Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05056/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05056-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

747504.1 - 1 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

Kelly M. Dermody (SBN 171716) 

Daniel M. Hutchinson (SBN 239458) 

Barbra L. Williams (SBN 249967) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

Todd M. Schneider (SBN 158253) 

Guy B. Wallace (SBN 176151) 

Nancy Park (SBN 236750) 

Naomi Sunshine (SBN 244094) 

SCHNEIDER & WALLACE 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-7100 

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed 

Class 

James M. Finberg (SBN 114850) 

Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709) 

Katherine M. Pollock (SBN 243500) 

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 

177 Post Street, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 421-7151 

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 

Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452) 

Vincent Cheng (SBN 230827) 

Lindsay Nako (SBN 239090) 

Nina Wasow (SBN 242047) 

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & 

JACKSON, P.C. 

1330 Broadway, Suite 1800 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 839-6824 

Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO / OAKLAND DIVISION 

JASMEN HOLLOWAY, AMY GARCIA, 

CHERYL CHAPPEL, ERIC 

BLACKSHER, JESSICA TREAS, 

LAWRENCE SANTIAGO, JR., 

MUEMBO MUANZA, MAURICE 

CALHOUN, NICHOLAS DIXON, and 

SUSAN MYERS-SNYDER, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BEST BUY CO., INC. and BEST BUY 

STORES, L.P., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO 

FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s July 12, 2007 Order, Plaintiffs may file a 

motion to amend the complaint by January 31, 2008, unless Defendants Best Buy Co., Inc. and 

Best Buy Stores, L.P. (“Best Buy”) stipulate to later amendments, or this Court so orders; 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

747504.1 - 2 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs intend to file a Second Amended Complaint, a copy of 

which is appended hereto as Exhibit 1; 

WHEREAS, Best Buy does not object to the filing of the Second Amended 

Complaint; 

THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and agree, and request that the Court 

order, that: 

1. Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs may 

file the Second Amended Complaint appended hereto as Exhibit 1; 

2. The Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed and served as of the date 

of this Order; 

3. Defendants shall have 30 days to respond. 

The parties hereby stipulate, and request that the Court so order. 

Dated: January 31, 2008 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

By: /s/ Kelly M. Dermody 

 Kelly M. Dermody 

Kelly M. Dermody 

Barbra L. Williams 

Daniel M. Hutchinson 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI 

L.L.P. 

By: /s/ Roman M. Silberfeld 

Roman M. Silberfeld 

Roman M. Silberfeld, Bar No. 62783 

David Martinez, Bar No. 193183 

Benjamin M. Weiss, Bar No. 223163 

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & 

 CIRESI L.L.P. 

2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-3211 

Telephone: (310) 552-0130 

Facsimile: (310) 229-5800 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

747504.1 - 3 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

Todd M. Schneider 

Guy B. Wallace 

Nancy Park 

Naomi Sunshine 

SCHNEIDER & WALLACE 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-7100 

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 

Bill Lann Lee 

Vincent Cheng 

Lindsay Nako 

Nina Wasow 

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & 

JACKSON, P.C. 

1330 Broadway, Suite 1800 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 839-6824 

Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 

James M. Finberg 

Eve H. Cervantez 

Katherine M. Pollock 

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 

177 Post Street, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 421-7151 

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed 

Class

ORDER

Pursuant to Stipulation, it is so ORDERED 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, 

United States District Judge 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

2/12/08

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

747504.1 - 4 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

 ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that I have approval for any signature indicated by a “conformed” 

signature (“/s/”) within this e-filed document. 

DATED: January 31, 2008 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

By: /s/ Daniel M. Hutchinson Daniel M. Hutchinson 

Kelly M. Dermody 

Barbra L. Williams 

Daniel M. Hutchinson 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 4 of 106
Exhibit 1

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 5 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

Kelly M. Dermody (SBN 171716) 

Daniel M. Hutchinson (SBN 239458) 

Barbra L. Williams (SBN 249967) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

Todd M. Schneider (SBN 158253) 

Guy B. Wallace (SBN 176151) 

Nancy Park (SBN 236750) 

Naomi Sunshine (SBN 244094) 

SCHNEIDER & WALLACE 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-7100 

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

James M. Finberg (SBN 114850) 

Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709) 

Katherine M. Pollock (SBN 243500) 

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 

177 Post Street, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 421-7151 

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 

Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452) 

Vincent Cheng (SBN 230827) 

Lindsay Nako (SBN 239090) 

Nina Wasow (SBN 242047) 

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & 

JACKSON, P.C. 

1330 Broadway, Suite 1800 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 839-6824 

Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO / OAKLAND DIVISION 

JASMEN HOLLOWAY, AMY GARCIA, 

CHERYL CHAPPEL, ERIC 

BLACKSHER, JESSICA TREAS, 

LAWRENCE SANTIAGO, JR., 

MUEMBO MUANZA, MAURICE 

CALHOUN, NICHOLAS DIXON, and 

SUSAN MYERS-SNYDER, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BEST BUY CO., INC. and BEST BUY 

STORES, L.P., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND 

DECLARATORY RELIEF AND 

DAMAGES, FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

(1) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), 

(2) 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 

(3) Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940. et seq.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 6 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 1 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendants Best Buy Company, Inc. and Best Buy Stores, L.P. (hereinafter 

identified as “Best Buy” or “the Company”) are national retail electronics sellers that provide 

modern, high-technology products to their customers. Best Buy’s treatment of women and 

minority employees and job applicants, however, remains outdated and obsolete. Best Buy 

discriminates against women and minority individuals – Latinos and African Americans 

(hereinafter, collectively, “minorities”) – on the basis of gender, race, color, and/or national 

origin, with respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignments, transfers, promotions, exempt 

compensation, allocation of weekly hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. 

2. Best Buy operates through a corporate culture of racial and gender 

stereotypes. For example, a corporate policy known as “Segmentation” requires Best Buy 

managers and salespeople to target one of four composite customer types, all white, most of 

whom are young and male with Anglo-sounding names: “Barry,” a male with a six-figure 

income who purchases what he wants regardless of cost; “Ray,” a male who likes electronic 

gadgets but may not always be able to afford what he wants; or “Buzz,” a young male interested 

in gaming and playstations who makes small purchases. The only female customer to whom Best 

Buy marketed only confirms gender stereotypes: “Jill” is “Barry’s” wife—a stay-at-home soccer 

mom. Thus, the Company’s website discusses segmentation in terms of appealing to “affluent 

professional males” and “upscale suburban moms.” It was only after the filing of the 

administrative charges of discrimination and this lawsuit that Best Buy augmented the customer 

types to add more women to its “customer centricity” model. 

3. The corporate culture of racial and gender stereotypes permeates Best Buy 

and its predominately white male management force, who operate under the adage that “Girls 

can’t sell.” Women are accordingly steered into cashier jobs, and away from the more lucrative 

sales positions from which promotions to management are made. Similarly, minorities are 

steered away from sales positions and into behind-the-scenes “inventory control” (warehouse) 

positions. Even when women and minorities are allowed on the sales floor, they are not 

permitted to work in major sales departments selling big ticket items such as televisions, stereos, 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 7 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 2 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

computers, or the high-end Magnolia line, but are segregated in relatively minor sales 

departments, such as media (i.e. CDs) or cameras. 

4. Best Buy enforces a nationwide corporate policy of preferring white male 

employees for employment and for desirable job assignments, including major sales, senior, 

supervisor, and managerial positions, in its stores throughout the United States. Best Buy 

reserves the most desirable job assignments and positions – and the sales experience necessary to 

achieve them and advance in the Company – for white male employees. Best Buy’s 

predominantly white male sales employees are better paid due to job segregation and receive 

greater opportunities for advancement than Best Buy’s female and minority employees who 

overwhelmingly are segregated in the lowest paying positions with the least chance of 

advancement. 

5. The low numbers of women and minorities employed by Best Buy sets it 

apart from other large retailers. Like many large retailers, Best Buy has low educational and 

experience requirements and promotes many managers and other high level employees from 

within the Company. One might expect Best Buy to have a workforce similar to other large 

retailers that employ large numbers of women and minorities in supervisory and managerial roles. 

Instead, Best Buy’s supervisors and managers are overwhelmingly white male. More than 75% 

of Best Buy general managers (the individuals who operate and manage each Best Buy store) are 

white men. Fewer than ten percent of general managers are women and fewer than 20% are 

minorities. 

6. This class action is accordingly brought by female and minority store level 

employees on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of all female and minority store 

level applicants and employees against whom Best Buy has discriminated on the basis of gender, 

race, color, and/or national origin. Best Buy has maintained and continues to maintain a 

pervasive policy or practice of discrimination based on gender, race, color, and/or national origin 

in denying employment, desirable job assignments, transfers, promotions, allocation of weekly 

hours, exempt employee equal compensation, and other desirable terms and conditions of 

employment to women and minorities in Best Buy stores throughout the United States. 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 8 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 3 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

7. This class action seeks an end to these discriminatory policies or practices, 

an award of backpay and front pay, punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including rightful 

place relief for all class members. 

 JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

8. Plaintiffs’ claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et. seq.; and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. This Court has jurisdiction over this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367 over claims under the California Fair Employment & Housing Act, Government 

Code § 12940, et. seq. (“California Claims”). 

9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The 

named plaintiffs all reside in California, and most reside in this District. Members of the Plaintiff 

class reside in California and throughout the United States. Defendant Best Buy is licensed to do 

business in California. It has retail stores throughout California and this District. Indeed, over 

ten percent of Best Buy stores are located in California. Many of the acts complained of occurred 

in this State and this District and gave rise to the claims alleged. 

10. Intradistrict assignment is proper in the San Francisco/Oakland Division 

because a substantial part of the events and omissions that give rise to the claims of Plaintiffs 

Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, and Nicholas Dixon occurred in Marin 

County, and a substantial part of the events and omissions that give rise to the claims of Plaintiff 

Jessica Treas occurred in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. 

 PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Jasmen Holloway is a minority female. At the time Plaintiffs filed 

the original Class Action Complaint, she was a resident of Vallejo, California. She was paid less, 

denied promotions, and received unequal job assignments and unequal training opportunities at 

the Best Buy store in Marin City, California from January 2001 until her termination in August 

2005, on account of her gender, race, and/or color. 

12. Plaintiff Amy Garcia is a female resident of Chico, California. She has 

been paid less, assigned fewer scheduled hours, denied promotions, and received unequal job 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 9 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 4 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

assignments and unequal training opportunities at the Best Buy store in Chico, California from 

August 2001 until her termination in October 2006, on account of her gender. 

13. Plaintiff Cheryl Chappel is a female and minority resident of Chula Vista, 

California. She has been paid less, denied promotions, and received unequal job assignments and 

unequal training opportunities at the Best Buy stores in Chico, California from July 2001 until 

September 2004 and in Mira Mesa, California from September 2004 until the present, on account 

of her gender, race, and/or color. 

14. Plaintiff Eric Blacksher is a minority resident of Canyon Country, 

California. He was denied employment at Best Buy’s Santa Clarita Store in or around November 

2005, on account of his race and/or color. 

15. Plaintiff Jessica Treas is a female and minority resident of Richmond, 

California. She has been paid less, denied promotions, and received unequal job assignments, 

unequal training opportunities, and disparate discipline at the Best Buy stores in Pinole, Pleasant 

Hill, Union City, and Emeryville, California from July 1999 until her termination in February 

2006, on account of her gender, race, color, and/or national origin. 

16. Plaintiff Lawrence Santiago, Jr. is a minority. At the time Plaintiffs filed 

the First Amended Class Action Complaint, he was a resident of San Jose, California. He has 

been paid less, denied promotions, and received unequal job assignments, unequal training 

opportunities, and disparate discipline at the Best Buy Blossom Hill Store in San Jose, California, 

from July 2003 until his termination in May 2006, on account of his race, color, and/or national 

origin. 

17. Plaintiff Muembo Muanza is a minority resident of Hercules, California. 

He was paid less, assigned fewer scheduled hours, and received unequal job assignments and 

unequal training opportunities at the Best Buy store in Marin City, California from September 

2004 until his resignation in June 2006, on account of his race and/or color. 

18. Plaintiff Maurice Calhoun is a minority resident of Oakland, California. 

He was paid less, assigned fewer scheduled hours, denied promotions, and received unequal job 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 10 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 5 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

assignments and unequal training opportunities at the Best Buy store in Marin City, California 

from October 2003 until the present, on account of his race and/or color. 

19. Plaintiff Nicholas Dixon is a minority resident of Oakland, California. He 

was paid less, assigned fewer scheduled hours, denied promotions, and received unequal job 

assignments and unequal training opportunities at the Best Buy store in Marin City, California 

from October 2003 until February 2005, on account of his race, and/or color. 

20. Plaintiff Susan Myers-Snyder is a female resident of Desert Hot Springs, 

California. She was denied employment at the Best Buy store in Palm Desert, California in or 

around August 2005, on account of her gender. 

21. Defendant Best Buy Company, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation that owns 

and operates retail stores in California and throughout the United States. 

22. Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P. is a Virginia corporation that owns and 

operates retail stores in California and throughout the United States. 

23. Best Buy is one of the country’s largest retail electronics sellers and 

specializes in consumer electronics, home office supplies, entertainment software, appliances, and 

related services. As of February 2006, Best Buy operated 742 retail stores in the United States, 

and employed approximately 128,000 people. According to the Company, it took in $30,848 

billion in revenue during fiscal year 2006. 

BEST BUY’S GENERAL PRACTICE OR POLICY OF DISCRIMINATION

24. The denials and abridgments of employment opportunities suffered by the 

Representative Plaintiffs are part of a general policy or practice of discrimination on the basis of 

gender, race, color, and/or national origin in employment that has existed at Best Buy throughout 

the relevant time period. These are not isolated examples of employment practices or individual 

decisions. On the contrary, these incidents are representative of Best Buy’s systematic 

discrimination against women and minorities and in favor of white male applicants and 

employees. 

25. The under-representation of and lack of equal opportunities for 

compensation for women and minorities in positions throughout Best Buy’s approximately 742 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 11 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 6 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

stores in the United States results from an intentional policy and practice of discrimination on the 

basis of gender, race, color, and/or national origin in recruitment, hiring, job assignment, 

transfers, promotions, exempt compensation, and weekly hours allocation. 

26. Additionally, Best Buy’s standard employment policies and practices have 

a disparate impact on women and minorities with respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignment, 

transfers, promotions, exempt compensation, and weekly hours allocation without any 

corresponding business necessity for such policies and practices. 

27. Best Buy has pursued policies or practices on a continuing basis that have 

denied or restricted job opportunities to qualified female and minority applicants and employees. 

28. Best Buy stores follow the same human resources policies and practices, 

participate in the same discrimination, and are run by the same senior management. 

29. At each store, Best Buy maintains the same hierarchy of job positions. 

This hierarchy includes the following classifications: (1) occasional/seasonal employees, 

(2) permanent employees, (3) full-time employees, (4) senior employees, (5) supervisors, 

(6) assistant managers, (7) area managers, (8) sales managers, and (9) general managers. The 

proportion of minority and women employees is greatest at the base of the hierarchy and 

diminishes the higher you go. 

30. Within this hierarchy, Best Buy maintains three groupings of employees: 

(1) Operations employees (i.e. cashiers and customer service representatives), (2) Product Process 

employees (i.e. warehouse employees with responsibilities for inventory, loss prevention, and 

merchandising), and (3) Sales employees. 

31. Sales is the elite position for Best Buy employees. Best Buy views major 

electronics sales as the engine that drives the company. A major sales position at Best Buy is the 

gateway to high pay and promotion to management. Employees who sell such “big ticket” items 

as televisions and computers, or who work in the high-end Magnolia Theater “store within a 

store” receive higher pay, are assigned to work more hours (which also allows them to earn more 

compensation), and get placed on the fast track to promotion. When Best Buy promotes current 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 12 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 7 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

employees to senior, supervisor, and manager positions, it overwhelmingly does so from the 

major sales ranks. 

32. Best Buy recruits, hires, and maintains a disproportionately white and male 

sales force from which it then promotes a disproportionately white male management force. 

33. Best Buy systematically refuses to hire qualified female and minority 

applicants. When people who do not conform to the young, white, male culture at Best Buy 

inquire about employment, senior managers sometimes tell them to fill out online applications 

even though they have no intention of considering them for employment. If applicants who do 

not conform to the young, white, male culture at Best Buy submit applications, senior managers 

often never review their applications. Even when female and minority applicants who pass Best 

Buy’s pre-hiring tests are called in for interviews, senior managers often refuse to hire them upon 

learning that they are minority and/or female. 

34. Even when Best Buy does hire female and minority applicants, it generally 

does not permit them to work on the sales floor. To the extent that the Company hires women 

and minorities, it segregates them in operations, stock room, cashier, and minor sales positions 

away from major sales positions, including the Magnolia Theater store within a store. 

35. Best Buy provides fewer opportunities for promotion and training to 

female and minority employees in stock room, cashier, operations, and minor sales positions than 

to its predominantly white male workforce in major sales positions. 

36. Best Buy systematically pays employees in major sales positions more than 

female and minority employees in stock room, cashier, operations, and minor sales positions. 

Female and minority Best Buy employees in all positions also receive fewer hours causing less 

access to compensation opportunities than white male Best Buy employees in the same positions. 

37. Best Buy implements its discriminatory employment policies and practices 

in part through an overly discretionary hiring, job assignment, promotions, and exempt 

compensation review process. Best Buy fails to publish explicit guidelines and qualifications for 

senior managers attempting to hire and promote employees, and instead allows senior managers 

to rely on subjective, arbitrary, standardless, and unvalidated criteria in making employment 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 13 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 8 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

decisions which focus on whether employees reflect senior managers’ perceptions of what Best 

Buy employees should be rather than whether they would be responsible, effective employees 

who could perform their jobs well. 

38. Best Buy’s corporate culture of race and gender stereotypes encourages 

senior managers to rely upon racial and gender stereotypes in making employment decisions. 

39. Because Best Buy senior managers are overwhelmingly white male, they 

tend to recruit, hire, and promote those like themselves—that is, more white males. 

40. Best Buy generally does not advertise job openings to the public. When 

individuals are interviewed for job openings, they often are not informed of specific jobs, but are 

assigned to positions that senior managers believe would be a good “fit” on a subjective basis, 

tainted by gender and racial stereotyping and unconscious bias. 

41. Best Buy furthers its discriminatory employment policies and practices by 

systematically utilizing its predominantly white male work force to recruit managers and major 

sales employees. Current employees receive pay bonuses if Best Buy hires someone that they 

refer. The predominantly white male employees at Best Buy overwhelmingly refer applicants 

who are white and/or male. When minority and female employees refer minority and female 

applicants to Best Buy senior managers, these minority and female applicants do not receive the 

same consideration as white male applicants. 

42. Additionally, Best Buy has perpetuated a young, white, male culture by 

requiring applicants seeking exempt managerial positions to take the GMTI, which has 

disproportionately screened out women and minorities from employment and was not validated.

43. Although Best Buy purportedly requires senior managers to post senior, 

supervisor, and managerial job openings on its internal Job Opening System (“JOS”), Best Buy 

systematically fails to post all job openings on the JOS. This practice prevents qualified female 

and minority employees from learning of and applying for promotions. When Best Buy senior 

managers do post job openings, they usually do not consider female and minority applicants 

because they already have a person in mind to fill the position. When considering applicants, 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 14 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 9 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

senior managers’ subjective determinations are tainted by gender and racial stereotyping and 

unconscious bias. 

44. Best Buy also implements its discriminatory exempt pay policies and 

practices in part through subjective, arbitrary, and standardless exempt pay determinations. 

45. Best Buy senior managers often delay evaluations of female and minority 

employees, effectively preventing them from receiving pay raises. 

46. When employees complain of discrimination through Best Buy’s internal 

complaint system, which is supposed to be anonymous, Best Buy fails to maintain the 

confidentiality of their complaints or to properly investigate their complaints. Instead, senior 

management are permitted to retaliate against employees who complain of discrimination. 

 CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS

Jasmen Holloway

47. Plaintiff Jasmen Holloway is an African-American female. Ms. Holloway 

worked as a Customer Service Representative I (“CSR I” or cashier), part-time product specialist 

in wireless, full-time product specialist in home theater, car audio, and wireless, senior in media 

and car audio, and CSR II at the Best Buy store in Marin City, California from January 2001 until 

August 2005. 

48. As it does with most women, Best Buy originally assigned Ms. Holloway 

to a cashier position, rather than to a sales position. 

49. Managers did not provide Ms. Holloway with the same training as white 

male employees. For example, managers did not coach Ms. Holloway by providing advice, 

support, or areas for improvement as required by the Best Buy customer service evaluations that 

managers conduct. 

50. During her employment at Best Buy, Ms. Holloway has repeatedly 

expressed her interest in a promotion to Best Buy managers but has been denied promotional 

opportunities offered to similarly situated white male employees. 

51. For example, in or around February 2005, after Ms. Holloway complained 

to her general manager about the lack of coaching, Ms. Holloway was informed by her manager 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 15 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 10 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

that she could apply for a senior position in the wireless department that would be opening up 

soon. She repeatedly inquired about the position and was told it was not yet available. She also 

checked JOS, but the position was not listed on JOS. Finally, Ms. Holloway learned that the 

position, which had never been posted, and for which she had not been given an opportunity to 

interview, had been given to a white male. 

52. On or around August 2005, Ms. Holloway applied for a promotion from 

Fulltime Customer Service Representative II to Operations Senior. Instead, the position was 

given to a white male with less experience than her. 

53. Ms. Holloway has also sought and been denied promotions to Car Audio 

Supervisor, Appliance Sales Representative, and Administrative Corporate positions in or around 

September 2004, April 2005, and August 2005, respectively. 

54. In addition to denying her promotional opportunities, Best Buy has paid 

Ms. Holloway less than male employees in comparable positions. 

55. On or around March 2005, Ms. Holloway requested a pay increase. Best 

Buy informed Ms. Holloway that she could not receive a pay increase because she had reached 

the maximum salary cap for her position and refused to grant her a raise. Ms. Holloway 

subsequently learned that white male Best Buy employees with less experience and qualifications 

are not subjected to the same salary cap and are paid more than her. 

56. In or around April 2005, Ms. Holloway formally complained to Best Buy’s 

Human Resources department about the gender and race discrimination she experienced at Best 

Buy. Best Buy’s decision in August 2005 to deny her request for a promotion was based in part 

on her complaints; she was informed that the white male who was promoted instead of her was a 

“cheerleader” (i.e. someone who did not complain). Ms. Holloway complained again about race 

and gender discrimination in or around August 2005. One week after Ms. Holloway complained, 

her position was “eliminated;” although she was moved to another position, she was terminated 

from that position several weeks thereafter for a pretextual reason. 

57. Best Buy has discriminated against Ms. Holloway on the basis of her sex, 

race, and color by, inter alia, paying her less, denying her promotional opportunities, giving her 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 16 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 11 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

unequal job assignments, and denying her training opportunities because she is neither white nor 

male. 

58. On or about December 2, 2005, Ms. Holloway filed a charge of 

discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which was 

cross-filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). On or 

about December 5, 2005, the EEOC issued Ms. Holloway a notice of right to sue. On or about 

December 5, 2005, the DFEH issued Ms. Holloway a notice of right to sue. Attached to this 

Complaint as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of 

right to sue. 

Amy Garcia

59. Plaintiff Amy Garcia is female. From August 2001 until October 2006, she 

worked as a CSR II, media product specialist, media senior, merchandise senior, media 

supervisor, merchandising specialist, and inventory SWAT specialist at the Best Buy store in 

Chico, California. 

60. During her employment at Best Buy, Ms. Garcia has repeatedly expressed 

her interest in a promotion to Best Buy managers but has been denied promotional opportunities 

offered to similarly situated male employees. 

61. For example, on or around January 13, 2005, Ms. Garcia was denied a 

promotion to Product Process Manager. In early January 2005, Ms. Garcia informed her general 

manager that she wanted to apply for the vacant position of Product Process Manager. The 

general manager confirmed that the position was available but advised Ms. Garcia that Best Buy 

was not posting the position and had already decided who to promote. He further indicated that 

Best Buy would not consider Ms. Garcia’s application for promotion because of her status as a 

single mother. Best Buy subsequently promoted a male employee with less experience than 

Ms. Garcia to the Product Process Manager position. 

62. Between October 2004 and September 2005, Best Buy promoted 

approximately ten male employees to manager positions at the Chico store. Best Buy never 

posted any of these positions as vacant on the JOS or accepted formal applications for the 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 17 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 12 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

vacancies. Although her managers repeatedly told Ms. Garcia that she was qualified for 

promotion to manager, Ms. Garcia was denied the opportunity to apply for any of these positions. 

63. In addition to denying her promotional opportunities, Best Buy has paid 

Ms. Garcia less than male employees in comparable positions. In or around April 2004, Best Buy 

denied Ms. Garcia a salary increase. Ms. Garcia’s manager advised her that Best Buy would not 

increase her pay because she had reached the maximum salary cap for her position. Ms. Garcia 

subsequently learned that the salaries of similarly situated male employees exceeded the alleged 

salary cap represented to her and that male employees in comparable positions were receiving 

higher pay. Upon information and belief, Ms. Garcia continued to receive a lower salary than 

male employees in comparable positions. 

64. In or around November 2004, and again in January 2005, Ms. Garcia 

complained to Best Buy’s Department of Human Resources and to store management about the 

discriminatory treatment to which she was subjected. After receiving her complaints Best Buy 

retaliated and further discriminated against Ms. Garcia by removing her job functions, granting 

her fewer hours, scheduling her for hours that conflicted with her child care responsibilities, 

downgrading her performance evaluations, and terminating her. 

65. Best Buy has discriminated against Ms. Garcia on the basis of her sex by, 

inter alia, paying her less, assigning her fewer scheduled hours, denying her promotional 

opportunities, giving her unequal job assignments, and denying her training opportunities because 

she is not male. Best Buy has retaliated against Ms. Garcia by subjecting her to unequal terms 

and conditions of employment and terminating her for complaining of discrimination on the basis 

of sex. 

66. On or about October 6, 2005, Ms. Garcia filed a charge of discrimination 

with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Ms. Garcia received a Notice of Right to 

Sue from the EEOC on or about December 7, 2005. On or about October 19, 2005, the DFEH 

issued Ms. Garcia a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B and 

incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue. 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 18 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 13 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

Cheryl Chappel

67. Plaintiff Cheryl Chappel is an African-American female. From July 2001 

to the present Ms. Chappel has worked as an Administrative Senior at the Best Buy store in 

Chico, California and as a Customer Service Senior and Administrative Senior in Mira Mesa, 

California. After the filing of this lawsuit, Ms. Chappel was promoted to the operations 

supervisor position at the Mira Mesa Best Buy in October 2006. 

68. In April 2003, Ms. Chappel applied for a promotion to Operations

Supervisor at the Chico store. Although Ms. Chappel had two years experience in the Operations 

Department and received excellent performance reviews, Best Buy did not promote her to the 

supervisor position. Best Buy instead promoted a part-time male employee who had worked at 

the store for only four months and had never worked in Operations prior to receiving the 

promotion. A Best Buy Manager told Ms. Chappel that she was not promoted to supervisor 

because it was, “a man thing.” She was also told by a Best Buy Manager that she would not be 

promoted because she had a husband that could support her. Later, Ms. Chappel was told by a 

Best Buy Manager that Best Buy employed few women on the sales floor because “girls can’t 

sell.” 

69. In September 2004, Ms. Chappel learned that a supervisor position was 

available at the Best Buy store in Mira Mesa, California and applied for the position. Despite her 

application for supervisor, Mira Mesa management suggested to Ms. Chappel during the 

interview process that she consider positions in customer service. Ms. Chappel replied that she 

was not interested in customer service positions since they were lower in seniority than her 

current Administrative Senior position in Chico, and reiterated her interest in becoming a 

supervisor. Best Buy subsequently selected a male employee who had less experience than 

Ms. Chappel for the supervisor position. 

70. In addition to denying Ms. Chappel promotional opportunities, Best Buy 

has also denied Ms. Chappel pay and compensation offered to similarly situated male employees. 

During her tenure at both the Chico and Mira Mesa Best Buy stores, Ms. Chappel has received 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 19 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 14 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

lower pay than male employees in comparable positions. Ms. Chappel has observed that other 

female employees are paid less than males in comparable positions. 

71. Best Buy has discriminated against Ms. Chappel on the basis of her sex and 

race by, inter alia, paying her less, denying her promotional opportunities, and denying her 

training opportunities because she is not a white male. 

72. On or about April 1, 2005, Ms. Chappel filed a charge of discrimination 

with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Ms. Chappel received a Notice of Right 

to Sue from the EEOC on or about December 7 , 2005. On or about April 25, 2005, the DFEH 

issued Ms. Chappel a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C and 

incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue. 

Eric Blacksher

73. Plaintiff Eric Blacksher is an African-American male. He applied to work 

at the Best Buy store in Valencia, California in November 2005, and later returned for three inperson interviews. Mr. Blacksher was qualified for the job, in part based on his prior retail sales 

experience at Finish Line and Sears. Best Buy refused to hire Mr. Blacksher, despite knowing of 

his qualifications, based on his race and/or color. 

74. Mr. Blacksher took Best Buy’s pre-hiring test. Within a few hours after he 

submitted his on-line application, Mr. Blacksher was invited to interview with Best Buy. About 

two days later, Mr. Blacksher attended an in-person interview where the manager conducting the 

interview could see that Mr. Blacksher was African American. Best Buy had Mr. Blacksher 

attend two additional interviews. Although Best Buy indicated during each interview that it had 

job openings, no store employee has since contacted Mr. Blacksher regarding his application nor 

explained why Best Buy refused to offer Mr. Blacksher a job. 

75. Best Buy has discriminated against Mr. Blacksher on the basis of his race 

and/or color by denying him employment because he is not white. 

76. On or about April 11, 2006, Mr. Blacksher filed a charge of discrimination 

with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Mr. Blacksher received a Notice of Right 

to Sue from the EEOC on or about October 4, 2006. On or about April 22, 2006, the DFEH 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 20 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 15 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

issued Mr. Blacksher a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D and 

incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue. 

Jessica Treas

77. Plaintiff Jessica Treas is a Latina female of Mexican origin. She worked 

at Best Buy stores in Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Union City, and Emeryville as a CSR II, customer 

service senior, customer service supervisor, customer service manager, media supervisor, and 

administrative senior from July 1999 until February 2006. 

78. Despite her prior management experience and stated desire to work in 

sales, Best Buy initially assigned Ms. Treas to a CSR II position off the sales floor. Best Buy 

managers refused to cross train Ms. Treas in sales, and discouraged her from transferring to the 

sales floor. 

79. After being repeatedly passed over for promotion, Ms. Treas was finally 

promoted to customer service manager in Pleasant Hill. She then transferred, at Best Buy’s 

request, to serve as customer service manager in Pinole, Union City, and then Emeryville. 

80. Best Buy treated Ms. Treas less favorably than white and male employees. 

Best Buy disciplined Ms. Treas more frequently and for less serious offenses than white and male 

employees even though Ms. Treas performed as well or better than employees in other areas of 

the Emeryville store as measured by Best Buy’s national department rankings. Best Buy 

successively demoted Ms. Treas, from manager to supervisor, and from supervisor to senior. On 

each occasion, Best Buy replaced Ms. Treas with a white male employee. 

81. During her employment at Best Buy, Ms. Treas repeatedly expressed her 

interest in a promotion to Best Buy managers but was denied promotional opportunities offered to 

similarly situated white and male employees. For example, although white males that replaced 

Ms. Treas following her demotions did not achieve higher sales numbers or perform better than 

Ms. Treas, each white male who succeeded Ms. Treas received promotions to the sales floor or to 

segment manager positions. Ms. Treas applied and interviewed for several job openings that Best 

Buy instead gave to white males with lesser or comparable qualifications. 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 21 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 16 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

82. In addition to denying Ms. Treas promotional opportunities, Best Buy has 

also denied Ms. Treas pay and compensation offered to similarly situated white and male 

employees. During her tenure at Best Buy stores, Ms. Treas has received lower pay than white 

and male employees in comparable positions. Ms. Treas has observed that other female and 

minority employees are paid less than whites and males in comparable positions. 

83. Best Buy has retaliated against Ms. Treas for her complaints regarding Best 

Buy’s discriminatory treatment. Ms. Treas complained to Best Buy’s Department of Human 

Resources about the discriminatory treatment to which she was subjected. After receiving her 

complaints, Best Buy retaliated and further discriminated against Ms. Treas by, inter alia, 

subjecting her to retaliatory write ups, demoting, and terminating her. 

84. Best Buy has discriminated against Ms. Treas on the basis of her sex and/or 

race, color, and/or national origin by, inter alia, paying her less, denying her promotional 

opportunities, giving her unequal job assignments, demoting her, disciplining her more frequently 

and for less serious offenses than similarly situated white male employees, and denying her 

training opportunities because she is not a white male. Best Buy has retaliated against Ms. Treas 

by subjecting her to unequal terms and conditions of employment, demoting her, and firing her 

for complaining of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and/or sex. 

85. On or about September 15, 2006, Ms. Treas filed a charge of 

discrimination with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Ms. Treas received a 

Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or about November 11, 2006. On or about September 

26, 2006, the DFEH issued Ms. Treas a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as 

Exhibit E and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue. 

Lawrence Santiago, Jr.

86. Plaintiff Lawrence Santiago, Jr., is an Asian American and Latino of 

Japanese and Puerto Rican descent. He worked at Best Buy’s Blossom Hill store in San Jose, 

California as a Customer Service Rep II (“CSR II”), appliance supervisor, and ACE professional 

from July 2003 until May 2006. 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 22 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 17 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

87. Mr. Santiago applied to Best Buy in July 2003 with extensive supervisory 

and managerial experience. Despite his prior experience and stated desire to work as a 

supervisor, Best Buy initially assigned Mr. Santiago to a CSR II position off the sales floor. 

88. During his employment at Best Buy, Mr. Santiago repeatedly expressed his 

interest in a promotion to Best Buy managers but was denied promotional opportunities offered to 

similarly situated white employees. 

89. For example, Best Buy denied five applications for promotion that 

Mr. Santiago submitted in 2003 and did not even grant him an interview. Mr. Santiago applied 

for ten positions from late 2004 through 2006. Best Buy did not promote Mr. Santiago to any of 

these positions. 

90. In addition to denying Mr. Santiago promotional opportunities, Best Buy 

has also denied Mr. Santiago pay and compensation offered to similarly situated white 

employees. During his tenure at Best Buy stores, Mr. Santiago has received lower pay and fewer 

scheduled hours than white employees in comparable positions. 

91. Best Buy did not provide Mr. Santiago with the same training opportunities 

as white employees. For example, although it was common practice to train each person starting 

a supervisor position, Best Buy managers denied Mr. Santiago’s requests for training when he 

worked as an appliance supervisor in early 2004. After about six months in this position without 

receiving the necessary training, Mr. Santiago was forced to step down because he did not have 

the necessary support to succeed in this position. 

92. Best Buy treated Mr. Santiago less favorably than white employees. 

Mr. Santiago’s managers and co-workers constantly used racially and sexually derogatory 

language. On one occasion, the Best Buy operations manager told Mr. Santiago that “it looks like 

you’re getting a little fat. It must be because you’re Hawaiian.” Another time, this manager 

referred to Mr. Santiago as a “mutt.” Mr. Santiago also witnessed other Asian-American, 

African-American, Latino, and female employees receive similar treatment. 

93. Best Buy has retaliated against Mr. Santiago for his complaints regarding 

Best Buy’s discriminatory treatment. For example, Mr. Santiago complained to Best Buy’s 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 23 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 18 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

Department of Human Resources to report discriminatory conduct, including, inter alia, his 

demotion, pay cut, and lack of training. Although Best Buy maintains that complaints to its open 

line are confidential, a manager shortly thereafter stated to Mr. Santiago, “so I heard you called 

open line.” After receiving his complaints, a Best Buy general manager referred to Mr. Santiago 

as a “cry baby,” and retaliated and further discriminated against Mr. Santiago by, inter alia, 

subjecting him to repeated discriminatory treatment and terminating him. 

94. Best Buy has discriminated against Mr. Santiago on the basis of his race, 

color, and/or national origin by, inter alia, paying him less, assigning him fewer hours, denying 

him promotional opportunities, giving him unequal job assignments, demoting him, disciplining 

him more frequently and for less serious offenses than similarly situated white male employees, 

and denying him training opportunities because he is not white. Best Buy has retaliated against 

Mr. Santiago by subjecting him to unequal terms and conditions of employment and firing him 

for complaining of discrimination on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin. 

95. On or about September 5, 2006, Mr. Santiago filed a charge of 

discrimination with the EEOC , which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Mr. Santiago received a 

Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or about November 11, 2006. On or about 

September 8, 2006, the DFEH issued Mr. Santiago a notice of right to sue. Attached to this 

Complaint as Exhibit F and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right 

to sue. 

Muembo Muanza

96. Plaintiff Muembo Muanza, an African-American male, worked as a parttime warehouse employee in Best Buy’s Marin City store from September 2004 through June 

2006. 

97. Mr. Muanza applied to Best Buy in 2004 with two years electronic sales 

experience from his tenure at The Good Guys and general sales experience at Home Depot. A 

Best Buy manager told Mr. Muanza that Best Buy had no sales openings and that, as a “big guy,” 

Mr. Muanza would be good for the warehouse. Best Buy placed Mr. Muanza in a Products 

Process position in the warehouse. Nearly all his co-workers in the warehouse were minorities. 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 24 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 19 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

98. Mr. Muanza earned less working in the warehouse than he would have 

earned in a sales position. Additionally, Mr. Muanza received less pay than white Best Buy 

employees in inventory with identical job titles. 

99. Despite Mr. Muanza’s repeated requests for a full-time position, or a 

position on the sales floor, Best Buy never gave him a full-time position or a position on the sales 

floor in the two years that he worked at Best Buy. 

100. Best Buy has discriminated against Mr. Muanza on the basis of his race 

and/or color by paying him less, assigning him fewer scheduled hours, giving him unequal job 

assignments, and denying him training opportunities because he is not white. 

101. On or about December 2, 2005, Mr. Muanza filed a charge of 

discrimination with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Mr. Muanza received a 

Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or about October 2, 2006. On or about December 2, 

2005, the DFEH issued Mr. Muanza a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as 

Exhibit G and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue. 

Maurice Calhoun

102. Plaintiff Maurice Calhoun is an African-American male who has been 

employed at the Best Buy store in Marin City, California from October 2003 to the present as a 

part-time inventory specialist, digital imaging product specialist, and car audio product specialist. 

103. Mr. Calhoun applied to Best Buy on or around September 2003 with three 

years of sales experience, including electronics sales. Mr. Calhoun expressed an interest in sales 

during his initial interview. Despite Mr. Calhoun’s interest and experience in sales, Best Buy 

placed Mr. Calhoun in an inventory position in the back of the store, paid him less, and assigned 

him fewer hours than similarly situated employees with comparable or less experience. 

104. Mr. Calhoun repeatedly expressed his interest in applying for vacant sales 

and/or full-time positions. Best Buy, however, repeatedly informed Mr. Calhoun that part-time 

inventory was the only position available and that Best Buy had no openings for transfer to sales. 

While Mr. Calhoun remained stuck in inventory, he witnessed dozens of white employees fill 

vacancies in Best Buy’s sales department. 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 25 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 20 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

105. Best Buy hired Mr. Calhoun as a permanent/part-time employee, but 

wrongfully classified him as occasional/seasonal worker and paid him less than permanent 

employees. Best Buy managers informed him that he deserved the highest pay raise possible, but 

then Best Buy refused to grant Mr. Calhoun a higher pay raise because Best Buy wrongly 

classified him as a occasional/seasonal employee. 

106. After volunteering for a special project team which would have taken him 

away from the Marin City Store, Mr. Calhoun finally received a transfer to Best Buy’s digital 

imaging department, a minor sales department where he sold cameras. Even though his location 

changed, his pay remained stuck. Best Buy did not conduct Mr. Calhoun’s evaluations in a 

timely fashion and delayed his yearly evaluation for six months. Mr. Calhoun continues to 

receive less pay and be assigned to work fewer hours than white employees with fewer or 

comparable qualifications. 

107. Best Buy has discriminated against Mr. Calhoun on the basis of his race 

and/or color by paying him less, assigning him fewer scheduled hours, giving him unequal job 

assignments, and denying him training opportunities because he is not white. 

108. On or about December 7, 2005, Mr. Calhoun filed a charge of 

discrimination with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Mr. Calhoun received a 

Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or about October 2, 2006. On or about December 8, 

2005, the DFEH issued Mr. Calhoun a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as 

Exhibit H and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue.

Nicholas Dixon

109. Plaintiff Nicholas Dixon, an African-American male, worked as a CSR I 

(cashier) at Best Buy’s Marin City store from October 2003 until February 2005 and as a 

computer sales representative at Best Buy’s Las Vegas store from February until June 2005. 

110. Best Buy assigned Mr. Dixon to a position off the sales floor even though 

he had prior experience in cell phone sales for WorldCom. Although Best Buy informed 

Mr. Dixon that his position was permanent, Best Buy classified him as occasional/seasonal. 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 26 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 21 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

111. Mr. Dixon received less pay than white employees with fewer or 

comparable qualifications. Mr. Dixon received positive evaluations from Best Buy and was 

awarded store MVP by his supervisors and managers. Best Buy did not conduct Mr. Dixon’s 

evaluations in a timely fashion and conducted evaluations with white employees in the same job 

classification more quickly. After he received his evaluations, Mr. Dixon continued to receive 

less pay than white employees. For example, in March 2004, Best Buy granted Mr. Dixon a pay 

raise of only $0.21 per hour because Best Buy wrongly classified him as an occasional/seasonal 

employee instead of a permanent employee. 

112. Mr. Dixon tried on numerous occasions to secure a promotion to 

permanent status and to a sales department where he could receive higher compensation. For 

example, Mr. Dixon sought promotions to both the digital imaging and wireless specialist 

positions in early 2004. 

113. Even as a cashier, Mr. Dixon demonstrated his sales acumen by selling 

additional items to customers. Although Best Buy would not transfer Mr. Dixon to a sales floor 

position, Best Buy asked Mr. Dixon to train new employees how to sell. Despite Mr. Dixon’s 

sales experience, interest in sales, and sales results in a non-sales position, Best Buy refused to 

transfer him to a sales floor position where he would have received approximately $2 an hour 

more than he received as a cashier. 

114. Best Buy has discriminated against Mr. Dixon on the basis of his race 

and/or color by paying him less, assigning him fewer scheduled hours, denying him promotional 

opportunities, giving him unequal job assignments, and denying him training opportunities 

because he is not white. 

115. On or about November 1, 2005, Mr. Dixon filed a charge of discrimination 

with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Mr. Dixon received a Notice of Right to 

Sue from the EEOC on or about October 2, 2006. On or about November 10, 2005, the DFEH 

issued Mr. Dixon a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit I and 

incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue. 

Susan Myers-Snyder

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 27 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 22 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

116. Plaintiff Susan Myers-Snyder is female. She applied to work at the Best 

Buy store in Palm Desert, California in August 2005 by completing the on-line application and 

pre-hiring test. Ms. Myers-Snyder was qualified for the job, in part based on her prior customer 

service management positions at Circuit City. Best Buy refused to hire Ms. Myers-Snyder, 

despite knowing of her qualifications, based on her gender. 

117. Ms. Myers-Snyder had sixteen years of experience with Circuit City, and 

was recommended to Best Buy by a friend who had worked with her at Circuit City. Best Buy 

never responded to her application, either because she failed their discriminatory pre-employment 

test or because they could see from her name that she is female. 

118. Best Buy has discriminated against Ms. Myers-Snyder on the basis of her 

gender by denying her employment because she is not male. 

119. On or about April 11, 2006, Ms. Myers-Snyder filed a charge of 

discrimination with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Ms. Myers-Snyder 

received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or about October 21, 2006. On or about 

May 11, 2006, the DFEH issued Ms. Myers-Snyder a notice of right to sue. Attached to this 

Complaint as Exhibit J and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right 

to sue. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

120. Plaintiffs bring this Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), 

and (b)(3) on behalf of a class of all past, present, and future female and minority Best Buy 

employees and applicants for employment in Best Buy stores in the United States who have been, 

continue to be, or in the future may be denied employment, promotions, desirable job 

assignments, job transfers, desirable hours, equal exempt compensation, and/or be discriminated 

against with respect to other terms and conditions of employment on the basis of their gender, 

race, color, and/or national origin. This Class excludes Best Buy general managers (for the time 

period during which Best Buy employed them as general managers); persons that occupied Geek 

Squad positions (for the time period during which they occupied those positions); persons who 

applied for a Geek Squad position (for the decisions Best Buy made regarding those 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 28 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 23 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

applications); persons who applied for a Geek Squad position (for the decisions Best Buy made 

regarding those applications); employees of Magnolia stand-alone stores (for the time period 

during which Magnolia employed them); and persons who applied for a position at a Magnolia 

stand-alone store (for the decisions Magnolia made regarding those applications). 

121. Plaintiffs also bring this Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 

(b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of a class of all past, present, and future female and minority Best Buy 

employees and applicants for employment in Best Buy stores in California who have been, 

continue to be, or in the future may be denied employment, promotions, desirable job 

assignments, job transfers, desirable hours, equal exempt compensation, and/or be discriminated 

against with respect to other terms and conditions of employment on the basis of their gender, 

race, color, and/or national origin. This Class excludes Best Buy general managers (for the time 

period during which Best Buy employed them as general managers); persons that occupied Geek 

Squad positions (for the time period during which they occupied those positions); persons who 

applied for a Geek Squad position (for the decisions Best Buy made regarding those 

applications); persons who applied for a Geek Squad position (for the decisions Best Buy made 

regarding those applications); employees of Magnolia stand-alone stores (for the time period 

during which Magnolia employed them); and persons who applied for a position at a Magnolia 

stand-alone store (for the decisions Magnolia made regarding those applications). 

122. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definitions of the Class and 

subclass based on discovery or legal development. 

123. Plaintiffs are members of the class they seek to represent. 

124. The members of the class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of 

all members is impracticable. The number of class members is currently indeterminate, but is 

certainly larger than can be addressed through joinder. In fiscal year 2006, Best Buy had 

approximately 128,000 employees working in approximately 742 stores. In addition, temporary 

employees are hired during peak periods, such as the holiday season, and are often denied 

promotions to permanent positions on account of race, color, national origin, and/or gender. 

Thus, although the precise number of female and minority employees subjected to Best Buy’s 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 29 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 24 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

discriminatory employment practices is not presently known, it is certainly a larger number than 

can feasibly be addressed through joinder. Additionally, each of Best Buy’s approximately 742 

stores employs very few female and minority employees but each store, on average, annually 

receives numerous applications from qualified females and minorities who are potential 

employees. Thus, although the precise number of qualified minority and female applicants who 

are not hired or otherwise discriminated against is currently unknown, it is far greater than can be 

feasibly addressed through joinder. 

125. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, and these 

questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common 

questions include, among others: (1) whether Best Buy’s policies or practices discriminate 

against minority and female employees and applicants; (2) whether Best Buy’s use of subjective 

selection criteria as an employment policy or practice discriminates against minority and female 

applicants and employees; (3) whether Best Buy’s policies and practices violate Title VII; 

(4) whether Best Buy’s policies or practices violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and (5) whether punitive 

damages, injunctive relief, and other equitable remedies for the class are warranted. 

126. The representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class. 

127. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and 

experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation, and the intersection 

thereof. 

128. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) 

because Best Buy has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, 

making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the class as a 

whole. The class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Best Buy’s common, uniform, 

and unfair personnel policies and practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, and/or gender. 

129. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) 

because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 30 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 25 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

individual members of the class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods 

for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members have been damaged 

and are entitled to recovery as a result of Best Buy’s common, uniform, and unfair discriminatory 

personnel policies and practices. Best Buy has computerized payroll and personnel data that will 

make calculation of damages for specific class members relatively simple. The propriety and 

amount of punitive damages are issues common to the class. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Race, Color, and/or National Origin Discrimination) 

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.)

(Brought on behalf of Eric Blacksher, Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago,

Jr., Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, and the Class)

130. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 128 as alleged above. 

131. This Claim is brought on behalf of representative plaintiffs Eric Blacksher, 

Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., 

Jessica Treas, and the Class they represent. 

132. Best Buy has maintained as its standard operating procedure an 

employment system that intentionally discriminates against or imposes disparate treatment upon 

minorities with respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignment, transfer, weekly hour allocation, 

exempt compensation, and promotions. 

133. Best Buy’s employment practices and policies, which are overly subjective, 

discretionary, standardless, and arbitrary, have an adverse disparate impact on minority applicants 

and employees. Similarly, Best Buy’s GMTI employment test had an adverse disparate impact 

on minority applicants. Best Buy’s system is not and cannot be justified by business necessity, 

but even if it could be so justified, less discriminatory alternatives exist that could equally serve 

any alleged necessity. 

134. Best Buy’s discriminatory policies or practices described above have 

denied minority applicants and employees employment, favorable job assignments, job transfers, 

weekly hour allocations, exempt compensation, and promotions, resulting in the loss of past and 

future wages and other job benefits.

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 31 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 26 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

135. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal race, color, and/or national origin 

discrimination prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

136. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(42 U.S.C. § 1981)

(Brought on behalf of Eric Blacksher, Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago,

Jr., Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, and the Class)

137. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 128 as alleged above. 

138. This claim is brought on behalf of representative plaintiffs Eric Blacksher, 

Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, 

and Nicholas Dixon and the Class they represent. 

139. Best Buy has maintained an intentionally discriminatory system with 

respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignments, transfers, weekly hour allocations, promotions, 

and exempt compensation. 

140. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal intentional race, color, and/or 

national origin discrimination with respect to the making, performance, modification, and 

termination of contracts prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

141. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Race, Color, and/or National Origin Discrimination) 

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940 et seq.)

(Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric 

Blacksher, Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., and the California 

Subclass)

142. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 128 as alleged above. 

143. This claim is brought on behalf of Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, 

Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., and 

the California Subclass they represent of similarly situated minority employees and applicants for 

employment in Best Buy stores in California. 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 32 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 27 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

144. Best Buy has maintained an employment system that intentionally 

discriminates against or imposes disparate treatment upon minorities with respect to recruitment, 

hiring, job assignment, transfer, weekly hour allocation, exempt compensation, and promotions. 

145. Best Buy’s employment practices and policies, which are overly subjective, 

discretionary, standardless, and arbitrary, have an adverse disparate impact on minority applicants 

and employees. Similarly, Best Buy’s GMTI employment test had an adverse disparate impact 

on minority applicants. Best Buy’s system is not and cannot be justified by business necessity, 

but even if it could be so justified, less discriminatory alternatives exist that could equally serve 

any alleged necessity. 

146. Best Buy’s discriminatory policies or practices described above have 

denied minority applicants and employees employment, favorable job assignments, job transfers, 

weekly hour allocations, exempt compensation, and promotions, resulting in the loss of past and 

future wages and other job benefits.

147. Best Buy’s actions as described above constitute unlawful race, color, 

and/or national origin discrimination prohibited by FEHA, California Government Code Section 

12940 et seq. 

148. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Gender Discrimination) 

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.)

(Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia,

Cheryl Chappel, Susan Myers-Snyder, Jessica Treas, And The Class)

149. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 128 as alleged above. 

150. This Claim is brought on behalf of representative plaintiffs Jasmen 

Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Susan Myers-Snyder, and Jessica Treas on behalf of 

themselves and the Class they represent. 

151. Best Buy has maintained as its standard operating procedure an 

employment system that intentionally discriminates against and imposes disparate treatment on 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 33 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 28 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

women with respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignment, transfer, weekly hour allocation, 

exempt compensation, and promotions. 

152. Best Buy’s standard employment practices and policies, which are overly 

subjective, standardless, and arbitrary, have an adverse disparate impact on female applicants and 

employees. Similarly, Best Buy’s GMTI employment test had an adverse disparate impact on 

female management applicants. Best Buy’s system is not and cannot be justified by business 

necessity, but even if it could be so justified, less discriminatory alternatives exist that could 

equally serve any alleged necessity. 

153. Best Buy’s discriminatory policies or practices described above have 

denied female applicants and employees employment, favorable job assignments, job transfers, 

weekly hour allocations, exempt compensation, and promotions, resulting in the loss of past and 

future wages and other job benefits.

154. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal gender discrimination prohibited 

by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

155. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Gender Discrimination) 

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940 et seq.)

(Brought On Behalf Of Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia,

Cheryl Chappel, Jessica Treas, Susan Myers-Snyder, and The California Subclass)

156. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 128 as alleged above. 

157. This Claim is brought on behalf of representative plaintiffs Jasmen 

Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jessica Treas, and Susan Myers-Snyder on behalf of 

themselves and the California Subclass they represent of similarly situated women employees and 

applicants for employment in Best Buy stores in California. 

158. Best Buy has maintained as its standard operating procedure an 

employment system that intentionally discriminates against and imposes disparate treatment on 

women with respect to recruitment, hiring, job assignment, transfer, weekly hour allocation, 

exempt compensation, and promotions. 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 34 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 29 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

159. Best Buy’s standard employment practices and policies, which are overly 

subjective, standardless, and arbitrary, have an adverse disparate impact on female employees and 

management applicants. Similarly, Best Buy’s GMTI employment test had an adverse disparate 

impact on female management applicants. Best Buy’s system is not and cannot be justified by 

business necessity, but even if it could be so justified, less discriminatory alternatives exist that 

could equally serve any alleged necessity. 

160. Best Buy’s discriminatory policies or practices described above have 

denied female applicants and employees employment, favorable job assignments, job transfers, 

weekly hour allocations, exempt compensation, and promotions, resulting in the loss of past and 

future wages and other job benefits. 

161. Best Buy’s actions as described above constitute unlawful gender 

discrimination prohibited by FEHA, California Government Code Section 12940 et seq. 

162. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided. 

 ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF 

163. Plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, have no plain, adequate, or 

complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in 

this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs, and the class 

they seek to represent, are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from 

defendants’ discriminatory acts and omissions. 

164. Best Buy performed the acts herein alleged with malice or reckless 

indifference. Plaintiffs and class members are thus entitled to recover punitive damages in an 

amount according to proof. 

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and the class pray for relief as follows: 

165. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed class; 

166. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, 

Cheryl Chappel, Eric Blacksher, Lawrence Santiago, Jessica Treas, Muembo Muanza, Maurice 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 35 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 30 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, and Susan Myers-Snyder as representatives of the class and California 

subclass; 

167. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs’ counsel of record as class 

counsel; 

168. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are 

unlawful and violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and Cal. Gov. Code § 12940, et seq.; 

169. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Best Buy and its officers, 

agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with 

them, from engaging in each of the unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set forth 

herein; 

170. An order that Best Buy institute and carry out policies, practices, and 

programs that provide equal employment opportunities for all women and minorities, and that it 

eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices; 

171. An order restoring plaintiffs and class members to their rightful positions at 

Best Buy, or in lieu of reinstatements, an order for front pay benefits; 

172. Back pay (including interest and benefits) for individual plaintiffs and class 

members; 

173. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Best 

Buy’s ability to pay and to deter future conduct; 

174. Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent 

allowable by law; 

175. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and 

176. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems 

necessary, just, and proper. 

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 36 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 31 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

Dated: January 31, 2008 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

By: ________/s/_______________________________ 

 Kelly M. Dermody 

Daniel M. Hutchinson 

Barbra L. Williams 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

 Todd M. Schneider 

Guy B. Wallace 

Nancy Park 

Naomi Sunshine 

SCHNEIDER & WALLACE 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-7100 

Facsimile: (415) 421-710 

 James M. Finberg 

Eve H. Cervantez 

Katherine M. Pollock 

ATSHULER BERZON LLP 

177 Post Street, Ste. 300 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 421-7151 

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 

 Bill Lann Lee 

Vincent Cheng 

Lindsay Nako 

Nina Wasow 

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON 

436 14th Street, Suite 1505 

Oakland, CA 94612-2703 

Telephone: (510) 839-6824 

Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 37 of 106
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

745784.2 - 32 - SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues so triable. 

Dated: January 31, 2008 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

By: ________/s/_______________________________ 

 Kelly M. Dermody 

Daniel M. Hutchinson 

Barbra L. Williams 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

 Todd M. Schneider 

Guy B. Wallace 

Nancy Park 

Naomi Sunshine 

SCHNEIDER & WALLACE 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-7100 

Facsimile: (415) 421-710 

 James M. Finberg 

Eve H. Cervantez 

Katherine M. Pollock 

ATSHULER BERZON LLP 

177 Post Street, Ste. 300 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 421-7151 

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 

 Bill Lann Lee 

Vincent Cheng 

Lindsay Nako 

Nina Wasow 

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON 

436 14th Street, Suite 1505 

Oakland, CA 94612-2703 

Telephone: (510) 839-6824 

Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 38 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 39 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 40 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 41 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 42 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 43 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 44 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 45 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 46 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 47 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 48 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 49 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 50 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 51 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 52 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 53 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 54 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 55 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 56 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 57 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 58 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 59 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 60 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 61 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 62 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 63 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 64 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 65 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 66 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 67 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 68 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 69 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 70 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 71 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 72 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 73 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 74 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 75 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 76 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 77 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 78 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 79 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 80 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 81 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 82 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 83 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 84 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 85 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 86 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 87 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 88 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 89 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 90 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 91 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 92 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 93 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 94 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 95 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 96 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 97 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 98 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 99 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 100 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 101 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 102 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 103 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 104 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 105 of 106
Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 94 Filed 02/12/08 Page 106 of 106