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

CARA FENEIS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY

1

Yosef Peretz (SBN 209288)

yperetz@peretzlaw.com

Shane Howarter (SBN 311970)

showarter@peretzlaw.com

PERETZ & ASSOCIATES

22 Battery Street, Suite 200

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 415.732.3777

Facsimile: 415.732.3791

Attorneys for CARA FENEIS

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

 Debtor.

Case No. 19-30089 (DM)

Chapter 11

CARA FENEIS’ REQUEST FOR 

JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF 

HER MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE 

AUTOMATIC STAY

Date: January 29, 2020

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Ctrm: 17

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Cara Feneis (“Feneis”) respectfully 

asks that the Court take judicial notice of documents from the case styled Cara Feneis v. Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company (Case No. RG17866484), currently pending in the Superior Court of 

California, County of Alameda (“Alameda Superior”), listed below in connection with Feneis’ 

concurrently-filed Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay:

EXHIBIT “A”: Complaint for Damages, filed on July 5, 2017 with 

the State of California, Superior Court of the County of Alameda.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 1

of 38
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

CARA FENEIS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY

2 

Fed. R. Evid. 201 allows district courts to take judicial notice of facts that are either 

generally known within their territorial jurisdiction, or that can be accurately and readily 

determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The rule allows courts 

to take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, 

LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F. 3d 741, 746 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Feneis requests this Court take judicial notice of court document in the State of California, 

County of Alameda Superior Court. This document is appropriate subjects of a Request for 

Judicial Notice because they are publicly available, and there can be no question as to its

authenticity. 

Accordingly, Feneis requests that the Court take judicial notice of Exhibit A, which is 

attached as exhibit to this Request for Judicial Notice filed in support of Feneis’ Motion for Relief 

from the Automatic Stay.

Dated: December 26, 2019 PERETZ & ASSOCIATES

 By: ___________________ 

 Yosef Peretz

Shane Howarter

 Attorneys for CARA FENEIS

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 2

of 38
EXHIBIT A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 3

of 38
1 MARTIN M. HOROWITZ (SBN 79073) 

STEPHANIE RUBINOFF (SBN 98229) 

2 HOROWITZ & RUBINOFF 

ENDORSED 

FILED 

ALAMEDA COUNTY 

JUL O 5 2017 

1440 Broadway. Suite 607 

3 Oakland, CA 94612-2026 SUi- PESKO 

Tel~hone: (S10) 444-7717 By------,---:------·--

4 Email: srubinoff@h-rlegal.com 

5 YOSEF PERETZ (SBN 209288) 

SUMY KIM (SBN 290082) 

6 PERETZ & ASSOCIATES 

22 Battery Street, Suite 202 

7 San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel~hone: (415) 732-3777 

8 Facsimile: (415) 732-3791 

Email: yperetz@peretzlaw.com 

9 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

10 CARA FENEIS 

11 

12 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 

UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 

13 CARA FENEIS, 

14 

15 vs. 

Plaintiff, 

CASE NO. R G 17 8 6 6 4 8 4 

16 PACIFIC OAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, a California 

17 ~rpo~ation; and DOES 1 through 20, 

mclus1ve, 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants. 

-------------·' 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) 

Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5(b) 

Age Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA 

Sex Discrimination in Violation of the PEHA 

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

of 38
1 Plaintiff CARA FENEIS complains of defendants and for causes of action alleges: 

2 1. Plaintiff CARA FENEIS ("FENEIS") is a competent female adult of 48 years of age 

3 who is a citizen of the United States, and, at all times material herein, has been a resident of the 

4 County of Alameda, California. 

5 2. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, Twenty-Five 

6 Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 

7 3. Defendant PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ("PG&E") is and, at all 

8 times material herein, has been an active California corporation under the laws of the state of 

9 California. 

10 4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court because Alameda County is where the 

11 liability arose. 

12 5. Defendant PG&E is a corporation which acts through its employees and agents. 

13 6. At all times material herein, the conduct alleged herein was taken by agents or 

14 employees of defendant PG&E, each of whom was acting within the course and scope of his or her 

15 agency or employment and each act was authorized and ratified by defendant PG&E. 

16 7. The true names and capacities of defendants sued as DOES 1 through 20 are unknown 

17 to plaintiff. Plaintiff prays leave to amend to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 

18 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each and every fictitious 

19 defendant is responsible in some manner for the conduct alleged herein, and the plaintifrs injuries 

20 were proximately caused thereby. 

21 9. Plaintiff has satisfied the statutory jurisdictional prerequisites for tiling the instant 

22 lawsuit and such suit is timely filed. On November 17, 2016, plaintiff timely tiled discrimination 

23 complaint no. 134219-260241 with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 

24 ("DFEH") against respondent (and defendant herein) PG&E. This complaint alleged discrimination, 

25 harassment, retaliation and termination on the basis of age, sex, and family care or medical leave in 

26 violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code § 12900 et 

27 seq. A true and correct copy of said complaint is attached hereto as Attachment A and is incorporated 

28 herein by reference. The DFEH issued a letter to plaintiff "RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

1 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 5

of 38
l to Sue" on November 17. 2016, permitting the filing of a private civil action within one year of the 

2 date of this letter. A true and correct copy of said DFEH letter to plaintiff is attached hereto as 

3 Attachment B and is incorporated herein by reference. The instant action is timely filed pursuant to 

4 Government Code §12965(b). 

5 10. With regard to internal administrative remedies of defendant PG&E, such internal 

6 remedies are not applicable to the causes of action alleged herein and plaintiff is not, therefore, subject 

7 to a requirement that she exhaust such remedies prior to resort to suit on these claims. In the 

8 alternative, defendant is estopped from asserting that plaintiff failed to exhaust her internal remedies 

9 or defendant has waived its right to insist that plaintiff must first resort to such internal remedies. 

l O 11. The circumstances which give rise to the causes of action asserted herein are as follows. 

11 a. On March 19, 2015, defendant PG&E offered plaintiff FENEIS, by email and 

12 attached offer letter, employment in the position of Business Finance Analyst. Plaintiff accepted, 

13 completed her pre-employment screenings by March 30, 2015, and began work on April 6, 2015. 

14 Plaintiff spent her first day of employment participating in the New Employee Orientation Workshop, 

15 a one-day workshop which covers the industry. the company history. its "vision and values," 

16 products, safety and diversity. On April 7, 2015, she reported to her immediate supervisor, Gregory 

17 J. Maiman, Supervisor, Business Finance. 

18 b. As described by PG&E attorney Philip Simpkins in his January 21, 2016 letter 

19 brief to Mark Marchione, Regional Supervisory Investigator with the U.S. Department of Labor, 

20 Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("federal OSHA"), defendant's Business Finance Gas 

21 Operations department provides "operating finance support to PG&E's various lines of business in 

22 order to guide business decisions, capitalize on investment opportunities, reduce costs, and enhance 

23 operational effectiveness." 

24 c. Plaintiff supported PG&E's Gas Operations Technology Department and her 

25 duties included communications with managers and directors, review of cost variances, and analysis 

26 of budget forecast. The primary duties of plaintiff's position are stated in detail in the job posting of 

27 Business Finance Analyst of October 19, 2015 (Requisition#: 52862027-102). These duties include 

28 the following: supporting initiatives related to business planning; developing and reporting key 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

2 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 6

of 38
1 departmental performance metrics in the areas of budgeting, planning and forecasting; performing 

2 budget planning and forecasting; operational performance analyses; strategic planning and analysis; 

3 and monitoring, controlling and accounting costs. Plaintiff possessed substantially greater 

4 qualifications than both the stated minimum qualifications and the stated desired qualifications. 

5 d. Defendant PG&E implemented a standardized reporting system which itemizes 

6 costs by department, costs per category (such as travel/lodging, meals, rewards and recognitions, 

7 training, smart devices, telephones and other employee-related costs), costs per employee, and the top 

8 25 contracts by vendors (which includes monthly charges by the highest spending employees/vendors 

9 as well as the year to date totals for each). This reporting was compiled the first week of each month 

10 and then reviewed by the Technology Supervisor, Caroline Veys, the Senior Manager, Khaled Fustok, 

11 and the Director, initially Paul Caffrey and then Joe Sanzo. 

12 e. lnapproximatelymid-May2015, Mr. Malmaninformedplaintiffthathewanted 

13 to promote her within nine to twelve months of her date of hire. 

14 f. By May 2015, plaintiff observed that significant cost overruns were present in 

15 several categories. Moreover, for some departments these overruns were in the millions of dollars. 

16 In a conversation with Mr. Maiman in or about the third week of May 2015 plaintiff asked, and Mr. 

17 Maiman answered, questions regarding, inter alia, PG&E's policies regarding covered employee 

18 expenses. 

19 g. In or about mid-June of2015 plaintiff pulled the SAP PCC230 report for month20 end May 2015 and discovered additional significant cost overruns which concerned her. As a 

21 consequence, she performed a more refined analysis of the data contained in this SAP PCC230 report. 

22 Having identified excessive expenditures across all lines of the Technology Group, plaintiff, pursuant 

23 to her forensic accounting training, first segregated out the ten employees with the highest 

24 expenditures and then focused on the top three employees who consistently charged the most expenses, 

25 Senior Manager Amy Barsnick, Supervisor Jesse Jennings, and Business Analyst Nahida Bahir. Her 

26 analysis generated charts broken down by category of expenditure (e.g., Airfare & Employee Travel), 

27 vendor, date of expenditure, and the amount of the expenditure. When plaintiff analyzed Ms. Bahir's 

28 expenditures, "red flags" emerged throughout the record. Plaintiff observed not only excessive 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

3 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 7

of 38
1 expenditures but expenditures that appeared to be for personal, non-work-related items. In or about 

2 the third week in June 2015 plaintiff gave Mr. Malman her refined analysis. He responded that he 

3 had previously had problems with Ms. Bahir in the prior year when she was a contractor charging 

4 what he characterized as excessive overtime which could not be adequately substantiated. Mr. 

S Malman further advised plaintiff that he had informed Ms. Veys and Mr. Fustok of Ms. Bahir's 

6 conduct at that time. He explained that thereafter the excessive charges lessened but continued. He 

7 also stated that he had been "surprised" when Ms. Bahir was thereafter hired as a full-time employee. 

8 h. Thereafter, however, plaintiff encountered resistance from Mr. Maiman, Ms. 

9 Veys and Mr. Fustok to the concerns about financial malfeasance that she expressed in several 

10 communications by email or in-person discussions. 

11 i. On or about July 8, 2015, plaintiff provided excerpts of her refined analysis to 

12 Mr. Maiman, Ms. Veys and Mr. Fustok that showed suspicious purchases made by Nahida Bahir 

13 during the period of November 2014 through June 2015. Plaintiff received no response. 

14 j. In or about the second week of July 2015, after a meeting with Mr. Fustok, Ms. 

15 Veys, Mr. Maiman and plaintiff, Mr. Fustok said that he had spoken with Nahida Bahir and that she 

16 had advised him that a contract worker had used her business expense card to stay at The Lodge at 

17 Tiburon. He expressed his satisfaction with this excuse. There was no discussion of any of the other 

18 excessive charges disclosed by plaintiff. This flippant response to the improper use of a corporate 

19 credit card and the fact that Ms. Veys and Mr. Fustok were responsible for approving Ms. Bahir's 

20 charges caused plaintiff great concern. 

21 k. During the week of August 10, 2015, plaintiff pulled data to create a report for 

22 the period from January 1, 2014 through July 31, 2015, which showed each project portfolio and 

23 expenses by cost center as well as the variances. She was shocked to discover that in July 2015 Ms. 

24 Bahir had purchased over $15,000.00 of Software as a Service ("SaaS"). This purchase not only 

25 violated PG&E's policy that a contract should be in place for this kind of purchase but also appeared 

26 to be a brazen effort to circumvent copyright and licensing law. 

27 I. In or about August 2015, plaintiff received her 2015 mid-year performance 

28 appraisal covering the first three months of her employment. At no time prior to this review had 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

4 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 8

of 38
1 plaintiff been informed that her performance was less than satisfactory or that her acclimation to 

2 PG&E was tardy. Nor did Mr. Malman assert at any time during his evaluation meeting with plaintiff 

3 that she lacked skills. Plaintiff was rated better than satisfactory in that she was respectively rated, 

4 in the jargon of PG&E, as "Target" and "Successful" in her "Overall Goals" and "Overall 

5 Competencies." This mid-year evaluation stated, inter alia, as follows: 

6 

7 

8 

Cara is on target for ~oals for 2014 [sic-2015] mid-year. In Cara's first 

three month's [sic] with the Company she has made good progress in 

learning the cost model, standardized reporting, and posting journal entries. 

She has also shown the desire to get up to speed quickly through the 

trainings she has completed and signed up for. 

9 (Mid-year Evaluation, "Manager's Evaluation of Goals," p. 1.) In addition, this evaluation stated: 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Cara is successful at demonstrating competencies through her first three 

months of employment. She has acted safely and shared material with 

others to encourage safety throughout the team. As Cara continues to get 

up to speed in her role, I look forward to her effectively working with her 

teammates and business partners by successfully demonstrating PG&E 

competencies. 

14 (Id., "Manager's Evaluation of Competencies," p. 3.) 

15 m. On August 19, 2015, plaintiff was present in defendant's San Francisco General 

16 Office. She approached her Senior Manager, Morgan Uptergrove, who was in the presence of Mr. 

17 Malman, to express her concerns and disclose the facts about improper billing practices and apparent 

18 theft. However, when she began to explain to Mr. Uptergrove, Mr. Maiman interrupted her, stating, 

19 "The Technology Group has already worked on this issue." Mr. Uptergrove, upon hearing that 

20 explanation, stated, "Okay," and left. 

21 n. Because plaintiff's superiors remained indifferent to her disclosures, on August 

22 24, 2015, she contacted Principal Internal Auditor James Moore, disclosed her reasonable belief that 

23 employees were making unauthorized purchases with their company credit cards, and requested that 

24 he review her findings. 1 After her private conversation with Mr. Moore, she provided him with the 

25 

1 "Findings" is a term of art to indicate significant issues and potential noncompliance which are identified during 26 the course of an audit. Findings include the criteria for determining that a problem exists, a condition or situation that was 

27 observed, the effect or impact of the condition, and the root cause of the problem to the extent that it can be determined. 

Findings should result in recommendations which resolve the issue to the benefit of management. (See, Statements on 

Auditing Standards(" AU") published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants(" AI CPA"), at AU Section 28 325.) The AU specifically identifies "[m]isstatements arising from misappropriation of assets" as a type of misstatement 

relevant to an auditor's consideration of fraud. (See AU Section 316, "Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

5 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 9

of 38
1 documentation of the misconduct she had uncovered. Plaintiff also advised Mr. Moore that she 

2 believed that Mr. Fustok, Mr. Maiman, Ms. Veys and possibly their directors were in "collusion" 

3 in either the commission or, at least, the coverup of these unlawful acts. He initially encouraged her 

4 to anonymously report her findings to PG&E's Corporate Security division. In response, plaintiff 

S expressed her concern that she would be subjected to retaliation if she made such a report. Mr. 

6 Moore then encouraged her to report her findings to his colleague, Principal Internal Auditor Larissa 

7 lonin. Plaintiff, however, remained concerned about possible retaliation. 

8 0. However, on or about August 26, 2015, Principal Internal Auditor Larissa lonin 

9 contacted plaintiff directly and requested that she forward to Ms. Ionin the information plaintiff had 

10 accumulated and the reports she had pulled regarding the perceived financial irregularities and 

11 illegalities. During this conversation plaintiff emphasized that she wanted to remain anonymous and 

12 Ms. Ionin repeatedly reassured her that she would remain anonymous. Thereafter, plaintiff provided 

13 Ms. Ionin with her findings regarding the excessive and improper expenditures. 

14 p. By email to plaintiff on August 27, 2015, Ms. Ionin thanked plaintiff and 

15 advised her that Ms. Ionin had "documented" the case and that she was "referring the matter to 

16 Corporate Security for review and [to] conduct [an] investigation." 

17 q. On September 9, 2015, Mr. Moore pulled plaintiff into a private room. He 

18 informed her that her findings and suspicions of illegality had been precisely correct about Ms. Bahir. 

19 He stated that Ms. lonin's investigation had not only confirmed the fraud and theft that plaintiff had 

20 disclosed, but had found extensive fraud beginning in 2011 when Ms. Bahir was an independent 

21 contractor. Ms. Bahir had thus been "stealing" for over four years. Also on September 9, 2015, 

22 Mallik Angalakudati, Vice President, Gas Business Management, invited plaintiff to meet for coffee 

23 on September 11, 2015. 

24 

25 

r. In response to Ms. lonin's emailed request on September 10, 2015, plaintiff on 

26 Audit,,. at 316.05-316.12; see also, Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") Accounting Standards Codification, 

"the source of authoritative generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) recognized by the FASB to be applied to 27 nongovernmental entities.") Although plaintiff did not possess a California Cenified Public Accountant ("CPA") license, 

she was qualified to evaluate PG&E's financial practices and reach the conclusions she did because, by virtue of her 28 education and experience, she met the standards for certification as a Certified Internal Auditor ("CIA"), Certified Fraud 

Examiner ("CFB"), and California CPA. 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

6 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 10

of 38
1 that date presented the "backstory." providing the general outline of her inquiries and prior 

2 disclosures to Mr. Maiman. She also explained her reasons for suspecting that Mr. Fustok and Ms. 

3 Veys had participated in the misconduct of Ms. Bahir. In another email on that date she disclosed that 

4 the Signavio Software licensing was purchased illegally by Ms. Bahir. She explained that there was 

S no license. no service contract, no invoices and no paper trail, all in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley 

6 requirements. These disclosures directly implicated both Technology Supervisor Veys and Senior 

7 Manager Fustok. Given Ms. Bahir'sjob duties, Ms. Veys' approval was necessary for purchases up 

8 to a certain limit and Mr. Fustok's approval was necessary for purchases above that limit. These 

9 purchases simply could not have been made by Ms. Bahir without their approval. 

10 s. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about September 

11 10, 2015, Ms. Bahir was escorted from the building and terminated. 

12 t. During plaintiff's brief coffee break with Mr. Angalakudati on September 11, 

13 2015, Mr. Angalakudati warned her to "be very careful of the Business Finance leadership" because 

14 they are a powerful group and she should not get on their bad side. He also stated that they were a 

15 very "gossipy group" and met frequently to discuss whatever person was "on their radar." By this 

16 time, plaintiff was extremely fearful because it appeared that the investigation was now active and 

17 linked to her disclosures. Moreover. she had made prior multiple disclosures to her immediate 

18 supervisor Mr. Maiman and to Mr. Fustok, Ms. Veys and Mr. Uptergrove, all to no avail. 

19 u. By mid-September 2015. plaintiff had received further month-end finance 

20 reports as well as reports which she had pulled which provided greater detail about the irregularities 

21 which she had discerned. By this time, it was clear to her that the misconduct of Ms. Bahir and the 

22 variances that she was observing by department necessarily involved misbehavior by higher 

23 management. She made further disclosures to Ms. Ionin of what she perceived to be financial 

24 misconduct by Senior Manager Amy Barsnick. Supervisor Jesse Jennings, and the contract workers 

25 placed with PG&E by the Adecco staffing agency, as well as disclosing irregularities in certain 

26 technology accounts payable wire payments from employees whom she had not yet identified. 

27 v. Beginning during the week of September 14, 2015, and immediately after her 

28 disclosures about Ms. Barsnick and Mr. Jennings, plaintiff perceived a shift in management's 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

7 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 11

of 38
1 treatment of her from resistance to outright hostility and isolation. On September 24, 2015, her 

2 suspicions deepened when she was ostracized at the ostensible "team building" activity of attending 

3 an Oakland A's game. Her perceptions were later confirmed by PG&E's overt adverse actions 

4 culminating in her termination. 

5 w. On September 17, 2015, plaintiff sent an email to Ms. Ionin presenting data and 

6 explicitly stating, 

7 

8 

9 

10 

As you review [the attached report], I am hoping you understand why I 

have asked some very pointed questions regardmg the two other individuals 

[Barsnick and Jennings] and the lack of accountability over controls (and 

my suspicion about sweeping it under the carpet). The "issue" was 

continuously in front of them since before I came to the company-as you 

can see from the attached report. 

11 Plaintiff was now clearly focused on the misconduct of middle and upper management rather than that 

12 of Ms. Bahir. At that time, plaintiff also discussed with Ms. lonin her desire for a transfer in order 

13 to avoid retaliation. Ms. Ionin attempted to "counsel" her, stating that since plaintiff had been at 

14 PG&E less than a year, it would be difficult to move. Ms. lonin, however, attempted to reassure 

15 plaintiff by stating that plaintiff had "done the right thing" and that "if there was even a breath [ of] 

16 retaliation," she should notify Ms. Ionin and Mr. Moore immediately. However, when plaintiff 

17 attempted to address the "other individuals also performing fraud," notably Ms. Barsnick, Mr. 

18 Jennings and the Adecco contract workers, Ms. Ionin evaded the issue. Ms. Ionin's sole reply, that 

19 plaintiff should get a mentor, was non-responsive. 

20 X. By email of September 18, 2015, Ms. lonin rationalized the conduct plaintiff 

21 had disclosed regarding Supervisor Jesse Jennings, stating "[t]he trip looks unusual but he might have 

22 been meeting with san diego [sic] gas and electric or another party on Pathfinder and the trip was 

23 approved by Sr Manager." Ms. Ionin also stated that the expenses for recovered hard drives "could" 

24 be legitimate expenses. (In plaintifrs experience, recovery of hard drives is the exclusive province 

25 of security and IT.) Although Ms. Ionin conceded that the hard drive recovery purchase was "outside 

26 policy," she concluded that "it's not fraud." Ms. lonin, however, conspicuously ignored plaintiff's 

27 identification of the Adecco contract workers who were expensing unusual items. To plaintiff's 

' 

28 knowledge, no action whatsoever had then been taken against others whose malfeasance she disclosed, 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

8 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 12

of 38
1 most notably, Supervisor Jennings and Senior Manager Barsnick. Ms. Barsnick had multiple 

2 inappropriate charges such as going to Hollywood, California and staying at a hotel which was not 

3 approved by PG&E, and going to Orlando, Florida, where it appears that she charged PG&E for 

4 airline tickets and Disneyland resort tickets for her spouse and children. 

5 y. Immediately after receiving Ms. lonin's rationalizations, plaintiff wrote to Mr. 

6 Moore, providing him with the reports she had emailed to Ms. Ionin on September 17 and 18, 2015, 

7 and stating, "to be honest .. .it has me scratching my head (disgusting actually) and as I stated, this 

8 is literally a hamster habitrail. I sure don't see the Hollywood Westin on our travel guide. "2 

9 z. Beginning in early September 2015, plaintiff first observed anomalous and 

10 inappropriate expenditures associated with LinkSource Technologies, LLC ("LinkSource"). She 

11 conducted a review, analyzing the Linksource expenditures for the next several weeks. Plaintiff had 

12 discovered this LinkSource issue because she initially observed unusual charges in the PCC23O 

13 report. She then investigated by reviewing both reporting not normally employed and the supply 

14 chain group to further inquire as to whether there was a master service agreement, a contract and 

15 invoicing. None of these were uploaded into the SAP system. The audit controls established pursuant 

16 to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act require this type of internal audit trail. Here, there was no appropriate 

17 documentation, just a Statement of Work from four years before in the sum of $70,000.00. It was 

18 highly irregular to have automatic payments to a "regular vendor" with no necessary documentation 

19 in place. Plaintiff made several disclosures concerning LinkSource. For example, in her email to 

20 Business Finance Analyst Kristen Dean on September 25, 2015, plaintiff advised that the majority of 

21 computer software purchases were done in a manner which did not conform to PG&E's obligation to 

22 retain proofs of purchase of all software pursuant to federal copyright laws and contractual obligations 

23 imposed by the software vendors, exposing it to fines ranging from $200.00 to $30,000.00 per 

24 software product. As to "Services (Contracting)," plaintiff advised of deviations from the mandates 

25 that professional services required an executed contract for an amount over $2,500.00 and that 

26 construction services work also required a contract. The LinkSource expenditures demonstrated 

27 

28 

2 Ms. Barsnick bad charged her stay at the Hollywood Westin to her company credit card. 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

9 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 13

of 38
1 extraordinary misconduct. Plaintiff believed that she had discovered major internal control issues if 

2 not outright wire fraud. Because of plaintifrs concerns, she researched her rights and protections 

3 under the relevant whistleblower protection statutes, both state and federal. 

4 aa. On September 30, 2015, the weekly meeting was held with Mr. Uptergrove, 

5 Mr. Maiman, Senior Business Analyst Brad Howell, Associate Analyst Michelle Felmlee-Gartner, 

6 and plaintiff. Mr. Uptergrove looked at plaintiff and stated, "Technology seems to be having some 

7 internal control issues ... Plaintiff construed this to mean that Mr. Uptergrove concurred in her view 

8 that she had uncovered apparent illegalities. Mr. Uptergrove had been a Management Internal Auditor 

9 for PriceWaterhouseCooper before his hire at PG&E. This statement by a former utilities auditor. 

10 regarding the internal control issues she disclosed confirmed her suspicions. 

11 bb. Defendant PG&E's contention that regular one-on-one meetings with plaintiff 

12 were initiated on some unstated date for the purpose of correcting her persistent errors is erroneous. 

13 (See PG&E's letter brief, p. 4.) These meetings were originally scheduled as informational meetings 

14 in order to rapidly acquaint plaintiff with the SAP Financial System which was specifically adjusted 

15 for PG&E. The first meeting occurred in or about June 2015 and further meetings were scheduled 

16 for every other week. Initially, these meetings were conducted by Mr. Maiman in a professional 

17 manner and were productive. However, in October 2015, after plaintifrs September 2015 

18 disclosures, Mr. Maiman began conducting these meetings three to four times per week for an hour 

19 or more each as a vehicle for him to rant at and harass plaintiff. 

20 cc. Mr. Malman initiated his one-on-one meeting with plaintiff on October 1, 2015, 

21 with criticisms of, and hostility toward, her. When plaintiff attempted to explain that she wanted to 

22 meet with senior management to discuss the illegalities she had discovered, he became irate and cut 

23 her off. He stated that "there [were] internal control issues .. regarding invoices and "potential staff 

24 changes occurring in Technology ... As defendant PG&E conceded in its January 21, 2016 letter brief, 

25 during this meeting Mr. Maiman notified plaintiff that he was considering terminating her 

26 employment. Mr. Maiman then stated that there had been recent complaints from within the "LOB .. 

27 (line of business), specifically from the Technology Group, and that Mr. Fustok and Ms. Veys did 

28 not wish to work with plaintiff. He expressly stated that if "they don •t want to work with [plaintiff] 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

10 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 14

of 38
1 there is no reason to keep [her] employed.,. With regard to the LOB, Mr. Maiman asserted that "they 

2 do not want to work with [plaintiff] and only want to deal with [Mr. Maiman] and for this reason 

3 leadership is in a conversation to terminate [plaintiff's] employment." The Finance Group leadership 

4 was scheduled to meet on October 2, 2015. Mr. Malman then directed plaintiff to schedule a meeting 

5 with him on October 5, 2015, so that he could inform her as to whether PG&E had decided to 

6 terminate her. 

7 dd. Plaintiff was shocked by Mr. Maiman's attack and the threat to terminate her. 

8 In the early afternoon on October 1, 2015, she sent an email to Ms. Ionin, conveying the content of 

9 her dialogue with Mr. Maiman and expressing how "stunned" and "anxious" she was that her attempt 

10 to "do the right thing" by reporting ongoing financial issues had resulted in the Technology Group 

11 no longer wanting to work with her and the threat of termination. Plaintiff also met with Mr. Moore 

12 on October 1, 2015. She explained the content of her meeting with Mr. Maiman and his threat to 

13 terminate her. Mr. Moore responded that it was "retaliation" and an effort by Mr. Malman, Joseph 

14 Marshman, Business Finance Director (and plaintiff's Director), and Senior Manager Uptergrove to 

15 "cover their butts," and stated that Mr. Maiman had "screwed the pooch." Mr. Moore immediately 

16 notified Ms. lonin who then contacted plaintiff. 

17 ee. On October 1, 2015, plaintiff filed two whistleblower complaints, one with the 

18 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") and the other with the U.S. Securities 

19 and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). 

20 ff. On October 2, 2015, Mr. Moore initiated another meeting with plaintiff. Mr. 

21 Moore informed her that during the evening of October 1, 2015, Ms. loninhad filed an internal ethics 

22 and compliance complaint on plaintiff's behalf that was based on plaintiff's October 1, 2015 report 

23 to him. This complaint alleged that plaintiff was being subjected to retaliation. Mr. Moore also 

24 advised plaintiff that Vice President of Audit Stephen Cairns had informed plaintiff's Vice President, 

25 Vice President of Finance Jason Wells, of the threats made by Mr. Maiman to plaintiff and that Mr. 

26 Cairns had directed Mr. Wells not to do "anything stupid." On behalf of Mr. Cairns, Mr. Moore 

27 requested that plaintiff provide him with the information she had discovered regarding LinkSource. 

28 Via an email to Mr. Moore on October 2, 2015, plaintiff complied, providing audit reports and emails 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

11 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 15

of 38
1 showing the absence of invoices and the paper trails required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 

2 gg. Via an email to plaintiff on October 2, 2016, Mr. Maiman stated that he had 

3 "additional information" he wished to discuss with her as a "follow up" to their one-on-one meeting 

4 and scheduled a meeting with her on October 7, 2015. 

5 hh. In a meeting with Mr. Maiman and Heather Johnson, an HR functionary, on 

6 October 7, 2015, plaintiff was placed on a 30-day Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"). Mr. 

7 Maiman told plaintiff that he would be monitoring her during this PIP period and that if she did not 

8 satisfy his standards, she would be terminated for "poor performance." 

9 ii. Later that morning, Mr. Maiman emailed plaintiff a written PIP document, 

IO dated October 5, 2015, that ostensibly outlined his earlier discussion with her. Significantly, his 

11 cover email stated, inter alia, "Regarding [plaintiff's] comments made during our meeting on the topic 

12 of illegal behavior, I encourage you to bring these topics up with me, one of the other leaders in our 

13 group, or with the Compliance & Ethics Helpline .... " Since Mr. Maiman had been, prior to the 

14 October 7, 2015 PIP meeting, well aware of plaintiffs several disclosures, this statement was merely 

15 a transparent effort to sanitize his adverse actions. The written PIP document enumerated three areas 

16 for improvement and emphasized that if plaintiff did not show "meaningful progress" during the 30-

17 day period, " [ she would] be subject to immediate termination." Moreover, this document suggested 

18 that there might be "non-work related issues" that were "impacting" plaintiffs performance and 

19 proposed that she seek the assistance of PG&E's Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"). By the 

20 terms of PG&E's written policy, EAP is available to employees with drug or alcohol abuse issues or 

21 other mental health issues. Plaintiff was, therefore, deeply offended by the false implication that she 

22 suffered from some addiction or had mental health issues. By the express terms of the October 5, 

23 2015 PIP document, the 30-day PIP period would expire on Wednesday, November 4, 2015. 

24 ij. From the date of the imposition of the PIP until plaintiffs termination, Mr. 

25 Maiman became increasingly tyrannical toward her. He evidently believed that the PIP gave him 

26 license to harass, needle, nitpick, intimidate, and berate plaintiff. For example, on October 8, 2015, 

27 immediately after the imposition of the PIP, the weekly one-on-one meeting scheduled for thirty 

28 minutes devolved to an hour and ten minutes of Mr. Maiman berating plaintiff at her desk in the 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

12 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 16

of 38
1 presence of her colleagues and superior. Present were the following: the director responsible for the 

2 Supply Chain Group; Mr. Moore at his desk; Kristen Dean, Senior Business Analyst, in her cubicle; 

3 Miranda Rising, Senior Manager; and Michelle Felmlee-Gartner, Business Analyst. He also imposed 

4 patently differential standards upon plaintiff as compared to other employees. For example, plaintiff's 

5 colleagues were permitted to take two-hour lunch breaks, work from home, come in late and leave 

6 early. Although plaintiff was always conspicuously present at her desk, Mr. Maiman nevertheless 

7 improperly rejected her time sheets and harassed her when she submitted them. Plaintiff spoke with 

8 Mr. Moore, but declined his invitation to leave her desk for a conversation with him because she 

9 feared Mr. Maiman's imminent return. She explained that, by Mr. Maiman's directives, she was now 

10 forbidden from discussing her beliefs of unlawful activities. She also said she felt blacklisted, berated, 

11 threatened, intimidated and harassed. Mr. Moore responded that this was PG&E's methodology to 

12 isolate and force out those who do not conform. 

13 kk. By an email of October 8, 2015 to plaintiff, Jeannie Hermoso advised that she 

14 was the HR Representative who had been assigned to plaintiff's recently filed complaint with the 

15 Compliance & Ethics Department and requested a meeting. By an email of October 14, 2015, Ms. 

16 Hermoso advised that she would be available on Monday, October 19, 2015. During the interim, 

17 plaintiff made every effort to comply with the terms of the PIP despite her view that it was 

18 unwarranted and retaliatory. 

19 II. On or about October 19, 2015, only 12 days after plaintiff had been placed on 

20 the 30-day PIP, her position was posted by defendant PG&E in a Job Opening Requisition. 

21 mm. On October 19, 2015, plaintiff had her scheduled interview with Ms. Hermosa. 

22 During that interview plaintiff disclosed that she had filed complaints with federal OSHA and the SEC 

23 on October 1, 2015. Plaintiff also informed Ms. Hermosa that she was being constantly harassed and 

24 publicly berated by Mr. Maiman in evident retaliation for her disclosures. Plaintiff identified 

25 numerous witnesses to this hostile conduct. Thereafter, plaintiff further cooperated in the ostensible 

26 investigation of retaliation for her whistleblowing activities. For example, via an email on October 

27 20, 2015, plaintiff provided Ms. Hermoso with her mid-year review and the PIP document, as Ms. 

28 Hermoso had requested, and informed her that plaintiff "[has] felt setup for weeks to fail," describing 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

13 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 17

of 38
1 how Mr. Maiman had publicly berated her for attending a long-scheduled training session on October 

2 19, 2015, which she needed in order to complete a project due on October 30, 2015, when it 

3 conflicted with the monthly Technology Portfolio Review meeting that had been rescheduled at the 

4 very last minute. By another email to Ms. Hermoso on October 20, 2015, plaintiff expressed the view 

5 that Mr. Maiman's implication in the PIP that she had some sort of personal problem that required 

6 her to participate in the EAP was "nothing more than slanderous behavior put into print." 

7 nn. Further examples of Mr. Maiman• s relentless misconduct toward plaintiff are 

8 present in his patronizing, nitpicking and bullying emails of October 20, 2015, and his conduct on 

9 October 21, 2015. On October 21, 2015, Mr. Maiman engaged plaintiff in his fourth one-on-one 

10 session with her that week, a SO-minute telephone conversation in which he insulted and belittled her 

11 (e.g., plaintiff "can't process asking a question and write at the same time"; although other employees 

12 "catch on," plaintiff "just [doesn't] get it and [seems] to fall apart"), and asserted that her colleagues 

13 shared his disdain for her. He knew that her work station was next to the cubicles for upper 

14 management and her colleagues. This conversation was notably lacking in substance relating to the 

15 performance of her duties. Mr. Maiman also attempted to compel plaintiff to cancel her long16 scheduled vacation commencing on November 1, 2015, on the ostensible ground that it overlapped 

17 with her 30-day PIP despite knowing that this vacation had been scheduled since May of2015 and that 

18 plaintiff would lose a significant sum of money if she canceled it. Plaintiff immediately reported this 

19 conduct to Ms. Hennoso by an email labeled "Today's Verbal Beating via Phone." 

20 oo. By an email to plaintiff dated October 21, 2015, Mr. Maiman purported to 

21 summarize his telephone conversation with plaintiff earlier that day. Mr. Maiman stated therein that 

22 although plaintiff had "satisfactorily completed a handful of deliverables," he did not believe that she 

23 had "made noticeable progress on developing the competencies outlined in [her] 30 day notice letter." 

24 His criticisms of plaintiffs performance were unwarranted, including his accusation that her absence 

25 from the monthly Technology Portfolio Review meeting on October 19, 2015 was unjustified. On 

26 October 23, 2015, plaintiff forwarded Mr. Maiman's October 21, 2015 email to Ms. Hermoso and 

27 Mr. Moore, stating that she "will not be bullied" and expressing her belief that Mr. Maiman's 

28 behavior was condoned and encouraged by her supervisors Senior Manager Uptergrove and Director 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

14 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 18

of 38
1 Marshman. 

2 pp. By October 21, 2015, when plaintiff printed a screen shot of LinkSource 

3 expenditures over time, she was able to demonstrate thal these expenses, which were initially 

4 approximately $1,500.00, had escalated to $437,750.00, all in the form of automatic payments. She 

5 found that $2.3 million had been paid by automatic payments with no master service agreements, no 

6 contracts, and no identifiable invoicing. Moreover, she discerned that, with regard to a Statement of 

7 Work for $70,000.00, a total of $2. 7 million had, in fact, been transferred to a BNYMellon account. 

8 The BNYMellon account was an investment account, not a business account. On October 21, 2015, 

9 plaintiff made disclosures to Supply Chain Administrator Corey Lee who supports directors and senior 

IO managers on issues concerning underlying master service agreements for LinkSource. Plaintiff 

11 disclosed to Ms. Lee that she could not find a master service agreement for LinkSource despite the 

12 extraordinary expenditures that she was discovering on that account. Ms. Lee confirmed to plaintiff 

13 that there was no master service ag~eement. 

14 qq. Ms. Hermoso, by an email on November 6, 2015, advised plaintiff that PG&E 

15 had conducted an investigation into her "concerns and allegations that Greg Maiman retaliated against 

16 [plaintiff] after bringing up concerns and filing a complaint regarding expense fraud." After 

17 interviewing five persons including plaintiff, Ms. Hermoso "was not able to substantiate [plaintiff's] 

18 allegations and was not able to identify a Code of Conduct or policy violation." Ms. Hermoso then 

19 thanked plaintiff "for bringing [her] concerns to our attention." At no time did plaintiff receive the 

20 content of the investigation or any substantive summary of the investigation. To this date, she does 

21 not even know which employees were interviewed, what documents were reviewed, what policies 

22 were examined or any other facts pertinent to the issuance of this purported "finding." 

23 rr. As discussed above, Mr. Maiman had attempted to compel plaintiff to cancel 

24 her long-scheduled vacation, but she had refused due to the severe cancellation expenses. In his email 

25 to plaintiff on October 28, 2015, Mr. Maiman contended that he was attempting to extend the 30-day 

26 PIP period to "account for [her] vacation days." However, upon plaintiff's return to work from 

27 vacation on November 12, 2015, she was smugly told by Mr. Maiman that "the decision" had been 

28 made, but not the substance of that decision. 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

15 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 19

of 38
1 ss. By an email to plaintiff on November 12, 2015 entitled, "Are you in today?," 

2 Mr. Malman stated that there was a "Finance Emergency training this morning and I don't see you." 

3 This meeting was not a mandatory meeting and had been placed by Mr. Malman on plaintiffs 

4 calendar while she was on vacation. She was simply unaware of it. In any event, several affected 

5 employees did not attend. 

6 tt. Mr. Maiman scheduled a meeting with plaintiff to be held on November 18, 

7 2015, in the conference room. Mr. Maiman did not inform plaintiff as to the nature of this meeting. 

8 When plaintiff arrived at work on November 18, 2015, Mr. Malman immediately took her to the 

9 conference room, handed her a letter of termination dated November 18, 2015, and stated that she was 

10 being terminated. The termination letter stated the following grounds for plaintiff's termination: 

11 

12 

13 

Your employment is being terminated as your performance as a business 

finance analyst has not met PG&E's expectations. We provided you with 

notice as of October 7th of your performance issues, and we did not see the 

expected level of improvement. 

14 Plaintiff was terminated effective immediately. Mr. Maiman took plaintiff's laptop computer and her 

15 employee identification badge. Plaintiff then left the building. 

16 12. At all times pertinent herein, plaintiff satisfactorily performed the duties of her 

17 position. 

18 

19 

20 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT PG&E 

(Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5(b)) 

13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation 

21 of paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive, of this complaint 

22 14. Plaintiff is an "employee" within the meaning of Labor Code §1106 and for the 

23 purposes of Labor Code § 1102.5(b). 

24 15. Defendant PG&E is an "employer" for the purposes of Labor Code §1102.S(b) and is 

25 not immune to liability under Labor Code §1102.5(b). 

26 16. Pursuant to Labor Code §1104, defendant PG&E is responsible for the acts of its 

27 managers, officers, agents, and employees in violation of Labor Code § 1102.S(b). 

28 17. Defendant PG&E believed that plaintiff disclosed or might disclose information to a 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

16 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 20

of 38
1 government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over plaintiff or to another 

2 employee who had the authority to investigate, discover, or correct defendant's violation of a state 

3 or federal statute, or violation of or noncompliance with a local, state or federal rule or regulation 

4 regarding the participation of PG&E's employees in illegal and fraudulent financial activities. 

5 18. Plaintiff FENEIS made protected disclosures of information which included the 

6 following: (1) in or about the third week of June 2015, plaintiff provided an analysis to Gregory J. 

7 Maiman, Supervisor, Business Finance, which disclosed that certain employees had made excessive 

8 expenditures and expenditures for personal, non-work-related items; (2) plaintiff's July 8, 2015 

9 disclosure to Mr. Maiman, Technology Supervisor Caroline Veys, and Senior Manager Khaled Fustok 

10 of suspicious purchases by Business Analyst Nahida Bahir; (3) plaintiff's August 19, 2015 verbal 

11 disclosure to Mr. Maiman and Senior Manager Morgan Uptergrove of improper billing practices and 

12 apparent theft; (4) plaintiff's August 24, 2015 disclosure to Principal Internal Auditor James Moore 

13 that employees were making unauthorized purchases with their company credit cards; (5) plaintiff's 

14 disclosure on August 27, 2015 to Principal Internal Auditor Larissa Ionin of employees' excessive and 

15 improper expenditures; (6) plaintiff's several disclosures to Ms. lonin on September 10, 2015, which 

16 included her prior disclosures to Mr. Maiman, facts supporting that Ms. Veys and Mr. Fustok had 

17 participated in the misconduct of Ms. Bahir, and that Ms. Bahir had illegally purchased the Signavio 

18 Software licensing; (7) plaintiff's disclosures to Ms. Ionin in or about mid-September 2015, of 

19 perceived financial misconduct by Senior Manager Amy Barsnick, Supervisor Jesse Jennings, and the 

20 Adecco contract workers, and of irregularities in certain technology accounts payable wire payments 

21 from employees whom plaintiff had not yet identified; (8) plaintiff's disclosures of financial 

22 improprieties to Ms. lonin on September 17 and 18, 2015; (9) plaintifrs disclosure to Principal 

23 Internal Auditor James Moore on or about September 18, 2015, of the reports she had disclosed to 

24 Ms. lonin on September 17 and 18, 2015; (10) plaintiff's several disclosures concerning PG&E's 

25 expenditures for LinkSource computer software, including plaintiff's email to Business Finance 

26 Analyst Kristen Dean on September 25, 2015; (11) plaintiff's disclosure to Ms. Ionin on October 1, 

27 2015, that Mr. Maiman had threatened her with termination for her disclosures of financial 

28 misconduct; (12) plaintiff's disclosure to Mr. Moore on October 1, 2015, that Mr. Maiman had 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

17 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 21

of 38
1 threatened her with termination for her disclosures of financial misconduct; (13) plaintiffs disclosures 

2 in her whistleblower complaint filed with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration on 

3 October 1, 2015; (14) plaintiffs disclosures in her whistleblower complaint filed with the U.S. 

4 Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2015; (15) the internal ethics and compliance 

5 complaint filed by Ms. lonin on plaintiffs behalf on October l, 2015, alleging retaliation against 

6 plaintiff; (16) plaintiff's disclosures to Mr. Moore on October 8, 2015, of Mr. Maiman's continuing 

7 retaliation against her; ( 17) plaintiff's disclosures to Jeannie Hermosa, HR Representative, on October 

8 19, 2015 and thereafter regarding Mr. Maiman's retaliatory treatment of her; and (18) plaintiffs 

9 disclosures on October 21, 2015, to Supply Chain Administrator Corey Lee of the extraordinary 

10 expenditures made for LinkSource computer software and the absence of the required underlying 

11 master service agreements for LinkSource. 

12 19. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that the information she disclosed to defendant 

13 PG&E disclosed a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a local, 

14 state, or federal rule or regulation, including but not limited to: (1) California Business and 

15 Professions Code §17200, proscribing unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices; (2) 

16 California Civil Code §§1709-1710, proscribing fraudulent misrepresentations; (3) California Penal 

17 Code §484, proscribing theft; (4) California Penal Code §487, proscribing grand theft; (5) California 

18 Penal Code §§503-504, proscribing embezzlement; (6) 17 U.S.C. §1201, proscribing circumvention 

19 of copyright protection systems; (7) 18 U.S.C. §1341, proscribing mail fraud; (8) 18 U.S.C. §1343, 

20 proscribing wire fraud; and (9) the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, codified and amended at 15 U.S.C. 

21 §7201 et seq., mandating strict reforms to improve financial disclosures from corporations and prevent 

22 accounting fraud. 

23 20. As set forth above, defendant PG&E subjected plaintiff to adverse employment actions 

24 and otherwise engaged in conduct that, taken as a whole, materially and adversely affected the terms 

25 and conditions of plaintiffs employment. These adverse actions included, but are not limited to, the 

26 following. 

27 a. Defendant PG&E failed and refused to promote plaintiff despite PG&E's 

28 promise that plaintiff would be quickly promoted due to her qualifications which exceeded even the 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

18 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 22

of 38
1 desired qualifications stated for her position. 

2 b. Commencing in or about the week of September 14, 2015, immediately 

3 following plaintiffs disclosures concerning the financial misconduct of Senior Manager Amy Barsnick 

4 and Supervisor Jesse Jennings, and continuing thereafter, defendant PG&E's managers subjected 

5 plaintiff to outright hostility, isolation and ostracism. 

6 c. Commencing in or about October 2015 and continuing thereafter, Mr. Malman 

7 conducted one-on-one meetings with plaintiff three to four times per week for an hour or more each 

8 wherein he was overtly hostile to her and berated and criticized her throughout without justification. 

9 d. In a one-on-one meeting with plaintiff on October 1, 2015, Mr. Malman 

10 threatened plaintiff with termination. 

11 e. In a meeting on October 7, 2015, Mr. Maiman placed plaintiff on an 

12 unwarranted 30-day Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"), and threatened that she would be 

13 terminated for "poor performance" if she did not satisfy his standards. 

14 f. On October 7, 2015, Mr. Maiman emailed plaintiff a written PIP document, 

15 dated October 5, 2015, which enumerated three areas for improvement and emphasized that if plaintiff 

16 did not show "meaningful progress" during the 30-day period, "[she would] be subject to immediate 

17 termination." Moreover, this document suggested that there might be "non-work related issues" that 

18 were "impacting" plaintiffs performance and proposed that she seek the assistance of PG&E's 

19 Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"), falsely implying that plaintiff suffered from some drug 

20 addiction or had mental health issues. 

21 g. Following his imposition of the 30-day PIP, Mr. Malman became even more 

22 hostile and tyrannical toward plaintiff. For example, on October 8, 2015, Mr. Malman publicly 

23 berated plaintiff at her desk for 70 minutes in the presence of employees and managers. Mr. Malman 

24 also sought to compel plaintiff to cancel her upcoming vacation which had been previously scheduled 

25 for the period of November 2 through 9, 2015. 

26 h. On October 19, 2015, defendant PG&E posted plaintiffs position even though 

27 she was only 12 days into the 30-day PIP period. 

28 i. During a 50-minute telephone conversation on October 21, 2015, which was 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

19 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 23

of 38
1 Mr. Maiman's fourth one-on-one discussion with plaintiff during that week, Mr. Malman insulted 

2 and belittled her (e.g., plaintiff "can't process asking a question and write at the same time"; although 

3 other employees "catch on," plaintiff "just [doesn't] get it and [seems] to fall apart"), and asserted 

4 that her colleagues shared his disdain for her. 

5 j. By an email to plaintiff dated October 21, 2015, Mr. Maiman purported to 

6 summarize his telephone conversation with plaintiff earlier that day. Mr. Maiman stated therein that 

7 although plaintiff had "satisfactorily completed a handful of deliverables," he did not believe that she 

8 had "made noticeable progress on developing the competencies outlined in [her] 30 day notice letter." 

9 His criticisms of plaintiff's performance were unwarranted, including his accusation that her absence 

10 from the monthly Technology Portfolio Review meeting on October 19, 2015 was unjustified. 

11 k. On November 12, 2015, the day plaintiff returned to work from her vacation, 

12 Mr. Malman harassed plaintiff for her absence from a Finance Emergency training meeting even 

13 though attendance at this meeting was not mandatory and plaintiff had not known about the meeting 

14 because he had placed it on plaintifrs calendar while she was out of the office on vacation. 

15 I. On November 18, 2015, defendant PG&E terminated plaintiff, effective 

16 immediately, for her purported failure to improve her performance pursuant to the October 7, 2015 

17 PIP. 

18 21. Plaintiff's disclosure of information was a contributing factor in defendant PG&E's 

19 decision to terminate her effective November 18, 2015, and in defendant's other adverse actions 

20 against plaintiff, as described above. 

21 22. Plaintiff was harmed by defendant PG&E's conduct. 

22 23. Defendant PG&E's conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm. 

23 24. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff has suffered lost and 

24 future wages, benefits and other valuable incidents to employment, and severe pain and suffering, all 

25 to plaintiff's damage in an amount to be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff claims the aforesaid amounts 

26 as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code §3287 and/or any other 

27 provision of law allowing for prejudgment interest. 

28 25. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

20 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 24

of 38
1 with the wrongful intention of injuring plaintiff, and from an improper and evil motive amounting to 

2 malice and conscious disregard for plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive 

3 damages from defendant in an amount to be ascertained at trial. 

4 

5 

6 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT PG&E 

(Age Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA) 

26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation 

7 of paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive, of this complaint. 

8 27. Defendant PG&E was at all times relevant herein an "employer" within the meaning 

9 of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA "), Government Code §12900 et seq. 

10 

11 

28. Plaintiff was an employee of defendant PG&E. 

29. Throughout the course of her employment with defendant PG&E, plaintiff was the 

12 oldest non-managerial employee out of the approximately 30 employees who worked in defendant's 

13 Business Finance Gas Operations. The vast majority of employees in Business Finance Gas 

14 Operations were in their twenties. Plaintiff's direct supervisor, Gregory J. Maiman, Supervisor, 

15 Business Finance, was in his late twenties. 

16 

17 

30. Defendant PG&E subjected plaintiff to adverse employment actions, as follows. 

a. Defendant PG&E failed and refused to promote plaintiff despite PG&E's 

18 promise that plaintiff would be quickly promoted due to her qualifications which exceeded even the 

19 desired qualifications stated for her position and despite her 2015 mid-year performance appraisal, 

20 received in or about August 2015, wherein she was rated better than satisfactory in that she was 

21 respectively rated, in the jargon of PG&E, as "Target" and "Successful" in her "Overall Goals" and 

22 "Overall Competencies." In or about October 2015, defendant promoted Brian Diemer, an Analyst 

23 in Business Finance Gas Operations, to the position of Senior Financial Analyst even though he had 

24 been employed with defendant for less than one year and plaintiff possessed substantially greater 

25 qualifications than he did. Mr. Diemer was in his mid-twenties and substantially younger than 

26 plaintiff. 

27 b. Commencing in or about the week of September 14, 2015, and continuing 

28 thereafter, defendant PG&E's managers subjected plaintiff to outright hostility, isolation and 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

21 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 25

of 38
1 ostracism. 

2 C. Commencing in or about October 2015 and continuing thereafter, Mr. Malman 

3 conducted one-on-one meetings with plaintiff three to four times per week for an hour or more each 

4 wherein he was overtly hostile to her and berated and criticized her throughout without justification. 

5 Mr. Maiman did not subject younger employees to such conduct. 

6 d. In a one-on-one meeting with plaintiff on October 1, 2015, Mr. Maiman 

7 threatened plaintiff with termination. 

8 e. In a meeting on October 7, 2015, Mr. Maiman placed plaintiff on an 

9 unwarranted 30-day Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"), and threatened that she would be 

10 terminated for "poor performance" if she did not satisfy his standards. 

11 f. On October 7, 2015, Mr. Maiman emailed plaintiff a written PIP document, 

12 dated October 5, 2015, which enumerated three areas for improvement and emphasized that if plaintiff 

13 did not show "meaningful progress" during the 30-day period, "[she would] be subject to immediate 

14 termination." Moreover, this document suggested that there might be "non-work related issues" that 

IS were "impacting" plaintiff's performance and proposed that she seek the assistance of PG&E's 

16 Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"), falsely implying that plaintiff suffered from some drug 

17 addiction or had mental health issues. 

18 g. Following his imposition of the 30-day PIP, Mr. Maiman became even more 

19 hostile and tyrannical toward plaintiff. For example, on October 8, 2015, Mr. Maiman publicly 

20 berated plaintiff at her desk for 70 minutes in the presence of employees and managers. Mr. Maiman 

21 also sought to compel plaintiff to cancel her upcoming vacation which had been previously scheduled 

22 for the period of November 2 through 9, 2015. 

23 h. On October 19, 2015, defendant PG&E posted plaintiff's position even though 

24 she was only 12 days into the 30-day PIP period. 

25 i. During a 50-minute telephone conversation on October 21, 2015, which was 

26 Mr. Maiman's fourth one-on-one discussion with plaintiff during that week, Mr. Maiman insulted 

27 and belittled her (e.g., plaintiff "can't process asking a question and write at the same time"; although 

28 other employees "catch on," plaintiff "just [doesn't] get it and [seems] to fall apart"), and asserted 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

22 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 26

of 38
1 that her colleagues shared his disdain for her. 

2 j. By an email to plaintiff dated October 21, 2015, Mr. Maiman purported to 

3 summari:ie his telephone conversation with plaintiff earlier that day. Mr. Maiman stated therein that 

4 although plaintiff had "satisfactorily completed a handful of deliverables," he did not believe that she 

5 had "made noticeable progress on developing the competencies outlined in [her] 30 day notice letter." 

6 His criticisms of plaintiff's performance were unwarranted, including his accusation that her absence 

7 from the monthly Technology Portfolio Review meeting on October 19, 2015 was unjustified. 

8 k. On November 12, 2015, the day plaintiff returned to work from her vacation, 

9 Mr. Maiman harassed plaintiff for her absence from a Finance Emergency training meeting even 

10 though attendance at this meeting was not mandatory and plaintiff had not known about the meeting 

11 because he had placed it on plaintiffs calendar while she was out of the office on vacation. 

12 1. On November 18, 2015, defendant PG&E terminated plaintiff, effective 

13 immediately, for her purported failure to improve her performance pursuant to the October 7, 2015 

14 PIP. 

15 31. Plaintiff was age 40 or older at the time of her termination and the other adverse 

16 employment actions alleged above. 

17 32. At the time of the aforementioned adverse actions plaintiff was satisfactorily performing 

18 in her position. 

19 33. Plaintiff's age was a substantial motivating reason for the aforementioned adverse 

20 employment actions. 

21 34. Defendant PG&E's conduct as alleged above constitutes intentional age discrimination 

22 in violation of Government Code §12940(a). 

23 35. Plaintiff was harmed by defendant's conduct. 

24 36. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm. 

25 37. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff has suffered lost and 

26 future wages, benefits and other valuable incidents to employment, and severe pain and suffering, all 

27 to plaintiff's damage in an amount to be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff claims the aforesaid amounts 

28 as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code §3287 and/or any other 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

23 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 27

of 38
1 provision of law allowing for prejudgment interest. 

2 38. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively 

3 with the wrongful intention of injuring plaintiff, and from an improper and evil motive amounting to 

4 malice and conscious disregard for plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive 

5 damages from defendant in an amount to be ascertained at trial. 

6 

7 

8 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT PG&E 

(Sex Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA) 

39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation 

9 of paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive, of this complaint. 

10 40. Plaintiff is a female and was, throughout her employment with defendant PG&E, the 

11 mother of three young children. 

12 41. Defendant PG&E was at all times relevant herein an "employer" within the meaning 

13 of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA "), Government Code §12900 et seq. 

14 

15 

42. Plaintiff was an employee of defendant PG&E. 

43. Throughout the course of her employment with defendant PG&E, plaintiff was one of 

16 the few female employees in defendant PG&E's Business Finance Gas Operations who bad young 

17 children. Plaintiff's direct supervisor, Gregory J. Maiman, Supervisor, Business Finance, was in his 

18 late twenties and did not have any children. 

19 

20 

44. Defendant PG&E subjected plaintiff to adverse employment actions, as follows. 

a. Defendant PG&E failed and refused to promote plaintiff despite PG&E's 

21 promise that plaintiff would be quickly promoted due to her qualifications which exceeded even the 

22 desired qualifications stated for her position and despite her 2015 mid-year performance appraisal, 

23 received on or about August 12, 2015, wherein she was rated better than satisfactory in that she was 

24 respectively rated, in the jargon of PG&E, as "Target" and "Successful" in her "Overall Goals" and 

25 "Overall Competencies." In or about October 2015, defendant promoted Brian Diemer, an Analyst 

26 in Business Finance Gas Operations, to the position of Senior Financial Analyst even though he had 

27 been employed with defendant for less than one year and plaintiff possessed substantially greater 

28 qualifications than he did. Mr. Diemer was in his mid-twenties and did not have any children. 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

24 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 28

of 38
1 b. Mr. Malman was the primary coordinator of all team-building exercises for 

2 PG&E's Business Finance Gas Operations which predominantly consisted of stereotypical male 

3 activities such as sporting events and go kart racing. Mr. Maiman required plaintiff to attend these 

4 activities. However, during these activities plaintiff was excluded and ostracized by Mr. Malman and 

5 the male employees. 

6 c. On those occasions when plaintiff was unexpectedly required to leave the 

7 workplace to attend to a family emergency involving one of her children who was sick or injured, Mr. 

8 Maiman became irate and condescending toward plaintiff and publicly rebuked her for her absence. 

9 To plaintiff's knowledge, Mr. Maiman did not similarly treat employees without children when they 

10 were required to be absent from the workplace. 

11 d. Commencing in or about the week of September 14, 2015, and continuing 

12 thereafter, defendant PG&E's managers subjected plaintiff to outright hostility, isolation and 

13 ostracism. 

14 e. Commencing in or about October 2015 and continuing thereafter, Mr. Maiman 

15 conducted one-on-one meetings with plaintiff three to four times per week for an hour or more each 

16 wherein he was overtly hostile to her and _berated and criticized her throughout without justification. 

17 Mr. Maiman did not subject male employees to such conduct nor did he subject female employees 

18 who did not have children to such conduct. 

19 f. In a one-on-one meeting with plaintiff on October 1, 2015, Mr. Maiman 

20 threatened plaintiff with termination. 

21 g. In a meeting on October 7, 2015, Mr. Maiman placed plaintiff on an 

22 unwarranted 30-day Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"), and threatened that she would be 

23 terminated for "poor performance" if she did not satisfy his standards. 

24 h. On October 7, 2015, Mr. Maiman emailed plaintiff a written PIP document, 

25 dated October 5, 2015, which enumerated three areas for improvement and emphasized that if plaintiff 

26 did not show "meaningful progress" during the 30-day period, "[she would] be subject to immediate 

27 termination." Moreover, this document suggested that there might be "non-work related issues" that 

28 were "impacting" plaintiff's performance and proposed that she seek the assistance of PG&E's 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRlATE RELIEF 

25 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 29

of 38
1 Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"), falsely implying that plaintiff suffered from some drug 

2 addiction or had mental health issues. 

3 i. Following his imposition of the 30-day PIP, Mr. Maiman became even more 

4 hostile and tyrannical toward plaintiff. For example, on October 8, 2015, Mr. Malman publicly 

5 berated plaintiff at her desk for 70 minutes in the presence of employees and managers. Mr. Maiman 

6 also sought to compel plaintiff to cancel her upcoming vacation which had been previously scheduled 

7 for the period of November 2 through 9, 2015. 

8 j. On October 19, 2015, defendant PG&E posted plaintiff's position even though 

9 she was only 12 days into the 30-day PIP period. 

10 k. During a 50-minute telephone conversation on October 21, 2015, which was 

11 Mr. Malman•s fourth one-on-one discussion with plaintiff during that week, Mr. Maiman insulted 

12 and belittled her (e.g., plaintiff "can•t process asking a question and write at the same time"; although 

13 other employees "catch on," plaintiff "just [doesn't] get it and [seems] to fall apart"), and asserted 

14 that her colleagues shared his disdain for her. 

15 I. By an email to plaintiff dated October 21, 2015, Mr. Maiman purported to 

16 summarize his telephone conversation with plaintiff earlier that day. Mr. Maiman stated therein that 

17 although plaintiff had "satisfactorily completed a handful of deliverables," he did not believe that she 

18 had "made noticeable progress on developing the competencies outlined in [her] 30 day notice letter." 

19 His criticisms of plaintiffs performance were unwarranted, including his accusation that her absence 

20 from the monthly Technology Portfolio Review meeting on October 19, 2015 was unjustified. 

21 m. On November 12, 2015, the day plaintiff returned to work from her vacation, 

22 Mr. Maiman harassed plaintiff for her absence from a Finance Emergency training meeting even 

23 though attendance at this meeting was not mandatory and plaintiff had not known about the meeting 

24 because he had placed it on plaintiffs calendar while she was out of the office on vacation. 

25 n. On November 18, 2015, defendant PG&E terminated plaintiff, effective 

26 immediately, for her purported failure to improve her performance pursuant to the October 7, 2015 

27 PIP. 

28 45. At the time of the aforementioned adverse actions plaintiff was satisfactorily performing 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

26 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 30

of 38
1 in her position. 

2 46. Plaintiff's gender, female, and/or her status as the mother of young children was a 

3 substantial motivating reason for the aforementioned adverse employment actions. 

4 4 7. Defendant PG&E's conduct as alleged above constitutes intentional sex discrimination 

5 in violation of Government Code § 12940(a). 

6 

7 

8 

48. Plaintiff was banned by defendant's conduct. 

49. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm. 

50. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff has suffered lost and 

9 future wages, benefits and other valuable incidents to employment, and severe pain and suffering, all 

10 to plaintiffs damage in an amount to be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff claims the aforesaid amounts 

11 as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code §3287 and/or any other 

12 provision of law allowing for prejudgment interest. 

13 51. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively 

14 with the wrongful intention of injuring plaintiff, and from an improper and evil motive amounting to 

15 malice and conscious disregard for plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive 

16 damages from defendant in an amount to be ascertained at trial. 

17 

18 

19 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT PG&E 

(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy) 

52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation 

20 of paragraphs 1 through 12, 17 through 21, 27 through 34, and 40 through 47, inclusive, of this 

21 complaint. 

22 

23 

24 

53. Plaintiff was employed by defendant PG&E. 

54. Defendant PG&E discharged plaintiff effective November 18, 2015. 

55. Plaintiff's disclosures regarding the participation of defendant PG&E's employees in 

25 illegal and fraudulent financial activities, plaintiff's age, plaintiff's gender and/or plaintiff's 

26 motherhood was a substantial motivating reason for plaintiff's discharge. Defendant PG&E's 

27 discharge of plaintiff violated fundamental, substantial and well-established public policies that are 

28 delineated or embodied in statutes of the United States and the state of California and that benefit the 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

27 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 31

of 38
1 public at large rather than private interests. Said public policies are set forth in: (1) California Labor 

2 Code §1102.5(b), proscribing retaliation for disclosing information to a government agency or law 

3 enforcement agency, to a person with authority over plaintiff or to another employee who had the 

4 authority to investigate, discover, or correct defendant's violation of statute or regulation where the 

5 employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of statute or 

6 regulation; (2) the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA "), Government Code 

7 § 12900 et seq., proscribing discrimination in employment on the basis of age, gender and motherhood 

8 (California Government Code §12940(a)); (3) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VIl"), 

9 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., proscribing discrimination in employment on the basis of sex; (4) the Age 

10 Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§621-634 (" ADEA "), proscribing 

11 employment discrimination on the basis of age; and (5) California Business and Professions Code 

12 §17200, proscribing fraudulent business activities. 

13 56. Defendant PG&E's discharge of plaintiff caused plaintiff harm. 

14 57. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff has suffered lost and 

15 future wages, benefits and other valuable incidents to employment,.and severe pain and suffering, all 

16 to plaintiffs damage in an amount to be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff claims the aforesaid amounts 

17 as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code §3287 and/or any other 

18 provision of law allowing for prejudgment interest. 

19 58. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively 

20 with the wrongful intention of injuring plaintiff, and from an improper and evil motive amounting to 

21 malice and conscious disregard for plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive 

22 damages from defendant in an amount to be ascertained at trial. 

23 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 

59. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 

1. For a permanent injunction restraining defendant from further unlawful conduct; 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 2. For damages for lost and future wages, benefits and other compensation in an amount 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

28 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 32

of 38
1 exceeding Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), such an amount to be proven at trial; 

2 For special and consequential damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 

3 

3. 

4. For punitive damages against defendant PG&E on the First, Second, Third and Fourth 

4 Causes of Action; 

5 5. For prejudgment interest according to law, including, but not limited to, Civil Code 

6 §3287; 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6. 

7. 

For costs and reasonable attorney's fees; and 

For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. 

HOROWITZ & RUBINOFF 

Dated: June 3 0 , 2017 

STEPHANIE RUBINOFF 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CARA FENEIS 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

29 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 33

of 38
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

--1 

COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION 

BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING 

Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act 

(Gov. Code,§ 12900 et seq.) 

In the Matter of the Complaint of 

Cara Feneis, Complainant. 

1190 Beethoven Common #308 

Fremont, California 94538 

vs. 

PGandE, Respondent. 

77 Beale Street 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Complainant alleges: 

DFEH No. 134219-260241 

1. Respondent PGandE is a subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) 

(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). Complainant believes respondent is subject to the FEHA. 

2. On or around November 18, 2015, complainant alleges that respondent took the following adverse actions 

against complainant: Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation Terminated, . Complainant believes 

respondent committed these actions because of their: Age • 40 and over, Family Care or Medical Leave, Sex 

· Gender, Other Disparate impact and treatment based on age.. 

3. Complainant Cara Feneis resides in the City of Fremont, State of California. If complaint includes corespondents please see below. 

-5-

Complaint ±DFEH No. 1342/9-260241 

Date Filed: November 17, 2016 

ATTACHMENTA 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 34

of 38
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Additional Complaint Details: 

Ms. Feneis was discriminated and eventually terminated by her employer, PGandE, due 

to her age, gender and family status. Ms. Feneis also suffered disparate impact and 

treatment in being terminated due to her age. 

Ms. Feneis is 48 years old and was the oldest non-managerial employee out of 

approximately 30 employees who worked PGandEs Business Finance Operations. The 

vast majority of employees in this department was in their twenties. The other two older 

employees were hi-level Principles who generally worked remotely. Ms. Feneis was 

also one of the few female employees at PGandEs Business Finance Operations, and 

she was one of the few employees who had children. 

In the first few months of Ms. Feneis employment, Ms. Feneis was rated better than 

satisfactory in that she was respectively rated, in the jargon of PGandE, as Target and 

Successful in her Overall Goals and Overall Competencies on a mid-year performance 

appraisal for the period of April through June 2015. 

· However, after this appraisal, Ms. Feneis began to feel a shift in managements 

treatment of her from resistance to outright hostility and isolation despite her successful 

performance. Ms. Feneis believes this conduct was, in part,due to her gender, age and 

family status. 

Her immediate supervisor, Greg Maiman, was in his late-twenties and did not have any 

children. Mr. Maiman was responsible for coordinating all the team-building exercises 

for the PGandE Business Finance Operations and required Ms. Feneis to attend maledominating activities, such as sporting events, go-karting and the like. During these 

events, Ms. Feneis seemed to be generally excluded by Mr. Maiman and the male 

. employees particularly because she did not drink shots or beers and talk sports like one 

: of the guys. 

Ms. Feneis is the mother of three young children. Throughout her employment, Ms. 

Feneis would have unexpected family care emergencies wherein she would have to 

leave the office to pick up her sick or injured children early from school or the like. 

Whenever these situations would occur, Mr. Maiman began to be irate, condescending 

· and rebuke Ms. Feneis for her absence. Ms. Feneis believes that no other employee 

was subject to this type of treatment by Mr. Maiman as the vast majority of the handful 

: of females did not have children and were all in their mid-twenties. 

In contrast, during the same time, another male analyst who had been with PGandE for 

less than a year in his mid-twenties was promoted even though Ms. Feneis possessed 

' substantially greater qualifications than the stated minimum and even the stated-desired 

-6-

Complaint ±DFEH No. 134219-260241 

Date Filed: November 17, 2016 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 35

of 38
qualifications and despite PGandEs initial promises that she would be quickly promoted 

during her interview process due to her qualifications. 

Beginning in October 2015, Mr. Maiman conducted one-one meeting three to four times 

per week for an hour or more each as a vehicle for him to rant at and harass Ms. Feneis 

despite having no previous performance issues. No other employee of Mr. Maiman 

' suffered from the same conduct and Maiman appeared to target her as one of the 

oldest employee on the team. By November 2015, Mr. Malmans treatment of Ms. 

Feneis worsened without cause as he became increasingly tyrannical towards her, 

intensifying his harassment to needle, nitpick, intimidate, and berate Ms. Feneis. On 

November 18, 2015, Ms. Feneis was terminated on ostensibly claiming that her 

performance as a business finance analyst has not met PGandEs expectations. This 

was not true because Ms. Feneis performed well at her job. 

-7-

Complaint ±DFEH No. 134219-2 024/ 

Date Filed: November 17, 2016 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 36

of 38
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

VERlFICA TION 

I, Yosef Peretz, am the Attorney for Complainant in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the foregoing 

complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters 

which are therein alleged on infonnation and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. 

On November 17, 2016, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

.g. 

Complaint ±DFEH No. I 4219-260241 

Date Filed: November 17, 2016 

San Francisco, CA 

Y osef Peretz 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 37

of 38
STATE Of CAI IEOBNIA I Bmlo=ss Commmc, 5CMCC$ 000 Houstoo Aoencv 

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR E MPLOYMENT & H OUSING 

2218 Kausen Drive. Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758 

800·884-1684 I TDD 800-700-2320 

wviw.dfeh.ca.gov I email: con1act.cen1er@dfeh.ca.oov 

November 17, 2016 

Cara Feneis 

1190 Beethoven Common #308 

Fremont, California 94538 

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue 

DFEH Maller Number: 134219-260241 

Right to Sue: Feneis/ PGandE 

Dear Cara Feneis, 

GOYEBNOB EPMUNP G BBOWNJB 

DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH 

This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair 

Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective November 17, 2016 because an immediale 

Right to Sue nolice was requested. DFEH will cake no further accion on the complaint. 

This letter is also your Right to Sue nolice. According co Government Code section 12965, subdivision 

(b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against 

the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced 

complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this leller. 

To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must visit the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure 

or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. 

Sincerely, 

Department of Fair Employment and Housing 

ATTACHMENTB 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5207-4 Filed: 12/26/19 Entered: 12/26/19 16:55:40 Page 38

of 38