FILED

18 NOV 05 PM 1:26
1
KING COUNTY
2 SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
3 CASE NUMBER: 18-2-27739-6 SEA

7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
8
J.S.,
9 No.
Plaintiff,
10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
v.
11
BULLETPROOF 360, INC., a Delaware JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
12 Corporation, BULLETPROOF NUTRITION
INC., a Washington State Corporation, and
13 DAVID ASPREY and “JANE DOE” ASPREY
and the Marital Community Comprised Thereof,
14
Defendants.
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

Page i 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 343-2700
1 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
2 1. This is an action for disability, age, and gender discrimination and wrongful

3 discharge in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60 et seq.

4 (“WLAD”), and for age discrimination in violation of RCW 49.44.090. This is also an action

5 for requiring Plaintiff to submit genetic information and/or submit to screening for genetic

6 information, in violation of RCW 49.44.180. This is additionally an action for wrongful

7 discharge in violation of public policy, including in violation of the public policy against

8 disability discrimination, in violation of the public policy protecting the privacy of medical

9 records, and in violation of the public policy against requiring employees to submit genetic

10 information or submit to screening for genetic information.

11 II. JURISDICTION, PARTIES AND VENUE

12 2. Plaintiff J.S. (hereafter, “Plaintiff”) is a citizen of Washington State and a

13 resident of King County, Washington.

14 3. Defendant Bulletproof 360, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in

15 Bellevue, Washington and doing business in King County, Washington.

16 4. At all times material hereto, Defendant Bulletproof 360, Inc. was an employer

17 under the WLAD and had the requisite number of employees under the WLAD.

18 5. Defendant Bulletproof Nutrition Inc. is an administratively dissolved

19 Washington State corporation doing business in King County, Washington.

20 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Bulletproof Nutrition Inc. was an employer

21 under the WLAD and had the requisite number of employees under the WLAD.

22 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant David Asprey (“Defendant Asprey”) is

23 a resident of the State of Arizona

24 8. Defendant Asprey’s actions were made on behalf of or to the benefit of Jane

25 Doe Asprey and the marital community.

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

Page 1 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 343-2700
1
9. The violations alleged in this Complaint were committed in whole or in part in
2
King County, by the Defendants named herein.
3
10. Venue is proper in King County pursuant to RCW 4.12.020(3).
4
III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
5
11. The preceding paragraphs 1 through 10 are re-alleged and hereby incorporated
6
by reference.
7
12. Defendants Bulletproof 360, Inc. and Bulletproof Nutrition Inc. (hereafter,
8
“Bulletproof”) are for-profit businesses that conducted business in the State of Washington at
9
all times material hereto.
10
13. Bulletproof was founded by Defendant Asprey.
11
14. Defendant Asprey was the CEO of Bulletproof 360, Inc. and Bulletproof
12
Nutrition Inc. at all times material hereto.
13
15. Bulletproof is a consumer retail and e-commerce company.
14
16. Bulletproof’s products include “bulletproof coffee,” nutritional products and
15
dietary supplements.
16
17. Per the Bulletproof 360, Inc. website as of April 16, 2018, “becoming
17
Bulletproof” is “the state of high performance where you take control of and improve your
18
biochemistry, your body, and your mind so they work in unison, helping you execute at levels
19
far beyond what you’d expect, without burning out, getting sick, or allowing stress to control
20
your decisions.” (emphasis added).
21
18. Bulletproof seeks out and hires employees who it perceives as embodying the
22
state of being “Bulletproof.”
23
19. In practice, this means Bulletproof seeks out and hires employees who it
24
perceives as being young, healthy, fit, and free of mental or physical disabilities.
25
20. Bulletproof hired Plaintiff as the Vice President of Brand Management in
26
August of 2015.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

Page 2 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 343-2700
1
21. For approximately the first five months of her employment, Plaintiff reported
2
directly to Defendant Asprey.
3
22. Plaintiff’s accomplishments at Bulletproof included the following:
4
a. Outlined and organized a brand strategy;
5
b. Developed a vision and mission for Bulletproof;
6
c. Coordinated executive workshops to define a business plan;
7
d. Helped identify groups of new target customers;
8
e. Formulated a cohesive strategy to grow Bulletproof’s business.
9
23. The above paragraph lists examples only and is not an exhaustive list of
10
Plaintiff’s many accomplishments during her employment at Bulletproof.
11
24. Plaintiff is 48 years old.
12
25. At the time Plaintiff was employed by Bulletproof, the Marketing, Product, and
13
Brand teams together consisted of approximately fifty people total.
14
26. Of those fifty people, upon information and belief, less than five were over the
15
age of 40.
16
27. On or about December 2015 or January of 2016, Defendant Asprey promoted a
17
man named Zak Garcia to “Chief Marketing Officer.”
18
28. Mr. Garcia was under 40 years old at the time he was promoted.
19
29. On or about January of 2016, Plaintiff and one other female Vice President
20
were reassigned to report directly to Mr. Garcia, instead of to Defendant Asprey.
21
30. In April of 2016, the executive team, including Plaintiff, were strongly
22
encouraged to participate in a week of employee training.
23
31. As part of this employee training, the executive team members were expected to
24
participate in the “brain training” sessions with a Dr. Andrew Pierson.
25
32. Dr. Pierson holds himself out as a Doctor of Acupuncture and Oriental
26
Medicine.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

Page 3 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 343-2700
1
33. A member of the executive team named Dawn Pineaud refused to participate in
2
the “brain training” sessions.
3
34. Bulletproof terminated Ms. Pineaud shortly after she refused to participate in
4
the training.
5
35. Ms. Pineaud was over the age of 50 at the time she was terminated.
6
36. On or about April 25 through April 29, 2016, Ms. Steed participated in a week
7
of employee training.
8
37. The week of training included “brain training” sessions with Dr. Andrew
9
Pierson (“Dr. Pierson”).
10
38. During all of her sessions with Dr. Pierson, Plaintiff was alone with Dr. Pierson
11
in a hotel room.
12
39. The brain training sessions included use of electroencephalography (“EEG”).
13
40. The sessions with Dr. Pierson included what Dr. Pierson referred to as “brain
14
mapping.”
15
41. During the “brain mapping” portions of the sessions, Dr. Pierson attached an
16
EEG device, consisting of a cap with “nodes” on it, to Plaintiff’s head.
17
42. Dr. Pierson produced written medical records related to the “brain mapping”
18
sessions. The records claimed that Plaintiff’s qualitative electroencephalography (“qEEG”)
19
analyses were “deviant from normal” and showed “dysregulation in bilateral frontal lobes
20
especially in the right frontal lobe….”
21
43. During the “talk therapy” sessions, Dr. Pierson asked Plaintiff questions related
22
to her family medical history.
23
44. During the “talk therapy” sessions, Dr. Pierson interrogated Plaintiff about her
24
family medical history, mental and physical health, and personal life.
25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

Page 4 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 343-2700
1
45. In response to Dr. Pierson’s invasive interrogation, Plaintiff disclosed
2
information regarding many aspects of her personal and family medical history, health, and
3
personal life.
4
46. During the “talk therapy” sessions, Dr. Pierson offered diagnoses and
5
unsolicited opinions about Plaintiffs health, family history and personal life.
6
47. During one or more of the sessions with Dr. Pierson, Dr. Pierson put essential
7
oils on Plaintiff.
8
48. Upon information and belief, Dr. Pierson shared the information Plaintiff
9
disclosed to him, including medical and/or personal information, with employees, officers,
10
and/or agents of Defendant Bulletproof.
11
49. Upon information and belief, Dr. Pierson shared medical records from his
12
treatment of Plaintiff, including records claiming that Plaintiff’s qEEG analyses were “deviant
13
from normal,” with employees, officers, and/or agents of Defendant Bulletproof.
14
50. After Plaintiff participated in the sessions with Dr. Pierson, Bulletproof “VP of
15
Culture” Amy Herrera began making comments to Plaintiff about her confidence at work.
16
51. After Plaintiff participated in the sessions with Dr. Pierson, Mr. Garcia made
17
comments to Plaintiff about her confidence at work.
18
52. On or about August 4, 2016, Plaintiff participated in a previously scheduled
19
video conference call with Mr. Garcia.
20
53. During that conference call, Human Resources Director Hye Baek told Plaintiff
21
that she was no longer a “good fit,” and that Bulletproof was terminating her.
22
54. Defendants terminated Plaintiff on or about August 4, 2016.
23
54. Plaintiff’s last day at Bulletproof was on or about August 12, 2016.
24
55. On or near the date Plaintiff was terminated, Defendants Bulletproof and
25
Asprey also terminated a woman named Dana Dietrich.
26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

Page 5 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 343-2700
1
56. At the time Plaintiff was terminated, Plaintiff and Ms. Dietrich were the two
2
oldest women on the executive team.
3
57. Defendants Bulletproof and Asprey discriminated against and terminated
4
Plaintiff Steed on the basis of her age and/or gender, in violation of the WLAD and RCW
5
49.44.090.
6
58. Defendants Bulletproof and Asprey discriminated against and terminated
7
Plaintiff Steed on the basis of depression, anxiety, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and/or other
8
actual and/or perceived disabilities, in violation of the WLAD.
9
59. Defendants Bulletproof and Asprey also created a hostile work environment
10
based on age, gender, and/or actual and/or perceived disability, in violation of the WLAD and
11
RCW 49.44.090.
12
60. Defendants knew and/or had reason to known Plaintiff had actual disabilities
13
and failed to accommodate Plaintiff and/or failed to engage her in an interactive process.
14
61. Defendants Bulletproof and Asprey also required Plaintiff to submit genetic
15
information and/or submit to genetic screening, in violation of RCW 49.44.180.
16
62. Defendants Bulletproof and Asprey also wrongfully discharged Plaintiff in
17
violation of one or more public policies, including but not limited to the public policy against
18
disability discrimination, the public policy protecting the privacy of medical information, and
19
the public policy against requiring her to submit to genetic testing.
20
63. The effect of the conduct and practices complained of in the above paragraphs
21
has been to deprive Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect
22
her status as an employee because of her gender, age, and perceived and/or actual disability.
23
The conduct and practices have violated the statutes and common law pled herein.
24
64. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff Steed has suffered and continues to
25
suffer damages, including economic losses and non-economic losses.
26
V. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

Page 6 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 343-2700
1
65. Plaintiff reserves the right to add, revise, or withdraw any claims, or add
2
additional parties during the course of the litigation as information is obtained through
3
litigation, including but not limited to adding in similarly situated parties or additional
4
defendants.
5
66. This complaint does not include each and every legal theory that supports
6
Plaintiff’s claims and damages that may be presented at trial.
7
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
8
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against
9
Defendants as follows:
10
A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Bulletproof, its officers, successors,
11
agents, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any
12
other unlawful practices;
13
B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Asprey and all persons in
14
active concert or participation with him, from engaging in any other unlawful practices;
15
C. Order Bulletproof to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
16
which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the
17
effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices;
18
D. Order Defendants to make Plaintiff whole by providing appropriate back pay
19
and front pay with prejudgment interest and vested stock options in amounts to be determined
20
at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful
21
employment practices, including but not limited to, reinstatement as appropriate;
22
E. Order Defendants to make Plaintiff whole by providing compensation for past
23
and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices described in the above
24
paragraphs, including out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial, including
25
but not limited to the damages provided for by the statutes listed herein;
26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

Page 7 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 343-2700
1
F. Order Defendants to make Plaintiff whole by providing compensation for past
2
and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in the
3
above paragraphs, including without limitation, the emotional harm to Plaintiff caused by
4
Defendants’ wrongful conduct, including emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life,
5
humiliation, pain and suffering, personal indignity, embarrassment, fear, anxiety, and/or
6
anguish experienced and with reasonable probability to be experienced by Plaintiff in the
7
future, caused by Defendant’s illegal practices, in amounts to be determined at trial;
8
G. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiff for any and all tax consequences associated
9
with the damages and cost award, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees;
10
H. Award Plaintiff the fees and costs of this action, including attorneys’ fees,
11
expert fees, and all other fees and costs to the fullest extent allowed by law;
12
I. Award pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest; and
13
J. Grant any additional or further relief as provided by law, which this Court finds
14
appropriate, equitable, and/or just.
15

16
DATED this 5th day of November, 2018.
17
THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.
18

19

20 By: /s Scott C.G. Blankenship

Scott C. G. Blankenship, WSBA No. 21431
21 Charlotte S. Sanders, WSBA No. 45051
The Blankenship Law Firm, P.S.
22 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, WA 98104
23
Telephone: (206) 343-2700
24 Facsimile: (206) 343-2704
Email: sblankenship@blankenshiplawfirm.com
25 csanders@blankenshiplawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

Page 8 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 343-2700