Hesse v. HBO

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/13/2022 02:52 PM Sherri R.
Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Ruiz,Deputy Clerk

22STCV29814
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Jon Takasugi
BRANDON P. ORTIZ, (SBN: 301685)

1
brandon@ortizlawca.com
2 ORTIZ LAW OFFICE, INC.
2525 Main St. Ste. 204
3 Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: 888-376-7849
4
Telephone: 888-376-7849
5
6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
7 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
8 GEORGIA HESSE, an individual Case No.:
9 Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
10 AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
v.
11 [Assigned for All Purposes to _______]
HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., a corporation;
12 SILISHA SIDELL, an individual; and DOES 1. Whistleblower Retaliation (Labor Code
Santa Monica, CA 90405
ORTIZ LAW OFFICE, INC.
13 1-100, inclusive, § 1102.5)

2. Common Law Wrongful Termination
14 Defendants. in Violation of Public Policy
3. Age Harassment (Gov. Code §
15 12940(j)(1))
16 4. Common Law Intentional Interference
With Contractual Relations
17
Action Filed:
18
Trial Date:
19 CASE OVERVIEW
20 1. Georgia Hesse was a Production Health Advisor for season two of HBO’s hit show
21 Winning Time: The Rise Of The Lakers Dynasty, responsible for assisting the show in complying
22 with COVID health and safety requirements. Hesse was on the front lines of protecting crew from
23 the global COVID pandemic.
24 2. Shortly after she began working on Winning Time, Hesse discovered that a
25 COVID testing vendor, Cinemedics, had been defrauding HBO by billing for lab-based COVID
26 tests while providing rapid tests, which are inferior. Hesse was told that the testing results were
27 returned in 90 minutes, which was a red flag that the tests were rapids and not lab based. Crew
28 were being falsely told that they were being given (superior) lab-based tests. Furthermore, this
1
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 vendor falsely represented to HBO it had a Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments
2 (“CLIA”) waiver. However, the CLIA waiver number that Cinemedics provided belonged to a
3 different company.
4 3. Hesse repeatedly blew the whistle on Cinemedics’ fraud, which jeopardized the
5 health and safety of the crew. Hesse was repeatedly told that executive producer Kevin Messick
6 was the driving force behind hiring – and retaining – Cinemedics, even though it was more
7 expensive than competitors that offered better products and services. Indeed, Cinemedics told
8 Hesse that she had angered Messick when she attempted to cancel its contract.
9 4. In early May 2022, Hesse contacted the company that actually held the CLIA
10 waiver, to determine whether this company was affiliated with Cinemedics. The company
11 confirmed, via email, it was not familiar with Cinemedics and had not authorized it to use the
12 company’s waiver. Within 72 hours, HBO retaliated by terminating Hesse for patently absurd
13 and pretextual reasons.

14 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
15 5. Plaintiff GEORGIA HESSE (“Plaintiff” or “Hesse”) was at all times relevant to
16 this action, an employee or former employee of Defendant HOME BOX OFFICE, INC. (“Entity
17 Defendant” or “HBO”). While employed by Entity Defendant, and at all times relevant to this
18 action, Plaintiff resided in the County of Los Angeles.
19 6. Defendant HOME BOX OFFICE, INC. (“Entity Defendant”) was, at all times
20 relevant to this action, a corporation doing business in the State of California. According to
21 information Entity Defendant filed with the California Secretary of State, its principal address is
22 30 Hudson Yards, New York, NY 10001. Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief,
23 that Entity Defendant is owned and/or controlled by Warner Bros. Discovery.
24 7. Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief, that Defendant Silisha Sidell
25 (“Individual Defendant” or “Sidell”) is a resident of California. Plaintiff alleges, based upon
26 information and belief, that Sidell1 was employed by Warner Bros. Discovery, which exercised
27 control over labor relations and human resources decisions at HBO.
28
1
Sidell, an attorney, is not being sued for legal advice (if any) she provided to HBO or Warner Bros. Discovery.
Rather she is only being sued for the actions alleged herein.
2
1 8. Venue and jurisdiction are proper because the majority of the events giving rise
2 to this action took place in the County of Los Angeles; Defendant was doing business in County
3 of Los Angeles; Plaintiff’s employment was entered into in the County of Los Angeles; Plaintiff
4 worked for Defendant in the County of Los Angeles; the damages sought exceed the jurisdictional
5 minimum of this Court; and because the majority of witnesses and events occurred in the County
6 of Los Angeles
7 9. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein
8 as DOES 1 through 100. Defendants DOES 1 through 100 are sued herein under fictitious names
9 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that
10 basis alleges, that each Defendant sued under fictitious names is in some manner responsible for
11 the wrongs and damages as alleged herein. Plaintiff does not at this time know the true names or
12 capacities of said Defendants, but prays that the same may be inserted herein when ascertained.
13 10. At all times relevant to this action, each and every Defendant was an agent and/or
14 employee of each and every other Defendant (except where otherwise stated below, including
15 allegations pleaded in the alternative). In doing the things alleged in the causes of action stated
16 herein, each and every Defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency or
17 employment, and was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of each remaining
18 Defendant. All actions of each Defendant as alleged herein were ratified and approved by every
19 other Defendant or their officers or managing agents.
20 STATEMENT OF FACTS
21 11. Georgia Hesse is a college graduate who has a strong work ethic and is family
22 oriented. Hesse graduated from Azusa Pacific University with a degree in Communication and
23 Business. After starting a family, Georgia went back to school to begin a career in education to
24 have a work schedule that allowed her to be in tune with the needs of her four children. Georgia
25 continued her education ultimately finishing her Pupil Personnel Credential in Counseling at
26 University of California, Riverside, as she worked for the public school system for over 20 years.
27 In addition, during this time, Georgia owned and operated a self-defense and self-esteem program
28 for females from 10-18 years old. She also ran a program called “Naturally Me” that provided
outside support and programs for females from third to eighth grade. Hesse served on the
3
1 California Association of School Counselors as one of the executive board members.
2 12. After her children became older, Hesse left education to pursue her goal of writing.
3 She worked on a local paper focusing on the community. She had a strong desire to recognize
4 youth and their accomplishments as well as their positive influences in the community.
5 13. Once her children were in college, Hesse transitioned to a career in the
6 entertainment industry. Hesse accepted a position as a Medical Coordinator for a large medical
7 show and worked in the Med Tech department, which she held for three years.
8 14. When the COVID pandemic hit in 2020, Hesse began working as a Health and
9 Safety Manager, later called Production Health Supervisor. Hesse worked on three large shows
10 from July 2020 to March 2022. She was recognized by Showrunners, Department Heads,
11 Producers, and crew for her ability to understand production and how the new COVID
12 requirements affected their work. She was able to successfully implement Federal, State, County,
13 and Studio requirements while minimizing stress to the productions. Hesse was asked to stay with
14 a large studio to continue as a Production Health Advisor to oversee numerous shows with the
15 studio on the West Coast.
16 15. From March 28, 2020 to March 12, 2022, Hesse served as the Production
17 Supervisor and head of Production Health Department on season four of Westworld, an HBO
18 original series based upon the film and novel of the same name.
19 16. In early January 2022, during Westworld season four, Betsy Lovensheimer and
20 Jackie Carr (both employed by Entity Defendant) asked if Hesse would be interested in going to
21 a new production called Sympathizer as the Production Supervisor. Hesse said she would need a
22 break prior to starting, but would accept the role.
23 17. In February 2022, Lovensheimer and Carr offered Hesse a position as Production
24 Advisor. Jackie Carr was leaving her role as Consultant for HBO and the department was going
25 to restructure. Lovensheimer and Carr said the position would be different than her role on
26 Westworld. They said she, and two others, would serve as Advisors to assist the Production
27 Supervisors and Managers. Hesse would cover the West Coast shows starting with Winning
28 Time, Maniac Cop, and Sympathizer. Hesse accepted the job with the understanding that the
Production Advisor role would be a continuous job with HBO, overseeing numerous productions
4
1 as they ended and as new ones started up. (Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief,
2 that Entity Defendant also intended Hesse’s role to be a continuous job, overseeing numerous
3 productions as they ended and as new ones started up.)
4 18. Hesse ended her position as Production Supervisor with Westworld on March 12,
5 2022. After a brief vacation, she began in her new role as a Production Health Advisor on March
6 28, 2022.
7 19. Hesse’s deal memo was not sent until Hesse’s first day on the job. It listed Hesse
8 as a Production Health Supervisor and Coordinator rather than Advisor. Hesse asked Carr and
9 Lovensheimer why she was not listed as an Advisor, as they had discussed. They assured Hesse
10 that she would serve as an Advisor. When she asked why it continued to say Production
11 Supervisor, they said a payroll code and job description for Advisor had not been created yet, so
12 they needed to list her as a Project Supervisor for the time being. They said when a new return-
13 to-work agreement with the labor unions went into effect in late April, she would be listed as an
14 Advisor at that time.
15 20. When she began on March 28, 2022, Hesse’s responsibilities included: Serving as
16 the principal conduit between the Producers, Studio, and medical experts to ensure legal and
17 medical compliance for assigned productions; overseeing the development of the production-
18 specific COVID Return-To-Work (“RTW”) plan to ensure it meets all RTW requirements and
19 those of the Studio, location owners and local public/workplace health authorities; working with
20 Production to develop an effective testing strategy and to hire a testing provider that is able to
21 meet the Production’s needs; assisting with resolving testing contract issues or problems if any
22 arise; staying abreast of RTW and regulatory changes and working with Production to implement
23 changes accordingly; working with Production to develop budget and determine staffing needs,
24 including recommending and approving hires for positions including Production Health Manager
25 (“PHM”), PH Testing Coordinator, and any other supervisory roles; supporting PH Manager and
26 PH Testing Manager for tracing, testing, and planning; ensuring the PHM is properly oriented
27 and has an effective team in place to implement the show-specific plan; acting as a resource to
28 Producers and the PHM for high-risk questions and positive case management; assisting with
training and questions from Production, Department Heads, and principal cast; assisting with
5
1 contract tracing, isolation, and quarantine decisions; ensuring all positive cases are properly
2 reported to internal and external authorities; visiting the set and all areas of the Production at least
3 weekly to ensure the plan is being implemented in accordance with requirements and assisting to
4 resolve non-compliance issues; working with Producers and PHM to make any changes. Hesse
5 also coordinated COVID testing for pre-pre-production.
6 21. In early April 2022, it became apparent to Hesse, through her conversations with
7 Lovensheimer, that she was expected to help cut costs. Hesse believed cost cutting was achievable
8 without sacrificing safety because the prior season’s testing vendor was overpriced. When
9 productions resumed in July 2020, the studios were responsible for paying for all COVID-related
10 expenses. Toward the end of 2021, studios like Warner Bros. Discovery/HBO made the decision
11 that all COVID expenses would be the responsibility of each production including testing,
12 staffing, and supplies.
13 22. During Hesse’s first week in the new role, she was introduced to the prior year’s
14 testing vendor, Cinemedics, which the show was still using. The documents Cinemedics
15 submitted to the production mischaracterized the Cepheid tests that it provided as lab-based PRC
16 tests. These tests, however, were rapid PCR tests, which are not lab based. The production was
17 required to use lab-based PCR tests. Moreover, Hesse believed in good faith that using inferior
18 rapid tests was unsafe due to the increased risk of false negatives. It was Hesse’s understanding,
19 based upon what she had been told by medical experts, that lab-based PCR tests detect COVID
20 up to two days earlier than rapid tests, which will typically only detect COVID once the individual
21 is already actively “shedding,” i.e. contagious. (Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and
22 belief, that lab-based PCR tests detect COVID up to two days earlier than rapid tests, which will
23 typically only detect COVID once the individual is already actively “shedding,” i.e. contagious.)
24 Hesse reached out to Craig Carlyle, the representative for Cinemedics for Winning Time. Carlyle
25 directed him to Heather Drake, who was described as the owner. Hesse emailed Drake on March
26 28, 2022, seeking clarification of the above. Drake did not respond.
27 23. Moreover, Hesse discovered that Cinemedics was billing the production for lab-
28 based PCR tests when, in actuality, it provided rapid tests. Accordingly, Cinemedics engaged in
fraud.
6
1 24. Hesse immediately called Lovensheimer to tell her that the Cepheid tests were
2 rapid tests. In so doing, Hesse disclosed information to a person with authority over her and with
3 authority to investigate, discover, or correct violations and noncompliance with state and federal
4 statutes, rules, or regulations. Hesse had reasonable cause to believe that the information
5 disclosed a violation or noncompliance with state or federal statute(s), rule(s), or regulation(s).
6 25. Lovensheimer responded that the tests were fine. She claimed (erroneously) that
7 the tests were lab-based tests. Hesse responded that the RTW agreement required lab-based PCR
8 tests. More importantly, the crew was being (falsely) told that the tests were lab-based tests when,
9 in actuality, they were rapid. Hesse believed, in good faith, that intentionally misrepresenting the
10 tests to employees was fraud. Moreover, Hesse believed that Cinemedics’ misrepresentations to
11 HBO that the tests were lab-based PCR tests was also fraud.
12 26. Lovensheimer said not to worry about it because the crews working were “Zone
13 D,” which was the zone designated for remote employees who posed the lowest risk under the
14 union-studio protocols. (This information was incorrect. The employees who worked in the
15 writer’s room did not qualify for Zone D because they worked on site and used shared facilities.)
16 27. Hesse replied that crew members believed they were getting lab-based PCR tests.
17 Lovensheimer again said not to worry. She said production would be switching over to LHI tests
18 anyway because those tests were mandated on the Warner Bros. lot, where filming was taking
19 place. For crew who did not work on the lot, Lovensheimer said Hesse could use tests from The
20 Testing Company, which provided lab-based PCR tests at lower cost, better quality, and easier
21 access.
22 28. Hesse asked if the Cinemedics contract required notice before terminating it.
23 Lovensheimer replied, “no, just start using The Testing Company until you have people moved
24 into the lot, then those people will have to use LHI.”
25 29. On April 1, 2022, Hesse sent an email to Carlyle and Drake from Cinemedics
26 informing them that HBO would not be needing their services for the upcoming work for the
27 writer’s room and post-production. She also contacted LHI and the Testing Company to start
28 accounts.
30. Later that day, Hesse received a call from Drake. Drake said she had a deal with
7
1 the producers and did not understand how she was being removed. She said she had reached out
2 to Kevin Messick and Adam McKay (two of the executive producers) and that they were not
3 aware that the deal had changed. Drake claimed that Messick and McKay were upset. Drake
4 asked what she could do to keep the deal. Hesse said she would speak with her supervisor
5 (Lovenshiemer) and get back to her.
6 31. During her call with Drake, Hesse received a call from Peter Feldman. She also
7 received a message from him. “Call me[.]” She called Feldman back after she got off the phone
8 with Drake. Feldman began yelling at Hesse. “You are not a vacuum in this Production. Let’s get
9 this straight everything to do with anything must and will go through me. I should not be getting
10 a call from Kevin yelling at me asking me who the fuck this person is and ‘get this in order now.’
11 I am not even really working yet, and this is how it is going to start?” Hesse said she would speak
12 with Lovensheimer. Feldman said to fix it.
13 32. Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief, that Feldman’s statements
14 were true. To wit, that Messick called Feldman and asked him “who the fuck is this person?” – a
15 reference to Hesse – and directed Feldman to “get this in order now.”
16 33. After speaking with Feldman, Hesse called Lovensheimer. She told Lovensheimer
17 that she was just blindsided and was very concerned about being yelled at by Feldman. Hesse
18 also said that it was not a good start for her to be misrepresented to the executive producers of
19 the show. Lovensheimer said, “Don’t worry, Scott Schaefer is the executive on the show above
20 them. He knows what is going on. We have your back.” Lovensheimer told Hesse to call Drake
21 back and tell her to send over the required documentation for vendor review and approval.
22 Lovensheimer called Cinemedics prices “outrageous.” She said there is no way that the show
23 would approve Cinemedics.
24 34. Hesse called Drake back and relayed the information as directed by Lovensheimer.
25 Drake said she would send the documents and thanked Hesse for understanding. Drake said she
26 would do whatever was needed to keep the job. Hesse said she needed Drake’s licenses, pricing,
27 and the tests she offered. Drake replied, “no problem, have them all here in front of me will send
28 them in the hour.”
35. After four hours passed, Hesse still had not received the documents. With testing
8
1 required that upcoming Monday (April 4, 2022), Hesse called Drake and left message. Drake
2 called back. Drake said that after their call, she spoke with Messick and McKay and they told her
3 not to send anything to Hesse. According to Drake, Messick and McKay told her that they would
4 be meeting with her and Feldman next week and they will decide the testing deal with her.
5 Plaintiff alleges based upon information and belief that Drake’s statements were true. To wit, that
6 Messick and McKay did, in fact speak, with Drake that day (April 1, 2022), told her not to send
7 any documents to Hesse, and that they (Feldman, McKay, Messick, and Drake) would be meeting
8 the next week to decide the testing deal.
9 36. After speaking with Drake, Hesse called Lovensheimer, who said to use
10 Cinemedics again. She again commented that Cinemedics was too expensive and would not be
11 approved. “This is just all because Kevin used her on his other shows and last year, and they want
12 to use them again,” Lovensheimer said. Hesse complied with Lovensheimer’s instructions.
13 37. Hesse began to grow more suspicious about Cinemedics, which was not providing
14 copies of testing results to the crew. On or about April 4, 2022, she searched the Cinemedics
15 CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments) waiver number, 12D0950767, that it
16 provided for its season one contract for Winning Time. Hesse performed the search on the Centers
17 for Disease Control website. Hesse found that the waiver number was associated with
18 International Life Support, Inc. (which does business as American Medical Response) in Hawaii.
19 This information bolstered Hesse’s concern that Cinemedics had defrauded HBO and the crew.
20 Moreover, Hesse had heard stories in the news media about fly-by-night COVID testing
21 companies that had been implicated in scams. (By the time of season two, Cinemedics had
22 obtained a CLIA waiver. However, Hesse was nonetheless concerned about Cinemedics’s
23 integrity given its prior fraud during season one. Moreover, Cinemedics was engaged in ongoing
24 fraud by billing for lab-based tests but delivering rapid tests.)
25 38. That day, April 4, 2022, Hesse emailed Lovensheimer, Ben Gatollari, Scott
26 Schaeffer, Will Limpert, and Denver Mattos. Schaeffer was one of the executive producers.
27 Gatollari, Limpert, and Mattos were part of the Production Health Department, like Hesse, but in
28 different roles. In this email, Hesse disclosed that the CLIA waiver number that Cinemedics
submitted for season one of Winning Time did not belong to it. Hesse attached a screenshot from
9
1 the CDC website showing that the waiver belonged to International Life Support, Inc. Hesse also
2 attached a copy of the Cinemedics contract that (falsely and fraudulently) implied that the CLIA
3 waiver number 12D0950767 belonged to Cinemedics. In so doing, Hesse disclosed information
4 to persons (Lovensheimer and Schaeffer) with authority over her and with authority to
5 investigate, discover, or correct violations and noncompliance with state and federal statutes,
6 rules, or regulations. Hesse had reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the
7 email disclosed a violation or noncompliance with state or federal statute(s), rule(s), or
8 regulation(s).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 39. Lovensheimer dismissed Cinemedic’s usage of International Life Support’s CLIA
25 waiver number. She made excuses for the discrepancy. She said the individual listed as the lab
26 director in the Cinemedics contract, Dr. Seth Dukes, might somehow be affiliated with
27
International Life Support.
28
40. That week, the week of April 4, 2022, Schaeffer, Lovensheimer, Gatollari, and
10
1 Mattos held a video call. Schaeffer apologized to Hesse and said it was “my bad” because he had
2 failed to tell the team that the Warner Bros. lot required the production to use LHI testing for
3 crew working on the lot. Schaeffer said using Cinemedics was a “Kevin thing” – a reference to
4 Messick – and to let him and Lovensheimer resolve it. Schaeffer asked Hesse to do a price
5 comparison between the vendors. Hesse said she would do so, but needed Cinemedics’ pricing.
6 41. Lovensheimer asked Hesse to put her in touch with Drake so they could get the
7 documents. She directed Hesse to meet with LHI to arrange testing on the lot. Lovensheimer said
8 she would handle Cinemedics. Lovensheimer told Gatollari to email the vendor intake form to
9 Drake, and to have Drake send the complete version back.
10 42. With the start of pre-production quickly approaching, Hesse called Schaeffer on
11 April 5, 2022. She told him she wanted to protect the show from what appeared to be a fraudulent
12 company.
13 43. She disclosed to Schaeffer that the CLIA waiver number listed in Cinemedics’s
14 season one contract belonged to a different company. She also described how Cinemedics was
15 billing for lab-based tests when, in actuality, it was providing rapids.
16 44. She suggested starting fresh with a new vendor. Schaeffer responded, “What does
17 Betsy say?” She said that Lovensheimer seems to be dismissing her concerns. She told Schaeffer
18 that she was trying to be transparent with her concerns. He then stated, “Betsy said they are too
19 expensive anyways and that will be the factor and we won’t have to worry about legal. We don’t
20 want to get into this, you must understand the politics of this.” Hesse said she did. She added that
21 she was hired as an Advisor so she would not have a conflict of interest. She said she was trying
22 to protect the production but Lovensheimer was ignoring red flags. Schaeffer said he understood.
23 He said he knew that Hesse was a good person for the job, and to let him and Lovensheimer
24 handle it. He said it would all work out.
25 45. By Thursday, April 7, 2022, Hesse still had not heard anything back. Hesse asked
26 Gatollari for an update. Gatollari said that he sent the request to Drake but only copied
27 Lovensheimer, per Lovensheimer’s request. (Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief,
28 that Lovensheimer indeed instructed Gatollari not to copy Hesse on the email.) He said
Lovensheimer gave Drake a deadline of April 8, 2022.
11
1 46. Drake did not send all required documentation by the April 8, 2022 deadline.
2 Lovensheimer instructed Hesse to continue using Cinemedics for post-production and the
3 writer’s room, LHI for those working on the lot, and The Testing Company for pre-employment.
4 47. Hesse continued to hear from crew members that they were not getting copies of
5 their test results from Cinemedics. Hesse asked Drake via email to send the crew their tests
6 because they need them for other jobs to show proof of testing and they have a right to have a
7 copy. Drake said she would start sending them to Hesse.
8 48. Sometime in early April 2022, Hesse learned that Cinemedics had failed to keep
9 records of positive results, for the first season and startup of second season. Hesse believed the
10 production was legally required to maintain these records. The data that was recorded falsely
11 stated that the crew had received lab-based PCR tests, when in fact crew received Cepheid rapid
12 tests.2 Hesse brought this to Lovensheimer’s attention in a subsequent call. Lovernsheimer asked
13 what Cinemedics was charging? Hesse responded (correctly) $163 and noted that the billing
14 invoices claimed the charge was for PCR tests, when in fact the tests were rapids.
15 49. On or about April 11, 2022, Hesse received an email from Gatollari with Drake’s
16 response for the vendor form. Hesse spotted several red flags that she shared with Lovensheimer
17 in a conference call via zoom that day and in an email later that day.
18 50. Hesse told Lovensheimer that two of the crew members thought they were getting
19 quality PCR lab-based tests, not rapids. Hesse said she was not comfortable telling crew that they
20 were receiving lab-based PCR tests when they were not. (As such, Hesse refused to participate in
21 an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or
22 noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.) Lovensheimer told Hesse to offer crew
23 the option of using The Testing Company’s drive through, which provided lab-based PCR test
24 for only $120 – significantly cheaper than the inferior rapid tests that Cinemedics provided.
25 51. Lovensheimer said the Cepheid tests were a moderate complexity test and just as
26 good as the lab-based PCR tests. Hesse said that per the FDA, they are not. She asked Hesse to
27 send her where she read that. (Hesse subsequently emailed her a white paper from the Accula
28
2
It is unlawful to create false medical records with fraudulent intent. Relevant statutes include, but are not limited
to, California Penal Code section 471.5 and California Business & Professions Code section 2262.
12
1 website, that was submitted to the FDA, on April 20, 2022.)
2 52. Hesse again told Lovensheimer that the Cinemedics CA waiver (the real waiver it
3 had obtained by season two) does not say the company qualifies for moderate complexity tests
4 and the people they are using did not meet the requirements to run them per the FDA.
5 Lovensheimer stated, “You don’t know that.” Hesse told her the information was on the FDA
6 site. Hesse said if producers are going to force them to use Cinemedics, she was concerned about
7 that they would get wrapped up in a public scandal over scam COVID tests. She told
8 Lovensheimer that she had a very good reputation in the industry based on people trusting her,
9 and she did not want her name associated with a scandal. Hesse asked Lovensheimer who else
10 reviewed this? At this time, Lovensheimer said it would be sent to legal and the RTW team for
11 vendor review. Hesse said she felt better that it was going to be reviewed by legal.
12 53. In Hesse’s email that she sent later on April 11, 2022, to Lovenshiemer, Dr.
13 Petropoulos, Limpert, Gerber, and Mattos, Hesse wrote:

14
As I stated during the phone call today the vendor form is full of many red flags. I
15
am pleased that Legal will review it as well as verify the CLIA Waiver numbers
16 and review the concerning results that I received on 4/4
17 Heather was asked to supply test results to the crew. I received an email from a
concerned crew member that the email was a scam. I explained to the person that
18
the test results are something they should receive.
19
I also asked Heather to send access to result for our needs. She sent them to me
20 later in the day. She did not know that the crew member had sent me their results
21 with concerns.
22 Please see attached Sample 1. and Sample 2 They are the same person. Please
note how she took her name off of the result and put a RN's name on. That RN is
23 not in the State of CA either.
24
Please note that the CLIA # is supposed to be identified as a Waiver if it is a
25 Waiver. It is registered as a waiver. We now have two copies of test results for
one RT PCR for the same day at the same time.
26
27 The inconsistency here is disturbing and I have to ask why she would do this. In
addition. Her safety measure for the test result password is the same for CCO as it
28 is for the patient. Which means and is the state in which the person lives in. The
IT safety measures they are using are concerning
13
1 54. Hesse’s aforementioned email disclosed information to a person (Lovensheimer)
2 with authority over her and with authority to investigate, discover, or correct violations and
3 noncompliance with state and federal statutes, rules, or regulations. Hesse had reasonable cause
4 to believe that the information contained in the email disclosed a violation or noncompliance with
5 state or federal statute(s), rule(s), or regulation(s).
6 55. Hesse subsequently spoke with Dr. Petropoulos on the phone. Dr. Petropoulos said
7 she interviewed Cinemedics for another show back east. She said she had very strong concerns
8 and refused to use them. She too had concerns about the intake form. Hesse told Gatollari that
9 she did not understand why this company was being given preferential treatment and was taking
10 up so much of their time. Cinemedics was causing delays, and the show had better vendors it
11 could use. She told him, “None of us have time for this.” She said any other company would have
12 been rejected.
13 56. On the email thread, Dr. Petropoulos shared her concerns:

14
First, those reports are word documents, not actual reports. Easy to see this, start
15 with her CA Clia#, what she has is a waiver but she lists it as the Clia number.
Either that is intentional to appear more legit or unintentional and she doesn't
16 know that is wrong - both are huge issues. One of my biggest concerns is that so
many labs are copying a test result document, using a substandard test but trying
17
to make it look official. I see it constantly.
18
The number of violations in those two reports are a joke. The only possible way
19 she gets away with it is that she does not bill insurance so there is no one standing
20 by to shut her down. She also refers to HIPPA and RT-PCR incorrectly. Either
she doesn't understand or she does but is trying to appear more legit. Technically
21 RT-PCR can be used to describe a rapid PCR test, however these are not reported
on Clia designed lab documents. She is taking a rapid test and putting the results
22 in a manufactured word doc.
23
She says her lab PCRs are being done by LabCorp, if she is using qualified
24 people to swab, then dropping them off a LabCorp that would be ok. She is
selling the PCRs in her mobile unit which are rapid PCRs yet she appears to view
25 them interchangeably.
26
Maybe the RTW agreement will change to all rapid testing, but if that is the case
27 we don't need a $165 Cepheid rapid test when we can get 10 rapids for that price.
28 Last, if some are insisting on using Cinemedics I would at minimum request a
meeting with the medical director.
14
1
Oh and changing a lab report is illegal, removing her name and putting the nurse
2 name there is wrong- but then again that is not really a lab report it is a made up
word doc.
3
57. Lovensheimer replied to the email thread, but did not copy Dr. Petropoulos and
4
Garber in the reply. Lovensheimer told Hesse not to copy them on anything further. Hesse told
5
Lovenshiemer she understood, and that she only included Dr. Petropoulos because of her
6
experience and Garber because it would be his production and he should be aware.
7
58. Sometime after April 11, 2022, Hesse spoke to Lovensheimer on the phone.
8
Lovensheimer said, “Be really careful, someone is giving Heather LHI pricing and she is now
9
submitting that pricing so she can be competitive.” Hesse asked her who would be doing that.
10
Lovensheimer said, “no idea, but she now has the pricing to have the right bid so ruling her out
11
based on pricing is a challenge.” Hesse rattled off several other reasons why Cinemedics should
12
be ruled out. It was providing inferior service compared to LHI and The Testing Company; did
13
not have places to test people outside the lot; the pricing did not include staffing; and the
14
concierge testing pricing was outrageous. Hesse also noted that the show would have to hire an
15
additional outside vendor to operate the lab for the lab-based tests. Hesse said they were being
16
set up to fail because the production wanted to lower costs associated with COVID, but they were
17
being forced to use the same inferior, overpriced vendor from season one. She added that doing
18
the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is called insanity.
19
Lovensheimer laughed and agreed.
20
59. Lovensheimer then said, “Well the RTW agreement is changing everything and
21
maybe by the time it comes out, we won’t need to worry about that.” Hesse said that she and
22
many others believe that lab-based PCR tests will and should be a part of the proper testing
23
protocol for cast and crew. While she acknowledged that case counts were going down, she said
24
her experience has taught her that lab-based PCR tests were superior to rapids for preventing
25
outbreaks. Lovensheimer responded, “We shall see.”
26
60. On or about April 19, 2022, the production was delayed for four weeks. With
27
testing needs not as urgent, Hesse continued using LHI for testing on the lot and The Testing
28
Company for pre-employment screening or people who could not get to LHI weekly testing.
15
1 Cinemedics continued providing testing for postproduction and the writers’ room, with drive-thru
2 tests from The Testing Company also available.
3 61. On April 27, 2022, during a video call, Lovensheimer made several concerning
4 statements:
• She said Cinemedics’ pricing was now competitive with the other vendors.
5
• She said the only way the production could avoid using Cinemedics is if the
6 production said it was only going to use LHI and no outside vendors.
• When asked by Hesse whether legal reviewed her concerns, Lovensheimer
7 responded, “I have looked them over and they are good, legal will get them and
8 likely just ask me if they are okay and I would say yes.”
• Lovensheimer stated that Cinemedics was approved last year and the only reason
9 they were “having to deal with this now” is because of Hesse.
10 62. Hesse was very concerned about these statements. Hesse stated with all the scams
11 making the news, did Lovensheimer feel comfortable stating she verified Cinemedics’ documents
12 and approved? She asked whether Lovensheimer wanted legal to make that decision. Hesse said
13 she would not feel comfortable testifying at a deposition or in court that she had verified or
14 approved Cinemedics.
15 63. Lovensheimer became visibly defensive and upset at Hesse. “I never said I would
16 testify for them in court. Don’t put words in my mouth,” she said. Gatollari interrupted and said
17 that what he thinks Lovensheimer is trying to say is they cannot prove “any of this.” Hesse replied,
18 “I hear you. Both of you have said from the beginning something is not right with this company
19 and that we are being forced to use them.” Hesse then said, “I thought my position was to be an
20 Advisor, no conflict of interest, and make sure production are following compliance and legal.”
21 64. Lovensheimer replied, “Well I am here for the producers and to keep their shows
22 up and running.” This confused Hesse, as the purpose of the department was to protect the health
23 and safety of cast and crew. Hesse stated during the conversation that she felt nauseous.
24 65. Hesse then told Lovensheimer, “I did not accuse you of defending them. I just said
25 we should have someone else look at it.” Lovensheimer responded, “Then you need to watch
26 your words, because you sounded like you were accusing me.” She then said again that RTW will
27 change everything.
28 66. Hesse was very disappointed and concerned about the April 27, 2022
conversation. Hesse began to show physical signs of the stress. She was shaky, had a headache,
16
1 and her ears were ringing.
2 67. That same day, Hesse spoke with Production Supervisor Harry Limauro in his
3 office. She asked if he felt that the testing from last season was safe. He smiled and laughed. He
4 said, “The famous Gate Keeping? And the funny looking test where you take it, go back to your
5 car and wait to see if you pass?” Hesse asked if he thought, at the time, that the Production was
6 receiving lab-based tests from Cinemedics. Limauro said he was told the tests were lab based. He
7 did not find out until later that the tests were rapids. Hesse asked, “I heard you were successful
8 and had no shutdowns?” He replied, “They will keep saying that. We had shut downs. That’s why
9 HBO stepped in and made us start doing the Gate Keeping and the daily test. That is why we
10 went up to $18 million in COVID expenses.”
11 68. Hesse said it was her understanding that it was not an HBO call, that this was made
12 by the testing provider. Limauro replied, “The provider haha. That’s a whole other deal. We paid
13 so much money for that company. You know they are connected to people above, right?” Hesse
14 said she understood that it was the preference of a producer.
15 69. Limauro said, “You know who it is right? You know why right?” Hesse replied,
16 “Don’t look up.” (Don’t Look Up is a 2021 movie produced by Messick and McKay.)
17 70. Limauro pointed his finger at Hesse and said, “Got it.” He then said that last year
18 they had a person just like Hesse. Very good and trained to do the job – but she was gone in three
19 weeks after she questioned things. “Of course, they say she just couldn’t handle production.”
20 Hesse was ready to cry.
21 71. Hesse went back to her office and spoke with Gerber in person. They both felt
22 uncomfortable telling the crew that the tests were lab-based when they were not.
23 72. Hesse went online and looked up the CLIA waiver number that Cinemedics used
24 for the prior year’s contract. Hesse called the phone number that appeared associated with the
25 waiver. She spoke to Rain Swift and asked AMR (which International Life Support did business
26 as) to confirm that it had provided Cinemedics with permission to use its waiver. Swift
27 memorialized the conversation in an email to Hesse at 4:35 p.m. on April 27, 2022. (Below.)
28
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 73. Hesse added Lovensheimer to the email thread. Lovensheimer asked whether they
26 were familiar with Cinemedics or Dr. Seth Dukes.
27 74. At 1:44 p.m. on May 2, 2022, a representative from International Life
28 Support/AMR replied to Lovensheimer’s question. “No, we are not familiar.”
75. Within 72 hours of Hesse demonstrating that Cinemedics had fraudulently used
18
1 International Life Support’s CLIA waiver without authorization, HBO abruptly fired her for
2 patently pretextual reasons.
3 76. Later that day, on May 2, 2022, Hesse spoke with Schaeffer by phone. Schaeffer
4 was short with Hesse. He said they needed to set up a call with Lovensheimer. Hesse asked if
5 legal would really approve Cinemedics as a vendor. Schaeffer said it was likely given that
6 Lovensheimer was the consultant.
7 77. Per the conversation with Schaeffer, Hesse emailed Lovensheimer stating that
8 Schaeffer wanted to schedule a call to discuss Cinemedics. Hesse said she was available.
9 Lovensheimer did not immediately respond.
10 78. Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief, the following: Lovensheimer
11 had a zoom call later that day with Mattos, Gatollari, and Limpert. Lovensheimer asked if anyone
12 had spoken with Hesse. She said she had just received a text from Schaeffer.
13 79. The next morning, on May 3, 2022, Hesse wrote a lengthy email to Lovensheimer
14 reiterating her concerns and inquiring about the phone call that Schaeffer had requested. The
15 legally protected email stated, in pertinent part:
16
Hello,
17 I never received a response back in regards to this call being set up, just circling
back. [. . .]
18
I would like to address a few other concerns. I am hopeful that we can get these
19
resolved. I am uncertain in my role who I am supposed to be going to for my
20 concerns. Our department structure is unique and has changed since Jackie [Carr]
left.
21
22 I continue to hear Winning Time testing is a “unique case” based on politics and
one of the producers’ requests, and I understand that. I have submitted my
23 concerns throughout the weeks based on what my job description requires me to
do. We have been delayed for weeks now as we work to allow this company to
24 adjust or try and catch up to what is already out there. Per our conversations as of
25 now they have not gone to the next step to be reviewed by legal and that per you
Betsy legal likely refer back to you in regards to their compliance. I questioned
26 this comment and you stated that if it was referred back to you you did not see
any issues with their paperwork at the time. I provide additional documentation in
27 regards to them not having authorization to use AMR/Hawaii’s CLIA , I looped
28 you in email, you asked AMR to confirm they did not know these people or
Cinemedics and the response was they were not familiar with them.
19
Per the job description sent to me I am doing everything asked of me, and I am
1
very concerned about where this is going, and my job security because of trying
2 to do what I am hired to do.
3 [. . .]
4
I am concerned much is stagnant right now and it is making a role I know I am
5 capable of doing more difficult than it should be. I am concerned that everything
that could be prevented is going to be rushed as "last minute planning" and It will
6 land on me as not having the system in place prior to production beginning. I am
7 concerned that choices of others that may lead to complications or obstacles in
these two productions will be blamed as a failure on my part and I will be the
8 scapegoat when they do not work though. I have voiced my professional
experience during each step. I love my job, I love working to assist productions
9 and I have proven to be successful and good at it; not just on the safety portion of
10 but also the financial responsibility of it.
11 Winning time is pushed to 4 weeks, that is the only thing saving us right now, but
we have been dealing with who I am allowed to use as a testing provider since I
12 started ( 5 weeks ago). To be fair to my team and my position, with both shows
13 now going to hit the ground close to each other I would just like to resolve
the issue.
14
If Cinemedics is the producer's choice and we must use them for outside of the
15 lot, then we need full transparency of what they are allowed to do, and written
16 acknowledgement that legal has reviewed all of the concerns presented:
17 1. Using someone else's CLIA to start up the company

18
2. The Waiver they have in CALIFORNIA covers all tests they will be using with
19 this production. Legal needs to verify if this has changed but I have been told you
cannot use an out of state CLIA to cover work in another state.
20
3. That the listed "Performing Provider" (changed from Heather Drake Bianchi to
21
Sarah Kimmelman RN) is legally allowed to be the performing provider even if
22 she is only allowed to practice as an RN in two states (NY and Mass.)
23 4. The address on the CLIA waiver at 777 Azusa CA is allowed to be different on

24 each lab report ( some address shows the 4000 Medical Center Drive NY address,
some show 75 Holly Pasadena CA, the other address she uses has had Los
25 Angeles addresses on her Vendor intake )
26 5. Clarity on her Moderate Complexity approval. It is my understanding that to do
27 Moderate or High Complexity it is a different qualification on the Waiver and that
Waiver must be shown on the paperwork and the qualified personnel must be in
28 the state of practice.
20
6. [Their] system for alerting, storing and sharing lab results with our department
1
has been cleared by legal, the system they are currently using is a google sheet
2 and I have had to request lab results to see what type of test or get result Other
providers have a system in place that sends out the proof of test to both the crew
3 member and CCO for records not just a "clear" with no time stamp, proof of date,
test type, record of who actually took the test, and lab time. So much helpful
4
information for tracing and tracking tests when we have an urgent situation. This
5 is also helpful for crew who need to use these tests for other production work.
6 7. Cinemedics is aware and production is aware that they are not to be given out
7 false information in regards to their testing [. . .]
80. In writing this email, Hesse disclosed information to a person (Lovensheimer) who
8
had authority over her and authority to investigate, discover, or correct violations and
9
noncompliance with state and federal statutes, rules, or regulations. Hesse had reasonable cause
10
to believe that the information contained in the email disclosed a violation or noncompliance with
11
state or federal statute(s), rule(s), or regulation(s). Furthermore, by writing the email, Hesse
12
refused to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a
13
violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.
14
81. Later that day, Lovesheimer responded to the email. She copied Schaeffer and
15
Mike Lewis, an Executive Producer for Sympathizer, on the email thread, which was unusual.
16
She stated that Cinemedics is still in the vendor approval stage. She said they will set up a call
17
later in the week to “clarify your role[.]”
18
82. Hesse responded by asking where Cinemedics was at in the vendor approval
19
process. She noted that Dr. Petropoulos had declined to use Cinemedics for the show Succession
20
(which was also produced by Messick and McKay). She asked why Winning Time could not
21
reject Cinemedics like Succession had.
22
83. The next morning at approximately 6:30 a.m., Hesse texted Dr. Petropoulos that
23
she was worried that Lovensheimer was trying to get rid of her. Unfortunately, this text proved
24
prescient.
25
84. Lovensheimer responded to Hesse’s email on May 4, 2022:
26
27 Hi Georgia: We are awaiting a little more information from Cinemedics and will
let you know as soon as we have any information to share. As mentioned many
28 times, we are all on the same page about not wanting to use a vendor who does
not meet laboratory legal or HIPPA requirements. We are going through this
21
process to confirm or refute the concerns that have been brought forth. Please
1
give us the time to do this diligently and carefully. In addition, the EP on WT is
2 not the same as the EP on Succession.
3 85. Hesse replied that the name she was given (Messick) was a Producer on both
4 shows, Winning Time and Succession.
5 86. Later that day, Hesse spoke with Dr. Petropoulos. Hesse asked how she had gotten
6 around using Cinemedics for Succession, given that Messick and McKay were Producers on the
7 show. Dr. Petropoulos responded that she was supported by the Unit Production Manager for that
8 show.
9 87. Hesse also met the Unit Production Manager (a different UPM than Succession’s),
10 Scott Stephenson, for the first time that day. Stephenson was rude and hostile toward Hesse. He
11 demanded an explanation for why he had to get tested to go into work, even though he had just
12 gotten tested that weekend. He said the testing was a waste of money. Stephenson yelled that this
13 whole “COVID thing” is “stupid” and “isn’t even real.” He complained about having to “wear a
14 fucking mask.” Hesse calmly explained the necessity of testing and the seriousness of the virus.
15 88. At 5:30 p.m. on May 4, 2022, Hesse received an email from Amanda Lopez in
16 human resources requesting a meeting the next day.
17 89. On May 5, 2022, Hesse spoke on the phone with Individual Defendant Silisha
18 Sidell, senior vice president of labor relations and attorney for Warner Bros. Discovery, and
19 Keren Serrano, an attorney in labor relations for Warner Bros. Discovery. Sidell, who did most
20 of the talking, said Hesse was being removed from Winning Time as a supervisor due to an
21 incident on Westworld that had been investigated by an outside investigator.
22 90. Sidell betrayed an obvious lack of knowledge of the investigation – including not
23 knowing the name of the investigator -- and it was apparent the investigation was now being used
24 as a pretext to drive Hesse out. Among the pretextual reasons offered for Hesse’s ouster was that
25 on Westworld she was “perceived” to favor her son, Jakob, who did not directly report to Georgia
26 and was not directly supervised by her. Hesse fully disclosed that Jakob was her son in a written
27 disclosure form approved by Entity Defendant. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges based upon
28 information and belief that numerous other crew had family members as co-workers. These
22
1 include:3 4
Claire and Emily Thorne
2
Tamara and Sean Groves
3 Jeremy and Jason Griffith
Ron, Patrick, and Larry Miller
4 Russell, Joesph, Tyler Ayer
Tim and Jeff Shewbert
5
David and Kenneth Carter Fixtures
6 Giovanni Hernandez and Mari Lu
Mark and Lisa Tobey
7 Marina and Candy Lares
8 Jeff and Connor Woodward
Jonathon Nolan and Lisa Joy
9 Don Bensko and Joey Brazino
Maureen and Rich Bennetti
10 Amanda and Ken Merritt
11 Noreen and David Damus
Ron and Justin Blessley
12 Omar and Florensio (last names unknown to Plaintiff)
Mariano and Vincent Fernandez

13
91. Sidell also claimed that the investigation concluded that she was perceived to have
14
trouble with communication, prohibited people from speaking with each other, and favored men
15
over women. Hesse asked if the witnesses she had provided were interviewed. Sidell, avoiding
16
the question, said the decision was final. (Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief,
17
that Entity Defendant did not interview all witnesses that Hesse provided. In reality, numerous
18
witnesses were supportive of Hesse during the so-called investigation. Entity Defendant
19
disregarded the truth and was not interested in learning the truth because it simply wanted an
20
excuse to fire a whistleblower who reported fraud by a producer’s preferred vendor.)
21
92. Hesse asked what her options were. Sidell’s statement then transitioned into open
22
ageism. She told Hesse to go back to school. Hesse replied that she has a bachelor’s degree in
23
Communication and Business as well as a credential in counseling. Sidell suggested that Hesse –
24
a former youth counselor and mentor to young women -- get training to learn how to deal with
25
“younger people.”
26
27 3
Hesse is not suggesting or implying that any of the individuals in this list have done anything wrong or
improper. The list is offered to demonstrate that HBO’s claimed reasons for terminating Hesse are patently
28 pretextual.
4
The spellings in this list are Hesse’s best estimates. Actual spellings may differ.
23
1 93. Sidell said, “We are not terminating you but we do require you to do sensitivity
2 training.” (This statement proved to be false. Entity Defendant did terminate Hesse, and actually
3 sent her COBRA paperwork confirming such.) Then she said “unfortunately because of this you
4 can no longer be in a supervisor or in a manager role. You can work anywhere else with
5 WB/HBO/Discovery but not as a supervisor.”
6 94. Hesse pointed out that in her new role, she was actually an Advisor, not a
7 Supervisor. Sidell replied, “Well I spoke to Betsy last night and she said you are supervisor.” At
8 that point, Hesse realized the real reason why she was being ousted.
9 95. Hesse told Sidell, “I know what is happening now.” Sidell defensively replied that
10 she did not know what Hesse was talking about.
11 96. Hesse told Sidell that she had numerous responsibilities that did not involve
12 supervising employees. Sidell said it was Lovensheimer’s decision whether she can continue
13 working on the show. Hesse asked if she should speak with Lovensheimer about what her role
14 would now be. Sidell said not to contact her.
15 97. Hesse asked if she can continue to work, or if she must leave. Sidell said to leave.
16 98. Hesse felt very ill. She could feel her blood pressure rising. After speaking with
17 Garber, Hesse went to the HR building. She asked a receptionist for her HR representative,
18 Shannon White. The receptionist said that Laura Byrnes would reach out to her soon. Hesse felt
19 ringing in her ear and nausea. She said she needed to see the medic. The receptionist walked
20 Hesse to the first aid area. The receptionist asked Hesse if she wanted to talk about anything.
21 Hesse declined. She said she did not feel safe and just wanted to go to a safe place.
22 99. Hesse was seen by a nurse. She had a blood pressure of 145 over 90. Hesse
23 normally has a blood pressure of 120/70. The nurse wanted Hesse to stay, but Hesse said she did
24 not feel safe. Hesse texted her daughter to pick her up.
25 100. As she was leaving the lot from Gate 3, Hesse called Don Bensko, her Unit
26 Production Manager from Westworld. She asked if he ever heard from HR. He said no one ever
27 called him.
28 101. Laura Byrne called Hesse when Hesse got home. Byrne said she was there to
assist Hesse. She said per her notes, Hesse was not fired and should ask Lovensheimer what work
24
1 she could still do. Hesse told Byrne how she had disclosed fraud. She said she was afraid that
2 Lovensheimer was trying to get rid of her because of that. Hesse also explained that she was an
3 Advisor, not a Supervisor. Hesse said she was willing to take any class they wanted her to take.
4 Byrne said she would call Lovensheimer to see what work she could still do.
5 102. On May 6, 2022, Hesse received a call from Serrano and Shannon White. Serrano
6 said she was aware that Hesse had claimed she was not a supervisor. Serrano said she spoke with
7 Lovensheimer, who claimed that Hesse was a supervisor. Hesse asked if Byrne filled them in on
8 her concerns. White, avoiding the question, said “this is based on your incidents at Westworld.”
9 Hesse said she had other work she could perform that did not entail supervising employees.
10 Serrano, growing irritated, raised her voice. She said that she was told all this yesterday, and it is
11 not up for discussion. (In actuality, Sidell and Serrano never specified what role, if any, Hesse
12 would continue to have on the show.)
13 103. Hesse stayed calm but persistent. She said there was more to the story. Hesse said
14 this is retaliation and asked to whom she should report it. Avoiding the question, White (falsely)
15 reiterated that the Westworld incident was investigated and Lovensheimer concluded there was
16 no work for her.
17 104. Hesse reiterated that her removal was retaliation. After further conversation, she
18 stepped outside to her backyard because her dogs were barking. Her daughter, Heather, happened
19 to be in the backyard. Having overheard parts of the conversation, she encouraged Hesse to end
20 the call. Serrano apparently overheard this. She rudely raised her voice and began to yell at Hesse,
21 telling her that it was not OK for her to have someone with her. Hesse explained that her dogs
22 had been barking so she stepped outside. “Now I am very concerned about your abilities,”
23 Serrano said. “You not understanding yesterday and now this. I think it is best to conclude this
24 conversation. You are no longer working on Winning Time or Sympathizer.”
25 105. Hesse said she did not have a job. Displaying a consciousness of guilt, Serrano
26 denied that Hesse had been terminated and lectured Hesse on the definition of termination. Hesse
27 felt degraded and demeaned.
28 106. Demonstrating its malice, oppression, and fraud, Defendant did not have the basic
decency to tell Hesse that it was firing her. The phone call and prior conversation were ambiguous
25
1 about Hesse’s employment status. Defendant cruelly left Hesse in the dark. However, Defendant
2 stopped paying her and subsequently sent COBRA documents that stated her employment had
3 ended the week of May 7, 2022. Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief, that
4 Defendant did not want to admit to Hesse that it was terminating her because it knew that it was
5 unlawfully retaliating against a whistleblower.
6 107. At this point, Plaintiff does not know if third parties (i.e. persons not employed by
7 HBO or Warner Bros. Discovery) encouraged or pressured HBO to fire her. Should discovery
8 reveal such, Plaintiff reserves the right to seek leave to amend to add these third parties as Doe
9 Defendants.
10 108. After her unlawful termination, Plaintiff submitted a detailed complaint that
11 explained Cinemedics’ fraud and how producers favored this vendor. She requested
12 reinstatement. Defendant subsequently interviewed her, without a witness present (in spite of
13 Hesse’s request she be permitted to bring a witness, which was declined). Hesse voluntarily
14 appeared and cooperated. Despite this cooperation, Defendant has not reinstated Hesse as of the
15 date of this complaint.
16 109. It unknown to Plaintiff, at this point, why producers and HBO favored a vendor
17 who lied to them, ripped them off, fabricated medical records, and put the lives and safety of cast
18 and crew at risk by peddling overpriced, inferior tests.
19 110. On or about September 9, 2022, an attorney acting on Hesse’s behalf obtained a
20 right to sue letter with the Department of Fair Employment Housing against Defendants based
21 upon Sidell’s age harassment.
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23 Labor Code sections 1102.5
24 111. The allegations set forth in this complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated
25 by reference.
26 112. This cause of action is asserted against all Defendants, including Doe Defendants
27 113. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of Entity Defendant, Warner Bros.
28 Discovery, and Doe Defendants.
26
1 114. Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), states that “[a]n employer, or any
2 person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing
3 information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose
4 information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the
5 employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the
6 violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body
7 conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe
8 that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or
9 noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing
10 the information is part of the employee's job duties.” Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (c),
11 states that an “employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an
12 activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance
13 with a state or federal rule or regulation.”

14 115. As described herein, Plaintiff made numerous protected complaints. Plaintiff had
15 reasonable cause to believe that the information disclosed violations of Cal. Labor Code § 6400,
16 Cal. Penal Code § 471.5, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2262, and state and federal statutes prohibiting
17 fraud, including but not limited to California Civil Code §§ 1572, 1710 and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1341,
18 1343.
19 116. Moreover, Plaintiff refused to engage in conduct that would have resulted in
20 violations of Cal. Labor Code section 6400 and state and federal statutes prohibiting fraud,
21 including but not limited to California Civil Code §§ 1572, 1710 and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343.
22 117. Defendants violated Labor Code section 1102.5 when they unlawfully terminated
23 Hesse. Plaintiff alleges based upon information and belief that her protected activity was a
24 contributing factor in her termination.
25 118. For Doe Defendants who are not found to be Hesse’s employer, Plaintiff alleges
26 in the alternative, and upon information and belief, that these Doe Defendants are vicariously
27 liable because they were aware that Entity Defendant planned to terminate Hesse due to her
28 protected activity. Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief, that Doe Defendants
tacitly or expressly cooperated with Entity Defendant in unlawfully retaliating against Hesse and
27
1 intended for Hesse to be terminated. (See CACI No. 3600.)
2 119. California Labor Code section 1102.5, as amended, permits claims against
3 individuals. If the Court determines that the Individual Defendant cannot be individually liable
4 (and/or if it is determined that Warner Bros. Discovery did not employ Plaintiff), Plaintiff alleges
5 in the alternative that the Individual Defendant is vicariously liable because she was aware that
6 Entity Defendant planned to terminate Hesse due to her protected activity. Plaintiff alleges, based
7 upon information and belief, that the Individual Defendant tacitly or expressly cooperated with
8 Entity Defendant in unlawfully retaliating against Hesse and intended for Hesse to be terminated.
9 (See CACI No. 3600.)
10 120. The conduct of Defendants and their managing agents and employees were a
11 substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
12 121. As an actual and proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiff has
13 been harmed in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
14 this Court.
15 122. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant’s retaliation, Plaintiff has lost
16 wages, benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
17 123. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ aforementioned acts, Plaintiff
18 suffered mental upset and emotional distress. Plaintiff claims general damages in an amount
19 according to proof at time of trial.
20 124. The above-described actions were perpetrated and/or ratified by a managing agent
21 or officer of Defendants. These acts were done with malice, fraud, oppression, and in reckless
22 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Further, said actions was/were despicable in character and warrant
23 the imposition of punitive damages in a sum sufficient to punish and deter Defendants’ future
24 conduct.
25 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
26 Common Law Wrongful Termination
28 by reference.
28
1 126. This cause of action is asserted against all Defendants, including Doe Defendants
3 Discovery, and Doe Defendants.
4 128. Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), states that “[a]n employer, or any
5 person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing
6 information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose
7 information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the
8 employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the
9 violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body
10 conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe
11 that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or
12 noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing
13 the information is part of the employee's job duties.” Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (c),
14 states that an “employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an
15 activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance
16 with a state or federal rule or regulation.”
17 129. As described herein, Plaintiff made numerous protected complaints. Plaintiff had
18 reasonable cause to believe that the information disclosed violations of Cal. Labor Code § 6400,
19 Cal. Penal Code § 471.5, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2262, and state and federal statutes prohibiting
20 fraud, including but not limited to California Civil Code §§ 1572, 1710 and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1341,
21 1343.
22 130. Moreover, Plaintiff refused to engage in conduct that would have resulted in
23 violations of Cal. Labor Code section 6400 and state and federal statutes prohibiting fraud,
24 including but not limited to California Civil Code §§ 1572, 1710 and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343.
25 131. Plaintiff’s protected activity was a substantial motivating reason for her
26 termination, which were contrary to the public policies behind the aforementioned statutes.
27 132. For Doe Defendants who are not found to be Hesse’s employer, Plaintiff alleges
28 in the alternative, and upon information and belief, that these Doe Defendants are vicariously
liable because they were aware that Entity Defendant planned to terminate Hesse due to her
29
1 protected activity. Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief, that Doe Defendants
2 tacitly or expressly cooperated with Entity Defendant in unlawfully retaliating against Hesse and
3 intended for Hesse to be terminated.
4 133. If it is determined that Warner Bros. Discovery did not employ Hesse, Plaintiff
5 alleges in the alternative that the Individual Defendant is vicariously liable because she was aware
6 that Entity Defendant planned to terminate Hesse due to her protected activity. Plaintiff alleges,
7 based upon information and belief, that the Individual Defendant tacitly or expressly cooperated
8 with Entity Defendant in unlawfully retaliating against Hesse and intended for Hesse to be
9 terminated. (See CACI No. 3600.)
10 134. The conduct of Defendants and their managing agents and employees were a
11 substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
13 been harmed in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
14 this Court.
15 136. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant’s retaliation, Plaintiff has lost
16 wages, benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
24 conduct.
25 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
26 Age Harassment: Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)
28 by reference.
30
1 140. This cause of action is asserted against the Individual Defendant.
3 Discovery, and Doe Defendants. In the event it is determined that Plaintiff was not employed by
4 Warner Bros. Discovery, Plaintiff alleges in the alternative that she was a person working
5 pursuant to a contract given that she was an employee of Entity Defendant.
6 142. At all times relevant to this matter, the Fair Employment and Housing Act and
7 Government Code section 12940 was/were in full force and effect and binding on Defendant(s).
8 Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j), reads, “It is an unlawful employment practice
9 . . . [f]or an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program
10 or any training program leading to employment, or any other person, because of race, religious
11 creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition,
12 genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual
13 orientation, to harass an employee, an applicant, or a person providing services pursuant to a

14 contract.” (Emphasis added.)
15 143. Hesse was older than 40 at all times relevant to this action.
16 144. As described herein, Individual Defendant harassed Plaintiff because of her age.
17 145. A reasonable person in Plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the
18 harassment to be hostile or abusive. The harassment was severe given Individual Defendant’s
19 position and the circumstances surrounding it.
20 146. The conduct of Individual Defendant was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
21 harm.
23 been damaged in an amount according to proof, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
24 this Court. Plaintiff also seeks “affirmative relief” or “prospective relief” as defined by
25 Government Code section 12926, subdivision (a).
26 148. As an actual and proximate result of Defendant’s aforementioned acts, Plaintiff
149. The above described actions were done with malice, fraud, oppression and in
31
1 reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Further, said actions were despicable in character and
2 warrant the imposition of punitive damages in a sum sufficient to punish and deter Defendant’s
3 future conduct.
4 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations
7 by reference.
8 151. This cause of action is asserted against the Individual Defendant and Doe
9 Defendants only.
10 152. As to the Individual Defendant, this cause of action is pled in the alternative, in
11 the event it is determined that Warner Bros. Discovery did not employ Hesse and/or that
12 Individual Defendant was not employed by HBO.
13 153. As to the Doe Defendants, this cause of action is plead in the alternative in the
14 event that it is determined that Doe Defendants did not employ Hesse.
15 154. Defendants were aware that Hesse was employed by HBO, and therefore knew
16 she was in either a written or verbal contractual relationship with HBO.
17 155. Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief, that Defendants prevented
18 Hesse’s performance and/or made it more difficult by aiding, abetting, and/or encouraging HBO
19 to terminate Hesse. Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief, that Defendants intended
20 for HBO to terminate Plaintiff, and therefore intended to disrupt her performance and/or make it
21 more difficult. Alternatively, Defendants knew that disruption of performance was certain or
22 substantially certain to occur
23 156. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful.
24 157. Hesse was harmed in an amount according to proof.
25 158. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
26 159. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has lost wages,
27 benefits, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
32
7 conduct.
8 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and any other
10 defendants who may be later added to this action as follows:
11
1. For compensatory damages, including, but not limited to lost wages, economic
12 damages, and non-economic damages (including emotional distress) in an
amount according to proof;

13 2. For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to all applicable statues or legal
principles;
14
3. For costs of suit incurred;
15 4. For punitive damages or other penalties recoverable by law;
5. For equitable relief, including but not limited to reinstatement, removal of all
16 retaliatory and discriminatory documents from Plaintiff’s employee file, and a
17 permanent injunction prohibiting further retaliation;
6. For prejudgment interest on all amounts claimed pursuant to Civil Code section
18 3287 and/or 3288; and
7. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
19
20
21
22
Dated: September 13, 2022 By:
23 BRANDON P. ORTIZ, ESQ.
24 Attorney for Plaintiff
25 GEORGIA HESSE
//
26 //
//
27 //
28 //
//
33
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2 Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury for this matter.
3
4
5
6
Dated: September 13, 2022 By:
7 BRANDON P. ORTIZ, ESQ.
8
Attorney for Plaintiff
9 GEORGIA HESSE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34
1 VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2
3 I, GEORGIA HESSE, have read the attached Complaint for Damages and hereby attest
4 that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters, which are therein stated
5 on my information or belief, and as to those matter that I believe it to be true.
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under to the laws of the State of California that the
7 foregoing is true and correct.
8 September 13, 2022
This Verification was executed on ___________________, Sun Valley, CA
in __________________.
9
10
11
GEORGIA HESSE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Hesse v. HBO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Hesse v. HBO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hesse v. HBO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/13/2022 02:52 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Ruiz,Deputy Clerk

BRANDON P. ORTIZ, (SBN: 301685)

13 1-100, inclusive, § 1102.5)

13 and pretextual reasons.

13 Petropoulos, Limpert, Gerber, and Mattos, Hesse wrote:

13 56. On the email thread, Dr. Petropoulos shared her concerns:

17 1. Using someone else's CLIA to start up the company

23 4. The address on the CLIA waiver at 777 Azusa CA is allowed to be different on

4 shows, Winning Time and Succession.

16 human resources requesting a meeting the next day.

21 incident on Westworld that had been investigated by an outside investigator.

Mariano and Vincent Fernandez

13 with a state or federal rule or regulation.”

13 orientation, to harass an employee, an applicant, or a person providing services pursuant to a

amount according to proof;

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

You might also like