1

COMPLAINT

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

David Sanford (pro hac vice forthcoming)

dsanford@sanfordheisler.com

SANFORD HEISLER, LLP

1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20009

Telephone: (202) 499-5201

Facsimile: (202) 499-5119

Felicia Medina (SBN 255804)

fmedina@sanfordheisler.com

Xinying Valerian (SBN 254890)

xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com

SANFORD HEISLER, LLP

111 Sutter Street, Suite 975

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 795-2020

Facsimile: (415) 795-2021

Eric C. Kastner (SBN 53858)

eck@kastnerkim.com 

Daniel H. Qualls (SBN 109036)

dhq@kastnerkim.com 

KASTNER | KIM LLP

1451 Grant Road, Suite 104

Mountain View, CA 94040

Telephone: (650) 967-7854

Facsimile: (650) 386-1885

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARCELLA JOHNSON,

On Behalf of Herself and All Others 

Similarly Situated, 

PLAINTIFF,

v.

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

DEFENDANT. 

Case No. _____________________

COMPLAINT

CLASS ACTION

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 17
2

COMPLAINT

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

Plaintiff Marcella Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Johnson”), individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this Class Complaint against Defendant 

Oracle America, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Oracle”). Plaintiff alleges upon knowledge as to 

herself and her own acts, and otherwise upon information and belief, as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, a former sales representative employed by Oracle, brings this 

class lawsuit against Oracle on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated to 

recover commission wages unlawfully withheld by Oracle in violation of contract and the 

California Labor Code. 

2. A Fortune 100 technology giant, Oracle has systematically stiffed its 

salesforce of earned commission wages for many years, by scrapping contractual

compensation plans when they yield commission earnings that are higher than Oracle 

would prefer to pay and retroactively imposing inferior – i.e. less remunerative – numeric

terms. Simply put, Oracle routinely decides to change commission formulas so as to 

reduce commission payments on past sales, well after the commissions have been earned 

and even sometimes after they have been paid.

3. Oracle coerces employees into accepting re-plans by threatening that if 

they fail to accept the new commission plans within 24 hours, they will not be paid 

pending commissions at all. Even if a bold employee refuses to agree to an inferior replan, Oracle barrels ahead anyway, applying the re-plan terms to both past and future 

sales. 

4. As a result of re-plans, Oracle “claws back” previously paid commissions. 

If employees cannot afford to fork over substantial sums, employees are left with a 

Hobson’s choice: pay off the supposed debt by continuing to work for Oracle without 

being paid commissions or be threatened with a collections lawsuit if they leave before 

completely paying off their negative commission balance. 

5. To ordinary employees, Oracle is not transparent or upfront about when 

and why it does “re-plans,” however. Sales employees only see that their commissions 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 17
3

COMPLAINT

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

are reduced or being clawed back by Oracle and, if they press for explanations, they may 

be told that they were re-planned. These re-plans are rooted in compensation policies 

which unlawfully provide that Oracle can reduce commissions retroactively based on 

opaque and secret criteria. 

6. Although seemingly arbitrary to the sales employees, Oracle’s practices 

are anything but. Led by the finance department and supported by sales operations and 

compensation department employees, Oracle reduces commissions through systematic 

processes designed to align commissions with financial forecasts and bottom line goals.

Over the years, Oracle has taken millions of dollars from commission wages to add to its 

bottom line.

7. Oracle’s commission policies and practices violate the contractual 

compensation plans accepted by sales employees. They violate the California Labor 

Code’s prohibitions on deducting wages to defray ordinary business costs and secretly 

paying a lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by contract. They 

contradict the Labor Code requirement that commission contracts be transparent about 

the methods for computing and paying commissions. They are fundamentally unfair 

business practices.

8. Through this class action, Plaintiff challenges Oracle’s practice of 

imposing retroactive changes in commission plans that result in loss of pay. Plaintiff 

seeks to recover unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs, and all other appropriate relief to which Plaintiff and class members are entitled.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act. The amount in controversy 

exceeds $5,000,000 and there are members of the proposed Class who are citizens of a 

State different from the States of citizenship of Defendant Oracle. 

10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) 

because Defendant is headquartered in and conducts substantial business in the Northern 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 17
4

COMPLAINT

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

District of California and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 

claims occurred in this District. 

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

11. This action is properly assigned to the San Francisco Division of this

District pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c) and (d) because a substantial part of the 

events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred in San Mateo County, which is

served by the San Francisco Division.

THE PARTIES

12. Defendant Oracle is a Delaware Corporation with its corporate 

headquarters in Redwood City, San Mateo County, California. 

13. Oracle was and is an employer under the California Labor Code and 

common law.

14. Oracle employed Plaintiff and other employees performing sales work for 

Oracle in California. 

15. Plaintiff Marcella Johnson is an individual residing currently in Modesto, 

California. She worked for Oracle in 2013 and 2014 in Oracle’s offices in Redwood City. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

16. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 seeking 

injunctive and monetary relief for Oracle’s systemic refusal to pay full commissions 

earned by sales employees.

A. Class Definition 

17. The proposed Class consists of all commissioned sales employees who 

have been or will be employed by Oracle in California at any time from the date that is 

four years before the filing of this Complaint to the present, to whom Oracle issued 

revised commission agreements which retroactively applied inferior – i.e. less 

remunerative – numeric terms (including but not limited to higher quotas and lower 

commission rates) to completed sales.

18. Plaintiff is a member of the Class she seeks to represent.

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 4 of 17
5

COMPLAINT

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

19. The sales commission practices described herein have been and are

continuing in nature.

20. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition based on 

discovery or legal developments.

B. Requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3)

i. Numerosity and Impracticability of Joinder 

21. The proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable. 

22. Upon information and belief, there are more than 1,000 members of the 

proposed Class. 

23. The Class members are ascertainable through Oracle’s centralized and 

electronically maintained records.

ii. Common Questions of Law and Fact

24. The prosecution of Plaintiff’s claims will require the adjudication of 

numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class. The common questions of law 

and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. The 

common questions include: 

a. Whether Defendant retroactively reduced commission wages by 

applying revised commission agreements containing inferior – i.e. less 

remunerative – numeric terms;

b. Whether the terms of Defendant’s standardized commission contracts 

comply with California law governing earned commission wages;

c. Whether terms within Defendant’s standardized commission contracts 

comply with California Labor Code Section 2751;

d. Whether Defendant’s commission policies and practices comply with 

California Labor Code Section 221; and

e. Whether Defendant’s commission policies and practices comply with 

California Labor Code Section 223.

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 5 of 17
6

COMPLAINT

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

iii. Typicality of Claims and Relief Sought

25. Plaintiff has suffered the same violations and similar injuries as other 

Class members arising out of and caused by Defendant’s common course of conduct. All 

Class members were subject to the same corporate practices, as alleged herein, of 

reducing commission payments.

26. Plaintiff possesses and asserts each of the claims she asserts on behalf of 

the proposed Class. She seeks similar relief as other Class members.

iv. Adequacy of Representation 

27. Plaintiff’s interests are coextensive with those of the members of the 

proposed Class. Plaintiff is willing and able to represent the proposed Class fairly and 

vigorously as she pursues her similar individual claims in this action.

28. Plaintiff has retained counsel sufficiently qualified, experienced, and able 

to conduct this litigation and to meet the time and fiscal demands required to litigate a

class action of this size and complexity. 

v. Efficiency of Class Prosecution of Class Claims 

29. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. A class action is superior to other available methods for 

the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy – particularly where individual class 

members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit against a large 

corporation such as Oracle.

30. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated 

persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, 

and without the unnecessary duplication of efforts and expense that numerous individual 

actions engender. 

31. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of 

direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are often fearful of bringing claims 

because doing so can harm their employment, future employment, and future efforts to 

secure employment. Class actions provide class members who are not named in the 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 6 of 17
7

COMPLAINT

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

complaint a degree of anonymity which allows for the vindication of their rights while 

eliminating or reducing these risks.

32. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class 

would create a risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications with respect to the 

individual members of the Class, establishing incompatible standards of conduct for 

Defendant and resulting in the impairment of Class members’ rights and the disposition 

of their interests through actions to which they were not parties. 

33. The issues in this class action can be decided by means of common, classwide proof. In addition, the Court can, and is empowered to, fashion methods to 

efficiently manage this action as a class action.

C. Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2)

34. Oracle has acted on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and the 

proposed Class by adopting and following systemic policies, practices, and procedures 

that deprive sales employees of earned commission wages. Refusal to pay all commission 

wages is Oracle’s standard operating procedure rather than a sporadic occurrence.

35. Oracle has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 

Plaintiff and the proposed Class. Oracle’s systemic conduct justifies the requested 

injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

36. Injunctive, declaratory, and affirmative relief are a predominant form of 

relief sought in this case. Entitlement to declaratory, injunctive, and affirmative relief 

flows directly and automatically from proof of Oracle’s refusal to pay all commission 

wages. In turn, entitlement to declaratory, injunctive, and affirmative relief forms the 

factual and legal predicate for the monetary and non-monetary remedies for individual 

losses caused by Oracle’s systemic refusal to pay full commissions.

D. Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification

37. Additionally, or in the alternative, the Court may grant “partial” or “issue” 

certification under Rule 23(c)(4). Resolution of common questions of fact and law would 

materially advance the litigation for all Class members. 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 7 of 17
8

COMPLAINT

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

FACTS

A. Oracle’s Sales Commissions Policies, Practices and Procedures

38. Defendant Oracle committed the following acts knowingly, intentionally 

and willfully.

39. The Oracle policies, practices and procedures alleged in this Complaint 

existed at all relevant times, i.e., going back at least four years from the date of this 

Complaint, and they are continuous and ongoing.

40. Typically, commission wages constitute a significant portion of Oracle 

sales employees’ compensation.

41. When Oracle hires sales employees, it offers and the employees accept 

compensation in the form of base salary and commissions. 

42. Oracle provides each sales employee with an Individualized 

Compensation Plan (“Comp Plan”) containing commission rates, sales targets (i.e., 

quotas) and other numeric terms, along with written Terms and Conditions of Incentive 

Compensation (“T&C”). The Comp Plan sets forth the formula by which commissions 

are to be calculated.

43. Oracle considers the Comp Plan and the T&C to be the commission 

contract required by California Labor Code Section 2751.

44. The T&C is identical for all Class members.

45. After an employee starts work in a sales position, Oracle issues the 

commission contract to the employee through a process of electronically distributing and 

obtaining employee acceptance of the T&C and the Comp Plan.

46. Oracle requires employees to first click “accept” for the T&C, after which 

Oracle then provides the Comp Plan to the employees. Next, employees are asked to click 

“accept” for the Comp Plans. Compliance with this acceptance process is required for 

employees to be eligible to receive commission payments for past and future work.

47. At various points after an initial Comp Plan is in place, Oracle issues

revised Comp Plans to some employees through this same procedure. Typically, Oracle 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 8 of 17
9

COMPLAINT

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

issues revised Comp Plans to employees soon after the start of the fiscal year – usually 

sometime in mid-to-late June. Oracle also issues revised Comp Plans at other times. 

48. Revised Comp Plans that affect past sales retroactively are known as “replans.” Re-plans apply to sales transactions that have already been completed by Class 

members. Re-plans affect past sales going back to a date of Oracle’s choosing, sometimes 

to the beginning of the same fiscal year and sometimes to a date in a previous fiscal year.

49. The retroactivity is apparent based on the effective date stated on the face 

of the new Comp Plan.

50. Oracle’s commission contracts set forth conditions precedent to the 

payment of commissions. Generally, commissions are calculated and paid after 

transactions are booked or revenue is recognized. The T&C sets forth the commission 

calculation triggers and payment triggers for the different products sold by Oracle. 

51. Oracle’s commission contracts contain identical clauses authorizing

reductions to commissions. These uniform clauses state that Oracle has discretion to, at 

any time: (a) retroactively reduce commission payments and to otherwise determine the 

amount of commissions paid; and (b) to deviate from, modify, cancel and/or replace any 

term of a commission contract (e.g., Comp Plan), such as the commission rates and 

quotas.

52. When sales employees press for explanations, Oracle cites to terms in the 

standardized commission contract that reserves discretion to Oracle to adjust 

commissions at any time. 

53. Oracle’s criteria used to reduce commissions are not set forth in Oracle’s 

T&C or compensation plans. 

54. By the terms of the commission contract, and in practice, Oracle possess 

total, unilateral discretion to reduce commission payments and terms by which 

commission are calculated at any time of its choosing, based on undisclosed criteria. 

55. These contract terms are unlawful, void and unenforceable under 

California law. The law prohibits the use of such discretionary power to the deny 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 9 of 17
10

COMPLAINT

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

employees the benefits of their commission contracts.

56. Oracle commonly uses re-plans to retroactively reduce employees’ 

commissions. 

57. Typically, such a re-plan would reduce the commission rate and/or 

increases the quota. Instead of paying the commissions called for by the employee’s 

Comp Plan in effect, Oracle replaces it with a Comp Plan containing a higher quota or a

lower commission rate, and applies the revised numeric terms retroactively to sales 

transactions that Class members have already completed. 

58. Thus, the re-plan is a mechanism of changing an employee’s commission 

contract in a way that reduces commissions already earned. 

59. Oracle’s commission compensation policies and procedures are based on 

the overriding goal of aligning its financial performance with its financial forecasts. This 

is an ever-evolving process of scrutinizing and adjusting the Comp Plans that are in place 

and changing commission calculations occurring on booked transactions.

60. In so doing, Oracle reduces commissions to offset business costs which 

are beyond Oracle Employees’ work and their control. Through the use of re-plans, 

Oracle effectively deducts ordinary costs of doing business from the earned commissions 

of sales employees. 

61. The adjustments can occur at any time, including after commissions have 

already been paid to the employees. For example, Oracle sometimes issues a re-plan for 

an already-concluded fiscal year, months after the end of a fiscal year, with the effect of 

reducing the commissions for the prior year. 

62. If commissions have already been paid to the employee, but the 

commissions have been retroactively reduced, Oracle “claws back” the commissions 

already earned and paid. Current employees either have to continue working for Oracle 

without getting paid any commissions – as newly earned commissions are deducted to 

pay off the negative commissions balance – or face the prospect of a collection demand 

and legal claim from Oracle.

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 10 of 17
11

COMPLAINT

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

63. It is Oracle’s policy and practice to implement such clawbacks by 

deducting monies from commissions as they are earned by employees who continue 

working, and by demanding repayment from former employees.

B. Plaintiff Marcella Johnson

64. Plaintiff Marcella Johnson’s experience is typical and illustrative.

65. Plaintiff joined Oracle in March 2013. Plaintiff worked in a division called 

Human Capital Management, selling Oracle software for managing human resources and 

personnel.

66. Oracle issued the T&C and a Comp Plan to Plaintiff in accordance with 

the standard procedures described above. 

67. Plaintiff did not receive any commission payments from the start of her 

employment until November 2013. 

68. In November 2013 and December 2013, Oracle paid Plaintiff commission 

wages for numerous completed sales transactions in accordance with the numeric terms 

of the Comp Plan then in effect.

69. After these payments, Plaintiff was “re-planned” and given a lower 

commission rate, which Oracle applied retroactively to the beginning of the fiscal year, 

June 2013.

70. This re-plan reduced Plaintiff’s earned commissions on past sales 

transactions significantly. After the re-plan, Plaintiff suddenly had a negative 

commission balance of approximately $20,000.

71. The re-plan resulted in a “negative commission balance” because Oracle’s 

previous payments to Plaintiff were greater than the total commissions resulting from the 

new, lower rate. According to Oracle, after the re-plan, the previous payments caused an 

overpayment and now Oracle could clawback the “negative commission balance.” 

72. Oracle’s Compensation Department informed Plaintiff that pursuant to the 

T&C, if she stopped working for Oracle, Oracle would have the right to collect the 

negative balance from her, including through a lawsuit. 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 11 of 17
12

COMPLAINT

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

73. Plaintiff could not afford to repay Oracle. As a result, Plaintiff felt she

had no choice but to continue working for Oracle for months without being paid any 

commissions. The new commissions she earned were levied by Oracle to offset the 

“negative commission balance” resulting from retroactive imposition of the inferior 

commission rate.

74. Plaintiff resigned from her position at Oracle effective July 2014. Plaintiff 

resigned as soon as she had earned sufficient additional commissions to pay off the 

negative commission balance.

75. Other sales employees in Human Capital Management were also replanned with inferior numeric terms in the same fiscal year.

76. Like Plaintiff, and regardless of the year and their sales group, other sales 

employees have been deprived of commission payments due to similar re-plans. Like 

Plaintiff, other Class members have suffered retroactive changes to the numeric terms of 

commission agreements resulting in a loss of pay.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FAILURE TO PAY COMMISSION WAGES IN BREACH OF CALIFORNIA 

LABOR CODE AND CONTRACT

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

77. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

78. Plaintiff and Class members earned commission wages within the 

meaning of California Labor Code Sections 200 and 204.1. 

79. Oracle has knowingly, intentionally and willfully failed and refused to pay 

to Plaintiff and Class members the full and complete amount of the commissions they 

earned. Oracle has operated under and continues to operate under a common policy and 

plan of failing and refusing to pay full earned commissions through the operation of its

re-plan practices.

80. Plaintiff and Class members entered into written commission contracts 

with Defendant. These contracts provided that Defendant would pay commissions based 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 12 of 17
13

COMPLAINT

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

on sales credited to Plaintiff and Class members in accordance with the commission rates 

set forth in their Compensation Plans. 

81. Plaintiff and Class members have performed all of the duties and 

obligations required of them by Oracle that would entitle them to receive commissions. 

Plaintiff and Class members have met all lawful conditions precedent to the earning of 

commissions. Oracle has credited Plaintiff and Class members for sales that are 

encompassed by their commission contracts.

82. Oracle relies on contract provisions that allow Oracle to retroactively 

change commission terms at any time. These provisions are void and unenforceable 

exculpatory clauses under California Civil Code Section 1668.

83. Furthermore, these contract provisions that allow Oracle to retroactively 

change commission terms at any time are unlawful, void and unenforceable under 

California Labor Code Sections 221, 223 and 2751.

84. Labor Code Section 221 states: “It shall be unlawful for any employer to 

collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer 

to said employee.” California’s Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders prohibit 

employers from using earned wages to offset ordinary business costs. 

85. Oracle’s use of re-plans to avoid paying earned commissions, including by 

clawing back previously paid compensation, constitutes unlawful withholdings or 

deductions of earned wages in violation of Section 221.

86. Labor Code Section 223 states: “Where any statute or contract requires an 

employer to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a 

lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by statute or by contract.”

87. Oracle secretly underpays commission wages while purporting to follow 

the commission rates designated by contract in violation of Section 223.

88. Labor Code Section 2751 states, in pertinent part: “Whenever an employer 

enters into a contract of employment with an employee for services to be rendered within 

this state and the contemplated method of payment of the employee involves 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 13 of 17
14

COMPLAINT

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

commissions, the contract shall be in writing and shall set forth the method by which the 

commissions shall be computed and paid.”

89. Oracle relies on methods for the computation and payment of 

commissions that are not set forth in the commission contract in violation of Section 

2751.

90. Individually and collectively, Labor Code Sections 221, 223 and 2751 and 

Civil Code Section 1668 invalidate Oracle’s illegal contract provisions and give rise to 

Plaintiff and Class members’ claim for unpaid wages under the valid and enforceable 

terms of their written commission contracts. 

91. Pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 200 et seq., Plaintiff and Class 

members are entitled to recover unpaid commissions, with interest, attorney’s fees, costs, 

penalties, all in an amount to be proven at trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON SEPARATION

California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

92. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

93. Plaintiff resigned from Oracle and concluded her employment in July

2014.

94. At the time of Plaintiff’s separation, Defendant knowingly and willfully 

failed to pay Plaintiff all of the commission wages she had earned and which had been 

calculated or could be reasonably calculated, as alleged herein and above.

95. Defendant has operated under and continues to operate under a common 

policy and plan of failing and refusing to timely pay unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff and 

Class Members whose employment ended, as required by California Labor Code Sections

201 and 202. 

96. As a result of its failure to timely pay separated employees all 

compensation due, Defendant is liable for statutory waiting time penalties pursuant to 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 14 of 17
15

COMPLAINT

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

California Labor Code Section 203.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

UNFAIR COMPETITION

California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

97. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

98. Defendant is a “person” as defined under California Business & 

Professions Code Section 17021.

99. Business & Professions Code Section 17200 defines unfair competition as, 

inter alia, an unlawful business act or practice or an unfair business act or practice.

100. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendant has engaged and continues to 

engage in a business practice which violates California law, including but not limited to 

California Labor Code Sections 200, 201, 202, 204, 221, 223, and 2751 and the 

applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

101. Defendant’s willful failure to pay all earned commission wages and failure 

to maintain accurate records of commission earnings and deductions constitute unlawful 

activity prohibited by California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

102. Defendant’s policies, practices and procedures alleged herein constitute 

unfair business practices under Section 17200. Oracle’s commission wage policies, 

practices and procedures deceive employees about how and what they will be paid and 

oppress employees who have inherently less bargaining power and inferior information.

103. Furthermore, any failure to pay wages is, by definition, an unfair business 

practice under Section 17200.

104. As a result of its unlawful and unfair acts, Defendant has reaped and 

continues to reap unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiffs and the 

Class Members.

105. Defendant should be made to disgorge these ill-gotten gains and restore to 

Plaintiff and the Class members the wrongfully withheld wages to which they are 

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 15 of 17
16

COMPLAINT

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

entitled, as well as interest on these wages.

106. Plaintiff and Class members seek all injunctive and preventive relief 

authorized by Business and Professions Code Sections 17202 and 17203.

107. This action is designed to ensure the enforcement of an important right 

affecting the public interest and a large number of employees. The necessity and 

financial burden of private enforcement is great, and the risks to the named plaintiff for 

stepping forward are also significant. As such, Plaintiff would be entitled to attorneys’ 

fees should they prevail, and such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of 

the recovery.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

A. Certification of the claims in this action as a class action under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 

B. Designation of Plaintiff as Class Representative.

C. An award of damages in excess of 150 million dollars;

D. Equitable and injunctive relief to remedy Defendant’s violations of state 

law, including but not necessarily limited to an order enjoining Defendant from 

continuing its unlawful practices; 

E. Statutory penalties under state law;

F. Restitution under state law;

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

H. Attorneys’ fees and costs under applicable law, including expert fees and 

costs.

I. Such additional and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all claims triable by jury.

Dated: February 14, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 16 of 17
17

COMPLAINT

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

By: _/S/ Xinying Valerian___________

Felicia Medina

Xinying Valerian

SANFORD HEISLER, LLP

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

Case 3:17-cv-00725-SK Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 17 of 17