1 BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO.

98645
1079 Sunrise Avenue
2 Suite B-315
Roseville, CA 95661
3 Telephone: (916) 549-8784
E-Mail: bvansickle@surewest.net
4
Attorney for Plaintiff
5
CLAIRE HEADLEY
6

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9

10 CLAIRE HEADLEY, ) CASE NO. BC405834

)
11 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
) COMPLAINT FOR:
12 vs. )
) 1) UNFAIR PRACTICES UNDER
13 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY )
B&P §17200 ET. SEQ
INTERNATIONAL, a corporate )
14 2) DISCRIMINATION & INVASION
entity, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY )
CENTER, a corporate entity AND ) OF PRIVACY
15 3) HUMAN TRAFFICKING (CIVIL
DOES 1 - 20 )
) CODE 52.5, PENAL CODE
16
Defendants. ) 236.1)
17 )
) ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE MARY
18 ) ANN MURPHY, DEPT. 25

19

20 INTRODUCTION
21 1) This case challenges Scientology’s long-standing
22 practice of evading laws and depriving workers of basic human
23 rights. In particular, Plaintiff complains that she worked long
24 hard hours for illegal wages, was forced to have abortions to
25 keep her job and was subjected to violations of personal rights
26 and liberties by Defendants for purposes of obtaining forced
27 labor.
28
1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 2) Plaintiff’s case has a solid legal foundation. It is
2 supported by statutory law and decisions of the U.S. Supreme
3 Court, the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court
4 of Appeals. Defendants’ case appears to be based on the premise
5 that its status as a tax-exempt entity provides an impermeable
6 shield against claims. In particular, Defendants CSI and RTC,
7 which are part of the Scientology enterprise (“Scientology”),
8 typically claim First Amendment or waiver type defenses to
9 ongoing violations of state and federal law. These purported
10 defenses to otherwise indisputably illegal conduct will not
11 withstand scrutiny and analysis. The law is well settled that
12 Defendants are subject to labor laws and other neutral laws of
13 general applicability. Further, the rights in question cannot be
14 waived. Fundamental rights and the protection of the labor laws
15 cannot be lost with the stroke of a pen or word processor.
16 (Authorities are referenced and cited below.)
17 3) The goals of this case include stopping the practice of
18 ordering female employees to have abortions, stopping the
19 practice of oppressive child labor and clearing the path for
20 workers of Scientology organizations to obtain the compensation
21 due them under state and federal labor laws. Plaintiff seeks
22 payment for her work at minimum wage, overtime pay, a permanent
23 injunction against forced abortions and other remedies authorized
24 by law.
25 4) Defendant Church of Scientology International (CSI)
26 represents itself to be the “Mother Church” of Scientology. CSI
27 has its principal office and apparent headquarters in Los
28
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 Angeles, California. The County of Los Angeles is an appropriate
2 venue for this action.
3 5) Religious Technology Center (hereinafter “RTC”)
4 purports to be a California non-profit corporation. RTC’s role
5 in the corporate shell game of the Scientology enterprise is to
6 police access and use of L. Ron Hubbard’s works. RTC supposedly
7 protects copyrighted material and trademarks. RTC charges fees
8 for protection of intellectual property rights and is therefore
9 inherently a commercial enterprise.
10 6) Plaintiff Claire Headley worked for Defendants at below
11 minimum wage compensation from 1991 to 2005. Generally,
12 Plaintiff’s work duties were clerical and secular in nature.
13 Plaintiff is currently a resident of Los Angeles, California.
14 7) At times herein material, and continuing, Defendants
15 CSI and RTC were and are enterprises conducting business, and
16 employers paying employees to conduct said business, within the
17 State of California and in interstate commerce. Accordingly,
18 said Defendants are subject to California and Federal laws
19 concerning their work force, working conditions, business
20 practices, minimum wage, payment for overtime and the protection
21 of minors. As alleged in more detail herein, Defendants have
22 systematically ignored and violated said laws to the damage of
23 Plaintiff Headley and others similarly situated.
24 8) Plaintiff is uncertain with respect to the identity of
25 all persons or entities responsible and liable for this wrongful
26 conduct and names said potential parties as Doe Defendants 1 - 10
27 as authorized by California law. Doe Defendants 11 - 20 are
28 those potential Defendants who may participate in wrongful
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 retaliation, witness intimidation and fraudulent transfer or
2 concealment of assets to avoid payment of judgment in this case.
3 9) Defendants CSI and RTC, related Scientology entities
4 and potential Doe Defendants, claim that workers such as
5 Plaintiff are not entitled to the benefits and protections of the
6 labor laws. The weight of authority is contrary to Defendants’
7 self-granted immunity from state and federal labor laws. As
8 stated by the California Supreme Court, “… [To] permit religious
9 beliefs to excuse acts contrary to law… would be to make
10 professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of
11 the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law
12 unto himself.” Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v.
13 Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 527, 541 (Citing the U.S.
14 Supreme Court). Historically, the Scientology enterprise has
15 considered itself just as described by the court – a law unto
16 itself.
17 10) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-profit and
18 religious entities must abide by labor laws including laws on
19 wages and employment of minors. In the Alamo case (cited below),
20 the court also found that persons performing work for a religious
21 entity are covered by the labor laws even if they claim not to
22 want or qualify for the protection of the labor laws. Workers of
23 religious entities are protected by the labor laws irrespective
24 of whether workers consider themselves to be employees. The
25 protection of labor laws cannot be waived. For purposes of
26 minimum wage and child labor laws, employment is evaluated in the
27 context of economic reality. Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v.
28 Sec. of Labor, (1985) 471 US 290. In accord, Mitchell v. Pilgrim
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 Holiness Church Corp. 210 F.2d 879 (7th Cir. 1954). See also,
2 Prince v. Massachusetts, (1944) 321 U.S. 158 (Child Labor).
3 11) The California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit
4 Court of Appeals have also found in well-considered opinions that
5 religions are not exempt from laws of general applicability such
6 as the labor laws. There is no constitutional right to exemption
7 from minimum wage and child labor laws. See e.g. Elvig v. Calvin
8 Presbyterian Church, 397 F.3d 790, 792 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 3
9 U.S. Supreme Court cases) and North Coast Women’s Care Medical
10 Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1145.
11 12) For purposes of the minimum wage and similar laws, the
12 test of employment looks to “economic reality” not labels, titles
13 or a self-serving paper trail contrived by lawyers trying to
14 minimize or obscure Defendant’s legal obligations and
15 liabilities. An “employee” who is called an independent
16 contractor, a volunteer or religious worker is still an employee.
17 As the court observed when evaluating employment in Estrada v.
18 FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1, 10:
19 “…[I]f it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck
20 and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” Simply put, if it looks
21 like employment and has the attributes of employment, it is
22 employment. The protections of the labor laws cannot be lost and
23 the underlying reality is not changed, by Scientology’s obsessive
24 quest for self-serving documents. See e.g. Civil Code §3513,
25 Labor Code 1194, County of Riverside v. Superior Court (Madrigal)
26 (2002) 27 Cal.4th 793 and Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
27 (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 638
28
5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 13) Under the principles applied by the Alamo court, the
2 parties’ perceptions and documents do not control or govern
3 applications of the labor laws. That would effectively make
4 minimum wage and other labor laws optional, not mandatory, which
5 is not the law. Numerous cases have recognized the strong public
6 policy behind minimum wage, overtime and mandatory off-time laws.
7 The labor laws protect the weaker employee from being exploited
8 by the stronger employer and against the “evils of overwork”.
9 See e.g. Gentry v. Superior Court (Circuit City Stores, Inc.)
10 (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 at 445-6. The public policy is
11 particularly applicable where the worker is dependant upon the
12 job for a living. Plaintiff was dependant upon her work and
13 labor for Defendants, which satisfies the “economic reality
14 test”. As explained in Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates,
15 Inc. 603 F.2d 748, 754 (9th Cir 1979): “Courts have adopted an
16 expansive interpretation of the definitions of “employer” and
17 “employee” under the FLSA, in order to effectuate the broad
18 remedial purposes of the Act…The common law concepts of
19 “employee” and “independent contractor” are not conclusive
20 determinants of the FLSA’s coverage. Rather, in the application
21 of social legislation employees are those who as a matter of
22 economic reality are dependent upon the business to which they
23 render service.” (Emphasis in original)
24 14) The core facts cannot be seriously disputed. Plaintiff
25 worked for Defendants from 1991 to 2005 and was not paid minimum
26 wage or overtime. Plaintiff worked long hours including 100+
27 hour weeks at below minimum wage, no compensation for overtime
28 and insufficient time off. The work week was seven days not six
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 as required by law. In the course of, and by reason of her
2 employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was ordered to have
3 abortions, at her expense, and in fact was coerced and
4 intimidated into having abortions to keep her job with Defendant.
5 Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants continue to
6 ignore labor laws and coerce pregnant workers into forced
7 abortions.
8 15) The economic reality in which Plaintiff found herself
9 when working for Defendants CSI and RTC was that she was totally
10 dependant upon Defendants for sustenance and income. Plaintiff
11 was not a part-time volunteer who had other work and could come
12 and go as she pleased. The extreme opposite was the case.
13 Plaintiff was not allowed to have other employment or source of
14 income. Plaintiff had a rigid work schedule. Plaintiff’s work
15 activities were controlled by Defendant employers. Plaintiff
16 could qualify for bonuses if production was up and could have her
17 compensation docked if production was down. Plaintiff was
18 required to wear a uniform at work and could have her pay docked
19 if she did not take proper care of her work uniform. Plaintiff’s
20 compensation was based, at least theoretically, in part by job
21 performance. Plaintiff was not free to leave Gold Base. She
22 needed someone’s permission to take time off or to do most
23 anything. Plaintiff was an employee as a matter of economic
24 reality.
25 16) This case asserts labor code violations, and other
26 improper, illegal and unfair business practices, in a first cause
27 of action brought under Business and Professions Code §17200.
28 The operative statute underlying the first cause of action may be
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 triggered by essentially all business torts and statutory
2 violations, including violations of federal law, which are
3 independently actionable under the California body of law on
4 unfair competition and business practices. The California
5 Supreme Court has expressly ruled that labor code violations are
6 actionable under this law. The difference between what was paid
7 as wages and what should have been paid under minimum wage and
8 overtime laws qualifies as restitution damages under B&P Code
9 §17203. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23
10 Cal.4th 163, 177-179.
11 17) This case has been brought within the four year statute
12 of limitation period for a B&P Code §17200 action and the five
13 year period for human trafficking actions. However, to the
14 extent Defendants may attempt to use statute of limitation
15 arguments to limit damages or attack certain aspects of this
16 case, defendants should be estopped. Defendants’ deceitful and
17 atrocious conduct should operate to equitably toll any statute of
18 limitations and equitably estopp Defendants from using time bars
19 to escape liability for an ongoing course of illegal and coercive
20 conduct. Defendants’ treatment of those who labor for them has
21 been offensive to law, public policy and inalienable rights
22 guaranteed to Plaintiff and others by Article 1 Section 1 of the
23 California Constitution.
24 18) Defendants coerce and deceive those who provide labor
25 and services to them in many ways and on an ongoing basis. Among
26 other things, Defendants fail to give required notices of labor
27 rights and demand bogus waivers and instruments for the purpose
28 of evading law and avoiding payment of even minimum wage to its
8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 workforce. Further, Scientology has written policies on how it
2 deals with persons who challenge its conduct and commercial
3 activities. These written policies, and the aggressive and
4 vengeful conduct these policies condone and inspire, are known to
5 those, such as Plaintiff, who work or have worked at Gold Base.
6 Scientology has purposely cultivated a reputation as the
7 proverbial 800 pound gorilla. The directives of its founder, L.
8 Ron Hubbard, are replete with instructions to use litigation to
9 harass, attack never defend, and disregard the truth for the
10 “higher cause” of Scientology. Many former employees are simply
11 scared and intimidated into silence and submission. Most lawyers
12 will not take a case against Scientology.
13 19) Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have
14 engaged in retaliation for filing labor claims with the
15 Department of Labor and have engaged in wrongful intimidation and
16 tampering with respect to potential witnesses and additional
17 claimants. Among other things, Defendants’ agents have
18 threatened former employees and demanded that at least one former
19 employee sign a lengthy document that reportedly attempted to
20 waive and discredit labor law claims. True to form, Defendants’
21 agents would not release a copy of this document to the former
22 employee so that he could review it with a lawyer. If the
23 document had been signed, per policy, the former employee would
24 not have been allowed to have a copy. Defendants have contacted
25 employees of Plaintiff’s business and threatened employees with
26 harassing subpoenas that would prevent them from working. Such
27 conduct illustrates how Defendants respond when there is a danger
28 of the truth about Scientology becoming better known to the
9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 public and a danger that the entities within the Scientology
2 enterprise, such as Defendants, will have to abide the law. For
3 these and other reasons, any statute of limitations should be
4 tolled, and equitable estoppel applies as Defendants should not
5 be rewarded for their deceitful and illegal conduct, and illegal
6 retaliation for reporting violations of law to the proper
7 authorities.
8 THE CLAIRE HEADLEY SHORT STORY
9 20) Plaintiff Headley worked for Defendants until January,
10 2005. At times herein material, Plaintiff performed secular work
11 for Defendants. During her employment at Defendant RTC,
12 Plaintiff’s duties including being an office assistant for David
13 Miscavige, the head of the Scientology enterprise.
14 21) From an early age, Plaintiff was pressured into signing
15 an employment contract with the Scientology enterprise. The
16 pressure started when Plaintiff was nine years old. In 1989, at
17 age fourteen, Plaintiff signed her first “Contract of Employment”
18 with the Scientology enterprise. Of course, as a minor she was
19 incompetent to enter into an employment contract. Plaintiff was
20 not allowed to have a copy of the document she signed.
21 22) Plaintiff recalls that while she was working for
22 Defendant CSI or Defendant RTC, her supposed written contract of
23 employment was with an unincorporated entity known as the Sea
24 Org. Plaintiff was never employed by the Sea Org. She was
25 employed by CSI and RTC.
26 23) At age fourteen, Plaintiff Headley had not completed
27 high school. By law, Plaintiff Headley was required to attend
28 school and forbidden from almost all types of labor or
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 employment. Compulsory education and child labor laws did not
2 deter Scientology from trying to pressure Plaintiff into dropping
3 out of school and going to work for CSI at the young age of
4 fourteen. Plaintiff’s mother intervened and Plaintiff’s
5 employment by Scientology was postponed for approximately two
6 years.
7 24) Plaintiff was told she could complete her education
8 while working for the Scientology enterprise. Additional
9 representations were made to entice her to quit school and start
10 working for Defendants. The enticing representations were, for
11 the most part, not consistent with Plaintiff’s subsequent
12 experiences. Scientology targets the young and attempts to take
13 advantage of their youth and immaturity. Further, creating a
14 workforce of high school drop-outs makes the workers increasingly
15 dependant upon Scientology for the basic necessities of life. It
16 sets victims up for failure in mainstream jobs. Plaintiff
17 yielded to the pressure and hard-sell tactics, quit school and
18 started working for Scientology at age sixteen. Initially, she
19 was assigned menial labor such as cleaning and washing dishes.
20 Somewhat later, Plaintiff began working for Golden Era
21 Productions, an unincorporated division of Defendant CSI. Golden
22 Era Productions is a commercial enterprise. Golden Era makes
23 films, videos and promotional materials which are sold, leased or
24 licensed to various Scientology organizations and the public.
25 Plaintiff did office work at Golden Era Productions. She was not
26 a minister and Golden Era was not a church.
27 25) In 1994, while working for Golden Era Productions of
28 CSI, Plaintiff became pregnant. She was nineteen at the time.
11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 Having children was against the dictates of top management at
2 Scientology. Plaintiff had witnessed two other employees refuse
3 to have abortions. They were demoted and ordered to perform
4 heavy manual labor for months. Plaintiff was concerned about the
5 potential consequences of doing hard labor while pregnant and
6 quite reasonably was reluctant to suffer the punishment of manual
7 labor for being pregnant. At age nineteen, Plaintiff had only
8 her job at CSI and was dependant upon CSI for support. Plaintiff
9 had been working for far less than minimum wage, had no money,
10 had no place to go and had no medical insurance or coverage as an
11 employee of Golden Era Productions/ CSI. Plaintiff felt trapped
12 and without viable options. She had an abortion to keep her
13 position at Golden Era/CSI and not risk the adverse consequence
14 of having her baby.
15 26) In 1996, there was a second forced abortion. Plaintiff
16 had been transferred from CSI to Defendant RTC. She was sent to
17 Clearwater, Florida to be trained for her new position at RTC.
18 Plaintiff was given a pregnancy test and found to be pregnant.
19 Plaintiff was not allowed to communicate with her husband,
20 friends or family about her pregnancy. She was not allowed to
21 contact her husband, Marc Headley, for advice, console or his
22 input on aborting their baby. She had no money, no insurance, no
23 housing, no credit, no high school diploma and no job prospects
24 except for her employment at RTC. To keep that employment on
25 which she was dependant, Plaintiff was forced to have a second
26 abortion at her expense.
27 27) After her second abortion, Plaintiff returned to work
28 at RTC. Plaintiff’s position involved clerical and
12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 administrative work under the “Chairman of the Board” (COB),
2 David Miscavige.
3 28) Plaintiff was not told of her rights as an employee of
4 Defendants or of her basic rights as a minor or competent adult.
5 Plaintiff was not told of her rights to be paid a proper wage for
6 her labor or of her right to be free of sexual discrimination,
7 coercion, intimidation or forced labor. To the contrary, the
8 message CSI and RTC sends to their employees, including
9 Plaintiff, is that the employees have no rights and that the
10 rights and powers of Scientology’s upper management are virtually
11 unlimited. This extreme autocratic view and practice manifests
12 itself in several ways. Among other things, CSI and RTC
13 management forces employees to sign various documents. The
14 employees are given no choice and are not given copies of what
15 they are required to sign. These documents are designed to
16 create a false impression to employees that they have no rights
17 and that, if they did have rights, any such rights had been lost,
18 waived or would be defeated by CSI’s claim to be a church and/or
19 CSI’s army of aggressive lawyers. Further, employees are told
20 they would owe Scientology substantial sums of money, typically
21 in the $100,000 range, if they “breach” their contract of
22 employment by quitting the job. Although Plaintiff was
23 essentially an employee at will who could theoretically quit the
24 employment without breaching a contract of employment, Defendants
25 coerce and intimidate employees in many ways including the use
26 purported contracts of employment as leverage to prevent
27 employees from leaving.
28
13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 29) Defendants do not give employees copies of most
2 documents. Plaintiff does not have copies of any instruments
3 such as purported releases, non-contracts, waivers and similar
4 documents forced upon her and other employees. Given the
5 relatively obvious factor of duress, and lack of consent or
6 consideration under “hornbook” law, the contrived paper trail and
7 attempt to alter reality by legal jargon are apparently done, at
8 least in part, for prophylactic effect. Further, if an employee
9 wants to quit, and risk breaching that purported employment
10 contract, the employee is threatened with a long and unpleasant
11 process of punishment and interrogation. This is designed to
12 prevent employees from even thinking about leaving their
13 employment with a Scientology enterprise and coercing a return
14 from those who try to escape. Plaintiff was reasonably
15 intimidated by the threat of hard labor, sleep deprivation,
16 confinement, physical restraint, lack of food and isolation from
17 her husband or others who might help her. Plaintiff was
18 uncertain about the force, effect or detailed content of
19 documents she was forced to sign, but reasonably feared that the
20 documents would be bad for her and good for her boss.
21 30) While working for Defendants, Plaintiff’s life was
22 substantially controlled by the management of the Scientology
23 enterprise and Defendants. Plaintiff performed labor and
24 services for Defendants as ordered for which she was compensated
25 with a small wage ($50 per week), room and board. At times
26 herein material, Plaintiff was watched and guarded for the
27 purpose of controlling her and trying to prevent her escape. At
28 times, Plaintiff was required to sleep in her office, not her
14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 bed. When she finally escaped, she was followed and confronted
2 with threats at a bus station.
3 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
4 31) Workers such as Plaintiff Headley were told that
5 Scientology did not have to pay minimum wage or follow labor laws
6 because it was a “church”. Plaintiff came to accept such
7 misinformation while working for CSI and RTC. Defendants CSI and
8 RTC were on notice, however, that the “church” defense did not
9 apply to most, if not all, of its work force since at least the
10 publication of the Alamo case in 1985. Rather than follow the
11 law or give notice to employees of their rights, CSI and RTC have
12 focused its efforts on attempting to evade the labor law.
13 Defendants’ efforts have been misplaced and legally ineffective.
14 Plaintiff and other persons who work for CSI or RTC with the
15 expectation of receiving benefits and compensation upon which
16 they are dependant are entitled to the protection of the labor
17 laws. See e.g. Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Sec. of Labor,
18 (1985) 471 US 290.
19 32) As stated in cases cited above, and other controlling
20 authorities, the First Amendment does not exempt religious
21 organizations from minimum wage and child labor laws. Plaintiff
22 is entitled to the protection of the law as against the improper
23 conduct of Defendants. Defendants intentionally, consciously and
24 wrongfully made a tactical decision to ignore the labor laws,
25 deceive employees about their rights, take chances with a
26 compliant and intimidated work force, and hope that the running
27 of statutes of limitations would in the long run save Defendants
28 millions of dollars. For this and other reasons, Defendants
15
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 should be estopped from asserting any statute of limitation
2 defense to Plaintiff’s claims for proper compensation for
3 services rendered and any statute of limitation should be found
4 inapplicable as a defense by reason of Defendants’ deceit and
5 concealment concerning Plaintiff’s rights.
6 33) Plaintiff would be entitled to at least minimum wage
7 and overtime for her work even if there was an agreement to the
8 contrary. (Labor Code §1194 & 206.5) (There was no such valid
9 agreement.) The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the protections
10 of the federal labor laws cannot be abridged or waived. See e.g.
11 Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, (1981) 450 U.S. 728,
12 740. In addition to statutory restrictions on waivers, any such
13 purported written waiver of employment rights would not be
14 enforceable on numerous other grounds including duress, menace,
15 illegality and lack of consideration. Under controlling laws,
16 Defendant had a non-waivable duty to comply with wage and minor
17 labor laws. Defendant breached said duty. Further, Plaintiff
18 Headley made no voluntary or effective waiver of pertinent
19 rights.
20 34) Pursuant to California Minimum Wage Order NW-2007,
21 Defendant CSI was required to pay Plaintiff minimum wage and
22 overtime compensation without any deduction for the purported
23 value of room and board furnished to Plaintiff. In computing
24 unpaid wages, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the
25 full amount of minimum wages, overtime and penalties due without
26 offset. In any event, the actual value of the meager existence
27 provided by CSI would not satisfy the minimum wage and overtime
28 requirements.
16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 35) In attempting to control, extort forced labor and evade
2 labor laws with respect to its employees, and in particular
3 former employee Plaintiff Headley, Defendant CSI, RTC and Doe
4 Defendants, engaged in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business
5 practices. These improper activities include, but are not
6 limited to: a) intimidation by assault, threat, menace and
7 invasion of privacy, b) failure to pay minimum wage, c) failure
8 to pay overtime, d) failure to give proper breaks, rest periods
9 and days off, e) depriving minors of required education, f)
10 working minor employees illegal hours at illegal tasks, g) not
11 paying full wages upon termination, h) typically demanding
12 releases for wages due or to become due in violation of the Labor
13 Code, i) refusing employees access to their files, j) coercing
14 workers to sign instruments that purportedly govern employment
15 rights upon demand and refusing to give workers copies of
16 required documents and k) failing to give employees proper notice
17 of their rights to the protection of the labor laws, which is
18 required by law.
19 36) Defendant CSI has engaged in additional unlawful and
20 unfair business practices actionable under B&P Code §17200.
21 Further investigation may disclose additional violations of law
22 and unfair business practices committed by Defendant. In
23 addition to the unlawful and unfair practice described above, one
24 or more Defendants has committed the following unlawful or unfair
25 practices:
26 a) Retaliation against Plaintiff’s family business
27 and others for pursuing labor claims, which is a violation
28 of Labor Code 1102.5 and 98.6, and intimidation of
17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 potential witnesses. Defendants have interfered with
2 Plaintiff’s business by threatening employees of said
3 business with subpoenas that will allegedly tie them up in
4 court and depositions for many days.
5 b) Upon termination of employment, instead of paying
6 wages due, CSI claims that the servant owes the master for
7 allegedly breaching the employment contract. In addition
8 to being a further attempt to pay less than legal wages for
9 labor performed, and being an unconscionable and
10 unenforceable claim, the threat of a “Freeloader Debt” is
11 used to intimidate and coerce employees into continuation
12 of working under unlawful conditions. At the conclusion of
13 Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Scientology
14 asserted a “Freeloader Debt” against Plaintiff in the
15 amount of $96,580. Plaintiff had worked hard for years for
16 fifty cents (50¢) per hour or less and supposedly owed her
17 employer $96,580! That is beyond outrageous. The use of
18 the “Freeloader Debt” to force workers into the performance
19 of labor for Defendants is one of the threats and coercive
20 tactics used by Defendants to insure a continuation of
21 forced labor from Plaintiff and other employees.
22 c) Defendant CSI and related Scientology entities
23 had for years subjected minors to illegal labor and
24 deprived them of a proper education. Defendant still
25 recruits minors and works them illegally; however, current
26 employees are ordered to have abortions. The very young
27 have no work value to Defendant and would interfere with
28 the parent’s employment with Defendants. Plaintiff was in
18
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 fact a victim of this illegal and outrageous practice, in
2 violation of her civil and Constitutional rights, which is
3 actionable under B&P Code §17200 as an illegal business
4 practice.
5 d) Requiring that employees submit to interrogation
6 on a primitive lie detector type device called an e-meter
7 in violation of state and federal laws prohibiting
8 mandatory use of lie detectors or similar devices in
9 interrogations and examinations as a condition of continued
10 employment. See e.g., Labor Code §432.2.
11 e) Engaging in Human Trafficking in violation of
12 state and federal law as alleged in more detail below.
13 f) Refusing to give employees copies of signed
14 instruments in violation of Labor Code §432
15 g) Violation of Plaintiff’s inalienable rights
16 guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the California
17 Constitution including Plaintiff’s right to privacy and to
18 make her own free choice on having children. See e.g. Hill
19 v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1,
20 15-16 and American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997)
21 16 Cal.4th 307, 332-334.
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION
23 OF B&P CODE §17200 ET. SEQ
24 37) Plaintiff Headley realleges and incorporates the above
25 paragraphs in their entirety and the allegations below in the
26 Second and Third Causes of Action.
27 38) Defendant CSI, RTC and Doe Defendants have engaged in
28 illegal and unfair business practices in violation of B&P Code
19
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 §17200. Several illegal predicate acts are alleged in paragraphs
2 32 and 33 above. The illegal acts include, but are not limited
3 to, violations of state and Federal labor laws as alleged in more
4 detail above. The California Supreme Court has held that failure
5 to pay proper wages is also actionable under B&P Code §17200 and
6 that restitution of wages unlawfully withheld, or not paid when
7 due, is a remedy authorized by B&P Code §17200 and §17203.
8 Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th
9 163, 177-179.
10 39) Plaintiff Headley has suffered injury in fact and has
11 standing to sue under B&P Code §17203 by reason of the illegal
12 and unfair business practices alleged herein. Plaintiff has
13 standing for herself, and as a representative of persons
14 wrongfully ordered and intimidated like Plaintiff, into having
15 unwanted abortions or coerced into providing forced labor. Among
16 other things, upon termination of her employment in 2005,
17 Plaintiff was entitled to timely payment of all wages due. At
18 the time of termination, Defendants owed Plaintiff at least three
19 years of back pay, which comes to an amount well in excess of
20 $25,000 and which will be sought in accordance with proof at
21 trial.
22 40) Pursuant to B&P Code §17203, this court is empowered to
23 enjoin the illegal conduct of Defendant CSI described herein.
24 41) Plaintiff brings this action for the public good and is
25 therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and
26 costs. (C.C.P. 1021.5)
27

28
20
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION
2 AND INVASION OF PRIVACY
3 42) Plaintiff Headley realleges all paragraphs above in
4 support of her second cause of action for sex-based
5 discrimination.
6 43) Plaintiff Headley was employed by Defendants CSI and
7 RTC for many years before leaving in 2005. During this time,
8 Plaintiff became pregnant on two occasions. Plaintiff was
9 ordered to terminate these pregnancies by forced abortions.
10 Plaintiff was required to have abortions to remain an employee in
11 good standing with Defendants and to avoid adverse consequences
12 in her future employment. Plaintiff is aware that this was a
13 relatively common practice at Gold Base. Plaintiff has knowledge
14 of numerous other female employees ordered to have abortions.
15 44) Forcing pregnant employees to have abortions
16 constitutes discrimination against female employees, a violation
17 of state and federal law and a violation of Plaintiff’s
18 inalienable constitutional rights, including the rights of
19 privacy. See e.g. Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d. 65, 82, 89-
20 90, Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., Supra and
21 American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, Supra. Defendants
22 ordered and coerced abortions primarily to get more work out of
23 their pregnant employees and to avoid child care issues.
24 Plaintiff seeks an order banning this practice in the future.
25 45) Pursuant to the law, Plaintiff Headley is entitled to
26 an award for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and damages for
27 invasion of privacy according to proof.
28
21
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING
2 46) Plaintiff Headley realleges all paragraphs above in
3 support of her third cause of action for human trafficking.
4 47) Penal Code Section 236.1 states in pertinent part as
5 follows: “(a) Any person who deprives or violates the personal
6 liberty of another…, to obtain forced labor or services, is
7 guilty of human trafficking.”
8 48) Subsection (d)(1) of Penal Code Section 236.1 clarifies
9 that a victim’s personal liberty is deprived when there is a
10 “substantial and sustained restriction of another’s liberty
11 accomplished through fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress,
12 menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or to another
13 person[….]”
14 49) Subsection (d) of Penal Code Section 236.1 defines
15 “forced labor or services” as “labor or services that are
16 performed or provided by a person and are obtained or maintained
17 through force, fraud, or coercion, or equivalent conduct that
18
would reasonably overbear the will of the person.”
19
50) California Civil Code Section 52.5 authorizes a civil
20
cause of action for victims of human trafficking, and which
21
defines human trafficking by reference to Penal Code Section
22
236.1.
23
51) Defendants CSI and RTC deprived Plaintiff of her
24
personal liberty by substantially restricting her freedoms and by
25
their systematic practice of threatening, coercive tactics, which
26
were and are intended to restrict workers such as Plaintiff from
27

28 freedom of movement, thought and choice, and from obtaining

22
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 access to the outside world, deprive them of meaningful
2 competitive options, and subjugate the workers’ will to that of
3 defendants. Defendants thus deceitfully, fraudulently and
4 coercively secure, at the expense of Plaintiff’s liberty, forced
5
labor at subhuman wages.
6
52) At times herein material (circa 1996 – 2005), Plaintiff
7
Headley worked for Defendants at Scientology’s international base
8
at Hemet, California. This facility, known as Gold Base, was a
9
secret base for many years. Most Scientologists did not know of
10
its existence.
11
53) Gold Base resembles a prison camp, the workers inmates.
12
A razor-wire topped fence encircles Gold Base with sharp inward
13
pointing spikes to prevent escape. The gates are guarded at all
14

15 times, preventing employees from freely coming and going.

16 Security guards patrol the grounds, motion sensors are placed

17 throughout, and surveillance posts surround the perimeter, all of

18 which are intended to keep workers in the facility. One cannot

19 leave without permission and permission is seldom granted except

20 to a select few. Workers, including Plaintiff, are restricted to
21 the base and not permitted to leave.
22 54) Plaintiff was deprived of normal liberties as a matter
23
of standard course. Her freedom of movement was essentially
24
restricted to the Gold Base where she was confined. Contact with
25
the outside world was prohibited, which prevented Plaintiff from
26
phoning or emailing for help. When Plaintiff’s liberties weren’t
27
being deprived, they were being violated by Defendant, who opened
28
23
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 and read Plaintiff’s mail. Foreign workers had their passports
2 taken.
3 55) Defendants would subject workers who fail to follow
4 orders to severe, sometimes corporal, punishment. Workers who are
5
caught trying to escape have been physically assaulted and
6
restrained. Plaintiff was aware of how Defendants had
7
restrained, assaulted, punished and tracked down the workers who
8
had attempted to escape from Gold Base. Defendants employ one
9
particular punishment which involves relegating workers to a
10
program known as the Rehabilitation Project Force (or “RPF”).
11
Workers assigned to the RPF are subjected to a brutal regimen of
12
manual labor, have no freedom of movement and are subjected to
13
almost total deprivations of personal liberties. Working
14

15 conditions on the RPF are so horrible that its mere existence

16 serves as a deterrent and intimidates workers, such as Plaintiff,

17 into a state of fear and mindless obedience to Defendants. The

18 RPF is arguably more severe in punishment and violations of

19 personal liberties than solitary confinement in prison.

20 56) The RPF, and similar punishments, put Plaintiff in a
21 difficult predicament. At most times it appeared that the safest
22 course was to submit to Defendants’’ control, to stay silent and
23
endure the lesser evil of eighteen hour days for less than a
24
dollar per hour. Sleep deprivation and poor nutrition were
25
routine. Plaintiff remained in reasonable fear and apprehension
26
that her personal liberties would be further violated in the
27

28
24
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 future unless she continued to provide services and labor to
2 Defendants, on their terms, and as ordered by Defendants.
3 57) Plaintiff has been severely damaged by reason of
4 providing forced labor to Defendants, which damages will be
5
sought in accordance with proof at trial and to the full extent
6
authorized by law, including Civil Code Section 52.5 et seq.
7
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests:
8
1) A jury trial;
9
2) Restitution according to proof under the First Cause of
10
Action;
11
3) A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and their
12
agents from ordering and/or coercing abortions with
13
respect to their employees;
14
4) All damages authorized by Civil Code §52.5(a) et. seq.,
15
for human trafficking as alleged in the Third Cause of
16
Action, including actual damages, back pay, compensatory
17
damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief and treble
18
actual damages;
19
5) An award of reasonable attorney’s fees computed with an
20
appropriate lodestar in consideration of the difficult
21
and litigious nature of Defendants;
22
6) Such other relief as the court may deem just including
23
costs.
24
February 17, 2009
25

26 BARRY VAN SICKLE

Attorney for Plaintiff
27 CLAIRE HEADLEY

28
25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT