Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 08/15/2022 02:29 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Williams,Deputy Clerk

22STCV26380
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Michelle Williams Court

NATASHA CHESLER (S.B. #227540)

1 CHESLER LAW P.C.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
2 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 421-8697
3 Facsimile: (310) 861-8852
E-Mail: [email protected]
4
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Sammy Corea, Carol De La Sotta,
6 Bill Hutson, Sinbad Kazakian,
William Alan Pfister, Jr., Rob Ross,
7 Daniel Storm, Ruby Tse, and
Bernabe Zepeda
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
12
SAMMY COREA, CAROL DE LA CASE NO.
13 SOTTA, BILL HUTSON, SINBAD
KAZAKIAN, WILLIAM ALAN PFISTER, COMPLAINT FOR:
14 JR., ROB ROSS, DANIEL STORM, RUBY
TSE, and BERNABE ZEPEDA, 1) AGE/DISABILITY
15 DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION
Plaintiffs, OF CAL. GOV'T CODE §§ 12900 ET
16 SEQ.;
vs.
17 2) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
FOX SPORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, a VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
18 Delaware Limited Liability Company;
SPORTS MEDIA SERVICES LLC, a 3) PROMISSORY
19 Delaware Limited Liability Company; FOX FRAUD/INTENTIONAL
PAYROLL SERVICES, INC., a MISREPRESENTATION AND/OR
20 Corporation; FOX PAYROLL SERVICES FAILURE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability FACTS; AND
21 Company; FOX SPORTS 1, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; FOX 4) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
22 SPORTS 2, LLC, a Delaware Limited EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
23 10, inclusive,
24 Defendants.
25 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
26
27
28

COMPLAINT
 1 Plaintiffs Sammy Corea, Carol De La Sotta, Bill Hutson, Sinbad Kazakian, William
2 Alan Pfister, Jr., Rob Ross, Daniel Storm, Ruby Tse, and Bernabe Zepeda (collectively
3 “Plaintiffs”) hereby brings their complaint against the above-named defendants and state and
4 allege as follows:
5 General Allegations
6 1. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that at all times
7 mentioned herein defendant Sports Media Services LLC is and was a Delaware Limited
8 Liability Company authorized and doing business in California; defendant Fox Payroll
9 Services, LLC is and was a Delaware Limited Liability Company authorized and doing
10 business in California; defendant Fox Payroll Services, Inc. is and was a corporation with its
11 principal place of business in Los Angeles County California; defendant Fox Sports 1 is and
12 was a Delaware Limited Liability Company authorized and doing business in California;
13 defendant Fox Sports 2 is and was a Delaware Limited Liability Company authorized and
14 doing business in California; and defendant Fox Sports Holdings, LLC (collectively
15 “Defendants” or “Fox”) is and was a Delaware Limited Liability Company authorized and
16 doing business in California.
17 2. At all times mentioned herein, and at the time the causes of action arose,
18 Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants in the County of Los Angeles. The acts giving rise
19 to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the County of Los Angeles.
20 3. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued
21 herein as DOES 1-10, inclusive, and for that reason sue said Defendants by such fictitious
22 names. Plaintiffs will file and serve an amendment to this complaint alleging the true names
23 and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants if and when such true names and
24 capacities become known to Plaintiffs.
25 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of the
26 fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for, and proximately caused, the
27 harm and damages alleged herein below.
28 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the
2
COMPLAINT
 1 Defendants and individuals named herein acted as the employee, agent, partner, alter-ego,
2 joint venturer and/or joint employer of each of the other Defendants named herein and, in
3 doing the acts and in carrying out the wrongful conduct alleged herein, each of said
4 Defendants acted within the scope of said relationship and with the permission, consent and
5 ratification of each of the other Defendants named herein.
6 6. Hereinafter in the complaint, unless otherwise specified, reference to Defendant
7 or Defendants shall refer to all Defendants, and each of them.
8 INTRODUCTION
9 7. This is the story of Fox using the Covid-19 pandemic as a mask for
10 age/disability discrimination. Plaintiffs are all well over 40 years old – ranging from 49
11 to 80 years old. And all Plaintiffs had incredibly long-standing years of service. In
12 total, Plaintiffs collectively devoted over 190 years to Fox.
13 8. Fox called Plaintiffs “day hires,” but they functioned as a typical long-term
14 employment relationship. Fox provided consistent schedules in advance. Plaintiffs reported
15 to the same place, the same supervisors, had Fox email addresses, belonged to the union, and
16 some even sent their children to the Fox daycare/preschool. Thus, while Fox may have
17 termed them “day hires,” the reality is they were typical on payroll employees.
18 9. In March 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic began escalating, Fox sent
19 Plaintiffs (and most other employees) home to allegedly “keep everyone safe” and help
20 “flatten the curve.” Fox repeatedly told Plaintiffs that they would keep them posted on when
21 they could return. Fox even paid Plaintiffs for a short while. But despite promises to keep in
22 touch, Fox then went radio silent.
23 10. When Plaintiffs reached out for news, Fox kept dangling the carrot and
24 stringing them along by saying they were still figuring things out and would know more soon,
25 (“hang in there”). Having spent the vast majority (if not all for some) of their careers at Fox,
26 Plaintiffs dutifully waited to return to their jobs. They did not seek other work and in some
27 cases even forewent applying to jobs they likely could have gotten. All because they were
28 loyal to Fox and Fox made it seem like they would return at some point.
3
COMPLAINT
 1 11. But Fox knew full well they were not calling back these older workers. Indeed,
2 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that other employees were called back and/or hired for
3 Plaintiffs’ jobs – the majority of whom were much younger. Fox even held a meeting where
4 a manager made clear no one else was being called back (and even made an off-hand remark
5 that they had finally gotten rid of the “dead weight”). (Plaintiffs are further informed and
6 believe that another manager made the same “dead weight” comment at another time.) Yet,
7 incredulously, Fox never notified Plaintiffs their careers were over. And Ms. Kim even
8 specifically stated that Mr. Pfister would not be called back while Fox simultaneously
9 continued to lead Mr. Pfister on about the possibility of returning.
10 12. Indeed, to date, Fox has never directly told Plaintiffs that they have been
11 terminated. Instead, Fox ghosted these employees who Fox itself once described as “the
12 people who take care of us.” As a result, Plaintiffs’ careers were forcibly cut short, and the
13 financial bottom torn out from under them. It was beyond devastating. Fox did not even give
14 these Plaintiffs the decency of a phone call.
15 13. Fox’s apparent excuse is that “business needs changed” and Plaintiffs lacked
16 the needed “skill set” – but Plaintiffs’ 190+ years of experience, dedicated, and loyal service
17 to Fox makes this excuse a poor mask for age discrimination. Nothing changed in the “skill
18 set” required for the job in the months between the time Plaintiffs were sent home at the
19 beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic and the time when Fox returned Plaintiffs counterparts.
20 There is simply no excuse that Plaintiffs were not called back given their length of service,
21 experience, and positive employment histories. These Plaintiffs were Emmy Award winning
22 artists and beyond capable in their careers. Fox cared only about their financial bottom line
23 and older workers were more expensive (and some also required disability accommodations).
24 Thus, Plaintiffs bring this case to fight against such discrimination.
25 BACKGROUND FACTS
26 14. All Plaintiffs are well over 40 years old: Corea (59); De La Sotta (63); Hutson
27 (70); Kazakian (62); Pfister (68); Ross (49); Storm (52); Tse (80); and Zepeda (55).
28 15. All Plaintiffs worked in the Graphics Department with lengthy careers: Corea
4
COMPLAINT
 1 was a Computer Graphic Artist and began in 1998; De La Sotta was also a Computer Graphic
2 Artist and began in 1992; Hutson was a Head EGO (Electronic Graphics Operator) who
3 began in approximately 1999; Kazakian was a Senior Designer and began in approximately
4 2003; Pfister was an EGO and began in 1994; Ross was a Viz Artist who began in
5 approximately 2009; Storm was a Head EGO and began in 1994; Tse was a Graphic Artist
6 and began in 1994; and Zepeda was an EGO and began in approximately 1996.
7 16. Indeed, many of these Plaintiffs were there before the sports network even
8 launched and went on air in September 1994 and in so doing helped put Fox on the map.
9 17. All Plaintiffs ultimately reported to Gary Hartley, EVP/Creative Director of
10 Fox Sports Creative Services.
11 18. Age discrimination often comes hand in hand with disability discrimination – as
12 age brings on various conditions and age and disability are often stereotyped together. Here,
13 many of the Plaintiffs also had disability accommodations and/or took disability leaves,
14 which is also associated with age stereotypes as well. For example, Corea underwent hip
15 surgery twice taking approximately 6-8 weeks of disability leave in November 2018 and
16 another 6-8 weeks in November 2019. In addition, Pfister took a one-year leave of absence
17 from June 2009-June 2010 to address Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Plaintiffs are also
18 informed and believe that other older workers who similarly were not brought back also
19 required similar disability/medical condition accommodations.
20 Fox Begins Pushing Out Its Older Workers
21 19. Plaintiffs felt a discriminatory bias even before Covid-19. There felt like a
22 pushing out by Fox as they grew older, as if Fox was putting the older workers “out to
23 pasture.” For example, in approximately 2017, Fox moved a group of graphic artists into an
24 extremely tiny room far out from the art department. While there were a couple younger
25 employees, the vast majority placed in the room were the older workers. And they were
26 beginning to get much more grunt work. Even coworkers commented asking why they were
27 shoved in this tiny far away room (e.g., “wow they moved you out here!”)
28
5
COMPLAINT
 1 20. As another example, Kazakian noticed that in approximately 2018/2019, Fox
2 had reduced the design work they were giving him and began giving him less desirable
3 projects. They also reduced him from five (5) to four (4) days and it seemed that it was part
4 of a plan to get him to quit.
5 21. Further, younger employees began getting promoted while Plaintiffs were not.
6 For example, Zepeda felt underutilized and in approximately 2018/2019 he approached Zach
7 Fields (Senior VP Graphic Technology) about being promoted to a VIZ artist. Mr. Fields
8 made excuses about putting Zepeda in another position, claiming those jobs were “really for
9 designers,” but Zepeda was an operator. That wasn’t accurate however (Zepeda did design
10 work) and, moreover, Zepeda saw younger employees (under 40) who were not designers get
11 promoted to such positions. Thus, Zepeda approached Ms. Kim and asked if he could do
12 photoshop work in the 2D department, but she said that photoshop work was for current 2D
13 employees only. Yet Zepeda then saw a younger employee (under 40) be allowed to do
14 photoshop work although he was not in the 2D department either (and then got promoted to
15 the 2D department thereafter). Thus, it appeared Fox was not promoting its older workforce
16 and instead were hanging them out to die on the proverbial vine.
17 Fox Sends Employees Home to Allegedly Help “Flatten the Curve”
18 22. Along with the rest of the country, in March 2020, Fox was dealing with the
19 growing Covid-19 pandemic. On March 12, 2020, Mr. Hartley sent an email explaining that
20 given the Coronavirus situation, “[i]n an abundance of caution and effective immediately,
21 [Fox was] sending all non-essential employees home for the foreseeable future.” This was
22 for the “health and well-being” of employees and their families, and the company did “not
23 know how long this will last.” (Mr. Hartley told members of the Graphics Department that
24 this was being done to “help flatten the curve.”) Mr. Hartley said the company promised to
25 do its “best to keep everyone informed via Human Resources and [their] direct supervisors.”
26 23. On March 16, 2020, Mr. Hartley sent an email to update where the company
27 was on working through logistics of a work-at-home model and that further updates would be
28 forthcoming. On March 20, 2020, the scheduling department sent an email explaining that
6
COMPLAINT
 1 due to COVID-19, there were no bookings the following week and things were being
2 assessed on a day-by-day basis. Then on March 22, 2020, Kim Beauvais (SVP, HR &
3 Business Operations – Fox Sports) sent a mass email thanking everyone for their patience and
4 explaining that everyone would continue to be paid through April 12, 2020. She closed by
5 thanking everyone for their “hard work and commitment to FOX Sports” and that the
6 company was “looking forward to getting programming back on the air and [them] back to
7 work.”
8 24. On March 23, 2020, Mr. Hartley emailed Plaintiffs (and the others in their
9 department) and confirmed that everyone would continue to be paid through April 12, 2020.
10 He further explained that they were working to find a “solution that hopefully will keep
11 everyone whole as we sit out this crisis” and suggested using sick or vacation time to bridge
12 the gap. He closed explaining “I don’t know what the plan is after the 12th but hopefully we
13 are looking at return dates by then…but it’s difficult to tell at this writing.”
14 25. On April 9, 2020, Ms. Beauvais again emailed the team explaining that the
15 compensation benefit would continue through April 19, 2020 and providing information
16 regarding unemployment COVID-19 benefits for additional compensation.
17 26. Fox’s communications never indicated in any way that Plaintiffs were being
18 terminated or likely to be. Thus, these dutiful long-term employees waited. Some passed up
19 other opportunities and held tight for the company they had all built their careers at and
20 wanted to return to. Indeed, Fox gave Plaintiffs no indication whatsoever that they should not
21 wait for Fox. Instead, Fox kept leading Plaintiffs on that they were still figuring things out.
22 27. For example, on June 8, 2020, Storm contacted Helen Kim (Director of
23 Creative Services) and asked about an update on the situation. Ms. Kim stated: “No word on
24 return. Lots of meetings but no dates. We have been told to book only as needed…” Ms.
25 Kim told Storm that she “[had] to be careful of what [she said]” and that [Hartley’s] hands
26 “were tied.”
27 28. June 24, 2020, Jackson Winkler (Sports Postproduction Coordinator) responded
28 to an inquiry from Ms. De La Sotta explaining that he had “no new information at [the] time
7
COMPLAINT
 1 regarding work/coming back,” but he had heard the MLB was likely returning and the
2 company “hope[d] to have a better understanding of what will come once all the X’s and O’s
3 [were] set.”
4 29. In approximately July 2020, Storm again contacted Ms. Kim explaining that he
5 had heard that certain other people [with less seniority] had been brought back to work and
6 asked if there were discussions on this. Ms. Kim responded that what she said had to stay
7 “between [them]” and confirmed that the others identified [e.g. the younger employees] had
8 been “activated.” Ms. Kim again stated, “I’m not supposed to say anything.” Then Ms. Kim
9 told Storm he was “next on the list” to be called back but did not know when that would be.
10 Mr. Fields also told Storm that “things are hectic and different right now. [Hartley] is
11 working with HR on all staffing. Feel free to reach out to him.”
12 30. Also, while Ms. Kim helped Storm get a job working on a few MLB games
13 around Summer of 2020, Fox cancelled him stating they no longer needed the position, which
14 did not make logical sense.
15 31. Also in July 2020, Storm contacted Mr. Fields asking if people were going to
16 return, if he still had a job, and identifying those he heard had been called back. Storm
17 explained that this placed him in a tough financial situation and affected decisions he had to
18 make about where to live and custody of his son. But no update was provided.
19 32. On September 15, 2020, Mr. Hartley sent a mass email to Plaintiffs in response
20 to emails and calls he received. Mr. Hartley claimed that the company had “undergone a
21 dramatic restructuring of workflows” since March 2020 and that they had “called people back
22 into service with a focus on managing the tasks…in the most efficient manner possible.” He
23 further stated that the company’s goal was “to return to the world we knew before the
24 pandemic, but it’s difficult to predict when that will be.” “I can assure you that we are
25 constantly evaluating the near-term future with an eye on getting as many people back to
26 work as possible. As we become aware of additional/new opportunities, we will reach out to
27 you.”
28 33. On or about December 8, 2020, De La Sotta, contacted Corey Witte (Manager,
8
COMPLAINT
 1 Postproduction) asking to see if there were any updates about returning to work. Mr. Witte
2 responded on December 9, 2020, stating that he unfortunately didn’t have “any updates on
3 work as of now.” Mr. Witte apologized for the lack of communication and claimed it was
4 because they were “restricted by certain HR rules, which [he knew had not] made it easy for a
5 lot of people wondering what’s going on.” Mr. Witte said he would let De La Sotta know
6 “right away” as soon as heard of any updates.
7 34. On January 5, 2021, De La Sotta contacted Mr. Hartley, Ms. Perow, and Ms.
8 Franklin to wish them a Happy New Year and check in to see when she might return to work,
9 explaining that the waiting was of course beyond challenging. Mr. Hartley responded on
10 January 6, 2021, stating that it was “virtually impossible to know how the year will play out,”
11 explained the various factors in making personnel callback decisions ((1) type of work tasked
12 with; (2) amount of seats able to occupy; and (3) the needed skillset – as well as workflow),
13 and that he was sorry but it was “tough to make predictions” as to when they would be called
14 back.
15 35. On or about February 10, 2021, De La Sotta again contacted Mr. Witte asking
16 for an update. Mr. Witte said he had no updates at the time.
17 36. Also in February 2021, Hutson contacted Keiko Noda in HR at Fox Sports
18 inquiring about any options for severance under the contract. Ms. Noda explained his
19 options, but ultimately Hutson told Ms. Noda that he wanted to wait until he was “sure [he
20 would] not be returning to FOX.” Ms. Noda said she understood and that there was no time
21 limit on applying for the severance pay.
22 37. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs at the time, but in approximately July 2020, Mr.
23 Hartley had a meeting with the Graphics Department in which he stated, “this is it; no one
24 else will be returning.” Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that Mr. Hartley
25 commented to another employee who pointed out that there were less people working there
26 that they “got rid of all the dead weight.” Yet incredulously Fox did not have the decency to
27 let Plaintiffs – its longest tenured workers – even know. Instead, it simply led them on and
28 later ignored them.
9
COMPLAINT
 1 38. On June 21, 2021, Zepeda contacted Mr. Hartley and asked about news on the
2 return to work. Unemployment was running out and Zepeda was beginning to grow
3 concerned. Mr. Hartley responded the same day, explaining that the company was
4 undergoing “cutting budgets and altering processes” and that at that point it didn’t “appear
5 [they would] be calling additional people back in the foreseeable future.” This came as an
6 epic blow. Zepeda – and the other Plaintiffs – all believed they were going to return to work.
7 Indeed, Fox had undergone other restructurings in the past and these long-term employees
8 were always called back. This was over one year and three (3) months since being sent home
9 and told to wait for further news – and no communication came until Zepeda was the one to
10 reach out.
11 39. In July 2021, Corea learned from his physician that he no longer had insurance.
12 He was shocked and confused. Corea then contacted HR and spoke to Keiko Noda who told
13 him that he could get COBRA, but it was only going to be paid for until the end of September
14 2021. Mr. Noda did not state that Corea had been laid off or was otherwise terminated.
15 Nor had Fox sent any information prior to this. Then when Corea went to sign up for
16 COBRA, he learned it would only last until September 2021, but that had Fox let him know
17 sooner, he would have qualified for longer coverage. Corea could not believe any of this.
18 Indeed, Corea’s personal belongings were still there – and remain there today!
19 40. In September 2021, De La Sotta contacted the union about filing a grievance for
20 not being called back yet while others were only to learn that Fox claimed she had been laid
21 off. Except Fox never notified De La Sotta of this!
22 41. In November 2021, Corea contacted the union about filing a grievance to
23 similarly be told he could not because he too had been laid off despite also never being so
24 notified. Indeed, Fox never notified any of the Plaintiffs at any point up to today that they
25 had been laid off, terminated, or otherwise let go.
26 42. Thus, it seemed Fox had “ghosted” them. Ghosting, also known as simmering
27 or icing, is a term used to describe ending all communication without any apparent warning
28 or justification. What does ghosting say about a person? “It shows you have no respect for
10
COMPLAINT
 1 another person’s feelings. It says you are inconsiderate and don’t care much about the impact
2 or consequences of your actions. It’s easier than breaking up but it also shows you have no
3 character when you choose easy over integrity.” This precisely describes the shameful way
4 Fox went about “laying off” employees after this many years of service. To not only lose
5 their long-standing careers, but the way Fox did this – communicating to Plaintiffs that their
6 hard work meant nothing – blow to them all.
7 43. And Fox also simply got rid of many of Plaintiffs’ personal belongings. For
8 example, Zepeda contacted Ms. Kim about his things only to be told that Fox had tossed
9 everything because of “Covid Protocol” and because they were reconfiguring the bullpen.
10 Nobody ever even bothered to contact Zepeda to see if he wanted his things back before
11 simply tossing it in the trash.
12 44. Hutson learned that Fox had taken his personal belongings (which were still at
13 the workplace) and placed them unceremoniously in two (2) cardboard boxes to be tossed out
14 without his knowledge. Hutson only found out about this from another employee who kindly
15 retrieved the boxes for him. Fox did not have the courtesy to notify Hutson that any of this
16 was happening or ask what he would like to do with his things.
17 45. Similarly, in approximately late January 2021, a coworker contacted Ross to let
18 him know that they were moving someone else to Ross’ desk and offered to pack and bring
19 Ross his things. Yet Fox never notified Ross ever about this.
20 46. De La Sotta and Tse went to gather their belongings in approximately Summer
21 2021 to discover that the room they had been working in was freshly painted and set up
22 similarly to how it was when they had worked there. There were significantly younger artists
23 there doing the same exact work De La Sotta and Tse had been doing, on the same
24 equipment, etc. which further showed Fox had no intention of calling Plaintiffs back and
25 there was no legitimate unlawful reason to do so.
26 47. Moreover, Fox did not ever allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to get reels or
27 samples of their work, which is critical in searching and obtaining employment elsewhere.
28
11
COMPLAINT
 1 Fox Calls Back the Younger Workers
2 48. While Fox did not call back Plaintiffs – who had more seniority and experience
3 – it did call back other mostly younger employees in Plaintiffs’ respective positions.
4 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the majority of those brought back in their place were
5 substantially younger (most in their 30s). For example, Storm was a Head EGO. There had
6 been two others – Noah Hammond and Bill Pinkle. Yet Fox called Mr. Hammond back first
7 despite him having the least experience of the three. The only real difference: Mr. Hammond
8 was the youngest (approximately 31). Then Fox called back Mr. Pinkle – the next youngest
9 (approximately 36 years old). Storm could not believe it and asked Ms. Kim what was going
10 on. She said Storm was next, but they didn’t know “if they would get there.”
11 49. Further, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that another younger employee
12 (Mark Howell and/or Hans Tjandra) was promoted to Hutson’s job and/or other of Plaintiffs’
13 positions.
14 50. Similarly, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that a younger (under 40)
15 employee was hired/promoted to replace Mr. Ross and then was let go (in approximately
16 January 2021), yet Mr. Ross (nor any of the other Plaintiffs) were called back or offered this
17 position. Instead, Fox again refilled it (likely again with someone younger).
18 51. Also, Storm was the only Head EGO with live game experience, yet other Head
19 EGOs (that were significantly younger than Storm) were either brought back or promoted to
20 such position.
21 52. There were also other positions that could have been given to Plaintiffs but
22 were not even offered or otherwise explored and instead went to younger individuals. For
23 example, Storm was tasked with managing the Help Desk. In approximately November
24 2020, Fox advertised an open position for the Help Desk yet did not offer such position to
25 Storm (or any of the other Plaintiffs).
26 53. In October and December 2021, De La Sotta applied to open positions at Fox,
27 but never received any interview or other communication.
28 54. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that other older (disabled or regarded as
12
COMPLAINT
 1 disabled) workers were similarly replaced in their positions by younger non-disabled workers.
2 The Emotional Toll on Plaintiffs
3 55. The emotional devastation on Plaintiffs was intense.
4 a. For example, Corea (who worked at Fox since 1998) cannot even be
5 present when a Fox Sports broadcast is on without breaking down. His confidence as an
6 artist has been destroyed. He feels lost, rudderless, is full of anxiety, and does not know how
7 to start over at this age and stage of his career.
8 b. De La Sotta (who worked at Fox since 1992) now suffers panic attacks
9 and depression. She is surviving, but no longer really living due to the severe economic
10 pressure Fox left her with and the loss of her health insurance. Moreover, De La Sotta’s
11 house burned down in 2018 in the Woolsey fire, and she was (and still is) living in an RV
12 dealing with the financial and logistical nightmare of rebuilding. Thus, losing her career was
13 only further devastation leaving her with heightened anxiety, insomnia, depression, and
14 feelings of agoraphobia. To be hit like this after what felt like was many years of positive
15 treatment in the business was an epic blow. Now she has no home, no job, no income. It’s
16 truly terrible. She never thought she’d find herself in her 60’s asking, what should I do now?
17 c. Hutson (who worked at Fox since 1999) is the sole breadwinner for his
18 wife and daughter. He has also undergone anxiety and depression. Being discarded by Fox
19 in this manner felt like a slap in the face. In the past, when there were reductions, he was
20 always one of the first to get called back. The feeling of angst in the unknown has been
21 immense and he has suffered weight gain as well. Hutson’s daughter is in college and wants
22 to continue at a State University in the fall. Hutson is unsure how he will be able to pay those
23 costs now. His house also needs repairs and wanted to pay off his car – all things he also
24 believed he could earn the money for before retiring. All this financial stress has placed a
25 significant burden not only on Hutson, but his marriage as well. Hutson was not able to plan
26 for his retirement – Fox unilaterally imposed it upon him. And he feels a huge sense of loss
27 of friendship as most of his friends were his coworkers. Those he spent decades working
28 alongside. Fox also robbed Mr. Hutson – and the other Plaintiffs – of the ability to say
13
COMPLAINT
 1 goodbye to each other and the workplace. This has all led to feelings of uselessness for
2 Hutson as he struggles to get out of bed each day.
3 d. Kazakian (who worked at Fox since 2003) is losing his confidence as an
4 artist. Working at Fox for nearly 20 years was dependable. They called it the “safe house”
5 because they knew as they kept up with technology and trends, they would not be let go. The
6 damage to his confidence has been huge and the anxiety palpable. He does not know what to
7 do now. He is a strong positive person, but still his attitude has changed and his outlook on
8 life has been dimmed. He gave up a career in high profile rock and roll type work because he
9 wanted the stability Fox offered – but then ripped away.
10 e. Pfister (who worked at Fox since 1994) is angry and depressed. To work
11 for a company for 26 years only to be thrown out and “considered dead wood” was
12 overwhelming and painful. He has trouble sleeping and anxiety as he is scared about what to
13 do to survive financially. He has feelings of anger when he thinks about how his plans to
14 continue working were derailed and Fox unilaterally forced him into retirement.
15 f. Ross also suffered low self-esteem and bouts of depression and felt like
16 he was facing financial catastrophe. He has trouble sleeping (alternating between being
17 unable to sleep and sleeping too much) and even suffers waking with anxiety attacks. He
18 cannot understand how after 11 years, no one at Fox even had the decency to tell him he was
19 let go and cannot wrap his brain around any of it.
20 g. Storm (who worked at Fox since 1994) also was forced to temporarily
21 move due to the financial devastation of losing his career. Storm was approximately 25 years
22 old when he began at Fox – making Fox the only real job he ever had. Losing that took his
23 whole career and identity with it. It has sent him into a whirlwind of anxiety and depression.
24 Storm shares custody of a 12-year-old son with his ex-wife and the forced temporary move to
25 survive financially means for the first time that he cannot regularly see his son. Whereas
26 Storm used to see his son at least 3-5 times a week, now he is lucky if he sees his son a few
27 times a year. He has not seen his son for six (6) months at this point and is hoping to have
28 enough money to afford to see him for Easter. It is heartbreaking and brings him to tears
14
COMPLAINT
 1 often. He feels betrayed, used, and thrown away. He has a roommate for the first time in 30
2 years. He cannot understand how he and his co-workers who helped put Fox on the map
3 when they launched could then be treated in this callous and cruel manner.
4 h. Tse (who worked at Fox since 1994) has also been hit emotionally. At
5 80 years old, obviously she planned to retire with dignity at Fox. Her coworkers consistently
6 describe her as “legendary.” She was the longest tenured employee in the department and
7 was a vital part of the team that launched the programming. Tse does not have a partner or
8 children. Her life was her career at Fox. She is a spitfire with lots of energy and now little to
9 fill her days and a sense of “boredom” as work was her joy.
10 i. Zepeda (who worked at Fox since 1996) is also suffering emotionally.
11 He was the primary breadwinner for his wife and daughter. He feels hopeless and scared as
12 his daughter wants to begin college at a university and he does not know how he will afford it
13 without the income from his 20+ year career. He has lost motivation and often now has
14 “Fox” dreams where he is back at work only to wake up to this nightmare.
15 56. The betrayal is what hit everyone most of all. All Plaintiffs are haunted by
16 knowing they were called dead weight. They describe the feelings as akin to a spouse
17 cheating because they thought Fox had been good to them for many years and then suddenly
18 it all changed. Being laid off was bad enough. But not even getting the decency of a phone
19 call – or even an email or letter – was even worse. Most have been unilaterally forced by Fox
20 into early retirement as finding another job at this age/stage in their careers is near to
21 impossible, especially having to explain why Fox let them go after such lengthy service. They
22 are draining their 401ks to survive during a time when Fox should have returned them to
23 work and further contributed.
24 57. On August 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed charges of discrimination with the
25 Department of Fair Employment and Housing and obtained immediate right-to-sue notices.
26 Plaintiff have exhausted their administrative remedies.
27
28
15
COMPLAINT
 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 AGE/DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
3 IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV’T CODE §§ 12900 ET SEQ.
4 BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
5 58. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 57 of this
6 complaint as though fully set forth.
7 59. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t
8 Code §§ 12900 et seq., it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge an
9 employee in whole or in part because of an employee’s age and/or disability. See, e.g., Cal.
10 Gov’t Code § 12940(a).
11 60. Defendant is an employer under the FEHA.
12 61. Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant under the FEHA. Plaintiffs are all over
13 40 years old. Plaintiffs all either suffered from a disability and/or were regarded by Fox as
14 disabled.
15 62. Defendant discharged, failed to hire, failed to return to work, laid off, or
16 otherwise failed to offer work to Plaintiffs.
17 63. Plaintiffs’ age and/or disability was a substantial motivating reason for
18 Defendants’ discharge, failure to hire, failure to return to work, layoff, or otherwise failing to
19 offer work to Plaintiffs. Indeed, Defendant retained and/or hired younger and/or non-disabled
20 workers over Plaintiffs despite Plaintiffs having more tenure and the same – if not more –
21 experience. (In the alternative, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant had a selection policy that
22 had a disproportionate adverse effect on older workers, such as Plaintiffs, and thereby allege a
23 disparate impact theory, including, but not limited to in violation of California Government
24 Code § 12941.)
25 64. Plaintiffs were harmed.
26 65. Defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.
27 66. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, as alleged
28 above, Plaintiffs endured emotional distress, loss of wages and benefits pursuant to which
16
COMPLAINT
 1 Plaintiffs are entitled to general and special damages according to proof.
2 67. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs
3 were caused to and did employ the services of counsel to prosecute this action and are
4 accordingly entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees according to proof.
5 68. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereupon allege that Defendant’s
6 actions and each of them were taken with malice, oppression, fraud, and/or willful and
7 conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and were carried out by Defendant’s managing agents
8 and/or ratified by Defendant. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages in an
9 amount to be determined at trial.
10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
12 BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
13 69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 68 of this
14 complaint as though fully set forth.
15 70. It is against fundamental and well-established public policy to discharge an
16 employee because of his/her age and/or disability. These fundamental public policies are
17 embodied in the FEHA and the California Constitution. See, e.g., Cal. Gov’t Code
18 §§ 12940(a), (m), (n).
19 71. As set forth above, Defendant discharged Plaintiffs in whole, or in part in
20 violation of these fundamental public policies. Defendant, thus, committed the tort of
21 wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
22 72. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, as alleged
23 above, Plaintiffs endured emotional distress, loss of wages and benefits pursuant to which
24 Plaintiffs are entitled to general and special damages according to proof.
25 73. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendant’s
26 actions and each of them were taken with malice, oppression, fraud, and/or willful and
27 conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and were carried out by Defendant’s managing agents
28 and/or ratified by Defendant. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages in an
17
COMPLAINT
 1 amount to be determined at trial.
2 74. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs
3 were caused to and did employ the services of counsel to prosecute this action and are
4 accordingly entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees according to proof, including pursuant to
5 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 because this lawsuit seeks to enforce important
6 public rights, including but not limited to those guaranteed by the California Constitution and
7 the Government Code.
8 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
9 PROMISSORY FRAUD/INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION AND/OR
10 FAILURE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS
11 BY ALL PLAINITFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
12 75. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 74 of this
13 complaint as though fully set forth.
14 76. As set forth herein, Defendant misled Plaintiffs with respect to material facts
15 concerning Plaintiffs’ return to work. Specifically, as further detailed herein, Mr. Hartley
16 (EVP/Creative Director of Fox Sports Creative Services) and Helen Kim (Director of
17 Creative Services) both repeatedly told Plaintiffs that the Company was trying to bring them
18 back and never once disclosed that Plaintiffs were being laid off or let go – despite knowing
19 full well that they were not coming back ever. Similarly, Jackson Winkler (Sports
20 Postproduction Coordinator) led De La Sotta on about returning to work.
21 77. Mr. Hartley and Ms. Kim had the actual or apparent authority to bind
22 Defendant. But neither Mr. Hartley nor Ms. Kim were being truthful. Nor did they have any
23 intention of honoring these statements about trying to get Plaintiffs back to work.
24 78. Indeed, no one at Fox ever told Plaintiffs that they had been laid off and instead
25 kept stringing them along until they learned of their termination from others outside the
26 company.
27 79. Had Plaintiffs known the truth, they would have looked for employment
28 elsewhere or taken other positions.
18
COMPLAINT
 1 80. Mr. Hartley and Ms. Kim made these representations with the intention to
2 induce Plaintiffs to act in reliance on these representations by foregoing other job
3 opportunities (and likely to avoid a lawsuit) in the hopes that they would so act. Plaintiffs, at
4 the time these representations were made and at the time that they took the action herein
5 alleged, were ignorant of the falsity of the representations and believed them to be true.
6 Indeed, at the time, Plaintiffs had no reason to believe Mr. Hartley and Ms. Kim would not
7 honor their promises and would not be anything but truthful. Plaintiffs reasonably and
8 justifiably relied to their detriment on the above-described representations by foregoing other
9 work opportunities and continuing to wait to be called back by Defendant.
10 81. As a result of the above-described fraud and deceit and/or misrepresentations
11 and/or suppression of material fact, Plaintiffs have suffered reliance damages as well as
12 compensatory, general, actual, and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
13 Plaintiffs are also entitled to statutory damages for violation of California Civil Code
14 § 1710. In addition, as a result of this conduct, Plaintiffs have also suffered severe emotional
15 distress, anxiety, worry, sleeplessness, and shock, and seek compensation in an amount
16 according to proof.
17 82. The aforementioned conduct of Defendant was an intentional
18 misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to Defendant with the
19 intention on the part of Defendant of thereby depriving Plaintiffs of property or legal rights or
20 otherwise causing injury and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiffs to a cruel and
21 unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, so as to justify an award of
22 exemplary and punitive damages.
23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
25 BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
26 83. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 82 of this
27 complaint as though fully set forth.
28 84. Defendant’s above described conduct was extreme and outrageous and beyond
19
COMPLAINT
 1 the bounds of all decency and as a violation of statute and/or public policy outside the course
2 and scope of the normal employment relationship. Defendant acted with the intent to
3 denigrate and degrade Plaintiffs. The conduct of Defendant in terminating Plaintiffs based on
4 their age/disability violated California statutory law and public policy against such conduct
5 and was not anticipated by Plaintiffs at the inception or during the course of their
6 employment.
7 85. Plaintiffs could not have reasonably anticipated termination in violation of
8 California statutory law or public policy as a consequence of their employment.
9 86. As a legal, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s extreme and outrageous
10 conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered severe emotional distress, anxiety, worry,
11 sleeplessness, and shock, in an amount according to proof.
12 87. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant’s
13 actions and each of them were taken with malice, oppression, fraud, and/or willful and
14 conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and were carried out by Defendant’s managing agents
15 and/or ratified by Defendant. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages in an
16 amount to be determined at trial.
17 88. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs
18 were caused to and did employ the services of counsel to prosecute this action and are
19 accordingly entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees according to proof, including pursuant to
20 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 because this lawsuit seeks to enforce important
21 public rights, including but not limited to those guaranteed by the California Constitution and
22 the Government Code.
23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs SAMMY COREA, CAROL DE LA SOTTA, BILL
25 HUTSON, SINBAD KAZAKIAN, WILLIAM ALAN PFISTER, JR., ROB ROSS, DANIEL
26 STORM, RUBY TSE, and BERNABE ZEPEDA pray for judgment against Defendants
27 SPORTS MEDIA SERVICES LLC, FOX PAYROLL SERVICES INC., FOX PAYROLL
28
20
COMPLAINT
 1 SERVICES LLC, FOX SPORTS 1 LLC, FOX SPORTS 2 LLC, FOX SPORTS HOLDINGS
2 LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, as follows:
3 1. For general damages according to proof, on each cause of action for which such
4 damages are available;
5 2. For compensatory damages, according to proof on each cause of action for
6 which such damages are available;
7 3. For special damages according to proof on each cause of action for which such
8 damages are available;
9 4. For injunctive and/or declaratory relief;
10 5. For prejudgment and postjudgment interest on any lost or unpaid wages
11 according to law;
12 6. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to
13 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, California Government Code § 12965(b),
14 California Labor Code §§ 218.5, 218.6, 203, and any other relevant provision under
15 California law that provides for attorneys’ fees;
16 7. For equitable relief to the extent available under law;
17 8. For statutory penalties to the extent available under law;
18 9. For treble damages to the extent available under law; and
19 10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
20 PLAINTIFFS HEREIN DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL CAUSES OF
21 ACTION ALLEGED HEREIN.
22 DATED: August 15, 2022 CHESLER LAW P.C.
23
24 By /s Natasha Chesler
Natasha Chesler
25
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26 Sammy Corea, Carol De La Sotta, Bill
Hutson, Sinbad Kazakian, William Alan
27 Pfister, Jr., Rob Ross, Daniel Storm, Ruby
Tse, and Bernabe Zepeda
28
21
COMPLAINT