SUM-104 SUMMONS romcounruse omy (CITACION JUDICIAL) ear NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO) PINTEREST, INC., DOES 1 through 20, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): FRANCOISE BROUGHER INOTICE You Fave boon sued. The court may decide again you wi your beng heard unas you respond win 30 days. Read the ifomaton below. "You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to fle witen response at ths cout and have a copy \erved onthe plait. letter or phone cal wil not protect you Your written response must bein proper legal frm you wart the court to hear your lease. There may be @ court form thal you can use fer your response. You can find these court forms an more information at the Calfrnia Cours (Online Se Help Center (wi: cournfo.ca govsetMelp), your county la library, or te courthouse naarest you. Ifyou cannot pay the ling fee, ask the leur clerk fora foe waiver form. if you donot fle your response on ime, you may ose the case by default and your wages, money, and property may le taken vathou futher warring from the cour. “There ae ctor legal requirements. You may want to cal anatomy right away. you do not know an attomey, you may want o cal an attorney Iter service. Kyau cannot afford an aforey, you may be elgibe for re legal services from a nonproft legal services program. You can locato Inese nonprott groups atthe California Legal Services Web ste (wiv Jawhefpcalfomia org), the Catfornia Courts Onine Sof Help Center ne courtinteca.gow/selMep), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE The court has a statutory len for waived fees and [costs on any setfement or arbtation award of $10,000 or more ina ii case. The cours fen must bo paid before the cou il dismiss the case. |AVISO! Lo han demandedo. Sino responde dentro de 20 das, a core puede decir en su conrasin escuchar su versén. Lea a informaciin @ [contactor Tene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de quo le entrequen eta ctacién ypapeles legals para presentar una respuesta por escnio en esta lott y hacer que se enregue une copia al demandente. Uns carta o una lismada felefanics no oprotagon. Su respuesta por escifotene que estar lan tomate legal corecto si desea que procesen su caso ola cot. Es posible que haya un formularlo que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. |Pueae encontrar ests farmularos de la corte y mas informacin en el Cento de Ayuda de [as Cortes de Calflora (wn. sucvteca.gov), en la listotoca de leyes desu condado oen fa corte que le quede mas cera. Sino puede pagar a cua de presentacin,pida al secrtarode la corte que lie oe un formulario de exenciin de pago de cuotas. Sino presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perderel caso por incumplimient la corte le podré lautar su suelo, dinero y Bienes sin mas advertencia ‘Hay otros requistos legals. Es recomendable que llame @ un abogado Inmedlatamente, Sino conoce a un abogad, puede lamar aun servicio de lremiston 2 abogados. Sino puede pagar a un abogado, es posble que cumple con los requsilos para obtener servicios legales gratuits de un largrama de servicios lagales sin nes de ro, Puede encontrar estes grpos sin nes de lucro en el tio web de California Legal Services, linn lowhelpcaltomia.org), en el Cento de Ayuda de ls Cortes de Calfomi, (www sucorte.ca.gov) 0 poniandose en contacto con la cote oe Icolega de abogados lcales.AVISO: Pr ey, la cote tone dorecho a rctama las cvotas ys costes exentos por impaner un gravamen sobre cualquier recyperacién de $10,000 6 més de valor recbida mediante un acuerdo o una cancesin de arbirae en un caso de derecho cv. Tiene que [pagar el gravamen dela corte antes do quo la corte pueda dasecharo/caso. ‘The name and address ofthe court OGD: Wigs al Cano) Deny seni oa FEZ SES es San Francisco Superior Gourk 400 McAlister Steet, San Francisco, CA 94102 “The name, adress, and telephone number of plaints attomey, or plaintif without an attomey, i: (EY nombre, fa drecciény el nimero de teléfono de! abogado de! demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Dave A. Lowe, Rudy, Exerod, Zet & Lowe, LLP, 381 California St, Sute 700, San Francisco, CA 94104; 7 DATE: Chek, by Fecha) AUG 44 2090 Clerk of the Court (Secretario) (For proot of service of this surimons, use Proot of Service of Summons (orm POS-070)) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Series of Summons, ; NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. as enindivdual defendant 2. [as the person sued.unde the fttious name of (speci: ’s18-434-9800 Deputy (Agjunto) ) "ANGELICA SUNGA 3. [7] on behalf of (specify): under: =] €¢P 416 10 (corporation) cee 416.60 (minor) (Scr 416.20 defunct coporation) [=] GP 418,70 (conservatee) (cP 416.40 (association or partnership) [=] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (spoct 4. [by personat delivery on (dete) Page att ‘inc Caectefow ‘SUMMONS Cama Pree 4 iio ee 2)RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE up xVd Ad SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA B4t04 PH (418) 494-9800 | FX (416) 494-0619 | ww ceaw.com DAVID A. LOWE (SBN: 178811) ¥ ooh & aslo dal@rezlaw.com *Beinty of Sen Francisco MICHELLE G. LEE (SBN: 266167) Aue 11 og) mgl@rezlaw.com MEGHAN F. LOISEL (SBN: 291400) CLERK OF JE COURT mfl@rezlaw.com RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP og aoe 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434-9800 Facsimile: (415) 434-0513 Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANCOISE BROUGHER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CGC-20-585888 FRANCOISE BROUGHER, Case No, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES vs. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PINTEREST, INC., DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASENO.RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE we {351 CALIFORNA STREET, SUITE To0 AN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 84104 PH (415) 494-9800 | FX (445) 494-0518 | nw ecw com FRANCOISE BROUGHER, complains and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1 Even at the very top ranks of a public company, female executives can be targeted for sex discrimination and retaliation. Although Pinterest markets itself to women looking for inspiration, the company brazenly fired its top female executive for pointing out gender bias within Pinterest’s male-dominated leadership team. For two years, Plaintiff Francoise Brougher ‘was Pinterest’s high-performing Chief Operating Officer and helped take the company public. However, whereas male executives were rewarded for strong leadership styles, Ms. Brougher was criticized for not being compliant or collaborative enough. In addition, Ms. Brougher was offered a less favorable compensation structure than her male peers and had to fight for equal ‘treatment. Finally, when Ms. Brougher complained to the head of Human Resources and to Chief Executive Officer Ben Silbermann that Pinterest’s Chief Financial Officer made demeaning sexist comments to her, and she asked for help to remedy the hostile work environment, Mr. Silbermann summarily fired her over a video call. 2. Instead of taking her complaint seriously, investigating it properly, and doing the hard work to address her concerns about gender discrimination and hostility, Pinterest fired Ms. Brougher to protect the comfort of her male peers. In an attempt to cover up Ms. Brougher’s complaints, Pinterest tried to create a fiction that her firing was a voluntary departure. ‘Ms. Brougher’s termination solidified Pinterest’s unwelcoming environment for women and minorities by imposing a high cost to challenging the men at the top. 3. Although Pinterest publicly laments the lack of diversity in its leaders practice, it turns a blind eye to the biased thinking that limit women’s opportunities for success in leadership roles. By terminating an outspoken leader with Ms. Brougher’s impressive credentials, Pinterest further entrenched its workplace inequities. 4, Ms, Brougher brings this lawsuit to change Pinterest’s culture of gender bias and to hold Pinterest accountable for discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and the Labor Code. a 1 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. ___RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE we SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 434-9800 FX (45) 434-0513 | wr rian.com 23 24 25 26 27 28 PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Francoise Brougher was employed by Defendant Pinterest, Inc. from March 2018 until her termination in April 2020. She is a resident of Los Altos Hills, California, 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pinterest, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, registered in the State of California, whose primary place of business is the City and County of San Francisco, California. 7. The true names and capacities of Defendants named herein as Does | through 20, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, and the true involvement of Defendants sued herein as Does | through 20, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show the true names, capacities, and involvement of Does 1 through 20 when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated as a “Doe” is responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein, and that Plaintiff's injuries and damages as hereinafter set forth were proximately caused by said Defendants. 8. Plaintiff'is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants sued herein is or was the agent, employee, partner and/or representative of one or more of the remaining Defendants, and each of them was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that each of the Defendants herein gave consent to, ratified, and authorized the acts alleged herein to each of the remaining Defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395(a) and California Government Code § 12965. Defendant's Principal Executive Office is in the City and County of San Francisco. Defendant transacts business in San Francisco. Defendant is within the jurisdiction of this Court for the purposes of service of process. uw mM 2 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. _‘61 CALFORNA STREET, SUE 700 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA o4t04 4 (416) 434-9800 [FX (416) 434-0519 | ww celaw.com RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE ue 10, Plaintiff was employed in, and significant events material to this case occurred within, San Francisco. The obligations and liability complained of herein arose in San Francisco, and Plaintiff suffered injury in San Francisco. PROCEDURAL ALLEGATIONS 11, On August 7, 2020, Ms. Brougher filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing against Pinterest, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation, and obtained a Right-to-Sue notice the same day. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAU! F ACTION 12. Ms. Brougher has had an outstanding career in Silicon Valley. She arrived in the United States in her 20s on a student visa and with only a loan to support her, and has been a technology executive for the past twenty years, serving some of the Valley’s most successful companies. 13. Before joining Pinterest, Ms. Brougher was an executive at Charles Schwab, Google, and Square. She led Google’s Bizops group when the company was in a period of exponential growth. She worked on a breadth of issues, including Google’s engineering organization model, large scale acquisitions and integrations, and Google’s initial expansion into ‘Africa. She later managed all of Ad Sales globally for the torso and tail advertisers and was responsible for a $16 billion advertising business. During her four-and-a-half-year tenure, the revenue growth moved from high single digits to over 25 percent year over year growth for this segment of advertisers. 14. At Square, Ms. Brougher had the opportunity to help a smaller company scale and define its business strategy. Ms. Brougher worked on initiatives such as expanding Pinterest’s customer base to include larger retailers, the creation of Square’s partner ecosystem, and redefining its go-to-market strategy. She scaled across many functions, including Sales, Account Management, Customer Success, Business Development, and Marketing. And she was part of the leadership team that took the company public. 15. For over eight years, Ms. Brougher has been an engaged member of Sodexo’s Board, a French multinational operating in over 70 countries. 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO.RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE up 1361 CALFORNA STRE 454.0518 | wae com s 3 16. Needless to say, her professional experience is extraordinary. And she believed that she had shattered the glass ceiling in the tech world. 17. Ms. Brougher joined Pinterest as Chief Operating Officer in March 2018. At the time, she was optimistic and eager to apply her experience. During her first year at Pinterest, Ms. Brougher added significant value to the company. Revenue growth accelerated, especially in ‘the third and fourth quarters of 2018, paving the way in part for a successful IPO. Under her leadership, her team became more disciplined around sales process and customer segmentation. They made significant progress toward rebuilding the marketing team, diversifying advertisers, and building a stronger ecosystem by re-engaging partners. The communication team’s promotion of the company resulted in more positive mentions in the press. She encouraged Pinterest to keep political advertising off Pinterest. And her team introduced new processes to increase velocity and clarity of goals. 18. When Ms. Brougher accepted the position, she believed that, if she worked hard to prove herself, the company would judge her based on her job performance and compensate her fairly. 19, In January 2019, Pinterest unveiled its new company values at a company-wide event at the San Francisco Orpheum Theater. At this picture-perfect event, Pinterest presented ‘Ms. Brougher as the champion the “Care and Candor” value. This value was meant to encourage employees to challenge people directly while maintaining a respectful working environment. Ms. Brougher was praised for her authenticity and encouraged to lead by example by being direct ‘and transparent. Unfortunately, Pinterest’s actions did not match its words. 20. Ironically, even though Pinterest markets itself to women as a source of lifestyle inspiration, the company leadership team is male dominated, and gender-biased attitudes are prevalent. Its website makes this clear: 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO.RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE wr 0, CALIFORNIA aat04 94-9800 | FX (415) 484-0649 | wa reziw com Management BenSibermenn Todt Morgentld See https://investor.pinterestinc.com/governance/management/default.aspx. 21, When Ms. Brougher raised questions about strategy decisions, Mr. Silberman criticized her for not being collaborative and told her that she did not have consistently healthy cross-functional relationships. When Ms. Brougher asked him specifics, he could not provide them. Instead, he told her to keep quiet, saying she should “be mindful” of how she acted i group setting. And he discouraged her from communicating directly, saying it was unacceptable for her to say, “we have basically not improved x.” 22. His comments are an archetypal example of gender discrimination. Women are encouraged to be assertive in the workplace, but assertiveness is a liability for women, even for executives. Whereas male executives are viewed as bold, thoughtful, and engaged leaders when they challenge and critique proposed strategy decisions, female executives are viewed as uncooperative. In Ms. Brougher, candor was detrimental, despite being a corporate core value. 23. Criticism like that which Mr. Silberman gave Ms. Brougher is commonly experienced by women in tech. Kieran Snyder's research uncovered an “abrasiveness trap” in 35 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: CASENO.__RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE we ‘361 GALFORNA STREET, sue 700, 434-9800 FX (415) 494-0519 | wn tlaw.com which women are criticized for speaking up at work and being “abrasive,” and are told to speak less. Conversely, men are not criticized for similar conduct and are encouraged to be “aggressive.” Surveying tech employees’ performance reviews, she found that: “58.9% of the reviews received by men contained critical feedback. 87.9% of the reviews received by women. di .” (See Snyder, Kieran, The abrasiveness trap: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews, available at https://web stanford.edu/deptiradiology/c bin/raddiversity/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/TheA brasivenessTrap.pdf.) When the women were criticized, their personality was the focus of the criticism. This occurred in 2.4% of the critical reviews that men received and 75.5% of the critical reviews that women received. 24, A year into her employment, Ms. Brougher learned that the company had discriminated against her in the structure of her equity compensation, 25. When she was hired, Ms. Brougher was told that that the Board had directed that executives receive backloaded equity grants, meaning that the majority of the shares would vest in the last two years of the grant. Specifically, her equity grant provided that only ten percent of the shares vested the first year; twenty percent vested the second year; thirty percent vested the third year; and forty percent vested the fourth year. 26. She believed that this vesting schedule was standard for Pinterest executives at her level, and based on this belief, she even offered another incoming female executive the same gfant structure. As Pinterest approached its IPO, it offered Ms. Brougher an IPO retention grant that was even more backloaded. Starting in March 2019, Ms. Brougher was to receive stock over five years with the last two years making up most of the reward. She was scheduled to vest zero stock in the first year, five percent in the second year, five percent in the third year, forty-five percent in the fourth year, and forty-five percent in the fifth year. She wrongly assumed that all the executives were treated equally. 27. Then she saw the company’s S-1 securities filing. It reflected the salaries of the highest-paid employees. Even though Ms. Brougher was the COO and managed a large, complex organization, she was not on the list. Not only that, she discovered that her male peers had been given more favorable vesting schedules. For the male executives identified, their initial 6 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASENO,RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE up SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA B4to4 484-8800 FX (415) 434-0513 | wo ceiaw.com equity grants were not backloaded and their TPO retention grants were much less backloaded that Ms. Brougher’s. Ms. Brougher learned that she was still below the glass ceiling, looking up. It was hard to swallow. 28. Compared to Chief Financial Officer Todd Morgenfeld’s initial grant, Ms. Brougher’s was significantly backloaded. In Mr. Morgenfeld’s first year, he received 812,500 shares, whereas, in Ms. Brougher’s first year, she received 300,000 shares. In other words, in ‘their first years, Pinterest paid Ms. Brougher 37 percent of the equity it paid Mr. Morgenfeld. 29. — Ms. Brougher raised her concerns about the disparate pay with Mr. Silberman, Mr. Silberman told her to work it out with HR. She prepared a spreadsheet for HR laying out ‘the difference between her equity grants and that of her male peers. She showed that she had received far less equity in her first year of employment and that, unlike her male peers, her equity grants were heavily backloaded. Mr. Silberman relented in part and authorized an adjustment to her IPO retention grant. 30. After the IPO, Ms. Brougher was no longer invited to Board meetings. At times, members of her team were invited, sometimes without her knowledge. But as the COO of Pinterest, Ms. Brougher no longer had meaningful engagement with the company’s board, 31. Her male peers began excluding her from Ads team meetings and there were rumors that she was not getting along with the Product team. To accommodate her male colleagues, she had to step back, adjust her behavior, and accept not participating in subsequent discussions. She was punished for the type of assertive behavior for which male executives are rewarded. 32, Ms. Brougher’s mid-year performance review was mixed, Mr. Silbermann’s acknowledgement of her accomplishments focused on her relationships, such as her focus on engagement, having an operationally focused team, attracting talent, and promoting the “Care with Candor” value. He omitted her concrete success in driving revenue, which had risen from less than $500 million to over $1.1 billion during her tenure, He also critiqued her style. Without identi mann encouraged her to be proactive and ig substantive examples, Mr. collaborative. 1 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO,RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE up i i PH (415) 434-9800 FX 33. Ms. Brougher spent September and October of 2019 working with her team to craft a series of detailed revenue programs that made Pinterest’s fourth quarter the biggest ever. 34. Ms, Brougher returned from an eight-week medical leave in January 2020, 35. Around January 2020, Mr. Morgenfeld became increasingly disrespectful to Ms. Brougher. He frequently ignored her and undermined her authority by talking directly to her team members. He did this even on projects she was leading. In one meeting, Mr. Morgenfeld disparaged her in front of her peers by sarcastically asking, “What is your job anyway?” 36. Discrimination at the highest levels of public companies is often subtle and sophisticated. It can take the form of a male executive undermining his female colleague’s work. Ifthe company did not meet its revenue goals for one week, Mr. Morgenfeld would passive aggressively tell her that a good leader does what they say they will do, Most of Mr. Morgenfeld and Ms. Brougher’s one-on-one meetings were taken off calendar, shutting down avenues for communication between them. 37. interest did nothing to stop Mr. Morgenfeld’s discriminatory and harassing conduct, and instead it permitted his beha F to continue, This is an archetype of male dominated culture where bad behavior from male executives is tolerated. 38, Furthermore, Pinterest’s culture of relying on informal one-on-one meetings instead of encouraging group dialog operated to exclude Ms. Brougher. Often Mr. Silberman ‘would wait to make key strategy decisions until after the meetings Ms. Brougher attended. Later he would meet with one or two male colleagues and together they would make the decision — ‘without Ms. Brougher in the room. Her experience is common to women and minorities who often do not have informal handshake relationships with their male colleagues and are regularly excluded from the rooms where decisions are made. 39. An example of this was Mr. Silbermann’s decision not to invite Ms. Brougher on Pinterest's IPO roadshow. His decision was not based on her qualifications. Ms. Brougher was ‘managing approximately half of the company as COO, was responsible for all of Pinterest’s revenue, had prior roadshow experience, and knew many of the investors. Nevertheless, ermann told her to stay back at the company and invited his buddy, the Head of Global 8 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASENO.w = 6 a % w © y N a 8 « S a x in > 4 3 z SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 PH (615) 434.8000 [FX 415) 44-0813 | wv.eaw.com ‘Communication, a man, to the roadshow. This person was superfluous because overlapped with the Head of Investor Relations, who also attended 40. It perpetuates gender inequities for a CEO to elevate his buddies when his buddies are all men, 41. InMs. Brougher’s case, Pinterest’s pattern of consistently elevating male voices over female voices set the stage for the company’s retaliation against her. 42. Despite Mr. Morgenfeld’s efforts to undermine her, in January, Ms. Brougher had every reason to be confident in her role at Pinterest. In her January performance review, Mr. Silbermann highlighted that she had made progress on building her cross-functional relationships. Ms. Brougher invited Mr. Silberman to provide her feedback in real time so that she could address any concerns. 43. Then in February, Ms. Brougher received a peer review that Mr. Morgenfeld had written about her (she was not asked to review him). Mr. Morgenfeld’s only comment on ber 2019 achievements was: “Seems to be a champion for diversity issues.” By focusing only on “diversity,” Mr. Morgenfeld was giving a decidedly backhanded compliment, because he ignored and therefore demeaned Ms. Brougher’s many significant accomplishments as COO in 2019, including: scaling the business team to transition from a private to a public company, diversifying Pinterest’s advertiser base, and leading an effort to expand the company’s monetization efforts in Europe. His snide comment was further enfeebled by his use of the verb “seems,” which cast doubt on whether she really did champion diversity (her only perceived accomplishment) or merely seemed to do so. 44. Ms. Brougher certainly cares about diversity and mentorship. However, she had not led any diversity initiatives and had no formal role in that area. So the fact that ‘Mr. Morgenfeld ignored her business accomplishments leading operations and focused only on diversity was deeply offensive. Reducing a female executive’s achievements to “diversity” is a common form of gender discrimination. MW MW 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASENO.RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE up {361 CALIFORNA STREET, SUE 760 45. Ms. Brougher texted Mr. Silberman that she was upset by Mr. Morgenfeld’s rechictive feedback. His tone-deaf response was to suggest that she approach the problem with “curiosity. 46. Ms. Brougher tried to address her concems directly with Mr. Morgenfeld. During, a videoconference on February 21, 2020, she reiterated her goal of working collaboratively with him. She explained that she wanted to better understand his peer feedback and asked him why his only comment about her achievements was that she was a “champion for diversity.” 47. Mr. Morgenfeld responded defensively, asserting that she was a champion of ‘women’s issues. Ms. Brougher was taken aback. She candidly responded that being a female executive does not make her a champion of women’s issues, not is that the appropriate measure of her capabilities as COO. 48. Mr. Morgenfeld became angry, raising his voice, and calling her a liar. He bragged about his “impeccable” record on diversity. He again questioned the value she brought to the company. Then, he childishly hung up on her. Ms. Brougher had never before felt so disrespected and frankly threatened than she did after this call. 49. Ms. Brougher texted Mr. Silberman immediately and told him that her conversation with Mr. Morgenfeld had not gone well. 50. On February 24, Chief Human Resources Officer Jo Dennis met with Ms. Brougher to discuss her call with Mr. Morgenfeld. Ms, Brougher explained that she was offended by Mr. Morgenfeld reducing her accomplishments to “diversity” in the peer feedback portion of the performance review. Ms. Dennis agreed that it was inappropriate for Mr. Morgenfeld to have used “diversity” as the main criteria to evaluate Ms. Brougher’s ‘performance as COO. Ms. Brougher emphasized that she liked her job and wanted to find a way to work with Mr. Morgenfeld but explained that because of his behavior during their last conversation, she was uncomfortable meeting with him without someone else in the room until this was resolved. 51. Ms. Brougher asked for Ms. Dennis’ help navigating this relationship. Instead, Ms, Dennis immediately began managing Ms. Brougher’s concem as a possible legal issue and 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO.RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE up SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 84104 494-0813 | wan raw. com PH escalated her complaint to in-house counsel, instead of trying to mediate the disagreement between the employees. 52, The same day, Ms. Brougher met with Mr. Silbermann for a regular one-on-one. ‘As they went through a long agenda, the topic of Ms. Brougher’s call with Mr. Morgenfeld came ‘up. Again, Ms. Brougher explained to Mr. Silbermann that Mr. Morgenfeld’s comments toward her were demeaning and offensive and that she felt tied of the abuse and was uncomfortable meeting with Mr. Morgenfeld without a witness present because of his hostility toward her. Astonishingly, Mr. Silberman responded that the situation was analogous to an old couple fighting over who would make coffee — another gendered remark that trivialized her concern about sex discrimination by comparing it to a wife’s complaint about domestic trouble. It was not. Mr. Silbermann deflected his responsibility to manage his employees, saying that he would let Ms. Dennis work it out, He made clear that he did not want to get involved and was happy to hide behind HR. 53. Inthe midst of Ms. Brougher’s efforts to address the discriminatory conduct, the COVID-19 crisis took the entire executive team’s focus. As COO, Ms. Brougher rose to the occasion and did a tremendous job responding to the crisis. 54. On March 26, Ms. Dennis contacted Ms. Brougher. Ms. Dennis flip-flopped and stated that Mr. Morgenfeld’s feedback was appropriate because he believed his statement to be true, ie. that Ms. Brougher was seen as an advocate for diversity. This missed the point. ‘Ms. Dennis did not propose any action to address the disagreement. Instead, she placed the burden on Ms. Brougher, saying, “Let me know if you'd like to discuss further, very happy to jump on a call with you, or with you and [Mr. Morgenfeld].” 55. Ms. Brougher responded reiterating her concerns about being only seen as “championing women issues” and about being undermined at work. She asked for Ms. Dent help, saying that she was “{hlappy to do whatever you will suggest.” 56. A week later, Ms. Dennis reached out to warn her that her role would be changing. Ms. Dennis tried to insulate Mr. Silbermann from any pushback by assuring Ms. Brougher that he “cared” about her. On April 2, while the company was still responding to the COVID-19 crisis, UW ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO.w = 6 a 8 L o wu N a 9 ae a a x a > a 3 z 3 g 494-0518 | maw eav.com Mr. Silber mann called her and terminated her employment, He asked her to transition her responsibilities to Mr. Morgenfeld over the next month, 57. Mr. Silberman acted as if he, the CEO, were blameless for his decisions by telling her that he was “sad” to fire someone who is so “logical.” His “sadness” at permitting her male colleague’s discriminatory behavior and then elevating this colleague in the wake of her termination did nothing to soften the impact of his actions. 58. The explicit reason he gave for her termination was her “cross-functional” relationships. At the time, the only problem with her “cross-functional” relationships was that she had objected to her male peet’s sexist and hostile behavior toward her. When faced with a male executive's discomfort at being directly asked to judge a woman by the merits of her work rather than viewing her only as a symbol of diversity, the company sided with the man. To do so, they tolerated Mr. Morgenfeld’s misbehavior in yelling at his colleague and hanging up on her. 59. Ms. Brougher was floored by the termination, She no longer believed that she could change a company’s culture by working hard to prove herself and being a role model for others. Even at her level, at the very top of her profession, she was pushed out in favor of a less qualified male peer. ~ 60. Mr. Silbermann asked Ms. Brougher to cover up the company’s decision to terminate her employment by telling her team that she had decided to leave the company. She declined to do so. Officially, her termination occurred on April 7th, Mr. Silbermann concealed the company’s actions by issuing a note to Pinterest’s employees thanking Ms. Brougher for her work, 61. The termination cost Ms. Brougher tens of millions of dollars in lost earnings and equity compensation. She brings this lawsuit to hold Pinterest accountable and thereby to change its culture. Mm mM m Mm 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. _w = 3 = % we ina wu N a 9 % a x ia > 6 3 x zg 351 CALIFORNA STR i z 3 5 be ge LEGAL CLAIMS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Gender Discrimination: Violation of Government Code § 12940(a)) 62. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 63. _Atall times herein mentioned, FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12900, ef seq., was in full force and effect and was fully binding upon Defendant. Section 12940(a) prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of their gender. 64. Ms, Brougher was treated less favorably than her male peers because of her gender. For example, she received less compensation and a less favorable equity vesting structure than her male peers. 65. Inaddition, Mr. Morgenfeld undermined Ms. Brougher by working directly with her team rather than including her in communications. He made derogatory comments such as asking what she does at the company. And he trivialized her role at the company as a “champion of diversity” rather than judging her based on her performance as COO. 66. Forhis part, Mr. Silberman excluded her from the IPO roadshow and criticized her for not being collaborative with her male colleagues when she objected to their sexism. Unimately, he terminated her employment. 67. Asa direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits and has incurred other economic losses. 68. Asa direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, anxiety, and embarrassment, all to the Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 69. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others. 1B COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘CASE NO.RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE ue 261 CALIFORNA STREET SU Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof, SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation: Violation of Government Code § 12940(h)) 70. _ Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herei 71. Ms. Brougher engaged in protected activity by reporting Mr. Morgenfeld’s sexism comments and hostility to Mr. Morgenfeld, Mr. Silbermann, and Human Resources. 72. Pinterest responded by termin ing her employment because she objected to what Ms. Brougher reasonably believed was unlawful gender discrimination and harassment. Mr. Silbermann’s express statements and the temporal proximity of the termination leave no room for doubt that Ms. Brougher’s complaints about the CFO’s sexist and offensive behavior were the reason for her termination. ions, 73. Asa direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Defendant’s unlawful a Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits and has incurred other economic losses. 74. Asa direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, anxiety, and embarrassment, all to ‘the Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial 75. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation: Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5) 76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. CASENO,w s g ~ L i wi N Q 3 z a a x a > a 3 z z 3 a ) 494-9800 | FX (415) 494-0513 ww cziaw.com PH 77. Atall relevant times, Defendant has been subject to the requirements of Labor Code § 1102.5, which applied to Plaintiff'as an employee of Defendant. 78, Defendant violated Labor Code sections 1102.5(b) and (c) by abruptly terminating, Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for her objections to the gender based disparities in her pay in violation of Labor Code section 1197.5 and the gender discrimination she faced in violation of FEHA, and for her reports of these matters to Pinterest’s CFO, CEO, and Head of HR. 79. Asadirect, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits and has incurred other economic losses. 80. Asadirect, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, anxiety, and embarrassment, all to the Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 81. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy) 82. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 83. interest terminated Ms. Brougher’s employment because she objected to Mr. Morgenfeld’s sexist comments and actions, and gender based disparities in her pay. 84. Pinterest’s termination of Ms. Brougher’s employment violated the fundamental public policy of the State of California embodied by FEHA that employers shall not discriminate against or harass employees on the basis of gender or retaliate against employees for reporting, discrimination or harassment. Mt 15, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASENO.w = 2 2 a ira w N 2 9 = a x i > a 8 z 23 ge 3% i PH (415) 434-9600 85. Pinterest’s termination of Ms. Brougher’s employment violated the fundamental publie policy of the State of California embodied by Labor Code section 1102.5 that employers shall not retaliate against employees for reporting or objecting to what they believe is illegal conduct. 86. Asadirect, foreseeable, and proximate result of the Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits and has incurred other economic losses. 87. Asa direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, anxiety, and embarrassment, all to ‘the Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 88. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francoise Brougher prays for judgment and the following specific relief against Defendant Pinterest, Inc. as follows: 1. For compensatory damages, including but not limited to, lost equity, lost back earnings (including, but not limited to, salary and bonus wages and equity) and fringe benefits, future lost earnings and fringe benefits, and emotional distress damages, with legal interest, according to proof as allowed by law; 2. For injunctive relief, including reinstatement and a prohibition on further discrimination o retaliation; For injunctive relief to prevent future violations of Government Code § 12940; 4, For injunctive relief to prevent future violations of Labor Code § 1197.5; 5. For punitive damages as allowed by law; 6. For prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO.RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE ue : i i i i PH (415) 434-9800 FX 7. For an award to Plaintiff of costs of suit incurred herein and reasonable attorney's fees; and 8. Foran award of such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP » Nh DAVID A. LOWE MICHELLE G. LEE MEGHAN F. LOISEL Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANCOISE BROUGHER DATED: August 10,2020 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby requests trial by jury. DATED: August 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted, RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP By: DAVID A. LO’ MICHELLE G. LEE MEGHAN F. LOISEL Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANCOISE BROUGHER 17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASENO.xv AS cM-910 TTORET RPA OVOUTATTORREY awe unborn aaa '< [Devic A. Lowe (SBN 178811), Michelle G. Lee (SBN 266167), Meghan F. Loisel (SBN 291400) surement! RUDY. EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP 354 Calforia Srect, Sute 700 I San Francisco, CA $4104, out of Calfornia MESCA. 41%. 34 0800 rae font 4164340513 Supetor Cour of Caller Troms FoR cam Paint Francoise Brougher a [SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUG 41 ‘sre anes: 400 McAleer Stret, uaiunes Anoness: 400 McAllister Street CLERK OF lor anozecove: San Francisco, CA 94102 ranch vane: Civic Center Courthouse be [CASE NAME: FRANCOISE BROUGHER v. PINTEREST, INC. etal : CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ‘Complex Case Designation __ | OS=WaNOER (2) Untimited [ Limites counter] ote CEC -20-585888 (peers (Amount | Fed wit fret eppearanceby defendant Pao Sema oy) Seande (Cal Rus of Court lo 3.403) | ere Ttems 16 below must be camipleted (606 Instructions on page 2 [1. Check one box below for the case type that best desoribes this case: Ato Tor Contact Frovisionaly Complex Chi! Litigation J auto) [] Breoen or contaciwaranty (06) (Cal Rules of Court, rules 2.400-3.403) [Uninet motors (4) (Ruse 2740 ctecton 06 (Anti trade regain (08) ther PUPDIWD (Personal InjuryiProperty [=] Other cofections (08) Construction detect (10) amageWrongful Death) Tort [ tneurance coverage (18) niass tort 40) To Astestas 04) TS oberconraacsn [ seautientagston (28) [J Product rab (24) Real Proper [= EnvronmertavToxic tort (30) TS Medica malpractice (5) serch eect domalrvinerse [Insurance coverage caims arsing from the 1 Eminent domain ‘above listed provisionaly complex case [J oer eveon 9) condemnation (14 ‘spon 4) Non-PUPDAND (Other Tort 1) Wronght even 29 Eee oy usinss tov business practic (07) —] Oter el propery 25) [5 Enorcement of gent (20) To coirights (08) Unlawful Detainer Miscellaneous Civil Complaint I Detamation 13) Commer 21) To Rwo en Fra 16) TS Reson (33 TH otter compat nt speed above) (2) TS intatectual propery (19) TI peer ca) ‘iscolanoous Civil Petition _—_] Professional negligence (25) wae mw Partnership and corporate governance (24 [other non-PuPDIND tort (35) [1 Asset torteture (05) oj leper ea aes J Petton re: artration award (1+) a) Other ptton (ot spected above) 42) [J Wrongful termination (36) 5) wrt of manaate (02) [] Other employment (15) () Other judicial review (39) 2 Thiscase [—] is [Le] ls not complex under ule 3400 ofthe Calforia Rules of Court I the case is complex, mark te factors requing excepsonal judicial management 2. [] Large number of separately represented partes d, [] Large number of winesses 'b. [[~] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel. [—_] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more issues that wil be tme-consuming to resolve courts in other counties, states, or counties, ona federal © su tial amount of documentary evidence a SS Ee oe sole [1] Substantial postiudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (chock al that apply): a. [3] monetary . C3] nenmonelary; dectaratory or injunctive eit ©. [3] punitive 4. Number of causes of ation (spect) Four (4) 5. Thiscase ] is [a] snot acass action sut 6. there are any known relates cases, fle and serve a notice of elated case. (You may use form CM-015.) Date: August 10,2020 Davis A Lowe > ee cara [Baa OF PA on ATTORET FOR PART f NOTICE |+ Plaintiff must file this cover sheet withthe first paper fied inthe action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases fled |_under te Probate Code, Family Code, o Welfare and Inttutons Code) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3220.) Fale to fle may resu| in sanctons. + Fite this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local cout rue If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. ofthe California Rules of Cour, you must serve a copy ofthis cover sheet on al other pares to the action or proceeding + Unless this isa collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used fr statistical purposes o y, Mer ae CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET RESTS eee eraINSTRUC ... NS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVE}, wiIEET CM-010 "To Meintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. Ifyou are fing a frst paper (for example, a complaint) ina civil case, you must ‘complete ane file, along with your frst paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statisties about the types and numbers of cases fled. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check ‘one box forthe case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, ‘check the more specific one. Ifthe case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. ‘To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1-are provided below. A cover ‘sheet must be filed only wth your ital paper. Failure to fle a cover sheet withthe first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3,220 ofthe California Rules of Court ‘To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed ina sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A coliections case does not include an action seeking the folowing: (1) tort ‘damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, of (5) a prejudgment wit of attachment. The identification of a case as a ule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it willbe exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant fles @ responsive pleading, A rule 3.740 collections cease will be subjoct to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex, If plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 ofthe California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by ‘completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the ‘complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first sppearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex. o,f he plant has made no designation, a designation that Fier nite ee aes ‘Auto Tort vont Provisionalty Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Sta cymeey —“Stiaalcemamanmyon tycoon ators eae coe omen tae Sc ctetnnne semaine wecgnaan tore reece ecroaenaotnes _motorst claim subject to (Contra Nereaty Ersach-Baler ‘Securities Litigation (28) arbitration, check this iterm Plaintil (not fraud or negligence) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) instead of Auto) ae be Insurance Coverage Claims ee a Soepienlyer sear ete, coe tema eee - cece Seagate Asbestos (04) book accounts) (09) Enforcement of Judgment (20) ‘Asbestos Property Damage: Collection Case-Setier Piaintit ‘Abstract of Judgment (Out of ‘Asbestos reveal Injury! Cited ‘Note/Collections paca acer ee (eet aee eee 9 erence taxicfenvironmental) (24) complex) (18) ‘Sister State Judgment vedic) ‘io Subonaon ‘mnie Agcy Aver Other Professional Health Care Contractua! Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes ‘Malpractice | ‘Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment Other PUPDIWD (23) Real Property Case Premises Liability (¢.9., slip ieaeeaceeeeeceeae Miscellaneous Civil Complaint ‘and fall) acces RICO (27) pee car anee eh (ther Real Property (eg. quiet te) (26) en ene Intentional infiction of ‘Wat of Possession of Real Property Declaratory Relief Only: Emotional Distress eee Injunctive Relief Only (non- ‘Negligent infliction of Quiet Tie ‘harassment) ‘Emotional Distress. (Other Real Property (not eminent ‘Mechanics Lien ‘Other PUPDAWD domain, landiordtenrant, or ‘Other Commercial Compiaint \Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort foreclosure) ‘Case (non-tortnon-complex) ‘Business Tort/Unfair Business Untewhul Detainer ‘Other Civil Complaint Practice (07) ‘Commercial (31) (non-tortinon-complex) erisad aa conan! eo false arrest) (not civil (Druge (98) she case involves Hoga Partnership and Corporate en Ba cna ee oe Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) fa nes Other Petition (nat specified eats ma sient Intedlectual Property (1) rth ton Aware ‘Workplace Violence eaten Fete Sees Legal Mabractcs Virt-Adrinistrative Mandames Depa abpracice _ \Wt-Mandamus on Limited Court ction Contes (Other Profesional Malpract haan ection Contest (rot medical or lege) Petition for Name Chango Other Non-PUPDIWD Tort (36) Mee dele Petition for Relief From Late Employment rat ‘Cam ‘Wngfl Terrination (6) Other Juda! Review 39) ther Givi Peston (ter Employment (15) view of Heath Offcar Order Note of Appeal_Labor ‘Benasione Abpea ‘coro Ren 2975207 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Poon?