Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2 1. Zainali “Zain” Jaffer worked for Defendant Vungle, Inc. at the Company’s
3 headquarters and principal place of business in San Francisco County, and he resides in San
4 Francisco County. All the wrongful acts occurred in San Francisco within the venue of this court.
5 BACKGROUND FACTS
6 2. Mr. Jaffer co-founded Vungle in 2011 and then served as its Chief Executive Officer
7 for seven years. Vungle is a mobile ad company that employs over 200 people across eight
8 international offices with its product reaching over a billion consumers each and every month.
9 The Company’s product is the leading in-app video advertising platform for performance
10 marketers. Its technology allows businesses to acquire customers and generate revenue with in-
11 app video ads. Under Mr. Jaffer’s leadership, Vungle grew from zero revenue to substantial
12 annual revenues and profits. Not surprisingly, Mr. Jaffer received nearly constant praise from
14 3. Vungle fired Mr. Jaffer without prior discussion or warning on October 17, 2017. The
15 Company issued press releases making clear that his firing was unrelated to job performance and
16 due to a recent arrest and resulting charges. Vungle stated that its board fired Mr. Jaffer within 24
18 4. At the time of Mr. Jaffer’s removal, Vungle’s board only knew that police had arrested
19 him for child abuse and assault following an incident in the middle of the night on October 15.
20 One board member eventually resigned, complaining that the Company had dismissed Mr. Jaffer
21 “based on presumption of guilt” and ignoring that “we live in a democracy where [a] key legal
22 right is ‘presumption of innocence’ (as in a defendant is innocent until proven guilty).” Then the
23 District Attorney dismissed all charges and took the unusual step of releasing a statement saying
24 the facts did not support the case and that the incident resulted from Mr. Jaffer “being in a state of
26 /////
27 /////
28 /////
2
Complaint
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
4 6. California Labor Code § 432.7 expressly and specifically prohibits discrimination and
5 retaliation by employers based upon an arrest or detention that did not result in conviction or based
6 upon participation in diversion programs. The statute makes it unlawful for any employer to “seek
7 from any source whatsoever, or utilize, as a factor in determining any condition of employment
8 including hiring, promotion, termination or any apprenticeship training program or any other
9 training program leading to employment, any record of arrest or detention that did not result in
10 conviction, or any record regarding a referral to, and participation in, any pretrial or post-trial
11 diversion program.”
12 7. The express wording of Labor Code § 432.7 prohibits employers from using
14 including … termination” and even prohibits receipt or possession of those records. This directly
16 8. Vungle rashly and wrongfully usurped the roles of judge, jury, and executioner when
17 summarily terminating Mr. Jaffer’s employment. Vungle’s termination violated fundamental state
18 public policies including those embodied in California Labor Code sections 432.7, 96(k), and 98.6
19 as well as in Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution which establishes the inalienable
20 right to privacy.
22 of public policy, he suffered economic out-of-pocket losses in significant ways and he will with
23 reasonable certainty suffer further economic losses in the future. His losses continue to rapidly
24 mount, are currently undetermined, but will be subject to proof at the time of trial. His losses
25 include past and future loss of annual salary, bonus, stock, and benefits. Plaintiff requests
27 /////
28 /////
3
Complaint