valeant pharmaceuticals whistleblower complaint that started it all .

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

GERAGOS & GERAGOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

LAWYERS HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28

644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017-3411

Telephone (213) 625-3900 Facsimile (213) 232-3255

[email protected]

MARK J. GERAGOS SBN 108325 BEN J. MEISELAS SBN 277412 TYLER M. ROSS SBN 292263 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOSEPH WEINBERG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSEPH WEINBERG, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, a Delaware corporation; MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; OBAGI MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED, a New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants.

Case No.: 8:15-cv-1260

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

1. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5(b);

2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5(c);

3. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV. CODE § 12940(a);

4. WRONGFUL TERMINATION; 5. CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;

6. HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF GOV. CODE § 12940;

7. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV. CODE § 12940;

8. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ENVIRONMENT FREE FROM HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF GOV. CODE § 12940;

9. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;

10. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 8:15-cv-01260 Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 of 27 Page ID #:1

- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action brought by Plaintiff Joseph Weinberg, one of the

handful of people in the world who has undergone an experimental and wildly

expensive clinical trial treatment for the debilitating and excruciatingly painful

disease, Multiple Sclerosis. Defendant Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and its

subsidiaries named herein publicly claim to be compassionate towards victims of

neurological diseases, but at the same time have shamed Mr. Weinberg and retaliated

against him when he sought assistance, accommodations, and basic human dignity.

Instead of providing life-saving help, Defendants terminated Mr. Weinberg’s

employment and then, to add insult injury, Defendants’ attorneys and representatives

disclaimed any liability for Mr. Weinberg’s injuries and mocked him.

2. Multiple Sclerosis is a devastating disease for which there is no

permanent cure. Multiple Sclerosis causes the body’s own immune system to slowly

destroy the protective coverings of nerves, particularly in the brain and spinal cord.

The diminished motor skills, memory loss, and loss of vision, among other symptoms,

are exacerbated by outside triggers such as stress and mental trauma. It is a painful

and maddening disease, for both the victim and his or her family.

3. During Mr. Weinberg’s employment, he not only refused to participate in

unlawful conduct that risked the exposure of personally-identifiable financial data and

the corruption of records in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, but tried to

alert his employer. Defendants failed to take any remedial action and instead initiated

a campaign of retaliation, harassment, intimidation, and hostility directed towards Mr.

Weinberg. Defendants knew that their conduct would exacerbate the symptoms of

Mr. Weinberg’s Multiple Sclerosis, basically trying to kill the “whistleblower.”

4. Mr. Weinberg would not be coerced. He endured this patent and obvious

attempt to bully him. Eventually, however, Mr. Weinberg was forced to request

accommodations in order to save his life.

5. Instead of granting Mr. Weinberg accommodations, Defendants lured


- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

Mr. Weinberg into a faux human resources meeting, on the pretext of discussing his

illness and accommodations, and served him with separation papers.

6. It is shocking that Defendants, which are pharmaceutical giants, would

attempt to try to torture and abuse Mr. Weinberg.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Joseph Weinberg, at all relevant times, was an individual

residing in Maricopa County, Arizona.

8. Defendant Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (“Valeant”), at all

relevant times, was a Delaware corporation registered to do business in the State of

California. Upon information and belief, Valeant maintains offices in the county of

Orange, California. Valeant is an international, multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical

company with its United States headquarters located in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

Upon information and belief, Defendants Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Obagi

Medical Products, Inc., and Bausch & Lomb Incorporated are subsidiaries of Valeant,

and each Defendant is controlled and/or dominated by the others such that all

Defendants are alter-egos of each other.

9. Defendant Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Medicis”), at all

relevant times, was a Delaware corporation registered to do business in the State of

California. Upon information and belief, Medicis is a subsidiary of Valeant. Medicis

is a pharmaceutical company specializing in medical cosmetics.

10. Defendant Obagi Medical Products, Inc. (“Obagi”), at all relevant times,

was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California.

Upon information and belief, Obagi is a subsidiary of Valeant. Obagi is a

pharmaceutical company specializing in dermatology products.

11. Defendant Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (“B&L”), at all relevant times,

was a New York corporation corporation registered to do business in the State of

California. Upon information and belief, B&L maintains offices throughout the state

of California, including Irvine, California. Upon information and belief, B&L is a


- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

subsidiary of Valeant. B&L is a pharmaceutical company specializing in the supply

of eye health products.

12. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants

named herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by

such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to

allege the true names and capacities of said Defendants when the same are

ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the

aforesaid fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the

happenings and occurrences hereinafter alleged, and that Plaintiff’s damages and

injuries as herein alleged were caused by the conduct of said Defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332

because the amount in controversy as to Plaintiff exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of

interest and costs and because at least one Defendant has its principal place of

business in California, a state other than the state in which the named Plaintiff resides.

14. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law

and state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

15. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Central

District of California.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Mr. Weinberg Discloses His Multiple Sclerosis When He Is Hired

16. Beginning in March 2013, Valeant interviewed Mr. Weinberg over a

three-month period for a potential employment position to direct Valeant’s IT

infrastructure. The position would require Mr. Weinberg to perform services for

Valeant and its subsidiaries. Valeant recognized Mr. Weinberg’s extraordinarily

advanced skillset and concluded its six-month nationwide search by offering Mr.

Weinberg the Senior Converged Infrastructure Engineer position. Valeant offered Mr.


- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

Weinberg a base salary of $110,000, undisclosed stock grants, a 10% bonus, and

medical benefits.

17. In considering Valeant’s employment offer, Mr. Weinberg was

concerned about the stable environment and working conditions because he suffers

from the neurological condition Multiple Sclerosis. Mr. Weinberg’s then-employer

had created an environment where Mr. Weinberg could manage his condition and

employment responsibilities, and Mr. Weinberg wanted a similar experience.

18. Mr. Weinberg accepted Valeant’s offer because, in part: (1) Valeant was

a stable company that could provide him and his family extraordinary health benefits;

and (2) Mr. Weinberg believed that a company that manufactured and sold

neurological medications would care and have compassion for a Multiple Sclerosis

patient such as himself.

19. Mr. Weinberg began his employment at Valeant in May, 2013 and

worked directly under the supervision of IT engineering directors Jacob Alao and

Steve Schiavone. At the outset, Mr. Weinberg was enthusiastic and excited about his

position and looked forward to going to work each day. Mr. Weinberg was assigned

to work on a variety of different IT-related projects for Valeant’s numerous

subsidiaries.

20. During this time, Mr. Weinberg and his wife learned that they were

expecting their second child.

21. However, beginning in June, 2013 the severe stress caused by Valeant’s

corporate culture and the unlawful orders given by Mr. Weinberg’s managers caused

him to experience physical manifestations of his Multiple Sclerosis.

Mr. Weinberg Is Ordered To Participate In Fraudulent Conduct While

Performing Services For Medicis

22. Valeant’s failure to control Mr. Weinberg’s supervisor, Jacob Alao,

created a hostile environment. Approximately one month into Mr. Weinberg’s

employment at Valeant, at which time he was assigned to perform services for


- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

Medicis, Mr. Alao visited Scottsdale, Arizona to meet with Mr. Weinberg. During

this visit, Mr. Alao told Mr. Weinberg that he had his own Nigerian financial

company called Mongran Financial (“Mongran”), and that Valeant and Mr. Alao’s

prior employers had helped start Mongran.

23. Knowing that Mr. Weinberg had access to Valeant’s Oracle RAC system

used for the financial databases as well as the SAP system, Mr. Alao asked Mr.

Weinberg if he wanted to help “do business” at Valeant by providing access to those

systems. Mr. Weinberg refused to help Mr. Alao, recognizing that providing access to

private financial systems was a violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and PCI security

standards. Mr. Alao’s illegitimate operations exposed Valeant to substantial liability.

24. After Mr. Weinberg refused to comply with Mr. Alao’s demands, Mr.

Alao proceeded to hire numerous consultants, all of whom were “from Nigeria.” Mr.

Weinberg interacted with several of these consultants and recognized that, although

they knew very little about IT systems, they nevertheless wanted to gain access to

financial data and personally-identifiable information. Mr. Weinberg never provided

access to this information to anyone. Nonetheless, because of Mr. Alao’s influential

position in the IT division, he and his consultants gained access to these systems.

Mr. Weinberg Is Retaliated Against For Refusing To Participate In Fraudulent

Conduct While Performing Services For Obagi

25. Mr. Alao’s other hostile conduct was alarming as well. One of Mr.

Weinberg’s assignments required him to perform services for Valeant’s subsidiary,

Obagi. Mr. Alao instructed and insisted Mr. Weinberg perform data migration in

manners that fell below industry standards and, in Mr. Weinberg’s extensive

experience, would cause the data to become corrupt. When Mr. Weinberg voiced

these concerns to Mr. Alao, he insisted and demanded Mr. Weinberg proceed anyway,

going so far as to remotely log-in to Mr. Weinberg’s active computer session, take

control of his mouse, and make changes to the system to ensure corruption and data

loss. Mr. Alao corrupted the data to the point where it became unusable.


- 7 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

26. Mr. Alao became hostile towards Mr. Weinberg after Mr. Weinberg

refused to help Mr. Alao with his Nigerian enterprise and the Obagi matter. For

example, Mr. Alao would intimidate and tell Mr. Weinberg the “bloody” things that

he would do such as fire people for “the fun of the bloodsport,” how Valeant would

conduct hostile takeovers of companies and ruin the lives of the preexisting staff by

giving them termination dates, and how he found it funny that the girlfriend of Jonah

Shacknai, the founder of Medicis, committed suicide by hanging naked from Mr.

Shacknai’s balcony. Mr. Alao’s retaliatory campaign increased in severity over time.

Defendants’ Retaliatory Conduct Causes More Harm To Mr. Weinberg

27. The escalating severity and effects of Mr. Alao’s intimidating and

retaliatory conduct caused the debilitating effects of Multiple Sclerosis to take their

toll on Mr. Weinberg. For example, Mr. Weinberg began to experience difficulty with

his cognitive abilities, numbness in his appendages, and mobility problems, all of

which signaled that he was suffering brain and spinal column damage. Mr. Weinberg

therefore approached Alison Brunger, Valeant’s Director of Human Resources, to

explore these issues so that Mr. Weinberg could continue to work for Valeant.

Valeant never responded to Mr. Weinberg.

28. Mr. Weinberg’s health continued to decline through June and July of

2013. Mr. Weinberg, his family, and his Multiple Sclerosis neurologists feared that

the stressful and hostile environment at Valeant was going to cause brain damage,

diminish his quality of life, and ultimately permanently disable him. Mr. Weinberg’s

only option was to continue working in order to support his family and pay for his

treatments, and therefore he was forced to forego using a more effective medication in

favor of a less effective medication that would allow him to continue working.

Despite these immense challenges, Mr. Weinberg nonetheless excelled at work.

Defendants Terminate Mr. Weinberg For Requesting Assistance With His

Multiple Sclerosis

29. When Valeant acquired Medicis in 2012, Mr. Weinberg was informed


- 8 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

that his job was safe. Mr. Alao told Mr. Weinberg that he would be given a relocation

package so that Mr. Weinberg could move back to New Jersey and continue his

employment with Valeant. However, Mr. Weinberg learned from former Medicis

employees that they were not awarded relocation packages despite promises

otherwise.

30. As Valeant was well aware of Mr. Weinberg’s health issues, he began to

realize that his job was not safe. His health continued to decline, and in August, 2013,

Mr. Weinberg again contacted Ms. Brunger in order to discuss accommodations. Mr.

Weinberg again informed Ms. Brunger of his failing health and the hostile and

stressful work environment.

31. Instead of discussing accommodations so that Mr. Weinberg could get

treatment, Valeant terminated Mr. Weinberg’s employment at its first opportunity.

32. Ms. Brunger misled Mr. Weinberg into scheduling a meeting to discuss

his health and the work environment in August, 2013. Instead of discussing these

issues at this meeting, Ms. Brunger handed Mr. Weinberg separation papers. She also

stated that the Senior Vice President of IT approved Mr. Weinberg taking unpaid time

off. However, Mr. Weinberg could not afford to take time off as he was obligated to

care for his family as well as pay for his costly treatments. Thereafter, Valeant

terminated Mr. Weinberg’s employment. Mr. Weinberg was forced to seek new

employment quickly as he and his family were expecting their second child.

Mr. Weinberg’s Injuries Following Defendants’ Wrongful Termination.

33. Consequently Mr. Weinberg was left with no income and Valeant

COBRA insurance that cost him over $1,600 per month, putting the Weinberg family

into a dire financial situation. Mr. Weinberg’s Multiple Sclerosis worsened and

diminished his cognitive ability even further. Mr. Weinberg was forced to sell his

house, car, and stocks, as well as cash out his 401k in order to live.

34. In addition, an MRI in October of 2013 revealed four lesions on Mr.

Weinberg’s brain, crippling his ability to function, despite his young age, as well as


- 9 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

his ability to find another job. Sadly, the long-lasting mental and physical pain

inflicted upon Mr. Weinberg’s as a result of the stressful environment at Valeant was

so great that he contemplated suicide. Thankfully, he decided against taking his own

life.

35. The Weinberg family then moved to Utah with Mr. Weinberg’s in-laws

so that Mr. Weinberg could focus on healing. In the spring of 2014, Mr. Weinberg

was prescribed Rituxan from the Barrow Neurological Institute. When Mr. Weinberg

attempted to receive treatment, Valeant’s COBRA insurance denied coverage. Mr.

Weinberg could not afford, and therefore could not receive, this life-saving treatment.

Mr. Weinberg instead was prescribed Tysabri, which has a high and potentially fatal

risk of brain damage, because it was covered by Valeant’s COBRA insurance.

36. In October of 2013, Mr. Weinberg’s oldest son started showing signs of

erratic behavior and shortly thereafter was diagnosed with Autism. The next month,

Mr. Weinberg’s second child was born. Due to the financial situation caused by

Valeant’s wrongful termination, Mr. Weinberg could not afford the Autism treatments

for his oldest son. As a result, Mr. Weinberg’s oldest son is now non-verbal and will

likely never lead a normal life. But for Valeant’s wrongful termination, Mr. Weinberg

would have been able to afford early intervention medical treatments for his son.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5(b)

(Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and

every allegation contained above and incorporates the same herein by this reference as

though set forth in full.

38. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by complaining of and refusing to

participate in violations and fraudulent activities that Defendants and several of their

employees were engaged in.

39. Defendants failed to address Plaintiff’s concerns on numerous occasions.


- 10 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

40. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that Defendants’ constant

fraudulent activities would result in noncompliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of

2002, including other potential illegal activity.

41. As a result of Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in fraudulent and unlawful

activity, Plaintiff suffered unfavorable personnel action(s) by being subjected to

unprecedented scrutiny, harassment, and intimidation.

42. The protected activity was the contributing factor in the unfavorable

personnel action as set forth above, which invariably affected the outcome of

Defendants’ decision to exercise such an unfavorable personnel action(s) against

Plaintiff.

43. Defendants cannot and will not be able to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that such unfavorable employment actions as set forth above would have

been taken in the absence of Plaintiff’s protected behavior and/or conduct in reporting

and opposing Defendants’ pervasive fraudulent activities.

44. Defendants ratified their agents, servants, employees, and authorized

representatives’ unlawful conduct and behavior as described herein by: (1) allowing

the pervasive fraudulent activity to occur without rectifying it despite attempts by

Plaintiff to bring the conduct to Defendants’ attention; (2) condoning the pervasive

fraudulent activities; and (3) condoning the retaliatory measures taken against Plaintiff

by failing to intervene and halt the behavior and actions of Defendants’ employees.

45. As a direct and proximate cause of the tortious, unlawful, and wrongful

acts of Defendants and their respective agents, servants, employees, and authorized

representatives as aforesaid, Plaintiff has suffered past and future special damages,

including impairment of reputation and personal humiliation, and past and future

general damages in an amount according to proof at trial. Plaintiff has been damaged

emotionally and financially, including but not limited to emotional suffering from

emotional distress and ridicule, as well as loss of income and earnings potential.

Plaintiff has also been damaged physically as a result of the retaliatory actions of


- 11 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

Defendants’ employees, which exacerbated Plaintiff’s Multiple Sclerosis.

46. In engaging in the conduct as hereinabove alleged, Defendants and their

agents, servants, employees, and authorized representatives acted with malice, fraud,

and oppression and/or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s health, rights, and well-

being, and intended to subject Plaintiff to unjust hardship, thereby warranting an

assessment of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and

deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5(c)





48. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that Defendants’ constant

fraudulent activities would result in noncompliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of

2002.

49. Plaintiff was hired to direct Defendants’ IT infrastructure. Plaintiff’s

supervisor, Jacob Alao, demanded and ordered that Plaintiff provide access to private

financial systems to himself and his personal company, Mongran, in violation of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and PCI security standards.

50. Plaintiff refused to participate or follow Mr. Alao’s orders. Plaintiff

engaged in a protected activity when Plaintiff refused to engage in the fraudulent

activities that Defendants and their employees were engaged in.

51. As a result of Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in fraudulent and unlawful

activity, Plaintiff suffered unfavorable personnel action(s) by being subjected to

unprecedented scrutiny, harassment, and intimidation.

52. The protected activity was the contributing factor in the unfavorable

personnel action as set forth above, which invariably affected the outcome of


- 12 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

Defendants’ decision to exercise such an unfavorable personnel action(s) against

Plaintiff.

53. Defendants cannot and will not be able to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that such unfavorable employment actions as set forth above would have

been taken in the absence of Plaintiff’s protected behavior and/or conduct in reporting

and opposing Defendants’ pervasive fraudulent activities.























- 13 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT

CODE § 12940(a)





58. Government Code section 12940(a) states in pertinent part:

It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, physical disability, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of any person, to discharge the person from employment or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

59. Defendants intentionally created or knowingly permitted the above-

described working conditions to exist. Plaintiff, who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis,

was discriminated against on account of his disability.

60. Plaintiff was subjected to the above-described discrimination in the

terms, conditions, or privileges of employment in violation of Government Code

section 12940(a).

61. Plaintiff’s disability was a substantial motivating factor for the

discrimination against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

62. Plaintiff’s disability was a substantial motivating factor for the discharge

of Plaintiff.

63. Defendants terminated Plaintiff in breach of public policy. The

underlying public policy being those articulated in the California Fair Employment

and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900, et seq.

64. Defendants managers, employees, and agents engaged in harassing and


- 14 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

discriminatory conduct with the intent to cause economic and emotional distress to

Plaintiff. As described above, Defendants’ representatives engaged in inappropriate

conduct and created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff by denying him

accommodations, engaging in conduct designed to exacerbate Plaintiff’s Multiple

Sclerosis, and by creating a hostile work environment.

65. Plaintiff’s Multiple Sclerosis was exacerbated by Defendants’ working

conditions. Plaintiff notified Defendants of his Multiple Sclerosis and requested

accommodations. As a result, Plaintiff was terminated.






















- 15 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11


FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

WRONGFUL TERMINATION





70. Plaintiff endured disability discrimination, harassment and other

offensive conduct described herein during his employment with Defendants.

Defendants terminated Plaintiff in or around August, 2013. Plaintiff’s disability was a

motivating reason for his termination, against California public policy.

71. Defendants were aware, or should have been aware, of the likelihood that

Plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress as a result of the above-described

outrageous conduct. The outrageous and shocking conduct of Defendants and their

employees was done intentionally and for the purpose of inflicting extreme and severe

emotional distress upon Plaintiff.

72. Defendants knowingly created and intentionally permitted these

intolerable working conditions and failed to take appropriate remedial steps to protect

Plaintiff from discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.

73. Plaintiff was harmed and the requirement that he endure discriminatory

and retaliatory conduct, and other offensive conduct as described herein during the

course of his employment, was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.

74. Plaintiff’s termination from his employment was rooted in violation of

public policy embodied in California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act,

Government Code section 12900, et seq.





- 16 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11



















FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY





79. Constructive discharge occurs when the employer’s conduct is so

egregious that it effectively compels the employee to resign. The employer must

either intentionally create or knowingly permit working conditions that are so

intolerable at the time of the employee's resignation, that a reasonable person in the


- 17 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

employee's position would be compelled to resign.

80. It is the express fundamental public policy of the State of California that

employers may not discriminate against employees because of their physical

disability, gender, age, or religious creed.

81. Plaintiff was required to endure disability discrimination and other

offensive conduct described herein during his employment with Defendants. Plaintiff

was subjected to discriminatory conduct that was so severe, widespread, and persistent

that any reasonable employee would have considered his work environment to be

abusive. Plaintiff’s resignation of his employment was constructive termination of his

employment. Defendants’ constructive termination of Plaintiff’s employment because

of his disability and request for accommodations is a violation of California's

fundamental public policy and is therefore a wrongful employment termination in

violation of public policy.

















- 18 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11







SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE §12940





86. By engaging in the conduct previously alleged herein, Defendants

violated Government Code section 12940 by creating, maintaining, encouraging,

failing to investigate properly, and by failing to remedy a hostile work environment

prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Act, despite Plaintiff’s complaints to

management-level employees of harassment and discrimination.

87. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the working

conditions at Defendants were both subjectively and objectively pervasive as to

constitute a prima facie case of harassment under state and federal laws.

88. The harassment endured by Plaintiff was made known to Defendants’

management-level employees. Defendants’ management failed to discipline,

admonish, or timely investigate Plaintiff’s claims. Instead of prompt investigation or

resolution of the hostile environment, Defendants, through their management-level

employees and agents, chose to engage in a campaign of intimidation, harassment and

abuse as alleged above.

89. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge

of the hostile work environment described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified,


- 19 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

and failed to remedy the hostile work environment.






















SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE §12940






- 20 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

94. Under Government Code section 12940, Defendants are prohibited from

retaliation against Plaintiff for opposing any practices forbidden or made unlawful

under Government Code section 12940.

95. Plaintiff complained to Defendants’ as alleged herein that Plaintiff was

being harassed and retaliated against on account of his disability.

96. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants had

numerous opportunities to remedy the hostility of their workplace, but Defendants,

through their employees and agents, chose to engage in a campaign of intimidation,

harassment and abuse as alleged above.

97. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that after Plaintiff

complained about the fraudulent conduct and disability discrimination as alleged

herein, Defendants’ managers engaged in tactics to intimidate and harass Plaintiff.

Specifically, Plaintiff was micro-managed and given assignments with impossible

deadlines. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, further physical injuries, and was

eventually either directly terminated or constructively terminated in retaliation for

requesting basic accommodations for his Multiple Sclerosis.


of the retaliatory conduct described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified and

participated in the retaliation. As a result of the retaliatory behavior perpetrated and

executed by Defendants, and Defendants’ failure to protect Plaintiff from retaliatory

behavior, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment,

and physical injuries. As a further proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered loss of income, loss of career opportunity and loss of tangible job benefits, all

in amounts to be proven at trial.






- 21 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11


















EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ENVIRONMENT FREE FROM HARASSMENT IN

VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940





103. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment

against Plaintiff from occurring, and to take immediate and appropriate corrective

action to remedy the harassment, in violation of Government Code section 12940, by

engaging in the course of conduct set forth above, among other things.


- 22 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

104. Specifically, Defendants failed and have failed to the present time to take

any disciplinary action against Jacob Alao, among other individuals, who are

responsible for creating the discriminatory and harassing conduct directed at Plaintiff.

Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendants have failed to discipline their

human resources department for terminating Plaintiff after he requested

accommodations for his Multiple Sclerosis.


of the retaliatory conduct described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified, and

participated in the retaliation. As a result of the retaliatory behavior perpetrated and

executed by Defendants, and Defendants’ failure to protect Plaintiff from retaliatory

behavior, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment,

and physical injuries. As a further proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered loss of income, loss of career opportunity and loss of tangible job benefits, all

in amounts to be proven at trial.
















- 23 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11








NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS





110. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was extreme and outrageous

and beyond the bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society.

111. Defendants’ conduct was intended to cause Plaintiff emotional distress

and Defendant acted with a reckless disregard to the probability that Plaintiff would

suffer emotional distress.

112. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the conduct by

Defendants’ managers, which was made in response to Plaintiff raising complaints

regarding ongoing pervasive fraudulent conduct as well as his Multiple Sclerosis.

113. As a result of the conduct alleged above, Plaintiff suffered and continues

to suffer severe emotional distress which has resulted in physical manifestations of

such distress. Specifically, Plaintiff suffers from debilitating depression, exhaustion,

and deteriorating health.

114. Defendants and Defendants’ conduct were a substantial factor in causing

Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress.



- 24 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11





















TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS





119. Defendant owed a duty to use reasonable care in its conduct with regard

to the health, safety, and rights of Plaintiff. It was foreseeable and probable that


- 25 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

Plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress from Defendants’ conduct.

120. Defendants were negligent by breaching the duty of care they owed to

Plaintiff when Defendants’ agents, employees, and representatives repeatedly

harassed, reprimanded, discouraged, and intimidated Plaintiff, and Defendants were

aware of such conduct by their agents, employees, and representatives and allowed it

to continue.

121. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the conduct by

Defendants’ managers, which was made in response to Plaintiff raising complaints

regarding ongoing pervasive fraudulent conduct as well as his Multiple Sclerosis.

122. As a result of the conduct alleged above, Plaintiff suffered and continues

to suffer severe emotional distress which has resulted in physical manifestations of

such distress. Specifically, Plaintiff suffers from debilitating depression, exhaustion,

and deteriorating health.

123. Defendants were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s severe

emotional distress.















- 26 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11









PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Weinberg respectfully requests for judgment to

be entered upon Defendants Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Medicis

Pharmaceutical Corporation, Obagi Medical Products, Inc. and Bausch & Lomb

Incorporated as follows:

1. For general and special damages for an amount to be determined at trial;

2. For pre- and post-judgment interest according to proof;

3. For Punitive Damages where applicable;

4. For Attorney Fees where applicable;

3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

4. For all other relief as this court may deem proper.

DATED: August 6, 2015 GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

By: /s/ MARK J. GERAGOS MARK J. GERAGOS BEN J. MEISELAS TYLER M. ROSS Attorneys for Plaintiff JOSEPH WEINBERG


- 27 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Joseph Weinberg hereby demands a jury trial.

DATED: August 6, 2015 GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

By: /s/ MARK J. GERAGOS MARK J. GERAGOS BEN J. MEISELAS TYLER M. ROSS Attorneys for Plaintiff JOSEPH WEINBERG


valeant pharmaceuticals whistleblower complaint that started it all .

Documents