Valeant Pharmaceuticals Whistleblower Complaint That Started It All - . .

Case 8:15-cv-01260 Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
Geragos@Geragos.com
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
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

10
11
JOSEPH WEINBERG, an individual;
Case No.: 8:15-cv-1260
12
13
14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
Plaintiff,
1.
vs.
15
16
17
18
19
20
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;
21
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
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.
26
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
27
28
-1-
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. Weinbergs
10
employment and then, to add insult injury, Defendants attorneys and representatives
11
disclaimed any liability for Mr. Weinbergs injuries and mocked him.
12
2.
Multiple Sclerosis is a devastating disease for which there is no
13
permanent cure. Multiple Sclerosis causes the bodys own immune system to slowly
14
destroy the protective coverings of nerves, particularly in the brain and spinal cord.
15
The diminished motor skills, memory loss, and loss of vision, among other symptoms,
16
are exacerbated by outside triggers such as stress and mental trauma. It is a painful
17
and maddening disease, for both the victim and his or her family.
18
3.
During Mr. Weinbergs employment, he not only refused to participate in
19
unlawful conduct that risked the exposure of personally-identifiable financial data and
20
the corruption of records in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, but tried to
21
alert his employer. Defendants failed to take any remedial action and instead initiated
22
a campaign of retaliation, harassment, intimidation, and hostility directed towards Mr.
23
Weinberg. Defendants knew that their conduct would exacerbate the symptoms of
24
Mr. Weinbergs Multiple Sclerosis, basically trying to kill the whistleblower.
25
4.
Mr. Weinberg would not be coerced. He endured this patent and obvious
26
attempt to bully him. Eventually, however, Mr. Weinberg was forced to request
27
accommodations in order to save his life.
28
5.
Instead of granting Mr. Weinberg accommodations, Defendants lured

-2-
Mr. Weinberg into a faux human resources meeting, on the pretext of discussing his
illness and accommodations, and served him with separation papers.
attempt to try to torture and abuse Mr. Weinberg.
PARTIES
7
8

It is shocking that Defendants, which are pharmaceutical giants, would
6.
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
10
California. Upon information and belief, Valeant maintains offices in the county of
11
Orange, California. Valeant is an international, multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical
12
company with its United States headquarters located in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
13
Upon information and belief, Defendants Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Obagi
14
Medical Products, Inc., and Bausch & Lomb Incorporated are subsidiaries of Valeant,
15
and each Defendant is controlled and/or dominated by the others such that all
16
Defendants are alter-egos of each other.
17
9.
Defendant Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (Medicis), at all
18
relevant times, was a Delaware corporation registered to do business in the State of
19
California. Upon information and belief, Medicis is a subsidiary of Valeant. Medicis
20
is a pharmaceutical company specializing in medical cosmetics.
21
10.
Defendant Obagi Medical Products, Inc. (Obagi), at all relevant times,
22
was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California.
23
Upon information and belief, Obagi is a subsidiary of Valeant.
24
pharmaceutical company specializing in dermatology products.
25
11.
Obagi is a
Defendant Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (B&L), at all relevant times,
26
was a New York corporation corporation registered to do business in the State of
27
California. Upon information and belief, B&L maintains offices throughout the state
28
of California, including Irvine, California. Upon information and belief, B&L is a

-3-
subsidiary of Valeant. B&L is a pharmaceutical company specializing in the supply
of eye health products.

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 Plaintiffs damages and
10
12.
injuries as herein alleged were caused by the conduct of said Defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11
12
13.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332
13
because the amount in controversy as to Plaintiff exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of
14
interest and costs and because at least one Defendant has its principal place of
15
business in California, a state other than the state in which the named Plaintiff resides.
16
17
18
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
19
substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in the Central
20
District of California.
21
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
22
Mr. Weinberg Discloses His Multiple Sclerosis When He Is Hired
23
16.
Beginning in March 2013, Valeant interviewed Mr. Weinberg over a
24
three-month period for a potential employment position to direct Valeants IT
25
infrastructure. The position would require Mr. Weinberg to perform services for
26
Valeant and its subsidiaries.
27
advanced skillset and concluded its six-month nationwide search by offering Mr.
28
Weinberg the Senior Converged Infrastructure Engineer position. Valeant offered Mr.
Valeant recognized Mr. Weinbergs extraordinarily
-4-
Weinberg a base salary of $110,000, undisclosed stock grants, a 10% bonus, and
medical benefits.
17.
concerned about the stable environment and working conditions because he suffers
from the neurological condition Multiple Sclerosis. Mr. Weinbergs then-employer
had created an environment where Mr. Weinberg could manage his condition and
employment responsibilities, and Mr. Weinberg wanted a similar experience.

In considering Valeants employment offer, Mr. Weinberg was
18.
Mr. Weinberg accepted Valeants offer because, in part: (1) Valeant was
a stable company that could provide him and his family extraordinary health benefits;
10
and (2) Mr. Weinberg believed that a company that manufactured and sold
11
neurological medications would care and have compassion for a Multiple Sclerosis
12
patient such as himself.
13
19.
Mr. Weinberg began his employment at Valeant in May, 2013 and
14
worked directly under the supervision of IT engineering directors Jacob Alao and
15
Steve Schiavone. At the outset, Mr. Weinberg was enthusiastic and excited about his
16
position and looked forward to going to work each day. Mr. Weinberg was assigned
17
to work on a variety of different IT-related projects for Valeants numerous
18
subsidiaries.
19
20
21
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 Valeants
22
corporate culture and the unlawful orders given by Mr. Weinbergs managers caused
23
him to experience physical manifestations of his Multiple Sclerosis.
24
Mr. Weinberg Is Ordered To Participate In Fraudulent Conduct While
25
Performing Services For Medicis
26
22.
Valeants failure to control Mr. Weinbergs supervisor, Jacob Alao,
27
created a hostile environment.
Approximately one month into Mr. Weinbergs
28
employment at Valeant, at which time he was assigned to perform services for

-5-
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. Alaos
prior employers had helped start Mongran.

23.
Knowing that Mr. Weinberg had access to Valeants 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
10
standards. Mr. Alaos illegitimate operations exposed Valeant to substantial liability.
11
24.
After Mr. Weinberg refused to comply with Mr. Alaos demands, Mr.
12
Alao proceeded to hire numerous consultants, all of whom were from Nigeria. Mr.
13
Weinberg interacted with several of these consultants and recognized that, although
14
they knew very little about IT systems, they nevertheless wanted to gain access to
15
financial data and personally-identifiable information. Mr. Weinberg never provided
16
access to this information to anyone. Nonetheless, because of Mr. Alaos influential
17
position in the IT division, he and his consultants gained access to these systems.
18
Mr. Weinberg Is Retaliated Against For Refusing To Participate In Fraudulent
19
Conduct While Performing Services For Obagi
20
25.
Mr. Alaos other hostile conduct was alarming as well. One of Mr.
21
Weinbergs assignments required him to perform services for Valeants subsidiary,
22
Obagi. Mr. Alao instructed and insisted Mr. Weinberg perform data migration in
23
manners that fell below industry standards and, in Mr. Weinbergs extensive
24
experience, would cause the data to become corrupt. When Mr. Weinberg voiced
25
these concerns to Mr. Alao, he insisted and demanded Mr. Weinberg proceed anyway,
26
going so far as to remotely log-in to Mr. Weinbergs active computer session, take
27
control of his mouse, and make changes to the system to ensure corruption and data
28
loss. Mr. Alao corrupted the data to the point where it became unusable.
-6-

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.
Shacknais balcony. Mr. Alaos retaliatory campaign increased in severity over time.
Defendants Retaliatory Conduct Causes More Harm To Mr. Weinberg
10
26.
27.
The escalating severity and effects of Mr. Alaos intimidating and
11
retaliatory conduct caused the debilitating effects of Multiple Sclerosis to take their
12
toll on Mr. Weinberg. For example, Mr. Weinberg began to experience difficulty with
13
his cognitive abilities, numbness in his appendages, and mobility problems, all of
14
which signaled that he was suffering brain and spinal column damage. Mr. Weinberg
15
therefore approached Alison Brunger, Valeants Director of Human Resources, to
16
explore these issues so that Mr. Weinberg could continue to work for Valeant.
17
Valeant never responded to Mr. Weinberg.
18
28.
Mr. Weinbergs health continued to decline through June and July of
19
2013. Mr. Weinberg, his family, and his Multiple Sclerosis neurologists feared that
20
the stressful and hostile environment at Valeant was going to cause brain damage,
21
diminish his quality of life, and ultimately permanently disable him. Mr. Weinbergs
22
only option was to continue working in order to support his family and pay for his
23
treatments, and therefore he was forced to forego using a more effective medication in
24
favor of a less effective medication that would allow him to continue working.
25
Despite these immense challenges, Mr. Weinberg nonetheless excelled at work.
26
Defendants Terminate Mr. Weinberg For Requesting Assistance With His
27
Multiple Sclerosis
28
29.
When Valeant acquired Medicis in 2012, Mr. Weinberg was informed

-7-
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.

As Valeant was well aware of Mr. Weinbergs 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
10
30.
11
12
13
stressful work environment.

31.
Instead of discussing accommodations so that Mr. Weinberg could get
treatment, Valeant terminated Mr. Weinbergs employment at its first opportunity.

32.
Ms. Brunger misled Mr. Weinberg into scheduling a meeting to discuss
14
his health and the work environment in August, 2013. Instead of discussing these
15
issues at this meeting, Ms. Brunger handed Mr. Weinberg separation papers. She also
16
stated that the Senior Vice President of IT approved Mr. Weinberg taking unpaid time
17
off. However, Mr. Weinberg could not afford to take time off as he was obligated to
18
care for his family as well as pay for his costly treatments. Thereafter, Valeant
19
terminated Mr. Weinbergs employment. Mr. Weinberg was forced to seek new
20
employment quickly as he and his family were expecting their second child.
21
22
Mr. Weinbergs Injuries Following Defendants Wrongful Termination.

33.
Consequently Mr. Weinberg was left with no income and Valeant
23
COBRA insurance that cost him over $1,600 per month, putting the Weinberg family
24
into a dire financial situation.
25
diminished his cognitive ability even further. Mr. Weinberg was forced to sell his
26
house, car, and stocks, as well as cash out his 401k in order to live.
27
28
34.
Mr. Weinbergs Multiple Sclerosis worsened and
In addition, an MRI in October of 2013 revealed four lesions on Mr.
Weinbergs brain, crippling his ability to function, despite his young age, as well as
-8-
his ability to find another job. Sadly, the long-lasting mental and physical pain
inflicted upon Mr. Weinbergs 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. Weinbergs 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, Valeants COBRA insurance denied coverage. Mr.
Weinberg could not afford, and therefore could not receive, this life-saving treatment.
10
Mr. Weinberg instead was prescribed Tysabri, which has a high and potentially fatal
11
risk of brain damage, because it was covered by Valeants COBRA insurance.
12
36.
In October of 2013, Mr. Weinbergs oldest son started showing signs of
13
erratic behavior and shortly thereafter was diagnosed with Autism. The next month,
14
Mr. Weinbergs second child was born. Due to the financial situation caused by
15
Valeants wrongful termination, Mr. Weinberg could not afford the Autism treatments
16
for his oldest son. As a result, Mr. Weinbergs oldest son is now non-verbal and will
17
likely never lead a normal life. But for Valeants wrongful termination, Mr. Weinberg
18
would have been able to afford early intervention medical treatments for his son.
19
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1102.5(b)
21
(Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
22
37.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and
23
every allegation contained above and incorporates the same herein by this reference as
24
though set forth in full.
25
38.
Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by complaining of and refusing to
26
participate in violations and fraudulent activities that Defendants and several of their
27
employees were engaged in.
28
39.
Defendants failed to address Plaintiffs concerns on numerous occasions.

-9-
fraudulent activities would result in noncompliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, including other potential illegal activity.

41.
As a result of Plaintiffs 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
10
Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that Defendants constant
40.
11
Plaintiff.
43.
Defendants cannot and will not be able to prove by clear and convincing
12
evidence that such unfavorable employment actions as set forth above would have
13
been taken in the absence of Plaintiffs protected behavior and/or conduct in reporting
14
and opposing Defendants pervasive fraudulent activities.
15
44.
Defendants ratified their agents, servants, employees, and authorized
16
representatives unlawful conduct and behavior as described herein by: (1) allowing
17
the pervasive fraudulent activity to occur without rectifying it despite attempts by
18
Plaintiff to bring the conduct to Defendants attention; (2) condoning the pervasive
19
fraudulent activities; and (3) condoning the retaliatory measures taken against Plaintiff
20
by failing to intervene and halt the behavior and actions of Defendants employees.
21
45.
As a direct and proximate cause of the tortious, unlawful, and wrongful
22
acts of Defendants and their respective agents, servants, employees, and authorized
23
representatives as aforesaid, Plaintiff has suffered past and future special damages,
24
including impairment of reputation and personal humiliation, and past and future
25
general damages in an amount according to proof at trial. Plaintiff has been damaged
26
emotionally and financially, including but not limited to emotional suffering from
27
emotional distress and ridicule, as well as loss of income and earnings potential.
28
Plaintiff has also been damaged physically as a result of the retaliatory actions of
- 10 -
Defendants employees, which exacerbated Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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)
10

47.
11
12
13

48.
14
Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that Defendants constant
15
fraudulent activities would result in noncompliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
16
2002.
17
49.
Plaintiff was hired to direct Defendants IT infrastructure. Plaintiffs
18
supervisor, Jacob Alao, demanded and ordered that Plaintiff provide access to private
19
financial systems to himself and his personal company, Mongran, in violation of the
20
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and PCI security standards.
21
50.
Plaintiff refused to participate or follow Mr. Alaos orders. Plaintiff
22
engaged in a protected activity when Plaintiff refused to engage in the fraudulent
23
activities that Defendants and their employees were engaged in.
24
51.
As a result of Plaintiffs refusal to participate in fraudulent and unlawful
25
activity, Plaintiff suffered unfavorable personnel action(s) by being subjected to
26
unprecedented scrutiny, harassment, and intimidation.
27
28
52.
The protected activity was the contributing factor in the unfavorable
personnel action as set forth above, which invariably affected the outcome of
- 11 -
Defendants decision to exercise such an unfavorable personnel action(s) against
Plaintiff.

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 Plaintiffs protected behavior and/or conduct in reporting
and opposing Defendants pervasive fraudulent activities.
53.
54.
10
11
12
13
55.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
56.
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12 -
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
CODE 12940(a)
57.
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.

10
11
12
13
14
15
59.
Defendants intentionally created or knowingly permitted the above-
16
described working conditions to exist. Plaintiff, who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis,
17
was discriminated against on account of his disability.
18
60.
Plaintiff was subjected to the above-described discrimination in the
19
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment in violation of Government Code
20
section 12940(a).
21
61.
22
23
24
25
Plaintiffs disability was a substantial motivating factor for the
discrimination against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

62.
Plaintiffs disability was a substantial motivating factor for the discharge
of Plaintiff.
63.
Defendants terminated Plaintiff in breach of public policy. The
26
underlying public policy being those articulated in the California Fair Employment
27
and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900, et seq.
28
64.
Defendants managers, employees, and agents engaged in harassing and

- 13 -
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 Plaintiffs Multiple
Sclerosis, and by creating a hostile work environment.

Plaintiffs Multiple Sclerosis was exacerbated by Defendants working
conditions. Plaintiff notified Defendants of his Multiple Sclerosis and requested
accommodations. As a result, Plaintiff was terminated.
65.
66.
10
11
12
13
14
15
67.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
68.
25
26
27
28

- 14 -
1
2
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL TERMINATION

69.
70.
Plaintiff endured disability discrimination, harassment and other
offensive conduct described herein during his employment with Defendants.
10
Defendants terminated Plaintiff in or around August, 2013. Plaintiffs disability was a
11
motivating reason for his termination, against California public policy.
12
71.
Defendants were aware, or should have been aware, of the likelihood that
13
Plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress as a result of the above-described
14
outrageous conduct. The outrageous and shocking conduct of Defendants and their
15
employees was done intentionally and for the purpose of inflicting extreme and severe
16
emotional distress upon Plaintiff.
17
72.
Defendants knowingly created and intentionally permitted these
18
intolerable working conditions and failed to take appropriate remedial steps to protect
19
Plaintiff from discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.
20
73.
Plaintiff was harmed and the requirement that he endure discriminatory
21
and retaliatory conduct, and other offensive conduct as described herein during the
22
course of his employment, was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.
23
74.
Plaintiffs termination from his employment was rooted in violation of
24
public policy embodied in Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act,
25
Government Code section 12900, et seq.
26
75.
27
28

- 15 -

76.
10
11
12
13
77.
14
15
16
17
18
19
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20
CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
21
22
78.
23
24
25
79.
Constructive discharge occurs when the employers conduct is so
26
egregious that it effectively compels the employee to resign. The employer must
27
either intentionally create or knowingly permit working conditions that are so
28
intolerable at the time of the employee's resignation, that a reasonable person in the
- 16 -
1
2

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.
employee's position would be compelled to resign.
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. Plaintiffs resignation of his employment was constructive termination of his
10
employment. Defendants constructive termination of Plaintiffs employment because
11
of his disability and request for accommodations is a violation of California's
12
fundamental public policy and is therefore a wrongful employment termination in
13
violation of public policy.
14
82.
15
16
17
18
19
20
83.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 17 -

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12940
10
84.
85.
11
12
13
86.
By engaging in the conduct previously alleged herein, Defendants
14
violated Government Code section 12940 by creating, maintaining, encouraging,
15
failing to investigate properly, and by failing to remedy a hostile work environment
16
prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Act, despite Plaintiffs complaints to
17
management-level employees of harassment and discrimination.
18
87.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the working
19
conditions at Defendants were both subjectively and objectively pervasive as to
20
constitute a prima facie case of harassment under state and federal laws.
21
88.
The harassment endured by Plaintiff was made known to Defendants
22
management-level employees.
23
admonish, or timely investigate Plaintiffs claims. Instead of prompt investigation or
24
resolution of the hostile environment, Defendants, through their management-level
25
employees and agents, chose to engage in a campaign of intimidation, harassment and
26
abuse as alleged above.
27
28
89.
Defendants management failed to discipline,
At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge
of the hostile work environment described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified,
- 18 -
1
2

90.
and failed to remedy the hostile work environment.
91.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
92.
18
19
20
21
22
23
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12940
25
26
93.
27
28

- 19 -
retaliation against Plaintiff for opposing any practices forbidden or made unlawful
under Government Code section 12940.
5
6
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.
10
Under Government Code section 12940, Defendants are prohibited from
94.
97.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that after Plaintiff
11
complained about the fraudulent conduct and disability discrimination as alleged
12
herein, Defendants managers engaged in tactics to intimidate and harass Plaintiff.
13
Specifically, Plaintiff was micro-managed and given assignments with impossible
14
deadlines. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, further physical injuries, and was
15
eventually either directly terminated or constructively terminated in retaliation for
16
requesting basic accommodations for his Multiple Sclerosis.
17
98.
At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge
18
of the retaliatory conduct described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified and
19
participated in the retaliation. As a result of the retaliatory behavior perpetrated and
20
executed by Defendants, and Defendants failure to protect Plaintiff from retaliatory
21
behavior, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment,
22
and physical injuries. As a further proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiff has
23
suffered loss of income, loss of career opportunity and loss of tangible job benefits, all
24
in amounts to be proven at trial.
25
99.
26
27
28
- 20 -

100. As a direct and proximate cause of the tortious, unlawful, and wrongful
10
11
12
101. In engaging in the conduct as hereinabove alleged, Defendants and their
13
14
15
16
17
18
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ENVIRONMENT FREE FROM HARASSMENT IN
20
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12940
21
22
102. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and
23
24
25
103. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment
26
against Plaintiff from occurring, and to take immediate and appropriate corrective
27
action to remedy the harassment, in violation of Government Code section 12940, by
28
engaging in the course of conduct set forth above, among other things.
- 21 -

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
accommodations for his Multiple Sclerosis.
resources
department
for
terminating
Plaintiff
after
he
requested
105. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge
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
10
executed by Defendants, and Defendants failure to protect Plaintiff from retaliatory
11
behavior, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment,
12
and physical injuries. As a further proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiff has
13
suffered loss of income, loss of career opportunity and loss of tangible job benefits, all
14
in amounts to be proven at trial.
15
106. Defendants ratified their agents, servants, employees, and authorized
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 22 -

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
10
11
12
13
14
15
110. Defendants conduct, as described above, was extreme and outrageous

and beyond the bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society.
16
111. Defendants conduct was intended to cause Plaintiff emotional distress
17
and Defendant acted with a reckless disregard to the probability that Plaintiff would
18
suffer emotional distress.
19
112. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the conduct by
20
Defendants managers, which was made in response to Plaintiff raising complaints
21
regarding ongoing pervasive fraudulent conduct as well as his Multiple Sclerosis.
22
113. As a result of the conduct alleged above, Plaintiff suffered and continues
23
to suffer severe emotional distress which has resulted in physical manifestations of
24
such distress. Specifically, Plaintiff suffers from debilitating depression, exhaustion,
25
and deteriorating health.
26
27
28
114. Defendants and Defendants conduct were a substantial factor in causing

Plaintiffs severe emotional distress.
- 23 -

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
23
24
25
26
27
119. Defendant owed a duty to use reasonable care in its conduct with regard
28
to the health, safety, and rights of Plaintiff. It was foreseeable and probable that
- 24 -

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.
10
122. As a result of the conduct alleged above, Plaintiff suffered and continues
11
to suffer severe emotional distress which has resulted in physical manifestations of
12
such distress. Specifically, Plaintiff suffers from debilitating depression, exhaustion,
13
and deteriorating health.
14
15
123. Defendants were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs severe

emotional distress.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 25 -

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9
10
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Weinberg respectfully requests for judgment to
11
be entered upon Defendants Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Medicis
12
Pharmaceutical Corporation, Obagi Medical Products, Inc. and Bausch & Lomb
13
Incorporated as follows:
14
1.
For general and special damages for an amount to be determined at trial;
15
2.
For pre- and post-judgment interest according to proof;
16
3.
For Punitive Damages where applicable;
17
4.
For Attorney Fees where applicable;
18
3.
For costs of suit incurred herein; and
19
4.
For all other relief as this court may deem proper.
20
21
DATED: August 6, 2015
22
23
24
25
26
By: /s/ MARK J. GERAGOS

MARK J. GERAGOS
BEN J. MEISELAS
TYLER M. ROSS
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOSEPH WEINBERG
27
28
- 26 -
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
Plaintiff Joseph Weinberg hereby demands a jury trial.
3
4
5
6
DATED: August 6, 2015
7
8
9

10
11
By: /s/ MARK J. GERAGOS

MARK J. GERAGOS
BEN J. MEISELAS
TYLER M. ROSS
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOSEPH WEINBERG
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 27 -

Valeant Pharmaceuticals Whistleblower Complaint That Started It All - . .

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valeant Pharmaceuticals Whistleblower Complaint That Started It All - . .

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

GERAGOS & GERAGOS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28

JOSEPH WEINBERG, an individual;

Case No.: 8:15-cv-1260

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 8:15-cv-01260 Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:2

GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28

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

disease, Multiple Sclerosis. Defendant Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and its

subsidiaries named herein publicly claim to be compassionate towards victims of

Instead of providing life-saving help, Defendants terminated Mr. Weinbergs

Multiple Sclerosis is a devastating disease for which there is no

During Mr. Weinbergs employment, he not only refused to participate in

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

Mr. Weinbergs Multiple Sclerosis, basically trying to kill the whistleblower.

accommodations in order to save his life.

Instead of granting Mr. Weinberg accommodations, Defendants lured

Case 8:15-cv-01260 Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:3

illness and accommodations, and served him with separation papers.

attempt to try to torture and abuse Mr. Weinberg.

HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28

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

GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

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

residing in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Defendant Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (Valeant), at all

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

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

Upon information and belief, Defendants Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Obagi

Defendants are alter-egos of each other.

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.

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

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

pharmaceutical company specializing in dermatology products.

Defendant Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (B&L), at all relevant times,

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

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

Case 8:15-cv-01260 Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:4

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

of eye health products.

HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28

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

aforesaid fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the

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

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

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

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

Mr. Weinberg Discloses His Multiple Sclerosis When He Is Hired

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

three-month period for a potential employment position to direct Valeants IT

Valeant and its subsidiaries.

Valeant recognized Mr. Weinbergs extraordinarily

Case 8:15-cv-01260 Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:5

from the neurological condition Multiple Sclerosis. Mr. Weinbergs then-employer