Amended Complaint - Claire

1 2 3

BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO. 98645 1079 Sunrise Avenue Suite B-315 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 549-8784 E-Mail: [email protected]

4 5

Attorney for Plaintiff CLAIRE HEADLEY

6 7

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 10

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ) INTERNATIONAL, a corporate ) entity, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a corporate entity AND ) ) DOES 1 - 20 ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) CLAIRE HEADLEY,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

CASE NO. BC405834 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1) UNFAIR PRACTICES UNDER B&P §17200 ET. SEQ 2) DISCRIMINATION & INVASION OF PRIVACY 3) HUMAN TRAFFICKING (CIVIL CODE 52.5, PENAL CODE 236.1) ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE MARY ANN MURPHY, DEPT. 25

18 19 20

INTRODUCTION 21

1)

This case challenges Scientology’s long-standing

22

practice of evading laws and depriving workers of basic human 23

rights.

In particular, Plaintiff complains that she worked long

24

hard hours for illegal wages, was forced to have abortions to 25

keep her job and was subjected to violations of personal rights 26

and liberties by Defendants for purposes of obtaining forced 27

labor. 28 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

2)

Plaintiff’s case has a solid legal foundation.

It is

2

supported by statutory law and decisions of the U.S. Supreme 3

Court, the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court 4

of Appeals.

Defendants’ case appears to be based on the premise

5

that its status as a tax-exempt entity provides an impermeable 6

shield against claims.

In particular, Defendants CSI and RTC,

7

which are part of the Scientology enterprise (“Scientology”), 8

typically claim First Amendment or waiver type defenses to 9

ongoing violations of state and federal law.

These purported

10

defenses to otherwise indisputably illegal conduct will not 11

withstand scrutiny and analysis.

The law is well settled that

12

Defendants are subject to labor laws and other neutral laws of 13

general applicability.

Further, the rights in question cannot be

14

waived.

Fundamental rights and the protection of the labor laws

15

cannot be lost with the stroke of a pen or word processor. 16

(Authorities are referenced and cited below.) 17

3)

The goals of this case include stopping the practice of

18

ordering female employees to have abortions, stopping the 19

practice of oppressive child labor and clearing the path for 20

workers of Scientology organizations to obtain the compensation 21

due them under state and federal labor laws.

Plaintiff seeks

22

payment for her work at minimum wage, overtime pay, a permanent 23

injunction against forced abortions and other remedies authorized 24

by law. 25

4)

Defendant Church of Scientology International (CSI)

26

represents itself to be the “Mother Church” of Scientology. 27

has its principal office and apparent headquarters in Los 28 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CSI

1

Angeles, California.

The County of Los Angeles is an appropriate

2

venue for this action. 3

5)

Religious Technology Center (hereinafter “RTC”)

4

purports to be a California non-profit corporation.

RTC’s role

5

in the corporate shell game of the Scientology enterprise is to 6

police access and use of L. Ron Hubbard’s works.

RTC supposedly

7

protects copyrighted material and trademarks.

RTC charges fees

8

for protection of intellectual property rights and is therefore 9

inherently a commercial enterprise. 10

6)

Plaintiff Claire Headley worked for Defendants at below

11

minimum wage compensation from 1991 to 2005.

Generally,

12

Plaintiff’s work duties were clerical and secular in nature. 13

Plaintiff is currently a resident of Los Angeles, California. 14

7)

At times herein material, and continuing, Defendants

15

CSI and RTC were and are enterprises conducting business, and 16

employers paying employees to conduct said business, within the 17

State of California and in interstate commerce.

Accordingly,

18

said Defendants are subject to California and Federal laws 19

concerning their work force, working conditions, business 20

practices, minimum wage, payment for overtime and the protection 21

of minors.

As alleged in more detail herein, Defendants have

22

systematically ignored and violated said laws to the damage of 23

Plaintiff Headley and others similarly situated. 24

8)

Plaintiff is uncertain with respect to the identity of

25

all persons or entities responsible and liable for this wrongful 26

conduct and names said potential parties as Doe Defendants 1 - 10 27

as authorized by California law.

Doe Defendants 11 - 20 are

28

those potential Defendants who may participate in wrongful 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

retaliation, witness intimidation and fraudulent transfer or 2

concealment of assets to avoid payment of judgment in this case. 3

9)

Defendants CSI and RTC, related Scientology entities

4

and potential Doe Defendants, claim that workers such as 5

Plaintiff are not entitled to the benefits and protections of the 6

labor laws.

The weight of authority is contrary to Defendants’

7

self-granted immunity from state and federal labor laws.

As

8

stated by the California Supreme Court, “… [To] permit religious 9

beliefs to excuse acts contrary to law… would be to make 10

professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of 11

the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law 12

unto himself.” 13

Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v.

Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 527, 541 (Citing the U.S.

14

Supreme Court).

Historically, the Scientology enterprise has

15

considered itself just as described by the court – a law unto 16

itself. 17

10)

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-profit and

18

religious entities must abide by labor laws including laws on 19

wages and employment of minors.

In the Alamo case (cited below),

20

the court also found that persons performing work for a religious 21

entity are covered by the labor laws even if they claim not to 22

want or qualify for the protection of the labor laws.

Workers of

23

religious entities are protected by the labor laws irrespective 24

of whether workers consider themselves to be employees.

The

25

protection of labor laws cannot be waived.

For purposes of

26

minimum wage and child labor laws, employment is evaluated in the 27

context of economic reality.

Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v.

28

Sec. of Labor, (1985) 471 US 290.

In accord, Mitchell v. Pilgrim

4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Holiness Church Corp. 210 F.2d 879 (7th Cir. 1954). See also,

2

Prince v. Massachusetts, (1944) 321 U.S. 158 (Child Labor). 3

11)

The California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit

4

Court of Appeals have also found in well-considered opinions that 5

religions are not exempt from laws of general applicability such 6

as the labor laws.

There is no constitutional right to exemption

7

from minimum wage and child labor laws. 8

See e.g. Elvig v. Calvin

Presbyterian Church, 397 F.3d 790, 792 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 3

9

U.S. Supreme Court cases) and North Coast Women’s Care Medical 10

Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1145.

11 12)

For purposes of the minimum wage and similar laws, the

12

test of employment looks to “economic reality” not labels, titles 13

or a self-serving paper trail contrived by lawyers trying to 14

minimize or obscure Defendant’s legal obligations and 15

liabilities.

An “employee” who is called an independent

16

contractor, a volunteer or religious worker is still an employee. 17

As the court observed when evaluating employment in Estrada v. 18

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1, 10:

19

“…[I]f it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck 20

and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.”

Simply put, if it looks

21

like employment and has the attributes of employment, it is 22

employment.

The protections of the labor laws cannot be lost and

23

the underlying reality is not changed, by Scientology’s obsessive 24

quest for self-serving documents.

See e.g. Civil Code §3513,

25

Labor Code 1194, County of Riverside v. Superior Court (Madrigal) 26

(2002) 27 Cal.4th 793

and Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc.

27

(2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 638 28 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Under the principles applied by the Alamo court, the

13)

2

parties’ perceptions and documents do not control or govern 3

applications of the labor laws.

That would effectively make

4

minimum wage and other labor laws optional, not mandatory, which 5

is not the law.

Numerous cases have recognized the strong public

6

policy behind minimum wage, overtime and mandatory off-time laws. 7

The labor laws protect the weaker employee from being exploited 8

by the stronger employer and against the “evils of overwork”. 9

See e.g. Gentry v. Superior Court (Circuit City Stores, Inc.) 10

(2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 at 445-6.

The public policy is

11

particularly applicable where the worker is dependant upon the 12

job for a living.

Plaintiff was dependant upon her work and

13

labor for Defendants, which satisfies the “economic reality 14

test”. 15

As explained in Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates,

Inc. 603 F.2d 748, 754 (9th Cir 1979):

“Courts have adopted an

16

expansive interpretation of the definitions of “employer” and 17

“employee” under the FLSA, in order to effectuate the broad 18

remedial purposes of the Act…The common law concepts of 19

“employee” and “independent contractor” are not conclusive 20

determinants of the FLSA’s coverage.

Rather, in the application

21

of social legislation employees are those who as a matter of 22

economic reality are dependent upon the business to which they 23

render service.” (Emphasis in original) 24

14)

The core facts cannot be seriously disputed.

Plaintiff

25

worked for Defendants from 1991 to 2005 and was not paid minimum 26

wage or overtime.

Plaintiff worked long hours including 100+

27

hour weeks at below minimum wage, no compensation for overtime 28

and insufficient time off.

The work week was seven days not six

6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

as required by law.

In the course of, and by reason of her

2

employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was ordered to have 3

abortions, at her expense, and in fact was coerced and 4

intimidated into having abortions to keep her job with Defendant. 5

Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants continue to 6

ignore labor laws and coerce pregnant workers into forced 7

abortions. 8

15)

The economic reality in which Plaintiff found herself

9

when working for Defendants CSI and RTC was that she was totally 10

dependant upon Defendants for sustenance and income.

Plaintiff

11

was not a part-time volunteer who had other work and could come 12

and go as she pleased.

The extreme opposite was the case.

13

Plaintiff was not allowed to have other employment or source of 14

income.

Plaintiff had a rigid work schedule.

Plaintiff’s work

15

activities were controlled by Defendant employers.

Plaintiff

16

could qualify for bonuses if production was up and could have her 17

compensation docked if production was down.

Plaintiff was

18

required to wear a uniform at work and could have her pay docked 19

if she did not take proper care of her work uniform.

Plaintiff’s

20

compensation was based, at least theoretically, in part by job 21

performance.

Plaintiff was not free to leave Gold Base.

She

22

needed someone’s permission to take time off or to do most 23

anything.

Plaintiff was an employee as a matter of economic

24

reality. 25

16)

This case asserts labor code violations, and other

26

improper, illegal and unfair business practices, in a first cause 27

of action brought under Business and Professions Code §17200. 28

The operative statute underlying the first cause of action may be 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

triggered by essentially all business torts and statutory 2

violations, including violations of federal law, which are 3

independently actionable under the California body of law on 4

unfair competition and business practices.

The California

5

Supreme Court has expressly ruled that labor code violations are 6

actionable under this law.

The difference between what was paid

7

as wages and what should have been paid under minimum wage and 8

overtime laws qualifies as restitution damages under B&P Code 9

§17203. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 10

Cal.4th 163, 177-179. 11

17)

This case has been brought within the four year statute

12

of limitation period for a B&P Code §17200 action and the five 13

year period for human trafficking actions.

However, to the

14

extent Defendants may attempt to use statute of limitation 15

arguments to limit damages or attack certain aspects of this 16

case, defendants should be estopped.

Defendants’ deceitful and

17

atrocious conduct should operate to equitably toll any statute of 18

limitations and equitably estopp Defendants from using time bars 19

to escape liability for an ongoing course of illegal and coercive 20

conduct.

Defendants’ treatment of those who labor for them has

21

been offensive to law, public policy and inalienable rights 22

guaranteed to Plaintiff and others by Article 1 Section 1 of the 23

California Constitution. 24

18)

Defendants coerce and deceive those who provide labor

25

and services to them in many ways and on an ongoing basis.

Among

26

other things, Defendants fail to give required notices of labor 27

rights and demand bogus waivers and instruments for the purpose 28

of evading law and avoiding payment of even minimum wage to its 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

workforce.

Further, Scientology has written policies on how it

2

deals with persons who challenge its conduct and commercial 3

activities.

These written policies, and the aggressive and

4

vengeful conduct these policies condone and inspire, are known to 5

those, such as Plaintiff, who work or have worked at Gold Base. 6

Scientology has purposely cultivated a reputation as the 7

proverbial 800 pound gorilla.

The directives of its founder, L.

8

Ron Hubbard, are replete with instructions to use litigation to 9

harass, attack never defend, and disregard the truth for the 10

“higher cause” of Scientology.

Many former employees are simply

11

scared and intimidated into silence and submission.

Most lawyers

12

will not take a case against Scientology. 13

19)

Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have

14

engaged in retaliation for filing labor claims with the 15

Department of Labor and have engaged in wrongful intimidation and 16

tampering with respect to potential witnesses and additional 17

claimants.

Among other things, Defendants’ agents have

18

threatened former employees and demanded that at least one former 19

employee sign a lengthy document that reportedly attempted to 20

waive and discredit labor law claims.

True to form, Defendants’

21

agents would not release a copy of this document to the former 22

employee so that he could review it with a lawyer.

If the

23

document had been signed, per policy, the former employee would 24

not have been allowed to have a copy.

Defendants have contacted

25

employees of Plaintiff’s business and threatened employees with 26

harassing subpoenas that would prevent them from working.

Such

27

conduct illustrates how Defendants respond when there is a danger 28

of the truth about Scientology becoming better known to the 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

public and a danger that the entities within the Scientology 2

enterprise, such as Defendants, will have to abide the law.

For

3

these and other reasons, any statute of limitations should be 4

tolled, and equitable estoppel applies as Defendants should not 5

be rewarded for their deceitful and illegal conduct, and illegal 6

retaliation for reporting violations of law to the proper 7

authorities. 8

THE CLAIRE HEADLEY SHORT STORY 9

20)

Plaintiff Headley worked for Defendants until January,

10

2005.

At times herein material, Plaintiff performed secular work

11

for Defendants.

During her employment at Defendant RTC,

12

Plaintiff’s duties including being an office assistant for David 13

Miscavige, the head of the Scientology enterprise. 14

21)

From an early age, Plaintiff was pressured into signing

15

an employment contract with the Scientology enterprise.

The

16

pressure started when Plaintiff was nine years old.

In 1989, at

17

age fourteen, Plaintiff signed her first “Contract of Employment” 18

with the Scientology enterprise.

Of course, as a minor she was

19

incompetent to enter into an employment contract.

Plaintiff was

20

not allowed to have a copy of the document she signed. 21

22)

Plaintiff recalls that while she was working for

22

Defendant CSI or Defendant RTC, her supposed written contract of 23

employment was with an unincorporated entity known as the Sea 24

Org.

Plaintiff was never employed by the Sea Org.

She was

25

employed by CSI and RTC. 26

23)

At age fourteen, Plaintiff Headley had not completed

27

high school.

By law, Plaintiff Headley was required to attend

28

school and forbidden from almost all types of labor or 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

employment.

Compulsory education and child labor laws did not

2

deter Scientology from trying to pressure Plaintiff into dropping 3

out of school and going to work for CSI at the young age of 4

fourteen.

Plaintiff’s mother intervened and Plaintiff’s

5

employment by Scientology was postponed for approximately two 6

years. 7

24)

Plaintiff was told she could complete her education

8

while working for the Scientology enterprise.

Additional

9

representations were made to entice her to quit school and start 10

working for Defendants.

The enticing representations were, for

11

the most part, not consistent with Plaintiff’s subsequent 12

experiences.

Scientology targets the young and attempts to take

13

advantage of their youth and immaturity.

Further, creating a

14

workforce of high school drop-outs makes the workers increasingly 15

dependant upon Scientology for the basic necessities of life.

It

16

sets victims up for failure in mainstream jobs.

Plaintiff

17

yielded to the pressure and hard-sell tactics, quit school and 18

started working for Scientology at age sixteen.

Initially, she

19

was assigned menial labor such as cleaning and washing dishes. 20

Somewhat later, Plaintiff began working for Golden Era 21

Productions, an unincorporated division of Defendant CSI.

Golden

22

Era Productions is a commercial enterprise.

Golden Era makes

23

films, videos and promotional materials which are sold, leased or 24

licensed to various Scientology organizations and the public. 25

Plaintiff did office work at Golden Era Productions.

She was not

26

a minister and Golden Era was not a church. 27

25)

In 1994, while working for Golden Era Productions of

28

CSI, Plaintiff became pregnant.

She was nineteen at the time.

11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Having children was against the dictates of top management at 2

Scientology.

Plaintiff had witnessed two other employees refuse

3

to have abortions.

They were demoted and ordered to perform

4

heavy manual labor for months.

Plaintiff was concerned about the

5

potential consequences of doing hard labor while pregnant and 6

quite reasonably was reluctant to suffer the punishment of manual 7

labor for being pregnant.

At age nineteen, Plaintiff had only

8

her job at CSI and was dependant upon CSI for support.

Plaintiff

9

had been working for far less than minimum wage, had no money, 10

had no place to go and had no medical insurance or coverage as an 11

employee of Golden Era Productions/ CSI.

Plaintiff felt trapped

12

and without viable options.

She had an abortion to keep her

13

position at Golden Era/CSI and not risk the adverse consequence 14

of having her baby. 15

26)

In 1996, there was a second forced abortion.

Plaintiff

16

had been transferred from CSI to Defendant RTC.

She was sent to

17

Clearwater, Florida to be trained for her new position at RTC. 18

Plaintiff was given a pregnancy test and found to be pregnant. 19

Plaintiff was not allowed to communicate with her husband, 20

friends or family about her pregnancy.

She was not allowed to

21

contact her husband, Marc Headley, for advice, console or his 22

input on aborting their baby.

She had no money, no insurance, no

23

housing, no credit, no high school diploma and no job prospects 24

except for her employment at RTC.

To keep that employment on

25

which she was dependant, Plaintiff was forced to have a second 26

abortion at her expense. 27

27)

After her second abortion, Plaintiff returned to work

28

at RTC.

Plaintiff’s position involved clerical and 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

administrative work under the “Chairman of the Board” (COB), 2

David Miscavige. 3

28)

Plaintiff was not told of her rights as an employee of

4

Defendants or of her basic rights as a minor or competent adult. 5

Plaintiff was not told of her rights to be paid a proper wage for 6

her labor or of her right to be free of sexual discrimination, 7

coercion, intimidation or forced labor.

To the contrary, the

8

message CSI and RTC sends to their employees, including 9

Plaintiff, is that the employees have no rights and that the 10

rights and powers of Scientology’s upper management are virtually 11

unlimited.

This extreme autocratic view and practice manifests

12

itself in several ways.

Among other things, CSI and RTC

13

management forces employees to sign various documents.

The

14

employees are given no choice and are not given copies of what 15

they are required to sign.

These documents are designed to

16

create a false impression to employees that they have no rights 17

and that, if they did have rights, any such rights had been lost, 18

waived or would be defeated by CSI’s claim to be a church and/or 19

CSI’s army of aggressive lawyers.

Further, employees are told

20

they would owe Scientology substantial sums of money, typically 21

in the $100,000 range, if they “breach” their contract of 22

employment by quitting the job.

Although Plaintiff was

23

essentially an employee at will who could theoretically quit the 24

employment without breaching a contract of employment, Defendants 25

coerce and intimidate employees in many ways including the use 26

purported contracts of employment as leverage to prevent 27

employees from leaving. 28 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

29)

Defendants do not give employees copies of most

2

documents.

Plaintiff does not have copies of any instruments

3

such as purported releases, non-contracts, waivers and similar 4

documents forced upon her and other employees.

Given the

5

relatively obvious factor of duress, and lack of consent or 6

consideration under “hornbook” law, the contrived paper trail and 7

attempt to alter reality by legal jargon are apparently done, at 8

least in part, for prophylactic effect.

Further, if an employee

9

wants to quit, and risk breaching that purported employment 10

contract, the employee is threatened with a long and unpleasant 11

process of punishment and interrogation.

This is designed to

12

prevent employees from even thinking about leaving their 13

employment with a Scientology enterprise and coercing a return 14

from those who try to escape.

Plaintiff was reasonably

15

intimidated by the threat of hard labor, sleep deprivation, 16

confinement, physical restraint, lack of food and isolation from 17

her husband or others who might help her.

Plaintiff was

18

uncertain about the force, effect or detailed content of 19

documents she was forced to sign, but reasonably feared that the 20

documents would be bad for her and good for her boss. 21

30)

While working for Defendants, Plaintiff’s life was

22

substantially controlled by the management of the Scientology 23

enterprise and Defendants.

Plaintiff performed labor and

24

services for Defendants as ordered for which she was compensated 25

with a small wage ($50 per week), room and board.

At times

26

herein material, Plaintiff was watched and guarded for the 27

purpose of controlling her and trying to prevent her escape. 28

times, Plaintiff was required to sleep in her office, not her 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

At

1

bed.

When she finally escaped, she was followed and confronted

2

with threats at a bus station. 3

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 4

31)

Workers such as Plaintiff Headley were told that

5

Scientology did not have to pay minimum wage or follow labor laws 6

because it was a “church”.

Plaintiff came to accept such

7

misinformation while working for CSI and RTC.

Defendants CSI and

8

RTC were on notice, however, that the “church” defense did not 9

apply to most, if not all, of its work force since at least the 10

publication of the Alamo case in 1985.

Rather than follow the

11

law or give notice to employees of their rights, CSI and RTC have 12

focused its efforts on attempting to evade the labor law. 13

Defendants’ efforts have been misplaced and legally ineffective. 14

Plaintiff and other persons who work for CSI or RTC with the 15

expectation of receiving benefits and compensation upon which 16

they are dependant are entitled to the protection of the labor 17

laws.

See e.g. Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Sec. of Labor,

18

(1985) 471 US 290. 19

32)

As stated in cases cited above, and other controlling

20

authorities, the First Amendment does not exempt religious 21

organizations from minimum wage and child labor laws.

Plaintiff

22

is entitled to the protection of the law as against the improper 23

conduct of Defendants.

Defendants intentionally, consciously and

24

wrongfully made a tactical decision to ignore the labor laws, 25

deceive employees about their rights, take chances with a 26

compliant and intimidated work force, and hope that the running 27

of statutes of limitations would in the long run save Defendants 28

millions of dollars.

For this and other reasons, Defendants 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

should be estopped from asserting any statute of limitation 2

defense to Plaintiff’s claims for proper compensation for 3

services rendered and any statute of limitation should be found 4

inapplicable as a defense by reason of Defendants’ deceit and 5

concealment concerning Plaintiff’s rights. 6

33)

Plaintiff would be entitled to at least minimum wage

7

and overtime for her work even if there was an agreement to the 8

contrary. (Labor Code §1194 & 206.5)

(There was no such valid

9

agreement.)

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the protections

10

of the federal labor laws cannot be abridged or waived.

See e.g.

11

Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, (1981) 450 U.S. 728, 12

740.

In addition to statutory restrictions on waivers, any such

13

purported written waiver of employment rights would not be 14

enforceable on numerous other grounds including duress, menace, 15

illegality and lack of consideration.

Under controlling laws,

16

Defendant had a non-waivable duty to comply with wage and minor 17

labor laws.

Defendant breached said duty.

Further, Plaintiff

18

Headley made no voluntary or effective waiver of pertinent 19

rights. 20

34)

Pursuant to California Minimum Wage Order NW-2007,

21

Defendant CSI was required to pay Plaintiff minimum wage and 22

overtime compensation without any deduction for the purported 23

value of room and board furnished to Plaintiff.

In computing

24

unpaid wages, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the 25

full amount of minimum wages, overtime and penalties due without 26

offset.

In any event, the actual value of the meager existence

27

provided by CSI would not satisfy the minimum wage and overtime 28

requirements. 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

35)

In attempting to control, extort forced labor and evade

2

labor laws with respect to its employees, and in particular 3

former employee Plaintiff Headley, Defendant CSI, RTC and Doe 4

Defendants, engaged in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business 5

practices.

These improper activities include, but are not

6

limited to: a) intimidation by assault, threat, menace and 7

invasion of privacy, b) failure to pay minimum wage, c) failure 8

to pay overtime, d) failure to give proper breaks, rest periods 9

and days off, e) depriving minors of required education, f) 10

working minor employees illegal hours at illegal tasks, g) not 11

paying full wages upon termination, h) typically demanding 12

releases for wages due or to become due in violation of the Labor 13

Code, i) refusing employees access to their files, j) coercing 14

workers to sign instruments that purportedly govern employment 15

rights upon demand and refusing to give workers copies of 16

required documents and k) failing to give employees proper notice 17

of their rights to the protection of the labor laws, which is 18

required by law. 19

36)

Defendant CSI has engaged in additional unlawful and

20

unfair business practices actionable under B&P Code §17200. 21

Further investigation may disclose additional violations of law 22

and unfair business practices committed by Defendant.

In

23

addition to the unlawful and unfair practice described above, one 24

or more Defendants has committed the following unlawful or unfair 25

practices: 26

a)

Retaliation against Plaintiff’s family business

27

and others for pursuing labor claims, which is a violation 28

of Labor Code 1102.5 and 98.6, and intimidation of 17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

potential witnesses.

Defendants have interfered with

2

Plaintiff’s business by threatening employees of said 3

business with subpoenas that will allegedly tie them up in 4

court and depositions for many days. 5

b)

Upon termination of employment, instead of paying

6

wages due, CSI claims that the servant owes the master for 7

allegedly breaching the employment contract.

In addition

8

to being a further attempt to pay less than legal wages for 9

labor performed, and being an unconscionable and 10

unenforceable claim, the threat of a “Freeloader Debt” is 11

used to intimidate and coerce employees into continuation 12

of working under unlawful conditions.

At the conclusion of

13

Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Scientology 14

asserted a “Freeloader Debt” against Plaintiff in the 15

amount of $96,580.

Plaintiff had worked hard for years for

16

fifty cents (50¢) per hour or less and supposedly owed her 17

employer $96,580!

That is beyond outrageous.

The use of

18

the “Freeloader Debt” to force workers into the performance 19

of labor for Defendants is one of the threats and coercive 20

tactics used by Defendants to insure a continuation of 21

forced labor from Plaintiff and other employees. 22

c)

Defendant CSI and related Scientology entities

23

had for years subjected minors to illegal labor and 24

deprived them of a proper education.

Defendant still

25

recruits minors and works them illegally; however, current 26

employees are ordered to have abortions.

The very young

27

have no work value to Defendant and would interfere with 28

the parent’s employment with Defendants. 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff was in

1

fact a victim of this illegal and outrageous practice, in 2

violation of her civil and Constitutional rights, which is 3

actionable under B&P Code §17200 as an illegal business 4

practice. 5

d)

Requiring that employees submit to interrogation

6

on a primitive lie detector type device called an e-meter 7

in violation of state and federal laws prohibiting 8

mandatory use of lie detectors or similar devices in 9

interrogations and examinations as a condition of continued 10

employment.

See e.g., Labor Code §432.2.

11

e)

Engaging in Human Trafficking in violation of

12

state and federal law as alleged in more detail below. 13

f)

Refusing to give employees copies of signed

14

instruments in violation of Labor Code §432 15

g)

Violation of Plaintiff’s inalienable rights

16

guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the California 17

Constitution including Plaintiff’s right to privacy and to 18

make her own free choice on having children.

See e.g. Hill

19

v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 20

15-16 and American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 21

16 Cal.4th 307, 332-334. 22

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION 23

OF B&P CODE §17200 ET. SEQ 24

37)

Plaintiff Headley realleges and incorporates the above

25

paragraphs in their entirety and the allegations below in the 26

Second and Third Causes of Action. 27

38)

Defendant CSI, RTC and Doe Defendants have engaged in

28

illegal and unfair business practices in violation of B&P Code 19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

§17200.

Several illegal predicate acts are alleged in paragraphs

2

32 and 33 above.

The illegal acts include, but are not limited

3

to, violations of state and Federal labor laws as alleged in more 4

detail above.

The California Supreme Court has held that failure

5

to pay proper wages is also actionable under B&P Code §17200 and 6

that restitution of wages unlawfully withheld, or not paid when 7

due, is a remedy authorized by B&P Code §17200 and §17203. 8

Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 9

163, 177-179. 10

39)

Plaintiff Headley has suffered injury in fact and has

11

standing to sue under B&P Code §17203 by reason of the illegal 12

and unfair business practices alleged herein.

Plaintiff has

13

standing for herself, and as a representative of persons 14

wrongfully ordered and intimidated like Plaintiff, into having 15

unwanted abortions or coerced into providing forced labor.

Among

16

other things, upon termination of her employment in 2005, 17

Plaintiff was entitled to timely payment of all wages due.

At

18

the time of termination, Defendants owed Plaintiff at least three 19

years of back pay, which comes to an amount well in excess of 20

$25,000 and which will be sought in accordance with proof at 21

trial. 22

40)

Pursuant to B&P Code §17203, this court is empowered to

23

enjoin the illegal conduct of Defendant CSI described herein. 24

41)

Plaintiff brings this action for the public good and is

25

therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and 26

costs.

(C.C.P. 1021.5)

27 28 20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION 2

AND INVASION OF PRIVACY 3

42)

Plaintiff Headley realleges all paragraphs above in

4

support of her second cause of action for sex-based 5

discrimination. 6

43)

Plaintiff Headley was employed by Defendants CSI and

7

RTC for many years before leaving in 2005.

During this time,

8

Plaintiff became pregnant on two occasions.

Plaintiff was

9

ordered to terminate these pregnancies by forced abortions. 10

Plaintiff was required to have abortions to remain an employee in 11

good standing with Defendants and to avoid adverse consequences 12

in her future employment.

Plaintiff is aware that this was a

13

relatively common practice at Gold Base.

Plaintiff has knowledge

14

of numerous other female employees ordered to have abortions. 15

44)

Forcing pregnant employees to have abortions

16

constitutes discrimination against female employees, a violation 17

of state and federal law and a violation of Plaintiff’s 18

inalienable constitutional rights, including the rights of 19

privacy.

See e.g. Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d. 65, 82, 89-

20

90, Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., Supra and 21

American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, Supra.

Defendants

22

ordered and coerced abortions primarily to get more work out of 23

their pregnant employees and to avoid child care issues. 24

Plaintiff seeks an order banning this practice in the future. 25

45)

Pursuant to the law, Plaintiff Headley is entitled to

26

an award for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and damages for 27

invasion of privacy according to proof. 28 21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING 2

46)

Plaintiff Headley realleges all paragraphs above in

3

support of her third cause of action for human trafficking. 4

47)

Penal Code Section 236.1 states in pertinent part as

5

follows: “(a) Any person who deprives or violates the personal 6

liberty of another…, to obtain forced labor or services, is 7

guilty of human trafficking.” 8

48)

Subsection (d)(1) of Penal Code Section 236.1 clarifies

9

that a victim’s personal liberty is deprived when there is a 10

“substantial and sustained restriction of another’s liberty 11

accomplished through fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, 12

menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or to another 13

person[….]” 14

49)

Subsection (d) of Penal Code Section 236.1 defines

15

“forced labor or services” as “labor or services that are 16

performed or provided by a person and are obtained or maintained 17

through force, fraud, or coercion, or equivalent conduct that 18

would reasonably overbear the will of the person.” 19

50)

California Civil Code Section 52.5 authorizes a civil

20

cause of action for victims of human trafficking, and which 21

defines human trafficking by reference to Penal Code Section 22

236.1. 23

51)

Defendants CSI and RTC deprived Plaintiff of her

24

personal liberty by substantially restricting her freedoms and by 25

their systematic practice of threatening, coercive tactics, which 26

were and are intended to restrict workers such as Plaintiff from 27

freedom of movement, thought and choice, and from obtaining 28 22 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

access to the outside world, deprive them of meaningful 2

competitive options, and subjugate the workers’ will to that of 3

defendants.

Defendants thus deceitfully, fraudulently and

4

coercively secure, at the expense of Plaintiff’s liberty, forced 5

labor at subhuman wages. 6

52)

At times herein material (circa 1996 – 2005), Plaintiff

7

Headley worked for Defendants at Scientology’s international base 8

at Hemet, California. This facility, known as Gold Base, was a 9

secret base for many years. Most Scientologists did not know of 10

its existence. 11

53)

Gold Base resembles a prison camp, the workers inmates.

12

A razor-wire topped fence encircles Gold Base with sharp inward 13

pointing spikes to prevent escape. The gates are guarded at all 14

times, preventing employees from freely coming and going. 15

Security guards patrol the grounds, motion sensors are placed 16

throughout, and surveillance posts surround the perimeter, all of 17

which are intended to keep workers in the facility. One cannot 18 19

leave without permission and permission is seldom granted except 20

to a select few. Workers, including Plaintiff, are restricted to 21

the base and not permitted to leave. 22

54)

Plaintiff was deprived of normal liberties as a matter

23

of standard course. Her freedom of movement was essentially 24

restricted to the Gold Base where she was confined.

Contact with

25

the outside world was prohibited, which prevented Plaintiff from 26

phoning or emailing for help. When Plaintiff’s liberties weren’t 27

being deprived, they were being violated by Defendant, who opened 28 23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

and read Plaintiff’s mail. Foreign workers had their passports 2

taken. 3

55)

Defendants would subject workers who fail to follow

4

orders to severe, sometimes corporal, punishment. Workers who are 5

caught trying to escape have been physically assaulted and 6

restrained.

Plaintiff was aware of how Defendants had

7

restrained, assaulted, punished and tracked down the workers who 8

had attempted to escape from Gold Base.

Defendants employ one

9

particular punishment which involves relegating workers to a 10

program known as the Rehabilitation Project Force (or “RPF”). 11

Workers assigned to the RPF are subjected to a brutal regimen of 12

manual labor, have no freedom of movement and are subjected to 13

almost total deprivations of personal liberties.

Working

14

conditions on the RPF are so horrible that its mere existence 15

serves as a deterrent and intimidates workers, such as Plaintiff, 16

into a state of fear and mindless obedience to Defendants.

The

17

RPF is arguably more severe in punishment and violations of 18 19

personal liberties than solitary confinement in prison. 20

56)

The RPF, and similar punishments, put Plaintiff in a

21

difficult predicament.

At most times it appeared that the safest

22

course was to submit to Defendants’’ control, to stay silent and 23

endure the lesser evil of eighteen hour days for less than a 24

dollar per hour. Sleep deprivation and poor nutrition were 25

routine. Plaintiff remained in reasonable fear and apprehension 26

that her personal liberties would be further violated in the 27 28 24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

future unless she continued to provide services and labor to 2

Defendants, on their terms, and as ordered by Defendants. 3

57)

Plaintiff has been severely damaged by reason of

4

providing forced labor to Defendants, which damages will be 5

sought in accordance with proof at trial and to the full extent 6

authorized by law, including Civil Code Section 52.5 et seq. 7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests: 8

1)

A jury trial;

2)

Restitution according to proof under the First Cause of

9 10

Action; 11

3)

A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and their

12

agents from ordering and/or coercing abortions with 13

respect to their employees; 14

4)

All damages authorized by Civil Code §52.5(a) et. seq.,

15

for human trafficking as alleged in the Third Cause of 16

Action, including actual damages, back pay, compensatory 17

damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief and treble 18

actual damages; 19

5)

An award of reasonable attorney’s fees computed with an

20

appropriate lodestar in consideration of the difficult 21

and litigious nature of Defendants; 22

6)

Such other relief as the court may deem just including

23

costs. 24

February 17, 2009 25 26

BARRY VAN SICKLE Attorney for Plaintiff CLAIRE HEADLEY

27 28 25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT