ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1357171
`
`Filing date:
`
`05/07/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91277861
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Defendant
`Breaking Code Silence
`
`REXFORD BRABSON
`T-REX LAW, P.C.
`7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS #104-333
`CARLSBAD, CA 92011
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: rex@t-rexlaw.com
`Secondary email(s): sasha@t-rexlaw.com, david@t-rexlaw.com
`858-220-1166
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Response to Board Order/Inquiry
`
`David Stewart
`
`david@t-rexlaw.com, rex@t-rexlaw.com
`
`/David Stewart/
`
`05/07/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`2024.05.07-Court Update (f).pdf(2855881 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the matter of Trademark Application Ser. No. 90692440 & 90693777
`Applicant: Breaking Code Silence
`Mark:
`BREAKING CODE SILENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kathrine McNamara,
`
`Opposer,
`
`vs.
`
`Breaking Code Silence,
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Opposition No. 91277861
`)
`)
`)
`)
` )
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S STATUS REPORT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`Applicant herein provides copies of the pleadings for Case No. 22STCV14977, KATHERINE
`MCNAMARA, ET AL. VS BREAKING CODE SILENCE, A CALIFORNIA 501(C)(3)
`NONPROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL., attached as Exhibit A.
`
` A
`
`
`
`May 7, 2024
`
`
` brief status of this case is as follows:
`• On May 6, 2024, Defendant Breaking Code Silence filed an Answer to Plaintiff
`Katherine McNamara’s First Amended Complaint.
`• The final status conference is set for November 4, 2024. Exhibit B.
`• Trial is set for November 12, 2024. Exhibit B.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ David Stewart, Esq.
`Rexford Brabson
`David Stewart
`T-Rex Law, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`7040 Avenida Encinas #104-333
`Carlsbad, CA 92011
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing APPLICANT’S STATUS REPORT OF
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS is being electronically mailed to the following address:
`
`ROBERT A. VANDERHYE
`801 RIDGE DR.
`MCLEAN, VA 22101
`UNITED STATES
`ravar46@yahoo.com, iristheangel@gmail.com
`
`/s/ David Stewart
`David Stewart
`
`
`May 7, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`

`

`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 05/05/2022 11:48 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by Y. Tarasyuk,Deputy Clerk
`22STCV14977
`
`Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Kristin Escalante
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Dirk O. Julander, Bar No. 132313
` doj@jbblaw.com
`Catherine A. Close, Bar No. 198549
` cac@jbblaw.com
`M. Adam Tate, Bar No. 280017
` adam@jbblaw.com
`JULANDER, BROWN & BOLLARD
`9110 Irvine Center Drive
`Irvine, California 92618
`Telephone: (949) 477-2100
`Facsimile: (949) 477-6355
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs KATHERINE
`MCNAMARA and JEREMY WHITELEY
`
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
`
`KATHERINE MCNAMARA, an individual;
`and JEREMY WHITELEY, an individual,
`
`
`
` Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`BREAKING CODE SILENCE, a
`California 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation;
`VANESSA HUGHES, an individual;
`JENNIFER REBECCA MAGILL, an
`individual; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BREACH OF CONTRACT
`1)
`2) MONEY PAID/UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`3) HARASSMENT/VIOLATION OF FEHA
`4) VIOLATION OF UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS
`ACT [CIV. CODE §51]
`
`[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
`
`Plaintiffs KATHERINE MCNAMARA and JEREMY WHITELEY (hereinafter
`
`collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby allege for their Complaint against Defendants BREAKING
`
`CODE SILENCE, VANESSA HUGHES, JENNIFER REBECCA MAGILL and DOES 1-20,
`
`inclusive (collectively “Defendants”), as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff KATHERINE MCNAMARA (“McNamara”) is an individual residing in
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3
`
`the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
`
`4
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff JEREMY WHITELEY (“Whiteley”) is an individual residing in the
`
`5
`
`County of Maricopa, State of Arizona.
`
`6
`
`3.
`
`Defendant BREAKING CODE SILENCE (“BCS”) is, and at all relevant time was,
`
`7
`
`a California 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation with its principal place of business in the County of
`
`8
`
`Los Angeles, State of California.
`
`
`
`9
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant
`
`10
`
`VANESSA HUGHES (“Hughes”) is, and at all relevant times was, an individual residing in the
`
`11
`
`County of Los Angeles, State of California. Hughes sometimes uses the following aliases:
`
`12
`
`Vanessa Ramich Hughes, PhD, MA, MFT, MAICS, MAT, SEP; Dr. Vanessa Hughes; and
`
`13
`
`Vanessa Teresa Hughes.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant
`
`JENNIFER REBECCA MAGILL (“Magill”) is an individual who, at all times relevant to the
`
`16
`
`allegations of this Complaint, resided in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Plaintiffs
`
`17
`
`are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Magill has recently rented a property in
`
`18
`
`Colorado. Magill sometimes uses the following aliases: Jennifer Magill; and Jenny Magill, MBA,
`
`19
`
`CPDT-KA.
`
`20
`
`6.
`
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise of the
`
`21
`
`Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 20, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue
`
`22
`
`said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to state their true
`
`23
`
`names and capacities when the names are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and,
`
`24
`
`based thereon, allege that each such fictitiously named Defendant is in some manner liable for the
`
`25
`
`acts hereinafter alleged. Hereinafter, BCS, Hughes, Magill and the Defendants named as DOES 1
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`through 20 will sometimes collectively be referred to as “Defendants.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that each Defendant
`
`2
`
`is and/or was an agent, servant, co-conspirator, and/or employee of each of the other Defendants,
`
`3
`
`and in engaging in the conduct alleged herein, was acting within the course and scope of said
`
`4
`
`agency, conspiracy and/or employment.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, and venue is
`
`7
`
`proper in this Court, because Hughes is a resident of Los Angeles County and BCS maintains its
`
`8
`
`principal place of business in Los Angeles County.
`
`
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs’ Background
`Every year, thousands of children who are branded as “problem children” for a
`
`9.
`
`12
`
`variety of reasons are sent, often against their wills, to congregate care facilities (sometimes
`
`13
`
`known as “boot camps,” “behavioral modification schools,” “secured group homes,” or other
`
`14
`
`similar monikers). Although these congregate care facilities market themselves as providers of
`
`15
`
`therapeutic treatment, many simply collect public funding and abuse and mistreat the children,
`
`16
`
`including physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, isolation, forced hard labor, chemical sedation, sleep
`
`17
`
`and food deprivation, attack therapy, aversion therapy, etc.
`
`18
`
`10.
`
`Once released from these congregate care facilities, many of the children become
`
`19
`
`adults who struggle with trauma disorders, strained relationships with their families and
`
`20
`
`communities, and have difficulty obtaining further schooling or maximizing career opportunities
`
`21
`
`due to their educational setbacks.
`
`22
`
`11.
`
`As teenagers, Plaintiffs were both victims of institutional abuse at the hands of a
`
`23
`
`private congregate care facility for troubled teens in Provo, Utah known as Provo Canyon School.
`
`24
`
`As adults, Plaintiffs’ mission became to ensure: that the public was made aware of the abuses that
`
`25
`
`routinely took place, and still take place, at such facilities; that the government address the
`
`26
`
`systematic weaknesses that led to the abuses; and that the survivors were provided with a platform
`
`27
`
`to share their experiences and obtain counseling.
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`12.
`
`To that end, in 2017, McNamara began compiling data on her Google Drive for an
`
`2
`
`archive related to the community of survivors of such institutional abuse. The survivor data that
`
`3
`
`McNamara started compiling in 2017 is organized on Zotero, an opensource tool for sharing
`
`4
`
`research run by the non-profit Digital Scholar. She also began collaborating with other survivors
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`about the need to bring the issue to the public’s attention and stop the institutional abuse.
`
`13.
`
`In 2019, some of the survivors McNamara was collaborating with purchased the
`
`domain name breakingcodesilence.net (the “.net domain”) and launched a splash page for a social
`
`8
`
`media campaign. To prevent anyone else from purchasing the similar breakingcodesilence.org
`
`
`
`9
`
`domain name, in March 2020, McNamara purchased the domain name breakingcodesilence.org
`
`10
`
`(hereinafter the “.org domain”) in her own name, with her own funds. McNamara has since
`
`11
`
`renewed the .org domain each subsequent year, always in her own name and with her own funds.
`
`12
`
`14.
`
`In late 2020, McNamara and the other survivors she was collaborating with also
`
`13
`
`discussed starting a nonprofit organization dedicated to the cause. The group decided that they
`
`14
`
`would use the .net domain and the group paid for web hosting and emails for that domain.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`15.
`
`On October 7, 2020, celebrity Paris Hilton led a protest calling for the closure of
`
`Provo Canyon School, where she was also previously “incarcerated” at the age of seventeen. The
`
`17
`
`protest gained national and international media attention. Around this time, McNamara was
`
`18
`
`introduced to Plaintiff Whiteley, another survivor of Provo Canyon School, and Defendant
`
`19
`
`Hughes, a clinical psychologist.
`
`20
`
`16.
`
`In March 2021 a schism developed among the group that was collaborating about
`
`21
`
`starting a nonprofit corporation. Three members of the group left deciding not to be involved in
`
`22
`
`the nonprofit organization, taking the .net domain with them.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Formation of BCS
`
`17.
`
`After the split, McNamara began collaborating with Whiteley and Hughes and they
`
`25
`
`later discussed forming a nonprofit organization. They, along with the other collaborators,
`
`26
`
`decided that the organization would be named “Breaking Code Silence Youth Advocacy Network”
`
`27
`
`and that McNamara would purchase, and be reimbursed for purchasing, fifteen different domains
`
`28
`
`that were variations of that name. Until another domain could be obtained, McNamara allowed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`the group to temporarily use the .org domain she previously purchased, but she refused to transfer
`
`2
`
`the rights to the .org domain to the organization. Hughes, Magill, McNamara, and Whiteley all
`
`3
`
`agreed that they would only serve temporarily as interim board members and the executives for
`
`4
`
`the future organization. They all agreed that their roles on the board and in executive leadership
`
`5
`
`would only be temporary until they found qualified replacements, and that they would never seek
`
`6
`
`a salary for fulfilling these roles during their tenure. This condition and promise was repeated in
`
`7
`
`writing to the BCS volunteers and community months after this initial collaboration.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`18.
`
`BCS was later incorporated on March 22, 2021. At the time of incorporation,
`
`Hughes made a unilateral decision to incorporate under the name “Breaking Code Silence” instead
`of the agreed-upon name, “Breaking Code Silence Youth Advocacy Network.” The following
`month, Hughes purchased the breakingcodesilence.com (the “.com domain”) from a third party for
`the company’s use.
`
`19.
`
`At the first meeting of the board of directors, McNamara, Whiteley, Hughes and
`
`14
`
`Magill were made board members. A fifth board member was later added in May 2021.
`
`15
`
`20.
`
`On or about March 29, 2021, Whiteley paid for the web hosting that the .org
`
`16
`
`domain pointed toward (with the company Cloudways), using his own personal funds and his own
`
`17
`
`email and home address. Whiteley did this in reliance on the promise from BCS that he would be
`
`18
`
`reimbursed for any associated costs.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Hughes’ Harassment and Whiteley’s Constructive Termination
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiffs were the only two homosexual members of the BCS board of directors.
`
`21
`
`Almost immediately after BCS was formed, tension started developing between the members of
`
`22
`
`the board of directors when Hughes, who was the company’s President, began regularly hurling
`
`23
`
`insults and homophobic epithets at Whiteley during meetings (including during BCS board of
`
`24
`
`directors’ meetings), telephone calls, Zoom conferences and on BCS’s private Slack channel in the
`
`25
`
`Breaking Code Silence workspace. For example, Hughes would regularly refer to Whiteley as
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`“Mangina,” “Pookie” and other derogatory terms based on his sexual orientation as a gay man.
`Hughes also regularly referred to Whiteley as being a “drama queen” and having a negative
`“female energy.” Hughes told Whiteley to “suck dicks and eat ass” and, on one occasion, told
`
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`Whiteley that he could “borrow [her] dick and suck it.” A representative example of the manner
`
`2
`
`in which Hughes would casually use offensive terms to describe Whiteley is attached hereto as
`
`3
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`22. Whiteley, who is not the least bit effeminate, and others repeatedly complained
`
`about Hughes’ behavior, but their complaints went ignored by BCS management.
`Hughes’ harassing and abusive conduct toward Whiteley based on his sexual
`
`23.
`
`7
`
`orientation created an extremely hostile work environment for him, forcing him to resign from
`
`8
`
`BCS in June 2021. After his resignation, other homosexual volunteers reached out to Whiteley
`
`
`
`9
`
`and informed him that they had experienced the same abusive behavior from Hughes. Whiteley
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`brought this to the attention of BCS’s board, but the board continued to do nothing stop Hughes’s
`harassment of BCS’s homosexual volunteers.
`Hughes and Magill’s Retaliation and McNamara’s Constructive Termination
`After Whiteley’s resignation, McNamara started paying for Cloudways to host
`BCS’s website out of her personal funds beginning in July 2021 with the promise that her
`
`24.
`
`15
`
`expenses would be repaid. In addition, since the inception of BCS, McNamara incurred expenses
`
`16
`
`and loaned money to BCS totaling more than $100,000 in reliance on the promise that such
`
`17
`
`expenses and loans would be repaid. To date, none of these expenses have been reimbursed and
`
`18
`
`none of the loans have been repaid.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`25.
`
`After Whiteley’s forced resignation, in addition to the tensions among the
`remaining board members concerning Hughes’ blatant hostility toward homosexuals, beginning in
`August 2021, tensions started rising among the board members regarding Hughes’s and Magill’s
`
`22
`
`conduct concerning the operations of BCS.
`
`23
`
`26. Without the knowledge or approval of the board of directors, Hughes and Magill
`
`24
`
`began hiring employees to work for BCS in Washington, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Oregon
`
`25
`
`without any approved budget and without unallocated funds in the BCS bank account to pay the
`
`26
`
`employees.
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`27.
`
`In addition, Hughes and Magill sought to award themselves a salary and benefits of
`
`2
`
`$211,000 and $165,000, respectively, and sought funding for these salaries from donors and
`
`3
`
`partners without the approval and knowledge of the remaining board members, in contravention of
`
`4
`
`the BCS bylaws which require that the board determine and approve executive salaries, and
`
`5
`
`contrary to the initial conditions of their interim leadership. When McNamara and another board
`
`6
`
`member complained to the board about Hughes’ and Magill’s misuse and misappropriation of
`
`7
`
`grant funds, and threatened to report it to the California Attorney General, the harassment and
`
`8
`
`open hostility towards McNamara escalated.
`
`
`
`9
`
`28.
`
`After McNamara reached out to BCS’s counsel concerning her legal obligations to
`
`10
`
`report Hughes and Magill to the California Attorney General, and advised Hughes and Magill that
`
`11
`
`she was obligated to file a report, McNamara was forced to resign from the board.
`
`12
`
`29.
`
`Also in late 2021, both before and after her forced resignation, Hughes and Magill
`
`13
`
`tried several times to pressure McNamara into transferring the .org domain to the company,
`
`14
`
`without consideration. McNamara always refused.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Breach of Contract by McNamara against BCS and DOES 1 through 10)
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiffs refer to and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1
`
`18
`
`through 29 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`19
`
`31.
`
`In 2021, BCS (through its board of directors) entered into an agreement with
`
`20
`
`McNamara whereby BCS promised that McNamara would be reimbursed for the expenses she
`
`21
`
`incurred on behalf of the organization, and that the money she loaned to or paid on behalf of the
`
`22
`
`organization would be repaid. The agreement is memorialized in early meeting minutes, chat logs
`
`23
`
`24
`
`between the board, and referenced in emails between BCS’s and McNamara’s legal counsel.
`
`32.
`
`To date McNamara has incurred expenses and paid more than $103,920 on behalf
`
`25
`
`of BCS, including expenses incurred for setting up its IT accounts, startup costs for setup of the
`
`26
`
`corporation and 501(c)(3) status, and money paid to fund litigation filed by BCS against the
`
`27
`
`owners of the .net domain.
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`33. McNamara performed all of the obligations she was required to perform under the
`
`agreement, except as excused by law or BCS’s breach.
`
`34.
`
`BCS breached the agreement by failing and refusing to reimburse McNamara for
`
`the expenses she incurred and the money she paid on BCS’s behalf. Plaintiffs allege on
`
`5
`
`information and belief that the only reason BCS has not reimbursed McNamara is because Hughes
`
`6
`
`and Magill wish to enrich themselves. For example, McNamara alleges on information and belief
`
`7
`
`that Hughes and Magill have proposed budgets that include paying themselves six-figure salaries,
`
`8
`
`but do not allocate any funds toward repaying McNamara. A representative example of one such
`
`
`
`9
`
`budget is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`10
`
`35.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of BCS’s breach of contract, McNamara has been
`
`11
`
`damaged in an amount to be ascertained at the time of trial, but not less than $103,920, plus
`
`12
`
`prejudgment interest on such funds.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Money Paid/Unjust Enrichment by McNamara against BCS and DOES 1 through 10)
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1
`
`16
`
`through 35 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`37. Within the past year, BCS became indebted to McNamara in the sum of $103,920
`
`for money McNamara lent to BCS and paid on behalf of BCS at BCS’s request.
`Despite BCS’s promise to repay the money, the money remains due and owing to
`
`38.
`
`20
`
`McNamara.
`
`21
`
`39. McNamara has sent multiple demands for repayment to BCS, each of which have
`
`22
`
`been ignored or refused.
`
`23
`
`40.
`
`As a result, there now exists $103,920 due and owing to McNamara by BCS and
`
`24
`
`BCS would be unjustly enriched if the money was not repaid.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Harassment in Violation of FEHA against all Defendants)
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1
`
`28
`
`through 40 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`42.
`
` BCS is a California non-profit entity which, at all relevant times, employed at least
`
`five employees and is subject to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
`
`3
`
`FEHA prohibits harassment on the basis of sexual orientation.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`43. Whiteley, as a gay man, was subjected harassment in violation of FEHA. Hughes,
`
`BCS’s President, regularly hurled insults and homophobic epithets at Whiteley during meetings
`(including during BCS board of directors’ meetings), telephone calls, Zoom conferences and on
`BCS’s private Slack channel in the Breaking Code Silence workspace. For example, Hughes
`would regularly refer to Whiteley as “Mangina,” “Pookie,” and other derogatory terms. Hughes
`also regularly referred to Whiteley as being a “drama queen” and having a negative “female
`energy.” The comments were particularly offensive to Whiteley because he is not an effeminate
`
`11
`
`man.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`44.
`
`In May 2021, Hughes approached a male member of the survivor community and
`
`asked him to join the board, stating that his male energy would negate Whiteley’s “female
`energy.” Hughes would often make comments in front of Whiteley about how everyone could
`“suck her dick” and “eat her ass” even after Whiteley would voice his discomfort at these
`
`16
`
`comments and explain that they targeted his sexuality.
`
`17
`
`45.
`
`After finding out that Whiteley was upset about the Chick-Fil-A corporation’s
`
`18
`
`donations to causes that promote an anti-LGBTQA+ agenda, Hughes began purposefully eating
`
`19
`
`Chick-Fil-A on Zoom calls with Whiteley and bragging to BCS leadership about how it would
`
`20
`
`illicit a negative reaction from Whiteley.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`46.
`
`After Whiteley’s forced resignation, Hughes proudly stated that the board was
`much better off without Whiteley’s “female energy.”
`
`47. McNamara, as a gay woman, was also subjected to harassment by being forced into
`
`work in a hostile work environment in which Hughes continually harassed Whiteley and BCS’s
`
`25
`
`other LBGQA+ volunteers. For example, and in addition to the above, Hughes once told a told a
`
`26
`
`volunteer that the volunteer was a lesbian because of her childhood sexual trauma.
`
`27
`
`48.
`
`Due to McNamara’s significant financial investment in BCS and the threat of not
`
`28
`
`being repaid, she was forced to witness and endure Hughes harassing and offensive conduct.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`49.
`
`Throughout 2021, McNamara, Whiteley, and others repeatedly complained about
`
`Hughes’ behavior to BCS’s management and board of directors, including Magill, who could put a
`stop to Hughes’ offensive and abusive behavior. However, Defendants failed and refused to take
`
`4
`
`any action to stop or prevent the harassment.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`50.
`
`Hughes’ abusive conduct based on sexual orientation created an extremely hostile
`work environment so severe and pervasive as to adversely alter the terms of Whiteley’s
`
`7
`
`employment, ultimately forcing him to resign from BCS.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`51.
`
`Hughes’ abusive conduct based on sexual orientation created an extremely hostile
`work environment so severe and pervasive as to adversely alter the terms of McNamara’s
`
`
`
`10
`
`employment and was a contributing factor in her decision to resign.
`
`11
`
`52.
`
`Under FEHA, BCS is strictly liable for the conduct of Hughes. Hughes and Magill
`
`12
`
`are also personally liable insofar as Hughes engaged in the harassing behavior and Magill knew
`
`13
`
`that Hughes conduct violated FEHA and aided and abetted Hughes in the harassment of Whiteley.
`
`14
`
`53.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ harassment and violations of
`
`15
`
`FEHA, Plaintiffs suffered economic losses and emotional distress in an amount to be determined
`
`16
`
`according to proof at the time of trial, but not less than $100,000.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`54.
`
`Defendants’ conduct towards Plaintiffs was despicable, malicious, oppressive, and
`in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and well-being. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to an
`
`19
`
`award of exemplary and punitive damages.
`
`20
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies prior to filing this claim by
`
`21
`
`obtaining Right to Sue Letters from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on May 3,
`
`22
`
`2022.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by Whiteley against all Defendants)
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1
`
`26
`
`through 55 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`57.
`
`California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified at Civil Code §51 (the “Unruh Act”)
`
`2
`
`prohibits intentional discrimination and mandates that business establishments serve all persons
`
`3
`
`without arbitrary discrimination. The Unruh Act applies to BCS as it solicits contributions and
`
`4
`
`volunteer work from the public.
`
`5
`
`58.
`
`Hughes, and by extension BCS, treated Whiteley differently from other volunteers
`
`6
`
`by making offensive humiliating comments to him and others based on their sexual orientation.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Hughes, BCS’s President, regularly hurled insults and homophobic epithets at Whiteley during
`meetings (including during BCS board of directors’ meetings), telephone calls, Zoom conferences
`and on BCS’s private Slack channel in the Breaking Code Silence workspace. For example,
`Hughes would regularly refer to Whiteley as “Mangina,” “Pookie,” and other derogatory terms.
`Hughes also regularly referred to Whiteley as being a “drama queen” and having a negative
`“female energy.”
`
`59.
`
`In May 2021, Hughes approached a male member of the community and asked him
`
`to join the board, stating that his male energy would negate Whiteley’s “female energy.” Hughes
`would often make comments in front of Whiteley about how everyone could “suck her dick” and
`“eat her ass,” even after Whiteley voiced his discomfort at these comments and explained that he
`
`17
`
`felt they targeted his sexuality.
`
`18
`
`60.
`
`After finding out that Whiteley was upset about the Chick-Fil-A corporation’s
`
`19
`
`donations to causes the promote an anti-LGBTQA+ agenda, Hughes began purposefully eating
`
`20
`
`Chick-Fil-A on Zoom calls with Whiteley and bragging to BCS leadership about how it would
`
`21
`
`illicit a negative reaction from Whiteley.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`61.
`
`After Whiteley’s forced resignation, Hughes proudly stated that the board was
`much better without Whiteley’s “female energy.”
`62. Whiteley (and others) repeatedly complained about Hughes’ behavior to BCS’s
`management and board of directors, including Magill, who could put a stop to Hughes’ offensive
`
`26
`
`and abusive behavior, but Defendants failed and refused to take any action prevent the harassment.
`
`27
`
`63.
`
`Hughes’s harassing and offensive behavior toward Whiteley was so pervasive that
`
`28
`
`Whiteley was left with no alternative but to resign.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`64.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ harassment and violations of the
`
`2
`
`Unruh Act, Whiteley has suffered economic loss and emotional distress in an amount to be
`
`3
`
`determined according to proof at the time of trial, but not less than $100,000.
`
`4
`
`65.
`
`Civil Code §52(a) provides that a victim of discrimination prohibited by the Unruh
`
`5
`
`Act may receive up to three times the amount of his actual damages, but in no case less than
`
`6
`
`$4,000 for each and every offense. Accordingly, Whiteley is entitled to treble damages or,
`
`7
`
`alternatively, $4,000 per offense.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`66.
`
`Civil Code §52(a) provides for the recovery of attorneys’ fees against a defendant
`who violates the Unruh Act. As a result, Whiteley is entitled to recover his attorneys’ fees
`
`
`
`10
`
`incurred in this action.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`67.
`
`Defendants’ conduct towards Whiteley was despicable, malicious, oppressive, and
`in conscious disregard of Whiteley’s rights and well-being. To the extent permitted by law,
`
`13
`
`Whiteley is entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs KATHERINE MCNAMARA and JEREMY WHITELEY pray
`
`PRAYER
`
`16
`
`for judgment against Defendants BREAKING CODE SILENCE, VANESSA HUGHES, and
`
`17
`
`JENNIFER REBECCA MAGILL and DOES 1-20, inclusive, and each of them, as follows:
`
`18
`
`1.
`
`For general, actual, compensatory and consequential damages in an amount to be
`
`19
`
`determined at the time of trial, but not less than $100,000;
`
`20
`
`2.
`
`For treble damages and/or statutory penalties in an amount to be determined at the
`
`21
`
`time of trial;
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`trial;
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For special damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial;
`
`For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at the time of
`
`For attorney’s fees as allowed by law;
`
`For costs of suit incurred herein; and
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`12
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs demand a jury trial in the above-captioned action as to all claims for which they
`
`3
`
`have a right to trial by jury.
`
`
`
`DATED: May 5, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JULANDER, BROWN & BOLLARD
`
`By:
`
`
`Dirk O. Julander
`Catherine A. Close
`M. Adam Tate
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs KATHERINE
`MCNAMARA and JEREMY WHITELEY
`
`13
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Firefox
`
`file:///E:/New%20Facebook/messages/archived_threads/interimladies_pa...
`
`REDACTED
`
`Vanessa RH
`
`mangina
`
`May 11, 2021 9:26:12pm
`
`Vanessa RH
`
`apparantly we have been insuring a car we don't own since 2015 and a fuckin house since 2017
`
`May 11, 2021 9:26:01pm
`
`Katie Mac
`
`ok, I'll wait
`
`May 11, 2021 9:25:48pm
`
`1 of 3
`
`4/9/2022, 10:52 PM
`
`

`

`Firefox
`
`file:///E:/New%20Facebook/messages/archived_threads/interimladies_pa...
`
`Katie Mac
`
`Who is pookie?
`
`May 11, 2021 9:25:43pm
`
`Vanessa RH
`
`im on a call getting insurance fixed.
`
`May 11, 2021 9:25:40pm
`
`Katie Mac
`
`I'll jump in right now
`
`May 11, 2021 9:25:32pm
`
`Vanessa RH
`
`ill get Josh too
`
`May 11, 2021 9:25:19pm
`
`Vanessa RH
`
`lets get JMag and see if pookie is available
`
`May 11, 2021 9:25:16pm
`
`Vanessa RH
`
`ya, lets get on a zoom
`
`May 11, 2021 9:24:53pm
`
`Katie Mac
`
`Have a couple things I want to ask about but I don't want to write it out here
`
`May 11, 2021 9:24:52pm
`
`Katie Mac
`
`Anyone around to talk out this complaint with me?
`
`May 11, 2021 9:24:40pm
`
`2 of 3
`
`4/9/2022, 10:52 PM
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`BCS Organizational Budget Planning
`Insert Format Data Tools Help
`
`File Edit View
`
`ty @ Savedto Drive
`
`Last edit was on December8, 2021
`
`=|
`
`@G
`
`~~ Ge
`
`FP
`
`100% ~
`
`§$
`
`% 0 00 123+
`
`Arial
`
`+
`
`12
`
`+
`
`BIsA *% @
`
`~ itv lar Yer
`
`ce f) fi] Y-~ E+
`
`s
`
`-
`
`Role
`
`B
`| Priority
`
`Organizational Director
`Administrative Director
`DevelopmentDirector
`Legislative Director
`Legislative Project Manager
`Volunteer Coordinator
`Project Manager
`Executive Assistant
`Advocacy Director
`Advocacy Admin/PM
`Awareness Director
`Awareness Admin/PM
`_PR/Media Manager
`Research Director
`Research PM
`
`C
`
`D
`
`E
`
`Ec
`
`‘Salary RangeHigh
`$250,000.00
`$200,000.00
`$120,000.00
`$165,000.00
`$120,000.00
`$100,000.00
`$80,000.00
`$90,000.00
`$150,000.00
`$80,000.00
`$150,000.00
`$80,000.00
`$90,000.00
`$250,000.00
`$80,000.00
`
`‘Salary Range Low ‘Average
`$80,000.00
`$165,000.00
`$70,000.00
`$135,000.00
`$65,000.00
`$92,500.00
`$80,000.00
`$122,500.00
`$60,000.00
`$90,000.00
`$60,000.00
`$80,000.00
`$60,000.00
`$70,000.00
`$50,000.00
`$70,000.00
`$70,000.00
`$110,000.00
`$50,000.00
`$65,000.00
`$70,000.00
`$110,000.00
`$50,000.00
`$65,000.00
`$50,000.00
`$70,000.00
`$100,000.00
`$175,000.00
`$50,000.00
`$65,000.00
`
`Insurance + Taxes
`
`$46,200.00
`$37,800.00
`$25,900.00
`$34,300.00
`$25,200.00
`$22,400.00
`$19,600.00
`$19,600.0