Michael C. Norton SBN 044311 Gerald Lynn Ross SBN 152302 John E. Linneball SBN 181795 Law Offices of NORTON & ROSS 465 California Street, Suite 250 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone:(•••)•••-•••• Facsimile:(•••)•••-•••• Attorneys for Plaintiff Richard Childers SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RICHARD CHILDERS, ) CASE NO. 732609-4 Plaintiff, ) -vs.- ) SYBASE ,Inc., a California ) AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR Corporation, AL MONTEMAYER, DAMAGES an individual, and DOES 1-10, ) inclusive, ) Defendants. _________________________________) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs allege: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Richard Childers (hereinafter CHILDERS) is an individual, over the age of 18 years, residing now, within SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY. CHILDERS was hired by SYBASE CORPORATION (hereinafter, SYBASE), on or about May 22, 1995, as a Systems Administrator, SA-2, under an oral agreement between CHILDERS and SYBASE, until he was summarily wrongfully discharged on or about June 17, 1996. 2. CHILDERS is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that SYBASE is incoporated as a California Corporation, engaged in the design and servicing of relational database management systems, with its principal place of business located at 6475 Christie Avenue, Emeryville, CA 94564, Alameda County, California. 3. CHILDERS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Albert Montemayer (hereinafter �MONTEMAYER�) was and is, a Computer Information Systems Data Group Manager at SYBASE. 4. CHILDERS is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the defendants was the agent, employee or representative of each of the remaining defendants and, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the scope and authority of such relationship, and is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and was a proximate cause of CHILDERS' damages, respectively, as herein alleged. 5. CHILDERS is ignorant of the true names, identities and the capacity of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and, therefore, sues said unnamed and unascertained Defendants by such fictitious names, DOES 1 through 10. CHILDERS shall amend his Complaint to allege the true names, identities and capacity of these fictitiously named Defendants who CHILDERS alleges were responsible in some manner for the damages which CHILDERS suffered herein, either individually, or in an agency capacity of the other named or unnamed and un-ascertained Defendants herein, and that CHILDERS injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by the acts of the aforementioned DOES 1-10. II. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - DEFAMATION PER SE 6. This cause of action is alleged by CHILDERS against SYBASE and MONTEMAYER, and each of them. 7. CHILDERS incorporates herein the allegations of 1-5, as though here set forth in full. 8. On or about May 1, 1996 and May 31, 1996 , in statements published to third parties, SYBASE and MONTEMAYER falsely stated that customers of numerous clients of CHILDERS at SYBASE had complained about CHILDERS' performance and that CHILDERS' performance was unsatisfactory in terms of quantity and quality, and that the majority of CHILDERS� customers were not satisfied and CHILDERS� peers find CHILDERS difficult to work with and often adversarial, CHILDERS was not a team player, CHILDERS was viewed as an obstacle by his customer base, CHILDERS has had a negative effect on profitability, CHILDERS� delays have impacted the repair of production systems, CHILDERS has created friction with his use of internal E-mail, CHILDERS� work is erratic, and CHILDERS does not follow through. 9. MONTEMAYER had recently been hired by SYBASE a few week before May 1, 1996, and had no basis for discerning CHILDERS' performance. 10. David Pinho (hereinafter, "PINHO") had rendered an annual performance report and submitted same, prior to his departure. See Exhibit 1, attached herein. 11. Notwithstanding the fact that PINHO had submitted said performance report on CHILDERS' performance, MONTEMAYER substituted a performance evaluation containing false statements concerning CHILDERS' performance for the period evaluated by PINHO. 12. Statements made by MONTEMAYER described in 8 and 10, hereinabove were false at the time published by MONTEMAYER and MONTEMAYER knew said statements were false when published. 13. SYBASE and MONTEMAYER published said defamatory and untrue statements to CHILDERS' customers at SYBASE, outside of the scope of MONTEMAYER'S managerial privilege. 14. Several weeks prior to MONTEMAYER'S initial publication of false statements concerning CHILDERS' performance on May 1, 1996, TERESA CHUH (hereinafter, "CHUH") contacted CHILDERS concerning a subpena for CHILDERS' E-mail while employed at SYBASE. Contained therein within the subpena was an overt reference to CHILDERS' psychological instability. 15. CHILDERS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the publication of false statements contained in 8 and 11, hereinabove were instigated by SYBASE and CHUH, who revealed private facts concerning CHILDERS to MONTEMAYER and other managers of SYBASE without any business reason. 16. CHILDERS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that MONTEMAYER had a personal bias, hatred and jealousy of CHILDERS and used the private facts as a basis to solicit and publish false statements concerning CHILDERS' performance, based upon the innuendo and colloquium published by CHUH and unnamed DOES 1-10 on or about April 3, 1996, that CHILDERS was psychologically unstable. 17. SYBASE, MONTEMAYER and CHUH knew that said statements were false when published. 18. SYBASE knew that CHILDERS reputation would be damaged as a consequence of publication of the false statements described in 9-14 next above. 19. SYBASE, MONTEMAYER and CHUH knew that the statements described in 8, 11 and 16, hereinabove, were false when the statements were made, or made the statements for publication in reckless disregard of whether the statements were false and defamed CHILDERS. 20. The statements were not protected by any privilege. 21. At no time did defendants correct or deny the implication of such statements, even though they knew them to be false, and private facts. 22. By publishing the false statement described in 8, 11 and 16, above, defendants exposed CHILDERS to ridicule, obloquy, contempt, shame, and humiliation. 23. MONTEMAYER and CHUH, individually, acting under the guise of their relationship to CHILDERS� employment, carried out in part for motives of their own and with actual malice towards CHILDERS, extraneous to their employment and duties, outside the scope of the "managerial privilege", for the purpose of obtaining and justifying CHILDERS� wrongful termination for reasons of their own having nothing to do with legitimate business justification, published false and unprivileged statements and written communications exposing CHILDERS to contempt, ridicule, and injury to CHILDERS� professional and personal reputation. 24. SYBASE ratified said acts of MONTEMAYER and CHUH, by not taking any remedial measures when said false statements were published to third parties. 25. As a proximate result of the actions of defendants named in the cause of action herein, CHILDERS has suffered and incurred, and is suffering and incurring, substantial losses of: past and future earnings and other benefits of employment, plus expenses and attorney fees, all to CHILDERS� damage in an amount according to proof. 26. As a further proximate result of the actions of defendants named in the cause of action herein, CHILDERS has suffered and incurred, and is suffering and incurring, serious harm and damage to CHILDERS� personal and professional reputation and credibility by the false statements and implication to third parties to include, potential prospective employers that CHILDERS was incompetent. 27. As a consequence of the conduct SYBASE, MONTEMAYER and CHUH alleged herein, CHILDERS has suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress to include loss of personal self-esteem, depression, anxiety, insomnia, pain and anguish, embarrassment. Further, as a consequence of the acts of the defendants, CHILDERS, and has been forced to seek psychological treatment, which continues to the present date. Defendants SYBASE, MONTEMAYER and CHUH have proximately caused said emotional distress, pain and anguish, and other incidental and consequential damages an expenses, all to CHILDERS� damage in an amount according to proof. 28. The conduct of defendants was outrageous, was done in a malicious and oppressive manner, was intended to injure CHILDERS, was done with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and spite caused by jealousy, hatred, and for discriminatory reasons, and was done in conscious disregard of CHILDERS' rights. The statements made by MONTEMAYER and CHUH were made outside the scope of the managerial privilege. CHILDERS therefore is entitled to recover punitive damages from the defendants for damages to his reputation. WHEREFORE, CHILDERS requests relief as hereinafter stated. III. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - COMPELLED SELF-DEFAMATION THROUGH COMPELLED SELF-PUBLICATION OF FALSE STATEMENTS 29. This cause of action is alleged by CHILDERS against SYBASE, MONTEMAYER and CHUH. 30. CHILDERS incorporates herein the allegations of 1-5, and 6-24, as though here set forth in full. 31. SYBASE, through MONTEMAYER and DOES 1 through 10, and each of them, acting individually and in concert, in their capacity as managers and supervisors of CHILDERS, terminated CHILDERS without cause, and gave as the malicious and false reasons that CHILDERS had performed unsatisfactorily and was incompetent, as reasons for CHILDERS� termination. 32. SYBASE used as pretextual reason, CHILDERS' purported refusal to sign a performance evaluation which contained therein false and fabricated statements concerning CHILDERS' performance, which had enclosed therein performance standards, designed to set CHILDERS up for imminent and certain termination - a species of fraudulent inducement. 33. SYBASE demanded that CHILDERS sign a release form disclosing private facts based upon the allegations that E-mail generated by CHILDERS totally unrelated to a pending lawsuit against ORACLE Corporation contained facts supporting CHILDERS' psychological instability. 34. CHUH revealed those private facts to MONTEMAYER and others without a business reason to do so. CHILDERS was required to state that he was ill to MONTEMAYER when MONTEMAYER sought to place CHILDERS on medical disability without cause on or about May 14, 1996 - without any medical or other basis, and solely based upon the private facts disclosed to MONTEMAYER by CHUH. 35. As a consequence of CHILDERS' compelled publication of defamatory statements indicative of and perceived to be confirmation of the psychological instability data subpoenaed by ORACLE, CHILDERS was subjected to contempt, ridicule, and adverse personnel actions, to include the rendering of an unsatisfactory performance evaluation, denial of a requested transfer, and termination by SYBASE for pretextual reasons. 36. As a consequence of the acts of SYBASE, MONTEMAYER and CHUH, CHILDERS incurred injury to his professional and personal reputation. 37. CHILDERS' peers and prospective employers hearing such reasons and statements understood them, and reasonably believed them to be true because of the credibility of defendants and CHILDERS� unsatisfactory performance appraisal and termination. 38. As a result, CHILDERS was denied a transfer within SYBASE, and after termination, prevented from obtaining employment with prospective employers. 39. As a proximate result of the actions of defendants, CHILDERS has suffered and incurred, and is suffering and incurring, substantial losses of: past and future earnings and other benefits of employment, plus expenses and attorney fees incurred in seeking and obtaining substitute employment, all to CHILDERS� damage in an amount according to proof. 40. As a further proximate result of the actions of defendant, CHILDERS has suffered and incurred, and is suffering and incurring, serious harm and damage to CHILDERS� personal and professional reputation and credibility by the false statements and implication to potential and prospective employers that CHILDERS had been terminated for incompetence. 41. The conduct of defendants as alleged caused CHILDERS to suffer, and continue to suffer, emotional distress, and proximately caused CHILDERS embarrassment, humiliation, pain and anguish, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses, all to CHILDERS� damage in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, CHILDERS requests relief as hereinafter stated. IV. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY FOR INTRUSION UPON PRIVATE LIFE, DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION 42. This cause of action is alleged by CHILDERS against SYBASE, MONTEMAYER and DOES 1 through 10. 43. CHILDERS incorporates herein the allegations of 1-5, as though here set forth in full. 44. MONTEMAYER, based on private facts disclosed by CHUH concerning a subpena issued by ORACLE Corporation, and acting individually and in concert, in their capacity as managers or supervisors of CHILDERS, published said false statements that CHILDERS was psychologically unstable on or about April 3, 1996, in part for motives of their own and with actual malice towards CHILDERS, extraneous to their employment and duties, outside the scope of the "managerial privilege", for the purpose of obtaining CHILDERS� termination to deprive CHILDERS of employment for reasons of their own having nothing to do with legitimate business justification, and maliciously allowed false and misleading conclusions and implications to be drawn from the subpena issued by ORACLE Corporation. 45. The basis of CHILDERS� belief that MONTEMAYER and CHUH acted outside the scope of the managerial privilege was due to fact that MONTEMAYER and CHUH, partly for personal reasons to maliciously allowed false and misleading statements containing private facts related to CHILDERS' alleged psychological instability to be published to others with no need to know those private medical facts. The published statements contained the innuendo and colloquium that CHILDERS was experiencing psychological instability. MONTEMAYER and CHUH then used those private medical facts on or about April 3, 1996, to recommend termination. 46. Statements contained in a subpena are not privileged. However, the innuendo and colloquium arising therefrom and the publication of same for other than business reasons, with an animus to deny a transfer, render an unsatisfactory performance evaluation and terminate an employee are unprivileged - particularly where dissemination of said facts are private when disclosed outside of a legal context and for reasons unrelated to business. 47. Therefore, at the time of the termination of CHILDERS� employment, SYBASE, MONTEMAYER, and unnamed DOE defendants 1-10, and each of them, without CHILDERS� consent to disclose said facts to CHILDERS' supervisor MONTEMAYER and CHILDERS' peers, invaded CHILDERS' right to privacy by disclosing various details and information of CHILDERS� medical condition to other employees in order to embarrass, humiliate and provide a false basis for denying transfer, rendering an unsatisfactory performance evaluation and pretextual acts to set CHILDERS up and to summarily terminate CHILDERS without cause through fraudulent inducement. 48. Such disclosures included details of CHILDERS� medical information, based upon innuendo and colloqium misconstruing CHILDERS' medical condition published by unnamed DOE defendants, MONTEMAYER and CHUH, resulted in an invasion of CHILDERS' privacy. 49. The alleged facts based upon innuendo and colloquium disclosed by MONTEMAYER, unnamed DOE defendants 1-10, and each of them, about CHILDERS were private facts which CHILDERS expected and desired to keep private, because disclosure of such information generally would result in embarrassment and humiliation to CHILDERS. 50. The disclosure by MONTEMAYER, and unnamed DOE defendants 1-10 was a public disclosure in that the personal information repeated and published based upon CHILDERS� medical condition, was read and told to numerous other employees of SYBASE or others having no need to know. 51. The disclosure by defendants of the above facts was offensive and objectionable to CHILDERS and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that it revealed information about CHILDERS� medical condition not commonly known to peers of CHILDERS. 52. No legitimate public or business concern was served by such disclosure, and such disclosure violated the personnel policies of SYBASE. 53. The conduct of SYBASE, MONTEMAYER, CHUH, and DOE defendants 1-10, as alleged caused CHILDERS to suffer, and continue to suffer, emotional distress, and proximately caused CHILDERS embarrassment, humiliation, pain and anguish, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses, all to CHILDERS� damage in an amount according to proof. 54. The conduct of SYBASE, MONTEMAYER, CHUH and DOE defendants 1-10, was outrageous, was done in a malicious, fraudulent and oppressive manner, was intended to injure CHILDERS, was with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and spite caused by malicious acts based upon jealousy, bias, and hatred, and was done in conscious disregard of CHILDERS� rights. 55. CHILDERS, therefore is entitled to recover punitive damages from SYBASE, MONTEMAYER, CHUH and unnamed DOE defendants 1-10, in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, CHILDERS requests relief as hereinafter stated. V. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO BREACH ORAL CONTRACT IN EMPLOYMENT 56. This cause of action is alleged by CHILDERS against SYBASE, MONTEMAYER and CHUH. 57. CHILDERS incorporates herein the allegations of 1-5, as though here set forth in full. 58. On or about April 3, 1996, CHUH published to MONTEMAYER either directly or through others within SYBASE that CHILDERS was psychologically instable through the disclosure of the private facts contained in a subpena issued by ORACLE Corporation seeking E-mail generated by CHILDERS subsequent to his employment at SYBASE. 59. MONTEMAYER published said innuendo and colloquium concerning private facts concerning CHILDERS' medical condition which were false, to others within SYBASE to include CHILDERS' peers, managers in other departments seeking his transfer to their departments, and to other management personnel to justify the unsatisfactory performance evaluation rendered by MONTEMAYER for periods of time during which MONTEMAYER neither supervised nor observed CHILDERS' performance. 60. MONTEMAYER and SYBASE at that time had a copy of the performance evaluation rendered by PINHO, which rated CHILDERS' performance as "consistently exceeds expectations". 61. MONTEMAYER and SYBASE fraudulently concealed said performance evaluation, and MONTEMAYER subsequently rendered a fraudulent evaluation containing defamatory statements concerning CHILDERS' performance and published details therefrom to SYBASE managers. 62. MONTEMAYER then demanded that CHILDERS sign the fraudulent and defamatory performance evaluation, which had performance standards attached thereto. 63. MONTEMAYER fraudulently induced CHILDERS on or about June 17, 1996 to refuse to sign said performance evaluation and performance standards with full knowledge that CHILDERS would refuse to sign said defamatory and fraudulent performance evaluation. 64. SYBASE and MONTEMAYER violated SYBASE�S personnel policy manual in fraudulently inducing CHILDERS' declination to sign the defamatory and fraudulent performance evaluation. See enclosed Exhibit 1, herein, the PINHO performance evaluation. 65. The representations of SYBASE and MONTEMAYER were known to be false at the time they were made and SYBASE and MONTEMAYER never intended for CHILDERS to sign the performance evaluation which had performance standards enclosed. SYBASES' personnel performance manual does not require an employee to sign performance evaluations. 66. By linking the performance evaluation endorsement to the endorsement of the performance standards and demanding that CHILDERS sign same, CHILDERS was fraudulently induced not to sign the performance standards. 67. SYBASE and MONTEMAYER then pretextually and summarily terminated CHILDERS for alleged non-compliance with SYBASES' personnel policy manual. SYBASE�S personnel manual does not require an employee to sign a performance evaluation which the employee knows to be fraudulent. 68. CHILDERS did not know that SYBASES' representations that CHILDERS must sign the perfomance evaluation containing therein unfair and fraudulent performance standards to be false - at the time he declined to sign same. 69. CHILDERS did not learn the truth of SYBASES' and MONTEMAYER'S intentions until after CHILDERS was summarily terminated without good cause - nor could CHILDERS have discovered the true intentions of SYBASE and MONTEMAYER with reasonable diligence. 70. At the time that SYBASE and MONTEMAYER fraudulently induced CHILDERS to decline signing the fraudulent performance evaluation containing the unfair performance standards, SYBASE refused to allow counsel for CHILDERS to attend the meeting at which CHILDERS was fraudulently induced to decline signing of the performance evaluation. 71. Said refusal to allow CHILDERS to have advice of counsel during said meeting substantiates the bad faith of SYBASE and the pretextual reasons for terminating CHILDERS after fraudulently inducing CHILDERS not to sign the performance evaluation containing the false performance evaluation containing the unfair performance standards. 72. Soon thereafter, in September of 1996, PINHO provided CHILDERS a copy of the true performance evaluation rendered on CHILDERS. 73. As a proximate result of the actions of SYBASE, MONTEMAYER, and each of them, CHILDERS has suffered and incurred, and continues to suffer and incurr, loss of past and future earnings, compensation and other benefits under the employment contract, plus expenses and attorney fees incurred in attempting to obtain the benefits due to CHILDERS under the employment contract with SYBASE, plus expenses and attorney fees incurred in seeking and obtaining substitute employment, all to CHILDERS' damage in an amount according to proof. 74. As a further proximate result of the actions of SYSBASE, MONTEMAYER, and each of them, CHILDERS has suffered and incurred, and is suffering and incurring serious harm and damage to CHILDERS' personal and professional reputation and credibility by the false statements and implication to potential and prospective employers that CHILDERS was incompetent, had performed unsatisfactorily and had been insubordinate. 75. The conduct of SYBASE, MONTEMAYER, and each of them as alleged caused CHILDERS to suffer and continue to suffer, emotional distress, and proximately caused CHILDERS embarassment, humiliation, pain and anguish, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses, all to CHILDERS' damage in an amount according to proof. 76. The conduct of SYBASE, MONTEMAYER, and each of them, was outrageous, was done in a malicious, fraudulent and oppressive manner, was intended to injure CHILDERS, was with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice spite caused by MONTEMAYER'S jealousy and hatred of CHILDERS, a highly experienced and competent Systems Administrator, widely respected by his peers for his technical ability and competence within SYBASE and in the general computer community. WHEREFORE, CHILDERS requests relief as hereinafter stated. VI. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FOR BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT IN EMPLOYMENT 77. This cause of action is alleged by CHILDERS against SYBASE. 78. CHILDERS incorporates herein the allegations of 1-6, 58-72, as though here set forth in full. 79. CHILDERS is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that SYBASE is, and at all times hereinmentioned was, a corporation licensed to do, and doing, business in the State of California, County of Alameda. 80. CHILDERS is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MONTEMAYER and CHUH, and at all times herein mentioned were and are, management employees of MONTEMAYER. 81. The employment contract upon which CHILDERS sues herein was made in the State of California, to be performed in the County of Alameda. 82. CHILDERS was hired on oral contract by SYBASE on or about May 22, 1995, as a Systems Administrator, SA-2. 83. CHILDERS worked continuously for SYBASE from on or about May 22, 1995, until his wrongful discharge on June 17, 1996. On numerous occasions, CHILDERS' supervisors, superiors, customers and peers told CHILDERS both verbally and in writing that his performance was more than satisfactory. 84. CHILDERS never received any substantial or significant criticism until defendants SYBASE, CHUH and MONTEMAYER embarked upon a campaign to pretextually and wrongfully terminate him by defaming CHILDERS, rendering a false performance evaluation, while concealing CHILDERS' actual performance evaluation, and fraudulently inducing CHILDERS to decline to sign the false performance evaluation which contained unfair performance standards designed to set CHILDERS up for imminent termination, after invading CHILDERS' privacy concerning CHILDERS' medical condition, and spreading false statements concerning same based upon innuendo and colloquium. 85. As independent consideration for CHILDERS' reliance upon the representations of SYBASE concerning said contract, CHILDERS gave up a comparable salary and secure employment at Apple Computer to accept said employment. As further consideration, CHILDERS continued to perform his regular job duties and responsibilities for SYBASE and refrained from seeking or pursuing other job opportunities. 86. CHILDERS has at all times fulfilled and performed, and been willing, ready and able to perform, and offered to perform, all the conditions of this employment contract necessary to be performed by him. 87. CHILDERS' employment contract with SYBASE included an implied promise that he could not be demoted, discharged, reassigned or otherwise disciplined absent good cause. However, on or about June 17, 1996, CHILDERS was informed by Harvey Kroll (hereinafter, "KROLL") that he had been terminated, after SYBASE fraudulently induced CHILDERS to decline to sign a false performance evaluation containing unfair performance standards. SYBASE arbitrarily decided to fire CHILDERS based on said fraudulent inducement. 88. As a proximate result of the actions of SYBASE, MONTEMAYER and CHUH, CHILDERS has suffered and incurred, and is suffering and incurring, substantial losses of past and future earnings, compensation and other benefits under the employment contract, plus expenses and attorneys fees incurred in attempting to obtain the benefits due to him under the employment contract with SYBASE, all to CHILDERS' damage in an amount according to proof. 89. As a further proximate result of the actions of SYBASE, CHILDERS has suffered and incurred, and is suffering and incurring, serious harm and damage to his personal and professional reputation as a Unix Systems Administrator, due to the false implication to all potential and prospective employers that he had been disciplined or terminated for incompetence. WHEREFORE, CHILDERS requests relief as hereinafter stated. VIII. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 90. This cause of action is alleged by CHILDERS against SYBASE, MONTEMAYER and CHUH. 91. CHILDERS incorporates herein the allegations of 1-6, 8-24, 31-38, 44-52, and 58-73, as though here set forth in full. 92. The actions of defendants herein above alleged were done with the intention of causing CHILDERS severe emotional distress, or were done with a willful and conscious disregard of the likelihood and probability of causing CHILDERS such distress, and actually did cause CHILDERS severe emotional distress. 93. The conduct of defendants was outrageous, was done in a deliberate, callous, malicious, and oppressive manner intended to injure CHILDERS, was done with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and was done in conscious disregard of CHILDERS' rights. Therefore, CHILDERS is entitled to an award of punitive damages, in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, CHILDERS requests relief as hereinafter stated. JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray the Court grant relief as follows: 1. For compensatory damages including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, vacation and other employment benefits, mental and emotional distress, and other special and general damages according to proof, for the causes of action. 2. For attorneys� fees; 3. For costs of suit; 4. For interest, including prejudgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate. 5. For punitive damages; 6. For damages asserted herein against the individually named defendants; 7. For damages pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code � 12926(c); 8. For a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, their agents, successors and employees and those acting in concert with them from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, usages and customs set forth herein pursuant to Cal. Govt. Lab.. Code � et seq.; 9. For such other relief as the Court may deem proper. DATED: May 20, 1997 LAW OFFICES OF NORTON & ROSS By: GERALD LYNN ROSS Attorneys for Plaintiff