Jane Doe v. Paul Marciano, GUESS?, Inc.

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/19/2021 03:18 PM Sherri R.
Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Clifton,Deputy Clerk

21STCV02126
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Steven Kleifield
Lisa Bloom, Esq. (SBN 158458)

1
Alan Goldstein, Esq. (SBN 296430)
2 Sarah Bloom, Esq. (SBN 326922)
THE BLOOM FIRM
3 26565 Agoura Road, Suite 200
Calabasas, CA 91302
4
Telephone: (818) 914-7319
5 Facsimile: (866) 852-5666
Lisa@TheBloomF irm.com
6 Avi@TheBloomFirm.com
7
Sarah@TheBloomFirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, JANE DOE
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 CASE NO: 21STCV02126
JANE DOE, an individual,
12 COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
13 1. Sexual Harassment - Hostile Work
14 v. Environment in Violation of FEHA
2. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in
15 PAUL MARCIANO, an individual, GUESS ?, Violation of FEHA
INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 3. Failure to Prevent Harassment in
16 through 25, inclusive. Violation of FEHA
17 4. Sexual Favoritism in Violation of FEHA
Defendants. 5. Sexual Harassment (Civ. Code § 51.9)
18 6. Sexual Battery (Civ. Code § 1708.5)
7. Sexual Assault (Civ. Code § 340.16)
19
8. Gender Violence (Civ. Code § 52.4)
20 9. False Imprisonment
10. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
21 11. Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress
22
12. Negligent Supervision and Retention
23 13. Intentional Interference with Prospective
Economic Relations
24 14. Negligent Interference with Prospective
Economic Relations
25
26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
27
28
COMPLAINT Jane Doe v. Guess ?, Inc., Paul Marciano, etal.

1 Plaintiff JANE DOE (“Ms. Doe” or “Plaintiff’) brings the instant action against
2 Defendants PAUL MARCIANO (“Marciano”), GUESS ?, INC. (“GUESS”), and DOES 1
3 through 25, and alleges as follows:
4
INTRODUCTION
5
1. GUESS has known for over a decade that Paul Marciano is a recidivist sexual
6
predator, and has chosen to harbor and enable him as he devastates women’s lives. Instead of
7
listening to at least seven women who went on the record against its Founder, Board member
8
and Chief Creative Officer, GUESS has kept Marciano at its helm, allowing him to continue to
9
use his prestigious position to lure and sexually assault more young female models. GUESS
10
kept Marciano after a model filed a public lawsuit against him in 2009 revealing that he
11
“wanted to take her right there,” and fondled her breasts and buttocks. GUESS kept Marciano
12
after celebrity model Kate Upton revealed in January 2018 that Marciano groped her breasts and
13
tried to kiss her during a meeting. GUESS kept Marciano after it publicly settled five more
14 sexual assault claims against him in 2018 for $500,000. And these are just the prior victims and
15 sexual misconduct settlements that are publicly known.
16 2. While other companies listened to women and removed top executives during the
17
#MeToo movement, GUESS did not. Because GUESS prioritizes profits over the safety of its
18
models, it has kept Marciano as an executive with frequent access to them, wielding make-or-
19 break power over their careers.
20
3. In June 2018, after a barrage of negative media about Marciano’s predations, GUESS
21
announced that Marciano would leave GUESS. But GUESS reversed its position in January
22
2019 and announced that Marciano would stay on as a GUESS Board member and Chief
23
Creative Officer. This decision directly led to his continued access to Ms. Doe in this case, a
24
multiyear GUESS model, including getting her alone in his rape room on the pretense of
25
advancing her modeling career, and sexually assaulting her there, leaving her emotionally
26
devastated and suicidal. When she was finally able to pull herself together to complain in
27
writing to GUESS, GUESS cancelled her remaining modeling gigs, destroying her career.
28
1
1 PARTIES
2 4. Plaintiff is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual residing in the
3 County of Riverside, California.
4 5. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon alleges that Defendant GUESS ?, INC.
5 is, and at all times relevant herein, a California corporation that was doing substantial business
6 in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. GUESS employs more than five employees
7 within the meaning of California Government Code § 12926 and is thus subject to suit under
8 FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seq.
9 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant PAUL
10 MARCIANO is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual residing in the County of
11 Los Angeles. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times herein, Marciano was
12 the Founder and Chief Creative Officer of GUESS.
13 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,
14 of Defendants Does 1 through 25, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff
15 therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of
16 said defendants are ascertained, Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to
17 allege their true names and capacities. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
18 each defendant designated herein as a Doe is responsible in some manner for each other
19 defendant’s acts, omissions, and for the resulting injuries and damages to Plaintiff, as alleged
20 herein.
21 VENUE
22
8. Venue is proper as Defendants conduct business in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff is
23
informed and believes that Marciano resides in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff also provided
24
services to GUESS in Los Angeles County and some of the tortious conduct alleged herein
25
occurred in Los Angeles County.
26
///
27
///
28
2
1 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
2 GUESS KNEW THAT MARCIANO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AND HARASSED
MANY OTHER GUESS MODELS
3
9. Marciano holds himself out as a fashion icon with an eye for modeling talent. As co
4
5
founder of GUESS, he is famous for handpicking up-and-coming models to be “Guess Girls,”
6
i.e., prestigious models for GUESS who often go on to successful and lucrative modeling
7
careers. Yet Marciano is a serial predator who uses his prestigious title at fashion powerhouse
8
GUESS to lure in models with promises of career advancement and then grope and rape them.
9
GUESS has had notice of Mr. Marciano’s sexual misconduct for over a decade, but has done
10 nothing to protect women from his frequent predations.
11 10. In 2009, Lindsey Ring, a former fit model for GUESS, filed suit against GUESS and
12 Marciano in Los Angeles. She alleged in her lawsuit that Marciano “would run his hands up and
13 down her breasts and her buttocks,” and would “lean in close to her and whisper that he wanted
14 to ‘take her right there,’ that he was upset she was married, that she was beautiful and that he
15 wanted to kiss her.” She reported the matter to GUESS’ human resources, and was told “This is
16 not the first time this has happened with Mr. Marciano.” Then her hours were reduced. Guess
17 took no action against Marciano, who remained in his position.
18
11. Between 2012 and 2017, Marciano sexually assaulted four more women he
19
encountered through his work at Guess, all of whom complained about his conduct in early
20
2018. Each of these four women alleged that Marciano groped her breasts, forced her to perform
21
a sex act, or both. One of these four women filed a police report against Marciano for sexual
22
assault. In 2018, GUESS reached a financial settlement with each of these four women.
23
12. In early 2018, yet another woman complained to Guess about Marciano sexually
24
assaulting her. Guess reached a financial settlement with this woman as well.
25
26 13. After these five sexual assault settlements in 2018, Guess again took no action
27 against Marciano, who remained in his position.
28

1 14. Yet another woman, Kate Upton, an actor and three-time Sports Illustrated cover
2 model, revealed on Instagram and Twitter in January 2018 that Marciano had sexually assaulted
3 and sexually harassed her. Ms. Upton said that Marciano had grabbed her breasts, thighs,
4 shoulders and other body parts, and kissed her face and neck during a meeting after her first
5 photo shoot with GUESS.
6 15. Faced with an onslaught of negative media attention after Ms. Upton’s brave
7 revelation, GUESS announced it would conduct an “impartial investigation.” It did not. Instead,
8 GUESS hired two large corporate law firms known for representing celebrities and companies
9 accused of misconduct - one, O’Melveny & Myers, defends GUESS against sexual misconduct
10 complaints to this day. These law firms represented a committee of GUESS’ directors, which
11 then had an ethical obligation to zealously represent their interests as fiduciaries to GUESS and
12 protect the company. The biased investigation ignored multiple women’s heartbreaking stories
13 of the pain Marciano’s groping and assaults caused to them, and spun all facts in Marciano’s
14 and GUESS’ favor. In the lawyerly language of euphemism and cover-up, the “investigators”
15 announced only that Marciano “exercised poor judgment in his communications with models
16 and photographers,” and that Marciano “placed himself in situations in which plausible
17 allegations of improper conduct could, and did, arise.”
18 16. In June 2018, Marciano resigned as Executive Chairman of the GUESS board,
19 however he was not stripped of his Chief Creative Officer title, nor was he forced to resign as a
20 board member for the remainder of his contract which was set to expire in January 2019. In
21 January 2019, Guess announced that it would be renewing Marciano's contract and he would
22 continue as a board member and Chief Creative Officer.
23
GUESS’ INTEREST IN MS. DOE IS HER CAREER DEFINING MOMENT
24
17. Marciano is a towering figure in the world of fashion and modeling, having made the
25
careers of many models and rocketed them to stardom. For example, in 1992, Marciano made
26
Houston stripper Anna Nicole Smith a GUESS girl, launching a career that led to major
27
modeling contracts, celebrity status and film roles. Supermodel Claudia Schiffer was a GUESS
28
4
1 girl, as is supermodel Gigi Hadid. Major A-list celebrities like Drew Barrymore and Jennifer
2 Lopez model for GUESS. For an aspiring model, the chance to model for GUESS is an
3 opportunity to go from obscurity to major career success.
4 18. In 2016 or 2017, Marciano found Ms. Doe on Instagram and “liked” some of her
5 photos. Ms. Doe, an aspiring model, was flattered and thrilled by this as she knew it could be a
6 huge break for her modeling career to work for GUESS. Ms. Doe immediately followed
7 Marciano on Instagram and expressed her interest in working with Marciano and GUESS to
8 Marciano on Instagram. Soon after, GUESS booked Ms. Doe for a test shoot at GUESS’
9 headquarters in Los Angeles, California. A “test shoot” is an audition or job interview for a
10 model whereupon the employer takes photographs of the model and decides whether it wants to
11 hire the model for future work with the company. Ms. Doe was thrilled for the invitation to do
12 a test shoot for GUESS as it was a huge opportunity for her modeling career.
13
MARCIANO SEXUALLY HARASSES AND GROPES MS. DOE
14
19. Upon arriving at the test shoot, Ms. Doe met Marciano at the GUESS studio and
15
then went to the dressing room to try on clothes for the test shoot. Ms. Doe tried on some
16
dresses that were too tight on her chest. She came out of the dressing room, embarrassed, and
17
apologized to Marciano that the dress did not fit correctly. Marciano reached out and grabbed
18
her breasts, told her he was a “boob guy” and that he “loved boobs.” Ms. Doe did not consent
19
to this groping of her breasts, nor did Marciano ask for her consent before her groped her. Ms.
20
Doe, new to modeling, was confused as to whether this was normal, and did not want to lose
21
this major career opportunity, so she tried to ignore and forget about this sexual assault.
22
20. In 2017, Ms. Doe messaged Marciano to ask about a test shoot with a GUESS
23
photographer. Marciano responded that he had reviewed photos from her shoot and that he
24
thought she looked “really good[.]” He then asked her, “[a]m I mistaken or did your boobs [get]
25
bigger? You know I love boobs [heart emoji] [two laughing/crying emojis]” and “Still same
26
boyfriend as 2 years ago? [kissing emoji].” These comments and questions were unwelcome
27
and disturbing to Ms. Doe. In attempt to diffuse Marciano’s offensive remarks and to continue
28

1 at GUESS, Ms. Doe politely responded that it may have been the posing and that she was still in
2 a relationship.
3 21. Ms. Doe began regularly working for GUESS as a model in 2017. At one point,
4 GUESS was booking Ms. Doe for three jobs a month. From 2017 to 2019, Ms. Doe was living
5 in Las Vegas, Nevada and travelled to Los Angeles, California for her GUESS modeling jobs.
6 22. Ms. Doe was scared to outright reject Marciano’s sexual advances, as she feared
7 angering him and jeopardizing her modeling career. GUESS employees emphasized to Ms.
8 Doe that it was important for her to keep Marciano happy. During one of her first photoshoots
9 for GUESS in 2017, Ms. Doe brought her boyfriend to the office. A GUESS photographer told
10 her to never bring her boyfriend to GUESS again as Marciano did not like it. The photographer
11 said, “if you ever want to work for Paul do not even mention having a boyfriend.” During a
12 different GUESS photoshoot in 2017, a GUESS photographer chastised Ms. Doe for not
13 immediately responding to a text she had received late the previous night from Marciano. The
14 photographer lectured Ms. Doe that she had to respond to Marciano within five minutes of
15 receiving a message, not matter what time of day it was. Ms. Doe was also told by a different
16 GUESS photographer multiple times that she needed to “push” Marciano for campaigns and
17 encouraged to send Marciano photos of herself so he did not “forget” her. Ms. Doe knew that a
18 positive relationship with Marciano was necessary for her to continue working at GUESS.
19 23. In approximately September 2017, after a store window shoot for GUESS, Marciano
20 asked Ms. Doe to meet him for coffee to celebrate. Ms. Doe became hopeful at this invitation,
21 thinking that Marciano might be booking her for a larger campaign. At the beginning of the
22 meeting, Marciano showed Ms. Doe pictures of other GUESS women in the GUESS catalogue.
23 He then again asked Ms. Doe personal questions about her boyfriend, which made Ms. Doe
24 extremely uncomfortable. At one point, Marciano reached out and grabbed Ms. Doe’s breasts
25 and said, “I’m just so attracted to you.” Ms. Doe pushed him away and told him that she was
26 not comfortable with that. She told him that she just wanted to be professional and steered the
27 conversation back towards work. Marciano gave Ms. Doe a $1,000 GUESS gift card at the end
28 of the meeting, his modus operandi with his sexual assault victims. He then asked her if she had
6
1 any cash on her. When she replied no, Marciano pulled out what looked like all the cash he had
2 in his pockets and handed it to her, about $700. Ms. Doe did not understand at the time this
3 money was part of Marciano’s plan to confuse and silence women he harassed and groped.
4 24. In approximately November 2017, Ms. Doe had a test shoot with a GUESS
5 photographer. During the shoot, there was a hair and makeup artist and a fashion stylist in
6 attendance. Marciano was not present, but the fashion stylist showed Ms. Doe text messages
7 that she was exchanging with Marciano during the shoot where he told her that he “loves” Ms.
8 Doe and that Ms. Doe is a “natural beauty.” Ms. Doe knew that Marciano and the fashion
9 stylist were close, and believes that Marciano was texting the fashion stylist to send him “sexy”
10 photos of Ms. Doe. At the end of shoot, after the photographer was done taking photos of Ms.
11 Doe in GUESS clothing, the fashion stylist led Ms. Doe to the clothing rack and abruptly told
12 Ms. Doe to strip down naked. Ms. Doe felt very uncomfortable. Ms. Doe was still new to the
13 fashion industry, so she told herself this must be how it is for all models. Ms. Doe took her bra
14 off and then the fashion stylist told her to take her underwear off as well. Ms. Doe was
15 confused and uncomfortable but was reassured knowing that at least there were only women in
16 the room. The photographer proceeded to take photos of her nude. Later that day, the fashion
17 stylist told Ms. Doe that Ms. Doe is a “campaign girl.” Ms. Doe responded that this was a dream
18 of hers - to work on a major GUESS campaign.
19 25. Later, GUESS emailed Ms. Doe images that Marciano had selected from the shoot,
20 with Ms. Doe in GUESS apparel. The photographer sent Ms. Doe a separate email with two
21 additional images Marciano never included in his selection - two of the nude photos. One of
22 the nude photos is an “implied nude,” meaning that even though Ms. Doe is naked, her genitals
23 and nipples are not visible in the photo. In the other photo, one of Ms. Doe’s nipples is visible,
24 which upset her, as she did not consent to this type of explicit photo being taken, edited, or
25 shared with anyone. She was uncomfortable with the explicit photo but was too afraid to
26 complain to the photographer about it. Ms. Doe liked the GUESS clothing photos and the
27 implied nude photo and posted them on her Instagram (she did not post the explicit nude photo).
28 After Ms. Doe posted the photos, Marciano sent her a message on WhatsApp ordering her to

1 remove the implied nude photo immediately. Ms. Doe was terrified to question him, so she did
2 as she was told. Ms. Doe was confused, as the implied nude photo was taken at a GUESS
3 photoshoot Marciano commissioned, by a GUESS photographer. Ms. Doe now understands
4 that Marciano had the GUESS photographer take the nude photos for Marciano’s personal
5 lecherous uses only. Those photos were never used for GUESS and Ms. Doe herself was not
6 even allowed to post them on her Instagram. Ms. Doe felt exploited and violated, having been
7 tricked into posing nude for Marciano’s personal gratification.
8 26. In December 2017, at a GUESS shoot, the GUESS fashion stylist was buttoning the
9 back of Ms. Doe’s dress and she once again told Ms. Doe that Ms. Doe is a “campaign girl.”
10 The fashion stylist then advised Ms. Doe to “push” Marciano for a major GUESS campaign.
11 Ms. Doe was confused and did not know what she meant by “push.” Ms. Doe now understands
12 this meant that she should sexually submit to Marciano to advance her career.
13 27. In 2018, Marciano messaged Ms. Doe after seeing her at a GUESS event they both
14 attended and asked if she was pregnant. Ms. Doe had not told GUESS or her agency yet about
15 her pregnancy, but replied that she was and asked how Marciano knew. He responded that he
16 could tell by the size of her breasts. This comment was unwelcome and offensive to Ms. Doe.
17 28. Beginning in 2018, Marciano repeatedly asked Ms. Doe for topless photos on
18 WhatsApp. Her stomach dropped the first time she received these unwelcome and offensive
19 messages. She felt heartbroken, let down, and disappointed as Marciano was someone she
20 looked up to and trusted. Ms. Doe, in the beginning, tried to change the topic or make excuses
21 for not sending him topless photos. Over time, Marciano became more insistent. During these
22 conversations, Marciano brought up how he had just spoken to a GUESS booker about her or
23 had her in mind for upcoming jobs. Ms. Doe felt pressured to send him photos or risk insulting
24 Marciano and not getting more work with GUESS. Modeling for GUESS was the pinnacle of
25 her career, so she felt compelled to comply and not anger Marciano, who had so much power
26 over her. Another GUESS photographer later informed Ms. Doe that Marciano often requests
27 GUESS models’ topless or nude photos for himself.
28

1 29. Marciano frequently told Ms. Doe about GUESS jobs he had coming up, dangling
2 career opportunities to keep her quiet. He told her “you’ve been so patient” and said that he
3 picks the right time for a model to be the “it girl.” Ms. Doe continued to work for GUESS as it
4 had always been her dream to be featured in a major GUESS campaign.
5 MARCIANO LURES MS. DOE INTO HIS RAPE ROOM AND SEXUALLY
6 ASSAULTS HER
7
30. Ms. Doe took a brief hiatus from modeling in 2019 during her pregnancy and after
8
the birth of her daughter. In February 2020, Marciano reached out to Ms. Doe and asked her to
9 meet him at an address in West Hollywood. Ms. Doe agreed as she believed that Marciano
10
wanted to meet with her to discuss her modeling career post childbirth and book her for a new
11
GUESS campaign. Ms. Doe and Marciano had only ever met one time outside of GUESS’
12 offices in September 2017 (see ^ 23) where they discussed Ms. Doe’s work for GUESS and Ms.
13
Doe made it clear that she only wanted a professional relationship with Marciano. Ms. Doe has
14
never met with Marciano socially or personally outside of her work for GUESS.
15
31. When Ms. Doe arrived at the address, she was surprised to find that it was an empty,
16
unfurnished apartment. When she entered, she said hello and Marciano immediately rushed
17
over to her and put his arm around her. He started kissing her and forced his tongue in her
18
mouth. Ms. Doe was disgusted and tried to break free but she found it difficult to push away
19 because he had his arm around her. Marciano pulled Ms. Doe to a room with a single bed in it
20
(the only furniture in the apartment). Marciano then started kissing her neck and pulled her
21
shirt down so her breasts were completely exposed. He grabbed her breasts aggressively,
22 squeezed them so hard that it hurt, and then put his mouth on her breasts. Ms. Doe said, “I
23
don’t want this.” Marciano ignored her and told her that their sexual encounter “needed to
happen.”
24
25
32. Ms. Doe froze and Marciano said, “I’m just so attracted to you.” He told her, “I
26
really want to work with you. I’ve wanted to do this with you for so long.” Marciano tried to
27
take her pants off but Ms. Doe told him no. He then unzipped his pants and exposed his penis
28
to her. Ms. Doe, shocked, was afraid as she was alone in the apartment with Marciano and
9
1 feared what he would do to her, both physically and professionally, if she outright refused him.
2 She had already clearly told him no, which he ignored. Her breasts hurt from his grabbing them.
3 Clearly, he was not going to let her leave until he was satisfied. Terrified, Ms. Doe was forced
4 to perform oral sex on him.
5 33. Afterwards, Marciano gave Ms. Doe a $1,000 GUESS gift card. As she was leaving,
6 he told her that he was going to book her for more work, mentioned an upcoming GUESS
7 campaign, and even said that she should consider moving closer to GUESS’ studios for future
8 jobs. Ms. Doe understood this to mean that she should not tell anyone about the assault if she
9 wanted keep working with GUESS and was being booked for more work at GUESS because
10 she had submitted to Marciano’s sexual advances. When she returned to her car, Marciano
11 texted her and instructed her to delete all of their text messages regarding their meeting that day.
12 34. Ms. Doe now understands that Marciano keeps that empty apartment to lure in
13 models under the pretense of talking about their careers and then sexually assaults them. It has a
14 bed as its only furniture so that he can use it as his personal rape room.
15 35. After this oral rape, Ms. Doe was in shock. She went through a period of denial,
16 pretended everything was fine and did not initially speak of it.
17 36. As always, GUESS models are rewarded for ignoring Marciano’s sexual
18 misconduct. While she remained silent, Ms. Doe continued to get booked for GUESS modeling
19 jobs scheduled in July, September, and October 2020.
20 37. After this harrowing sexual assault, Ms. Doe’s mental health declined precipitously.
21 In September 2020, Ms. Doe finally spoke to her husband about the assault, after speaking
22 constantly in previous weeks about ending her own life. She told him about the assault because
23 she wanted him to know that she was going to kill herself not because she did not love him or
24 their daughter, but because she had been sexually assaulted by Marciano.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
10
1 MS. DOE REPORTS THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT TO GUESS
2
38. Instead of killing herself, Ms. Doe resolved that Marciano had to be stopped -- for
3
herself, and to protect other women. Ms. Doe remained terrified, but she summoned her
4
courage.
5
39. On September 29, 2020, Ms. Doe submitted a formal written complaint to Susan
6
Tenney, GUESS’ Senior Director of Human Resources, about Marciano’s sexual assaults and
7
harassment. She reported that Marciano had been sexually harassing and groping her since 2017
8
and that he had forced her to perform oral sex on him in February 2020. Ms. Doe had a
9
scheduled shoot at GUESS the next day, and requested that Marciano not be present. Ms.
10
Tenney responded that GUESS would look into the matter.
11
40. Later that day, Ms. Doe emailed Ms. Tenney and requested that the GUESS shoot
12
the next day be postponed as she was having severe anxiety from the stress of the sexual
13
misconduct and having to relive it all in her Human Resources complaint. GUESS agreed. Ms.
14
Doe also reported the sexual assault to her modeling agents that same day. To date, GUESS has
15
not reached out to reschedule the postponed shoot.
16 41. On September 30, 2020, Ms. Doe was informed by her photographer friend that
17
Marciano wanted to book Ms. Doe and the photographer for a global GUESS campaign
18
shooting at the end of October (“October 2020 GUESS Campaign”). Apparently, Marciano had
19
not yet been notified of Ms. Doe’s formal complaint against him at the time he made this
20
request. Previously, Ms. Doe had almost exclusively done smaller shoots for GUESS and work
21 for their e-commerce website. Doing a full-blown global campaign for GUESS was a career
22
making job for a model, and something that Ms. Doe had been dreaming about for years. Ms.
23
Doe accepted the offer.
24
42. GUESS and Marciano met with Ms. Doe’s agency (“Modeling Agency”) , on
25
October 9, 2020 about her sexual harassment complaint. Ms. Doe was not informed about this
26
meeting until after it occurred. During the meeting, GUESS told Ms. Doe’s agent they were
27
willing to do whatever it took to make sure she did not pursue her claims. GUESS offered Ms.
28
11
1 Doe, through her agent, more campaigns, e-commerce shoots at a higher rate, and money if Ms.
2 Doe did not pursue a lawsuit. After the meeting, Ms. Doe’s agent called Ms. Doe to recount
3 what happened and pressured her to accept the offer. She did not accept. Modeling Agency has
4 not booked Ms. Doe for modeling work since their October 9, 2020 meeting with Guess.
5 Modeling Agency had previously been booking Ms. Doe for approximately four modeling jobs
6 a month. Modeling Agency has a long history of working with GUESS (with models other than
7 Ms. Doe). Upon information and belief, Defendants influenced and wrongfully caused
8 Modeling Agency to stop booking work with Ms. Doe, in retaliation for her sexual harassment
9 complaint.
10
GUESS RETALIATES AGAINST MS. DOE
11
43. During a fitting for the October 2020 GUESS Campaign on October 13, 2020,
12
GUESS Human Resources brought Ms. Doe into a meeting and told her they did not see any
13
evidence of sexual harassment, even though they had not interviewed her and there was no sign
14
they ever did a real investigation. GUESS told her that Marciano considered her complaint a
15
“glitch” in their relationship and said they considered the situation to be fixable. GUESS
16
offered her more work and money during the meeting, the implication being that they wanted to
17
keep her case quiet. Ms. Doe was shocked that GUESS was attempting to bribe her into not
18
speaking out about her sexual misconduct claims.
19
44. On October 16, 2020, Ms. Doe’s agent texted Ms. Doe that the October 2020
20
GUESS Campaign was “on hold” until further notice. Ms. Doe’s agent did not have any
21
information about when the new date for the shoot would be, or if it would be rescheduled at all.
22
Ms. Doe was crushed, as the campaign had been a huge opportunity for her career. In addition
23
to having already done the fitting for the campaign, GUESS had already booked a hotel
24
accommodation for Ms. Doe for October 25-27, 2020, the dates of the shoot.
25
45. On October 28, 2020, Marciano direct messaged Ms. Doe on Instagram the image of
26
two hands clasped together with the words “you” and “me” on either side and “we” in the
27
middle. Ms. Doe was upset by the message and understood it to mean that she and Marciano
28
12
1 were in this together and she should not oppose him by pursuing her claims. Ms. Doe reported
2 this incident to GUESS’ Human Resources on October 29, 2020 and requested that the incident
3 be investigated. GUESS’ Human Resources replied that GUESS would look into the matter.
4 GUESS did not follow up with Ms. Doe about this complaint.
5 46. In early November 2020, Ms. Doe saw on Instagram that GUESS was shooting a
6 campaign with the same photographer, make-up artist, and hair stylist that were going to be
7 used for her campaign. She was devastated that GUESS replaced her. No reason was given to
8 her as to why she was removed from the campaign.
9 47. After her September 2020 written sexual harassment complaint, GUESS has never
10 allowed Ms. Doe to work there again. It cancelled her campaign and has not offered her any
11 further work.
12
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
13
48. On December 18, 2020, prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, Ms. Doe submitted the
14
requisite information to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH),
15
including information regarding Defendants denying her a work environment free of
16
discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on her gender and other protected
17
characteristics beginning in 2017.
18
49. On December 18, 2020, the DFEH issued Ms. Doe a right-to-sue notice. See Exhibit
19
A (redactions are applied to Ms. Doe’s true name).
20
21 LEGAL CLAIMS
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

23
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT - SEXUAL HARASSMENT (GOV. CODE § 12940)
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
24
50. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the
25
allegations contained in each of the paragraphs above.
26
51. Plaintiff is an “applicant” and a “person providing services pursuant to a contract”
27
under California Government Code § 12940(j).
28
13
1 52. Defendants are “employers” and Marciano is a “person” under California
2 Government Code § 12940(j).
3 53. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct on the basis of her gender in
4 violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §
5 12940 et seq. (“FEHA”).
6 54. During the three years Ms. Doe worked for GUESS from 2017 to 2020, Marciano
7 made several unwelcome sexual advances towards her: he groped her breasts on two occasions,
8 demanded that she send him topless photos of herself, asked her inappropriate personal
9 questions, and, most egregiously, he orally raped her.
10 55. Defendants participated in, assisted or encouraged the harassing conduct. Marciano
11 is also personally liable for such harassment under Gov. Code § 12940(j).
12 56. The conduct of Defendants, as alleged in this Complaint, was so severe, widespread
13 or persistent to alter the terms and conditions of employment and was sufficiently severe and/or
14 pervasive such that it created a hostile and abusive work environment.
15 57. The conduct of the Defendants, as alleged in this Complaint, was so severe or
16 pervasive that a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the work
17 environment to be hostile or abusive.
18 58. Plaintiff perceived and considered the work environment to be hostile and abusive as
19 a result of the conduct of Defendants, as alleged in this Complaint.
20 59. Defendants are liable and responsible for the acts of their agents, supervisors and
21 employees under Government Code § 12940(j) because Defendants knew of or had constructive
22 knowledge of said conduct and failed to take timely and appropriate corrective action.
23 60. Defendants created, fostered, tolerated, and condoned a work environment that was
24 pervasively and/or severely hostile to Plaintiff on account of Plaintiff’s gender.
25 61. Defendants ratified the conduct of Marciano in failing to take immediate and
26 appropriate corrective action.
27 62. Defendants knew or should have known of the conduct but failed to take immediate
28 and appropriate corrective action by failing and refusing to remedy the hostile work
14
1 environment and by failing and refusing to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from
2 occurring by permitting Marciano to continuously harass Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s gender.
3 63. Defendants committed their tortious and wrongful acts in the course and scope of
4 their employment.
5 64. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
6 65. Defendants are also liable for the discrimination and harassment of Plaintiff under
7 principles of vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat superior, and are
8 responsible for damages caused by said conduct.
9 66. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions as herein alleged,
10 Plaintiff has suffered and continue to suffer extreme physical and emotional distress, financial
11 hardship, wage losses, humiliation, mental and physical pain, and other damages in an amount
12 to be proven at trial.
13 67. The above referenced acts of Defendants were authorized or ratified by officers or
14 managing agents of Defendants, and were done intentionally and with malice, entitling Plaintiff
15 to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of
16 said Defendants.
17 68. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, as herein alleged,
18 Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, legal fees, costs, and other expenses in the
19 prosecution of this matter.
20
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21 QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT (GOV. CODE § 12940)
22 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
23
24
25
70. Marciano made unwanted sexual advances to Plaintiff and engaged in physical
26 conduct of a sexual nature.
27
71. During the three years Ms. Doe worked for GUESS from 2017 to 2020, Marciano
28
made constant unwelcome sexual advances towards her: he groped her breasts on two
15
1 occasions, demanded that she send him topless photos of herself, asked her inappropriate
2 personal questions, and, most egregiously, he orally raped her.
3 72. Ms. Doe knew that Marciano was the gatekeeper for models to book work for
4 GUESS and Marciano frequently discussed upcoming GUESS jobs with Ms. Doe.
5 73. Ms. Doe submitted to Marciano’s sexual harassment for three years, and Marciano
6 and GUESS booked Ms. Doe for work throughout this time.
7 74. After Marciano orally raped Ms. Doe in February 2020, she was booked for three
8 GUESS jobs that same year.
9 75. After Ms. Doe finally rebuffed Marciano’s sexual advances, by filing a Human
10 Resources complaint against him, Marciano and GUESS stopped booking her for modeling
11 work.
12 76. The terms of Plaintiff’s employment, job benefits and/or favorable working
13 conditions were made contingent, by words and conduct, on Plaintiff’s acceptance of
14 Marciano’s sexual advances and conduct.
15 77. Marciano committed his tortious and wrongful acts in the course and scope of his
16 employment and at the time of his conduct, Marciano was a supervisor for Defendants.
17 78. Plaintiff was harmed as a result of Marciano’s tortious conduct.
18 79. Marciano’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
19 80. Defendants created, fostered, tolerated, and condoned a work environment that was
20 pervasively and/or severely hostile to Plaintiff on account of her gender.
21 81. Defendants participated in, assisted or encouraged the harassing conduct of
22 Marciano.
23 82. Defendants ratified the conduct of Marciano in failing to take immediate and
24 appropriate corrective action.
25 83. Defendants are liable and responsible for the acts of their agents, supervisors and
26 employees under Government Code § 12940(j) because Defendants knew of or had constructive
27 knowledge of said conduct and failed to take timely and appropriate corrective action by failing
28 and refusing to remedy the hostile work environment and by failing and refusing to take all
16
1 reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring by permitting Marciano to continuously
2 harass Plaintiff because of her gender.
3 84. Defendants are also liable for the harassment of Plaintiff under principles of
4 vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat superior, and is responsible for damages
5 caused by said conduct.
6 85. Marciano is also personally liable for such harassment under Gov. Code § 12940(j).
7 86. As a direct and proximate result of Marciano’s actions and Defendants’ actions and
8 inactions as herein alleged, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer extreme physical and
9 emotional distress, financial hardship, wage losses, humiliation, mental and physical pain, and
10 other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
11 87. The above referenced acts of Marciano were authorized or ratified by officers or
12 managing agents of Defendants, and were done intentionally and with malice, entitling Plaintiff
13 to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of
14 Defendants and Marciano.
15 88. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and Marciano’s actions, as
16 herein alleged, Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, legal fees, costs, and other
17 expenses in the prosecution of this matter.
18
THTRD CAUSE OF ACTION
19 FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT (GOV. CODE § 12940(k))
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT DEFENDANT MARCIANO)
20
21
22
90. During Plaintiff’s time as an applicant to GUESS and performing services for
23
GUESS pursuant to a contract, Defendants failed to prevent discrimination and harassment
24
against Plaintiff in violation of Government Code §12940(k). Plaintiff presented Defendants
25
with multiple complaints and opportunities to address pervasively hostile conditions, sexual
26
harassment and circumstances of discrimination on the basis of gender. Still, Defendants did
27
28
17
1 nothing to address these complaints. Instead, Plaintiff was subjected to more severe conditions
2 of hostile environment, sexual harassment and sexual discrimination.
3 91. Further, GUESS has been on notice since at least 2009 that Marciano sexually
4 harasses and assaults female models. At least seven women before Ms. Doe previously accused
5 Marciano of abusing his position to sexually harass models (see ^ 10-14) yet GUESS did
6 nothing to stop Marciano’s harassment.
7 92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions and inactions, as
8 herein alleged, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer extreme physical and emotional
9 distress, financial hardship, wage losses, humiliation, mental and physical pain, and other
10 damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
11 93. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions and inactions, as
12 herein alleged, Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, legal fees, costs, and other expenses
13 in the prosecution of this matter.
14
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 SEXUAL FAVORITISM (GOV. CODE § 12940)
16
17
18
95. There was widespread sexual favoritism in the work environment during Plaintiff’s
19
time as an applicant to GUESS and during the time that she was performing services for
20
Defendants pursuant to a contract. Marciano had a sexual relationship with other models who
21
did not rebuff his sexual advances and, as a result, were not denied work opportunities.
22
96. By contrast, when Ms. Doe rebuffed Marciano’s sexual advances, by reporting him
23
to GUESS Human Resources, GUESS and Marciano stopped booking Ms. Doe for modeling
24
work at GUESS.
25
97. The sexual favoritism was severe and pervasive.
26
98. A reasonable person in Plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the work
27
environment to be hostile or abusive because of the widespread sexual favoritism.
28
18
1 99. Plaintiff considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive because of the
2 widespread sexual favoritism.
3 100. Marciano participated in, and Defendants encouraged the sexual favoritism.
4 101. Plaintiff was harmed and the aforementioned conduct was a substantial factor in
5 causing Plaintiff’s harm.
6
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CIVIL CODE § 51.9)
9 102. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the
10
11
103. During Plaintiff’s time as an applicant to GUESS and during her professional
12 relationship with Defendants, Marciano intentionally, recklessly and wantonly made sexual
13 advances, solicitations, requests, demands for sexual compliance of a hostile nature based on
14
Plaintiff’s gender that were unwelcome, pervasive and severe, all while Marciano was acting in
15
the course and scope of his agency/ employment with Defendants. Throughout her professional
16
relationship with Guess, Marciano groped Ms. Doe’s breasts, demanded that she send him
17
topless photos of herself, asked her inappropriate personal questions, and, most egregiously, he
18
orally raped her.
19 104. The incidents of abuse outlined herein above took place while Plaintiff was under
20
the control of Marciano, in his capacity and position as Founder and Chief Creative Officer of
21 Defendants and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants.
22
105. During Plaintiff’s time as an applicant, Marciano intentionally, recklessly and
23
wantonly did acts which resulted in psychological harm to the Plaintiff, including but not
24
limited to, using his position as Founder and Chief Creative Officer of Defendants to sexually
25
harass and abuse Plaintiff, and to use his authority and position of trust to exploit the Plaintiff
26
emotionally.
27
28
19
1 106. Because of Plaintiff’s relationship with Marciano as an applicant at GUESS,
2 Plaintiff was unable to easily terminate the employer-applicant relationship she had with
3 Marciano.
4 107. Because of Marciano’s position of authority over Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s mental
5 and emotional state, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not give meaningful consent to such acts.
6 108. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these activities by
7 Marciano, Defendants did nothing to investigate, supervise or monitor Marciano to ensure the
8 safety of the applicants, but instead ratified such conduct by retaining Marciano in employment
9 and retaining the benefits of his employment.
10 109. Defendants’ conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff. Defendants ratified
11 Marciano’s illicit sexual harassment of Plaintiff by retaining him in employment despite having
12 knowledge that the sexual harassment was occurring.
13 110. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to
14 suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of
15 emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of
16 enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to
17 be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will
18 sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur
19 expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.
20 111. The aforesaid acts directed towards the Plaintiff were carried out with a conscious
21 disregard of Plaintiff’s right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute
22 oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to
23 punitive damages against Marciano in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of
24 him, and also pursuant to Civil Code section 52. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees and
25 costs from Marciano and GUESS pursuant to Civil Code section 52, especially given
26 Defendants’ authorization or ratification of such acts by their managing agents, officers or
27 directors.
28 ///
20

1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUAL BATTERY (CIVIL CODE § 1708.5)
2
4 allegations contained in each of the paragraphs above.
5 113. Marciano is a “person” under California Civil Code § 1708.5.
6 114. In committing the acts described above, Marciano acted with the intent to make
7 offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiff. He did, in fact, bring himself into offensive
8 and unwelcome sexual contact with Plaintiff as described hereinabove.
9 115. As described more fully above, Marciano subjected Ms. Doe to unconsented and
10 intentional invasions of her right to be free from sexually offensive and harmful physical
11 contact.
12 116. As a direct and proximate result of Marciano’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered and
13 will continue to suffer pain and suffering, extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional
14 distress; and Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other
15 employment benefits and job opportunities.
17 managing agents of Defendants. Defendants are thus also liable for the aforementioned sexual
18 battery of Plaintiff and responsible for damages caused by said conduct under principles of
19 vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat superior.
20 118. Marciano’s conduct was malicious and oppressive, and done with a conscious
21 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Because Marciano acted in his capacity as Founder and Chief
22 Creative Officer of GUESS, he abused and betrayed his special relationship of trust and
23 confidence to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages pursuant to California Civil
24 Code section 3294 from Marciano in an amount to be determined at trial.
25
119. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions and inactions, as
26
herein alleged, Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, legal fees, costs and other expenses
27
in the prosecution of this matter.
28
21
1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUAL ASSAULT (CIVIL CODE § 340.16)
2
5
121. As described more fully above, Marciano committed and/or attempted to commit a
6
sexual assault against Ms. Doe by touching Ms. Doe’s breasts while she was unlawfully
7
restrained by Marciano and by forcing Ms. Doe to engage in oral copulation.
8
122. As a direct and proximate result of Marciano’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered and
9
will continue to suffer pain and suffering, extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional
10
distress; and Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other
11
employment benefits and job opportunities.
12
123. The above referenced acts of Marciano were authorized or ratified by officers or
13
managing agents of Defendants. Defendants are thus also liable for the aforementioned sexual
14
battery of Plaintiff and responsible for damages caused by said conduct under principles of
15
vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat superior.
16
124. Marciano’s conduct was malicious and oppressive, and done with a conscious
17
disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Because Marciano acted in his capacity as Founder and Chief
18
Creative Officer of GUESS, he abused and betrayed his special relationship of trust and
19
confidence to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages pursuant to California Civil
20
Code section 3294 from Marciano in an amount to be determined at trial.
21
125. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions and inactions, as
22
herein alleged, Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, legal fees, costs and other expenses
23
in the prosecution of this matter.
24
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 GENDER VIOLENCE (CIVIL CODE § 52.4)
27
28
22

1 127. Marciano committed a physical intrusion and a physical invasion of a sexual
2 nature under coercive conditions against Ms. Doe as described herein. At no time did Ms. Doe
3 consent to these acts.
4 128. The substantial motivating reason for Marciano’s conduct as described herein was
5 Ms. Doe’s gender.
6 129. In committing the acts described herein, Marciano acted with the intent to make
7 offensive contact with Plaintiff. He did, in fact, bring himself into offensive and unwelcome
8 sexual contact with Plaintiff as described hereinabove.
9 130. As described more fully above, Marciano subjected Plaintiff to unconsented and
10 intentional invasions of her right to be free from sexually offensive and harmful physical
11 contact.
12 131. As a direct and proximate result of Marciano’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered and
13 will continue to suffer pain and suffering, extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional
14 distress; and Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other
15 employment benefits and job opportunities.
17 managing agents of Defendants. Defendants are thus also liable for the aforementioned
18 invasions of Plaintiff’s rights and responsible for damages caused by said conduct under
19 principles of vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat superior.
22 Creative Officer of GUESS, he abused and betrayed his special relationship of trust and
24 Code section 3294 from Marciano in an amount to be determined at trial.
26 herein alleged, Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, legal fees, costs and other expenses
28
23

1 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
2
5 136. During the course and scope of employment, Marciano intentionally deprived
6 Plaintiff of her freedom of movement by use of force and unreasonable duress by physically
7 forcing her to remain in his rape room,
8 137. In February 2020, Marciano physically restrained Ms. Doe from leaving their
9 meeting by holding her back with his arm.
10 138. Plaintiff did not knowingly or voluntarily consent to remaining in his rape room for
11 the full period of time that she was present therein.
12 139. As a result of Marciano physically forcing Plaintiff to remain in his rape room
13 without her consent, Plaintiff was actually harmed.
14 140. Marciano’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm, including
15 general and special damages exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit of this court.
16
141. GUESS was aware of Marciano’s rape room and did nothing to shut it down.
17
GUESS did not prohibit Marciano from meeting models in private locations, including without
18
limitation his rape room.
20 managing agents of Defendants. Defendants thus also liable for the aforementioned deprivation
21 of Plaintiff’s movement and responsible for damages caused by said conduct under principles of
22 vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat superior.
25 Creative Officer of Defendants, he abused and betrayed his special relationship of trust and
27 Code section 3294 from Marciano and from GUESS in an amount to be determined at trial.
28
24
2 herein alleged, Plaintiff has incurred, and continues to incur, legal fees, costs and other expenses
4
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 RETALIATION (GOV. CODE § 12940(h))
(AGAINST GUESS AND DOES 1-25 ONLY)
6
7
8
146. In September 2020 and October 2020, Ms. Doe reported Marciano’s sexual
9
harassment, assault, and retaliation to GUESS Human Resources.
10
147. After Ms. Doe complained, GUESS and Marciano retaliated against Ms. Doe by,
11
among other things, cancelling Ms. Doe for the October 2020 Guess Campaign, failing to
12
reschedule one of her postponed Guess modeling shoots, and stopping any further bookings of
13
Ms. Doe for modeling work at GUESS.
14
148. Plaintiff was, at all times material hereto, a female applicant and person providing
15
services pursuant to a contract who engaged in legally protected activities and within a
16
protected class covered by the FEHA, prohibiting retaliation in employment predicated on
17
sex/gender.
18
149. Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ discriminatory and sexually harassing acts by
19
rebuffing, rejecting and protesting the aforementioned offensive touchings and conduct.
20
150. Defendants denied Plaintiff certain employment and work opportunities in
21
retaliation for her rejection of unwanted sexual behavior.
22
151. As a result of Defendants’ retaliation against her, Plaintiff has suffered and
23
continues to suffer damages, in the form of lost wages and other employment benefits, and
24
severe emotional and physical distress.
25
152. Defendants acted intentionally and with malice for the purpose of causing Plaintiff
26
to suffer financial loss and severe emotional distress, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive
27
damages in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of said defendants.
28
25
1 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
2
(AGAINST MARCIANO ONLY)
5
154. Marciano sexually harassed, intimidated and threatened Plaintiff. Marciano abused
6
a position of physical and apparent power where he had Plaintiff at his mercy.
7
155. Marciano’s conduct toward Plaintiff was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed
8
the bounds of decency in a civilized society.
9
156. Marciano knew his conduct was likely to result in harm and mental distress.
10
157. Marciano intended to and did intentionally or recklessly cause Plaintiff to suffer
11
severe emotional distress.
12
158. Marciano’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Doe’s harm.
13
159. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, Ms. Doe has
14
sustained and will sustain physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, anxiety,
15
humiliation, and emotional distress.
16
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION
18 (AGAINST GUESS AND DOES 1-25 ONLY)
19
20
21 161. At all relevant times, there was an employment relationship between Defendants
22 and Marciano. By virtue of Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendants, and Defendants’
23 relationship to Marciano, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to not retain Marciano given his
24 dangerous and exploitive propensities, which Defendants knew or reasonably should have
25 known had they engaged in a meaningful and adequate investigation of the prior workplace
26 complaints made against him by other models and aspiring models.
27 162. Defendants also owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care in the supervision of its
28 employees, including Marciano.
26
1 163. Defendants breached their duty of care in the supervision of and retention of
2 Marciano. GUESS has been on notice since at least 2009 that Marciano sexually harasses and
3 assaults female models. At least seven women before Ms. Doe previously accused Marciano of
4 abusing his position to sexually harass models (see ^ 10-14) yet GUESS did nothing to stop
5 Marciano’s harassment.
6 164. Defendants knew or should have known through proper and thorough interview,
7 intake, review of employee complaints and other indicators that Marciano was unfit and
8 incompetent and that this unfitness and incompetence to perform the work for which he was
9 hired, and that he created a risk to Defendants’ applicants and employees. Defendants knew or
10 should have known that Marciano could not be trusted to act properly without being supervised.
11 Marciano’s unfitness and incompetence created a particular risk to Plaintiff and indeed harmed
12 Plaintiff.
13 165. Defendants’ negligence in supervising and retaining Marciano was a substantial
14 factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm including general and special damages exceeding the
15 minimum jurisdictional limit of this court.
16 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS
18
19
20
167. Plaintiff and Modeling Agency were an in economic relationship that probably
21
would have resulted in an economic benefit to Ms. Doe. Ms. Doe had been working with
22
Modeling Agency since May 2020 and Modeling Agency had procured approximately four
23
modeling jobs a month for Ms. Doe.
24
168. Defendants knew or should have known of this relationship. Defendants had
25
previously booked Ms. Doe through Modeling Agency for her modeling work at GUESS.
26
169. Defendants failed to act with reasonable care with respect to the economic
27
relationship between Ms. Doe and Modeling Agency.
28
27
1 170. Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct with respect to the economic relationship
2 between Ms. Doe and Modeling Agency. Defendants met with Modeling Agency on October 9,
3 2020 and Modeling Agency has not booked Ms. Doe for modeling work since the meeting.
4 Defendants interfered with Ms. Doe’s relationship with Modeling Agency in retaliation for Ms.
5 Doe’s sexual harassment complaints.
6 171. By engaging in this conduct, Defendants intended to disrupt the economic
7 relationship and/or knew that disruption of the relationship was certain or substantially certain
8 to occur.
9 172. The economic relationship between Ms. Doe and Modeling Agency was disrupted.
10 The amount of work Modeling Agency booked for Ms. Doe went from approximately four
11 modeling jobs a month to zero after their October 9, 2020 meeting with Defendants.
12 173. As a result of this wrongful conduct, Ms. Doe was harmed. Booking modeling
13 work through Modeling Agency was Ms. Doe’s main source of income, and she has suffered
14 substantial economic and professional harm.
15 174. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Doe’s harm.
16 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS
18
19
20
176. Plaintiff and Modeling Agency were in an economic relationship that probably
21
would have resulted in an economic benefit to Ms. Doe. Ms. Doe had been working with
22
Modeling Agency since May 2020 and Modeling Agency had procured approximately four
23
modeling number of modeling jobs a month for Ms. Doe.
24
177. Defendants knew or should have known of this relationship. Defendants had
25
previously booked Ms. Doe through Modeling Agency for her modeling work at GUESS.
26
27
28
28
1 178. Defendants knew or should have known that this relationship would be disrupted if
2 Defendants failed to act with reasonable care with respect to the economic relationship between
3 Ms. Doe and Modeling Agency.
4 179. Defendants failed to act with reasonable care with respect to the economic
5 relationship between Ms. Doe and Modeling Agency.
6 180. Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct with respect to the economic relationship
7 between Ms. Doe and Modeling Agency. Defendants met with Modeling Agency on October 9,
8 2020 and Modeling Agency has not booked Ms. Doe for modeling work since the meeting.
9 Defendants interfered with Ms. Doe’s relationship with Modeling Agency in retaliation for Ms.
10 Doe’s sexual harassment complaints.
11 181. By engaging in this conduct, Defendants intended to disrupt the economic
12 relationship and/or knew that disruption of the relationship was certain or substantially certain
13 to occur.
14 182. The economic relationship between Ms. Doe and Modeling Agency was disrupted.
15 The amount of work Modeling Agency booked for Ms. Doe went from approximately four
16 modeling jobs a month to zero after their October 9, 2020 meeting with Defendants.
17 183. As a result of this wrongful conduct, Ms. Doe was harmed. Booking modeling
18 work through Modeling Agency was Ms. Doe’s main source of income, and she has suffered
19 substantial economic and professional harm.
20 184. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Doe’s harm.
21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
22
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and damages against each of the
23
Defendants as follows:
24
1. General damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
25
2. Past and future medical and related expenses in an amount to be determined by proof
26
at trial;
27
3. Past and future lost earnings in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
28
29
1 4. Impairment of earning capacity in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
2 5. Punitive damages pursuant to applicable law;
3 6. Reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to applicable law;
4 7. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest, including but not limited to, California
5 Civil Code § 3288; and
6 8. Any other and further relief that the Court considers just and proper.
7
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
8
Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury as to all claims for monetary damages.
9
DATED: January 19, 2021 Lisa Bloom
10 Lisa Bloom, Esq.
11
Alan Goldstein, Esq.
Sarah Bloom, Esq.
12 THE BLOOM FIRM
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
EXHIBIT A
m
rwLo
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
X
Department of Fair Employment & Housing KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
December 17, 2020
RE: Notice to Complainant

DFEH Matter Number.
Right to Sue: | / Guess ?, Inc. et al.
Dear
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DfEh) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. If you do not have an attorney, you must serve the complaint yourself.
Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for information
regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice of Filing of
Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.
Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing

m
rwLo
X

December 17, 2020
RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

DFEH Matter Number:
Right to Sue: / Guess ?, Inc. et al.
To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government
Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government
Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit.
This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of
the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact
information.
No response to DFEH is requested or required.
Sincerely,

m
rwLo
X

December 17, 2020
, California
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

DFEH Matter Number:
Right to Sue: / Guess ?, Inc. et al.
Dear
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective
December 17, 2020 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH
will take no further action on the complaint.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to 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 letter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact 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,

1 COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
3
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
4
In the Matter of the Complaint of
5 DFEH No.
6 Complainant,
vs.
7
8 Guess ?, Inc.
1444 S Alameda Street
9 Los Angeles, California 90021
10 Paul Marciano
11
Respondents
12
13 1. Respondent Guess ?, Inc. is an employer Guess ?, Inc. subject to suit under the California
14 Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
15 2. Complainant is naming Paul Marciano as individual Co-Respondent(s).

16 3. Complainant |, resides in the City of , State of California.
17 4. Complainant alleges that on or about December 17, 2020, respondent took the
following adverse actions:
18
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, marital status, other,
19 pregnancy, childbirth, breast feeding, and/or related medical conditions, sexual harassment-
20 hostile environment, sexual harassment- quid pro quo.
21 Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's sex/gender, marital

status, other, pregnancy, childbirth, breast feeding, and/or related medical conditions, sexual
22 harassment- hostile environment, sexual harassment- quid pro quo and as a result of the
discrimination was terminated, laid off, denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, denied equal
23 pay, suspended, demoted, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied any
employment benefit or privilege, other, denied work opportunities or assignments.
24
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form
25 of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a pregnancy-disability related accom.
and as a result was terminated, denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, denied equal pay,
26
27 -1-
Complaint - DFEH No.
28
Date Filed: December 17, 2020
1 suspended, demoted, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied any
employment benefit or privilege, other, denied work opportunities or assignments.
2
3 Additional Complaint Details: I was sexually harassed, discriminated and retaliated

against by Respondents Guess ?, Inc. and Paul Marciano in a series of events from 2017 to
4 the present.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -2-
28
Date Filed: December 17, 2020
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, |, am the Complainant in the above-entitled complaint. I have
read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my
3
own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information
4 and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
5 On December 17, 2020, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
6
7 California
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -3-
28 Date Filed: December 17, 2020

Jane Doe v. Paul Marciano, GUESS?, Inc.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Jane Doe v. Paul Marciano, GUESS?, Inc.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/19/2021 03:18 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Clifton,Deputy Clerk

Lisa Bloom, Esq. (SBN 158458)

26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT Jane Doe v. Guess ?, Inc., Paul Marciano, etal.

10 nothing to protect women from his frequent predations.

27 against Marciano, who remained in his position.

COMPLAINT Jane Doe v. Guess ?, Inc., Paul Marciano, etal.

COMPLAINT Jane Doe v. Guess ?, Inc., Paul Marciano, etal.

COMPLAINT Jane Doe v. Guess ?, Inc., Paul Marciano, etal.

COMPLAINT Jane Doe v. Guess ?, Inc., Paul Marciano, etal.

22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

26 conduct of a sexual nature.

21 Defendants and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants.

COMPLAINT Jane Doe v. Guess ?, Inc., Paul Marciano, etal.

COMPLAINT Jane Doe v. Guess ?, Inc., Paul Marciano, etal.

COMPLAINT Jane Doe v. Guess ?, Inc., Paul Marciano, etal.

22 and Marciano. By virtue of Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendants, and Defendants’

26 complaints made against him by other models and aspiring models.

28 employees, including Marciano.

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

December 17, 2020

RE: Notice to Complainant

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

December 17, 2020

RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

No response to DFEH is requested or required.

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

December 17, 2020

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

15 2. Complainant is naming Paul Marciano as individual Co-Respondent(s).

21 Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's sex/gender, marital

3 Additional Complaint Details: I was sexually harassed, discriminated and retaliated

You might also like