself and as a representative of persons wrongfully ordered and intimidated into having unwanted abortions. Among other things, upon termination of her employment in 2005, Plaintiff was entitled to timely payment of all wages due. At the time of termination, Defendants owed Plaintiff at least three years of back pay, which comes to an amount well in excess of $25,000 and which will be sought in accordance with proof at trial. 25) Pursuant to B&P Code §17203, this court is empowered to enjoin the illegal conduct of Defendant CSI described herein. 26) Plaintiff brings this action for the public good and is therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (C.C.P. 1021.5) SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION 27) Plaintiff Headley realleges all paragraphs above in support of her second cause of action for wrongful discrimination. 28) Plaintiff Headley worked for Defendants CSI and RTC for many years before her escape in 2005. During this time, Plaintiff became pregnant on two occasions. Plaintiff was ordered to terminate these pregnancies by forced abortions. Plaintiff is aware that this was a relatively common practice at Gold Base. Plaintiff has knowledge of approximately twenty other female employees ordered to have abortions. 29) Forcing pregnant employees to have abortions constitutes discrimination against female employees and a violation of legal rights and other laws. Defendants ordered and coerced abortions primarily to get more work out of their pregnant employees and to avoid child care issues. Plaintiff weeks an order banning this practice in the future. 30) Pursuant to the law, Plaintiff Headley is entitled to an award for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests:
January 20, 2009 |