Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
RETENTION; and
2 13. UNFAIR BUSINESS
PRACTICES (Bus. & Prof. Code
3 §§ 17200, et seq.)
4
Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction
5
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
6
7
8
9 Plaintiffs SERENA ANIS and KATHERINE SLOAT hereby allege as follows:
10 PARTIES
11 1. Plaintiff Serena Anis is and was, at all relevant times, an individual residing in
12 the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. Serena Anis was a student at Defendant
13 University of Southern California from 2009 to 2013, and was treated by Defendant George
15 2. Plaintiff Katherine Sloat is and was, at all relevant times, an individual residing
16 in the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. Katherine Sloat was a student at
17 Defendant University of Southern California from 2010 to 2014, and was treated by Defendant
19 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant George Tyndall, M.D. is and was, at all
20 relevant times, an individual residing in the State of California and the County of Los Angeles.
22 was, at all relevant times, a California corporation with its principal place of business in the
24 5. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, whether
25 individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time and when
26 Plaintiffs ascertain the true names and capacities of said Defendants, they will ask leave of
27 court to amend their complaint by setting forth the same. At all times herein mentioned, the
28 Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, co-owners, and employees, each of
-2-
COMPLAINT
1 the other, acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment. The negligence
2 and willful conduct of each Defendant combined to cause the subject incident and injuries to
3 Plaintiffs.
4 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the
5 Defendants, including DOES 1 through 50, are the agent, employee, alter ego, servant,
6 successor-in-interest and/or joint venturer of each other Defendant and that in doing the things
7 herein alleged, each Defendant was acting within the course, scope, and authority of such
8 agency, employment, service, successor-in-interest and/or joint venture. Plaintiffs are further
9 informed and believe that each Defendant as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was
10 negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other Defendant as an agent, servant,
11 employee, successor-in-interest, and/or joint venturer. Further, the acts of each Defendant
12 were consented to, ratified and/or authorized and confirmed by each other Defendant.
13 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the
14 Defendants is responsible for the damages caused to Plaintiffs.
15 8. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1
16 through 50, inclusive, and have therefore sued them by the foregoing names which are
17 fictitious, and Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the said
18 Defendants is liable to Plaintiffs jointly and severally in this action, and Plaintiffs ask that
19 when their true names and capacities are discovered, this Complaint may be amended by
20 inserting their true names and capacities in lieu of said fictitious names.
21 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22 9. This Court has jurisdiction over the present matter because the nature of the
23 claims and amounts in controversy meet the requirements for unlimited jurisdiction in the
24 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
25 10. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
26 section 410.10, because all parties are domiciled within the State of California.
27 11. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a), venue is proper because
28 Plaintiffs’ injuries occurred within the jurisdiction of this Court in the County of Los Angeles,
-3-
COMPLAINT
1 California.
2 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
3 12. For nearly thirty years, Defendant George Tyndall, M.D. (hereafter “Dr.
4 Tyndall”) was the only full-time gynecologist employed by Defendant University of Southern
5 California (hereafter “USC”).
6 13. USC hired Dr. Tyndall in 1989. He accepted the position over more prestigious
7 and better-paying posts because he desired to work with the bright, sophisticated women
8 enrolled at USC. He was so enthusiastic about working with young, college-enrolled women
9 that he acquired a vanity license plate for his Acura that read: “COEDDOC.”
10 14. Complaints against Dr. Tyndall began almost as soon as he started practicing on
11 campus.
12 15. When Dr. Tyndall began treating female USC students, he was often
13 accompanied in the exam room by a female nurse or assistant known as a “chaperone”—a
14 practice that became less regular over the span of his career.
15 16. One of the earliest warning signs, which USC ignored, was the frequency with
16 which Dr. Tyndall photographed his young patients during gynecological exams. Multiple
17 chaperones lodged complaints against Dr. Tyndall during the 1990s, telling USC officials that
18 they questioned the motivations behind his penchant for photography, and noting that he had
19 taken pictures of hundreds of students’ vaginas without any evident necessity.
20 17. These complaints eventually forced Dr. Lawrence Neinstein, then the executive
21 director of USC’s student health clinic, to order Dr. Tyndall to remove his camera from the
22 examination room.
23 18. In the early 2000s, at least three of Dr. Tyndall’s patients submitted written
24 complaints to USC detailing his sexual abuse and harassment, including descriptions of his
25 inappropriate touching and remarks.
26 19. Upon information and belief, the oversight committee charged with monitoring
27 USC’s student health clinic was aware of these complaints, and even read them aloud at
28 committee meetings. However, neither the oversight committee nor other USC administrators
-4-
COMPLAINT
1 took any action whatsoever against Dr. Tyndall. Upon information and belief, no one
2 associated with USC even took the minimal step of informing Dr. Tyndall that complaints had
3 been lodged against him in the first place.
4 20. Over the ensuing years, at least eight formal complaints against Dr. Tyndall were
5 made part of his permanent record at USC. Some concerned racially insensitive remarks made
6 to African-Americans and Latinos.
7 21. In early 2013, complaints lodged against Dr. Tyndall by chaperones reached a
8 critical mass. Many of these complaints related to what Dr. Tyndall described as a “full body
9 scan” of a young patient for unusual moles.
10 22. Dr. Tyndall would regularly instruct patients to lie, fully naked, on his
11 examination table to enable him to inspect their body for moles—closely viewing every part
12 of their nude bodies, down to the area between their buttocks.
13 23. More troublingly, Dr. Tyndall often made inappropriate sexual comments about
14 his patients’ bodies during the “full body scan,” including describing their skin as “creamy”
15 or “beautiful,” and observing that their breasts were “perky”—one chaperone recalled Dr.
16 Tyndall telling a patient that her breasts “stand right up there, don’t they?”
17 24. Upon information and belief, a “full body scan” of the kind conducted by Dr.
18 Tyndall—particularly when coupled with his inappropriate remarks and behavior—is neither
19 a common nor accepted medical practice.
20 25. Eight chaperones lodged complaints against Dr. Tyndall in early 2013, which
21 were fielded by veteran nurse Cindy Gilbert. Ms. Gilbert relayed the complaints to Dr.
22 Neinstein—who had earlier demanded Dr. Tyndall cease photographing patients’ vaginas—
23 who then referred the complaints to USC’s Office of Equity and Diversity for a full
24 investigation.
25 26. Many of the complaining chaperones, Ms. Gilbert, and even Dr. Tyndall all
26 reported that they were never questioned by an investigator nor informed that an investigation
27 was underway. USC’s current executive director, Gretchen Dahlinger Means, claims that an
28 investigation was conducted, and that it found Dr. Tyndall did not violate USC policy.
-5-
COMPLAINT
1 27. The only discipline taken against Dr. Tyndall—as a result of eight chaperones
2 and a veteran nurse lodging complaints against him—was another order from Dr. Neinstein,
3 this time barring Dr. Tyndall from locking his office door when patients were inside.
4 28. At the same time chaperones began complaining about Dr. Tyndall’s “full body
5 scans,” they also began discussing Dr. Tyndall’s longstanding and inappropriate practice of
6 inserting his fingers into patients at the beginning of gynecological examinations.
7 29. Upon information and belief, gynecologists often insert two fingers inside their
8 patients at the end of an examination in order to assess the uterus for abnormalities.
9 30. Chaperones consistently witnessed Dr. Tyndall inserting his fingers into patients
10 at the very beginning of an examination, ostensibly in order to assert whether or not a speculum
11 would fit inside the patient. These chaperones reported that Dr. Tyndall often slid his fingers
12 in and out of patients while speaking to them about the viability of inserting a speculum to
13 begin the examination.
14 31. More troublingly, these chaperones reported that Dr. Tyndall attempted to
15 explain away his digital insertion by providing the same excuse, verbatim, over and over: that
16 the patient had a “tight muscle” and that they “must be a runner.”
17 32. These chaperones subsequently told the Los Angeles Times that Dr. Tyndall
18 made “nearly identical statements” to “hundreds of women” as his fingers were inside them.
19 And five people subsequently told the Los Angeles Times that they were aware of instances
20 in which Dr. Tyndall made explicit reference to sexual intercourse while his fingers were
21 inside patients.
22 33. Upon information and belief, Dr. Tyndall’s behavior during pelvic exams is
23 outside the scope of current medical practice. The Los Angeles Times reported that “Dr.
24 Sangeeta Mahajan, a national expert in pelvic pain, said she had never heard of a gynecologist
25 moving his fingers in and out of a patient to gauge whether a speculum would fit and called
26 the practice ‘very odd’ and ‘creepy.’”
27 34. Upon information and belief, an internal USC investigation determined that Dr.
28 Tyndall's behavior during pelvic exams was outside the scope of current medical practice and
-6-
COMPLAINT
1 amounted to sexual harassment of students.
2 35. Dr. Tyndall’s unlawful conduct also included requesting intimate and detailed
3 accounts of his patients’ sexual histories and practices, often under the guise of prescribing
4 birth control.
5 36. One student, an undergraduate from the Middle East, scheduled an appointment
6 with Dr. Tyndall to acquire a prescription for birth control. Dr. Tyndall questioned her about
7 her ethnic heritage and her virginity, and offered her a “little baggie of blood” that she could
8 use on her wedding night to convince her husband that she was a virgin.
9 37. Despite gynecologists commonly prescribing yearlong birth control to patients,
10 Dr. Tyndall only prescribed the student a two-month supply of birth control. When she
11 returned for another prescription, Dr. Tyndall asked more inappropriate and harassing
12 questions about her sexual history, including how many times she had tried to have sex and
13 whether or not she was “tight.”
14 38. Another student told the Los Angeles Times that, after seeking out sexual health
15 treatment, Dr. Tyndall recommended she visit “a sex shop he knew” and “described different
16 kinds of dildos . . . [h]e really emphasized the ones that looked more human looking, more
17 realistic looking. I remember him saying ‘veiny.’”
18 39. The Los Angeles Times reported that Dr. Tyndall asked another student, during
19 an appointment in 2015, how often she had anal and oral sex with her boyfriend.
20 40. Frustrated with the decades of complaints against Dr. Tyndall and USC’s
21 unwillingness to address his unlawful sexual abuse, Ms. Gilbert took the extraordinary step of
22 contacting USC’s rape crisis center in June 2016.
23 41. As a result, in January 2017, USC informed Dr. Tyndall that he had violated its
24 policy on sexual harassment. In May 2017, Ainsley Carry, the vice president of student affairs,
25 then proposed that Dr. Tyndall resign from his position and accept a severance.
26 42. Dr. Tyndall told the Los Angeles Times that USC’s offer was sweetened by Mr.
27 Carry’s promise that USC would not report Dr. Tyndall’s misconduct to the Medical Board of
28 California if he agreed to resign.
-7-
COMPLAINT
1 43. Thereafter, Dr. Tyndall accepted the severance package, and made his
2 resignation effective June 30, 2017. USC did not initially report any of Dr. Tyndall’s
3 misconduct to the Medical Board of California. Following public scrutiny, USC eventually
4 filed a belated report in March 2018—fourteen months after formally notifying Dr. Tyndall of
5 his misconduct and nearly eight months after Dr. Tyndall resigned from his post.
6 44. USC’s own president, C.L. Max Nikias, recently referred to Dr. Tyndall’s
7 decades-long history of abuse and harassment as “shameful.” On or about mid-May 2018,
8 USC set up a dedicated phone line to process the scores of complaints about Dr. Tyndall’s
9 abuse.
10 45. Mr. Nikias subsequently resigned as USC’s president after news outlets broke
11 the story of Dr. Tyndall’s decades-long pattern of sexual abuse and harassment. His
12 resignation came mere days after the submission of a USC faculty letter, signed by 200 USC
13 professors, and a change.org petition garnering thousands of signatures, both demanding he
14 step down immediately—and both specifically citing Mr. Nikias’ and USC’s gross
15 mishandling of Dr. Tyndall’s abuse as the reason Mr. Nikias should resign.
16 46. As alleged above, Defendants concealed the existence of Plaintiffs Serena Anis'
17 and Katherine Sloat's claims at the time of Dr. Tyndall's sexual abuse and harassment, and
18 conspired to keep their causes of action secret in the ensuing years. Defendants concealed
19 Plaintiffs' injuries and claims by misrepresenting Dr. Tyndall's acts of sexual abuse and
20 harassment as medically necessary procedures done for the purpose of conducting appropriate
21 gynecological services, and that his misconduct was in conformity with accepted medical
22 practices and standards.
23 47. Defendants accomplished this concealment through a widespread and systematic
24 effort to employ and retain medical staff, including chaperones, that would not or could not
25 report Dr. Tyndall's sexual abuse and assault. And when said medical staff, including
26 chaperones, did nevertheless report Dr. Tyndall's misconduct, Defendants actively concealed
27 the existence of these complaints, consistently failed to discipline Dr. Tyndall, and wholly
28 failed to warn Plaintiffs and the USC community that Dr. Tyndall posed a serious threat to
-8-
COMPLAINT
1 student safety. Defendants' systematic concealment of Plaintiffs' claims is further evidenced
2 by the fact that, once Dr. Tyndall's decades-long history of sexual abuse threatened to be
3 revealed, Ainsley Carry offered Dr. Tyndall a severance package with the understanding that
4 if Dr. Tyndall left USC, the university would not report him to the Medical Board of California.
5 48. Until news reports surfaced in 2018 regarding Dr. Tyndall's wrongful conduct
6 and Defendants' efforts to conceal that conduct, Plaintiffs Serena Anis and Katherine Sloat
7 were not aware of the true facts related to their sexual abuse and harassment at the hands of
8 Dr. Tyndall. Plaintiffs were college-age young women when Dr. Tyndall's sexual abuse began,
9 and have never had any specialized medical training nor been employed as medical
10 professionals.
11 Serena Anis
12 49. Plaintiff Serena Anis sought gynecological services during her time as a student
13 at USC. Medical staff at USC informed Ms. Anis that Dr. Tyndall was the only doctor
14 available for gynecological treatment. As such, Ms. Anis was treated by Dr. Tyndall
15 approximately two to three times between September 2009 and May 2013.
16 50. During those treatments, Dr. Tyndall never used gloves of any kind; he inserted
17 his bare finger and/or fingers into Ms. Anis’s vagina at the very beginning of the examinations.
18 No chaperone was present during Ms. Anis’ examinations.
19 51. Dr. Tyndall also commented about Ms. Anis’ race, inappropriately noting that
20 she had “pretty brown skin” during one of her gynecological examinations.
21 52. During the gynecological examinations, Dr. Tyndall would ask Ms. Anis for
22 graphic details of her sex life. While performing one such examination, Dr. Tyndall repeatedly
23 brought up the subject of “lube”—sexual lubricant—and continually mentioned a specific
24 brand, “Astroglide,” while graphicly describing its application and how Astroglide would
25 allow “it” to “slide in and out.” He also inappropriately and unexpectedly told Ms. Anis that
26 she was “pretty,” while smiling suggestively at her.
27 53. On at least one occasion, Dr. Tyndall insisted on bringing Ms. Anis back to his
28 office following her appointment. Once in his office, Dr. Tyndall would first close the door
-9-
COMPLAINT
1 before presenting Ms. Anis with a book containing pictures of vaginas exhibiting various
2 medical conditions. None of the conditions depicted in the photographs, however, related to
3 any condition for which Ms. Anis had sought treatment or were in any way related to her
4 gynecological examination.
5 54. Following the media’s exposure of Dr. Tyndall’s sexual abuse and harassment,
6 Ms. Anis has suffered significant emotional distress, and has sought and received
7 psychological treatment.
8 Katherine Sloat
9 55. Plaintiff Katherine Sloat sought gynecological services during her time as a
10 student at USC. Medical staff at USC informed Ms. Sloat that Dr. Tyndall was the only doctor
11 available for gynecological treatment. As such, Ms. Sloat was treated by Dr. Tyndall at least
12 two times between 2010 and 2014.
13 56. During those treatments, Dr. Tyndall never used gloves of any kind; he inserted
14 his bare finger and/or fingers into Ms. Sloat’s vagina at the very beginning of the examinations.
15 57. Ms. Sloat asked for a chaperone to be present during her examinations, but no
16 nurse, attendant, or any other USC staff member was ever made available to chaperone her
17 examinations with Dr. Tyndall. As such, she was left alone with Dr. Tyndall.
18 58. During the gynecological examinations, Dr. Tyndall would ask Ms. Sloat for
19 graphic details of her sex life. He inappropriately and unexpectedly told Ms. Sloat that she
20 was “pretty” during these examinations.
21 59. On one occasion, Ms. Sloat witnessed Dr. Tyndall throw her appointment
22 forms—which Ms. Sloat had just filled out in the waiting room—into the trash.
23 60. On another occasion, Dr. Tyndall repeatedly insisted that Ms. Sloat seek laser
24 removal of her pubic hair in order to “help with eczema.” When Ms. Sloat expressed confusion
25 about the necessity of this treatment, Dr. Tyndall became adamant and excited, again insisting
26 that Ms. Sloat remove her pubic hair on a daily basis, by shaving if necessary.
27 61. Because of Dr. Tyndall’s insistence, as well as his stature as a medical doctor
28 employed by USC, Ms. Sloat shaved her pubic hair on a daily basis for approximately 6 years.
- 10 -
COMPLAINT
1 Ms. Sloat only ceased this practice when the media began reporting on Dr. Tyndall’s
2 misconduct, and Ms. Sloat consulted with a new doctor, who informed her that daily shaving
3 of pubic hair is not a medically accepted treatment for eczema.
4 62. Following the media’s exposure of Dr. Tyndall’s sexual abuse and harassment,
5 Ms. Sloat has suffered significant emotional distress, and has sought and received
6 psychological treatment. She now relies on medication to cope with her emotional distress.
7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
8 SEXUAL HARASSMENT (Civ. Code § 51.9)
9 (Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
10 63. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation contained in the
11 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
12 64. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were Defendant Dr. Tyndall, USC,
13 school administrators, supervisors, student health center staff of USC, and DOES 1 through
14 50. A business service or professional relationship therefore existed between Defendants and
15 Plaintiffs, who were patients under the care of Dr. Tyndall, a physician.
16 65. While attending USC as students, Plaintiffs required care from a gynecologist.
17 66. USC maintained medical facilities for the safety and well-being of its students.
18 USC entrusted Plaintiffs’ safety and care to Dr. Tyndall. Indeed, at the time of Plaintiffs’
19 sexual abuse, harassment, molestation, and violation Dr. Tyndall was the only full-time
20 gynecologist available at USC’s medical facilities for students to see. Thus, many female
21 students, including Plaintiffs, were forced to repeatedly seek medical treatment from Dr.
22 Tyndall.
23 67. As such, Plaintiffs were vulnerable and unable to easily terminate their
24 professional relationship with Defendants.
25 68. Plaintiffs’ rights provided under Civil Code 51.9 include their right to be free
26 from sexual advances, solicitations, sexual requests, demands for sexual compliance by
27 Plaintiffs, or other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature or of a hostile nature
28 based on Plaintiffs’ gender, that was unwelcome, pervasive, and severe.
- 11 -
COMPLAINT
1 69. While Plaintiffs were students at USC, Dr. Tyndall intentionally, recklessly, and
2 wantonly made sexual advances, solicitations, requests, demands for sexual compliance of a
3 hostile nature based on Plaintiffs’ gender that were unwelcome, pervasive, and severe,
4 including, but not limited to, Dr. Tyndall inappropriately touching and penetrating Plaintiffs’
5 vaginas, while acting in the course and scope of his agency with Defendants, and each of them.
6 70. The incidents of abuse outlined above took place while Plaintiffs were under the
7 control of Dr. Tyndall, USC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, in their capacities and
8 positions as supervisors of physicians, medical professionals, and staff at USC and DOES 1
9 through 50, inclusive, and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants, and each of them.
10 71. Because of Dr. Tyndall’s age and position of authority, physical seclusion of
11 Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ mental and emotional state, and Plaintiffs’ young ages, Plaintiffs were
12 unable to, and did not, give consent to such acts.
13 72. Even though the Defendants knew or should have known of the misconduct of
14 Dr. Tyndall, Defendants did nothing to investigate, supervise, or monitor Dr. Tyndall to ensure
15 the safety of the student-patients in their charge, including Plaintiffs.
16 73. Because of Plaintiffs’ relationship with Defendants, as student-patients of
17 Defendants, and Plaintiffs’ limited access to alternative providers, Plaintiffs were unable to
18 easily terminate the doctor-patient relationship they had with Defendants.
19 74. Despite constructive or actual knowledge of Dr. Tyndall’s prior assault of
20 Plaintiffs as well as others, USC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, allowed Dr. Tyndall
21 unfettered access to Plaintiffs and other young, female patients. USC and DOES 1 through 50,
22 inclusive, thus aided and incited, and/or conspired in Plaintiffs’ abuse by allowing Dr. Tyndall
23 access to Plaintiffs and by failing to notify Plaintiffs and/or their parents of the prior abuse that
24 occurred.
25 75. Defendants' conduct, and the conduct of their agents, was a breach of their duties
26 to Plaintiffs.
27 76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs
28 have suffered special and general damages, including severe emotional distress for which they
- 12 -
COMPLAINT
1 have sought psychological treatment, in an amount to be determined at trial.
2 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
3 GENDER VIOLENCE (Civ. Code § 52.4)
4 (Plaintiffs against Defendant Dr. Tyndall)
5 77. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation contained in the
6 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
7 78. Dr. Tyndall’s acts committed against Plaintiffs, as alleged herein, including the
8 sexual abuse, harassment, molestation, and violation of Plaintiffs, constitute gender violence
9 and a form of sex discrimination in that one or more of Dr. Tyndall’s acts would constitute
10 one or more criminal offenses under California law, and that those offenses have an element
11 of the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,
12 committed, at least in part, based on the gender of the victim, whether or not those acts resulted
13 in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.
14 79. Dr. Tyndall’s acts committed against Plaintiffs, as alleged herein, including the
15 sexual abuse, harassment, molestation, and violation of Plaintiffs, constitute gender violence
16 and a form of sex discrimination in that Dr. Tyndall’s conduct caused a physical intrusion or
17 physical invasion of a sexual nature upon Plaintiffs under coercive conditions, whether or not
18 those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.
19 80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs
20 have suffered special and general damages, including severe emotional distress for which they
21 have sought psychological treatment, in an amount to be determined at trial.
22 81. The aforementioned conduct of Defendants was oppressive, malicious,
23 fraudulent, despicable, highly reprehensible and done with the intent to subject Plaintiffs to
24 unjust hardship, and as such warrants imposition of punitive and exemplary damages against
25 Defendants in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and deter others from engaging in
26 similar conduct.
27 82. Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to
28 Civil Code section 52.4.
- 13 -
COMPLAINT
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 SEXUAL BATTERY (Civ. Code § 1708.5)
3 (Plaintiffs against Defendant Dr. Tyndall)
4 83. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation contained in the
5 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
6 84. During Plaintiffs’ time as USC students, Dr. Tyndall intentionally, recklessly,
7 and wantonly committed acts which were intended to, and did, result in harmful and offensive
8 contact with intimate parts of Plaintiffs’ bodies, including, but not limited to, being subjected
9 to numerous instances of sexual abuse by Dr. Tyndall.
10 85. All of Dr. Tyndall’s conduct and behavior was carried out by Dr. Tyndall in the
11 course and scope of his agency/employment relationship with Defendants, and each of them,
12 and were intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiffs’ bodies or intended to
13 put Plaintiffs in imminent apprehension of such contact.
14 86. Dr. Tyndall did the aforementioned acts with the intent to cause a harmful and/or
15 offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiffs’ bodies and would offend a reasonable sense
16 of personal dignity. Further, said acts did cause a harmful or offensive contact with intimate
17 parts of Plaintiffs’ bodies that would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
18 87. Due to Dr. Tyndall’s position of authority over Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ mental and
19 emotional states, and Plaintiffs’ young age, Plaintiffs did not give meaningful consent to such
20 acts.
21 88. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs
22 have suffered special and general damages, including severe emotional distress for which they
23 have sought psychological treatment, in an amount to be determined at trial.
24 89. The aforementioned conduct of Defendants was oppressive, malicious,
25 fraudulent, despicable, highly reprehensible and done with the intent to subject Plaintiffs to
26 unjust hardship, and as such warrants imposition of punitive and exemplary damages against
27 Defendants in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and deter others from engaging in
28 similar conduct.
- 14 -
COMPLAINT
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 VIOLATIONS OF BANE ACT (Civ. Code § 52.1)
3 (Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
4 90. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation contained in the
5 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
6 91. Defendants' actions, alleged herein, have had and will continue to interfere with
7 Plaintiffs’ right to be free from gender discrimination in the form of sexual harassment and
8 sexual abuse in the educational and medical settings.
9 92. During Plaintiffs’ time as USC students, Defendants engaged in oppressive and
10 unlawful tactics in ignoring, concealing, and ultimately suppressing Plaintiffs’ sexual abuse,
11 harassment, molestation, and violation by Dr. Tyndall. Plaintiffs were threatened, intimidated,
12 and coerced into staying quiet about TYNDALL's sexually abusive conduct and into believing
13 that they had not been sexually abused. This was effectuated by Dr. Tyndall’s own intimidating
14 and humiliating conduct, as well as the conspiratorial silence and inaction of USC. These
15 intentional acts of concealment of Dr. Tyndall’s abusive behavior violated Plaintiffs’ rights to
16 be free from discrimination on the basis of their gender.
17 93. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were deprived of Due Process of Law, when various
18 complaints to USC failed to trigger any reprimand, investigation, or other action by USC, who
19 was required to do so, both under its own policies and federal law. In addition, these actions
20 were contrary to Plaintiffs’ civil rights guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United
21 California.
22 94. Defendants' wrongful conduct was intended to, and did successfully, interfere
23 with Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to be free from gender discrimination, harassment, and
24 abuse, as well as their rights to due process.
25 95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs
26 have suffered special and general damages, including severe emotional distress for which they
27 have sought psychological treatment, in an amount to be determined at trial.
28 96. The aforementioned conduct of Defendants was oppressive, malicious,
- 15 -
COMPLAINT
1 fraudulent, despicable, highly reprehensible and done with the intent to subject Plaintiffs to
2 unjust hardship, and as such warrants imposition of punitive and exemplary damages against
3 Defendants in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and deter others from engaging in
4 similar conduct.
5 97. Pursuant to Civil Code section 52.1(h), Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable
6 attorneys’ fees as determined by the Court.
7 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 VIOLATIONS OF UNRUH ACT (Civ. Code § 51.5)
9 (Plaintiffs against Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive)
10 98. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation contained in the
11 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
12 99. Plaintiffs have a right to be free from gender discrimination, sexual abuse, and
13 sexual harassment under California and United States law. Plaintiffs’ civil rights were violated
14 by Defendants intentionally concealing complaints of sexual abuse and harassment by Dr.
15 Tyndall from Plaintiffs and other students.
16 100. Defendants denied Plaintiffs full and equal accommodations, advantages,
17 facilities, privileges and healthcare services because of their gender, by allowing Dr. Tyndall
18 unfettered access to sexually abuse Plaintiffs, by and through his position of authority as
19 USC’s sole full-time gynecologist with regular availability, and by actively concealing from
20 Plaintiffs that Dr. Tyndall had sexually assaulted hundreds of women and that USC had fielded
21 decades of complaints about his abuse.
22 101. By employing and retaining Dr. Tyndall as the sole full-time gynecologist with
23 regular availability, despite knowledge of myriad reports of Dr. Tyndall’s sexually abusive
24 conduct, USC nevertheless forced its female students to seek necessary medical treatment from
25 Dr. Tyndall, thereby exposing Plaintiffs to Dr. Tyndall’s sexual abuse. Thus, USC’s retention
26 of Dr. Tyndall, denied Plaintiffs, and all of its other young female students, full and equal
27 access to safe medical facilities, treatment, and services based on their gender.
28 102. The substantial motivating reason for USC’s conduct of actively concealing
- 16 -
COMPLAINT
1 numerous complaints of Dr. Tyndall’s sexually abusive nature was Plaintiffs’ gender, as USC
2 knew that only its female students would seek gynecological treatment from Dr. Tyndall, and
3 therefore would be unwittingly subjected to his sexual assaults.
4 103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have
5 suffered special and general damages, including severe emotional distress for which they have
6 sought psychological treatment, in an amount to be determined at trial.
13
14
Dated: юЛ^/г-о(? GAMMILL LAW,APC
15
By:
16 DAVID GAMMILL
Attorney for Plaintiffs
17
SERENA ANIS and
18 KATHEMNESFOAE
19
20
22
Plaintiffs Serena Anis and Katherine Sloat hereby demand a jury trial.
23
24 Dated;
ł/z-oiy GAMMILLLAW, APC
25
26 By:
DAVro GAMMILL
27 Attorney for Plaintiffs
SERENA ANIS and
28
KATHERINE SLOAT
-34-
COMPLAINT