[Nfbc-info] GDB lawsuit filed

[Jim Barbour]

Here is the letter from dropbox that outlines the GDB lawsuit.

----------------------------------------------
Page 1

Walter W. Whelan, Esq. (SBN 106655)

Brian D. Whelan, Esq. (SBN 256534)

WHELAN LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation

7447 North First Street, Suite 201

Fresno, California 93720

Telephone: (559) 437-1079

Facsimile: (559) 437-1720

E-mail: walt at whelanlawgroup.com

E-mail: brian at whelanlawgroup.com



FILED JUN 13 2013 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

Attorneys for: Plaintiffs EMILY SIMONE, TEAL KNAPP, LINDA MARIE TORRES AND SHEILA SPENCER



SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF FRESNO, UNLIMITED CIVIL DIVISION



EMILY SIMONE, TEAL KNAPP, LINDA MARIE TORRES, and SHEILA SPENCER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND, INC., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.



Case No.  13CECG01863



COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5; UNFAIR COMPETITION
UNDER BUS. AND PROF. CODE §17200, AND JURY DEMAND

COMES NOW PLAINTIFFS, EMILY SIMONE, TEAL KNAPP, LINDA MARIE TORRES,
and SHEILA SPENCER, (collectively referred to herein as ”Plaintiffs”),
who allege as follows:

I.

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION.

1. Plaintiff EMILY SIMONE (”Simone”) is an individual residing in
Fresno County, California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant GUIDE
DOGS FOR THE BLIND, INC. (”GDB”) from June 18, 1990 through March 26,
2013, when she was wrongfully terminated. GDB reported the last date
of Plaintiff’s employment as April 9, 2013.

Page 2

2. Plaintiff TEAL KNAPP (”Knapp”) is an individual residing in
California.  Plaintiff Knapp was employed by Defendant GDB from
February 16, 1990 through March 26, 2013, when she was wrongfully
terminated. GDB reported the last date of Plaintiff’s employment as
April 9, 2013.

3. Plaintiff LINDA MARIE TORRES (”Torres”) is an individual residing
in California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant GDB from May 28,
1996 through March 26, 2013, when she was wrongfully terminated. GDB
reported the last date of Plaintiff’s employment as April 9, 2013.

4. Plaintiff SHEILA SPENCER (”Spencer”) is an individual. Plaintiff
was employed by Defendant GDB from October 9, 1991 through March 26,
2013, when she was wrongfully terminated. GDB reported the last date
of Plaintiff’s employment as April 9, 2013.

5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that
Defendant GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND, INC. (”Defendant” or ”GDB”) is a
non-profit California Corporation which has done business and
continues to do business in Fresno County, California.  Defendant is a
California corporation authorized and licensed to conduct business in
California and Fresno County.

6. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, whether an individual, corporation or
otherwise are unknown to the Plaintiffs who, therefore, sue such
Defendants by fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
§474. Alternatively, such DOE Defendants are persons whose identities
are unknown to Plaintiffs, but about whom sufficient facts are not
known that would support the assertion by Plaintiffs of a civil claim
at this time. When Plaintiffs obtain information supporting a claim
against any DOE Defendant, they will seek leave to amend this
Complaint and will allege appropriate charging allegations.

7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the
Defendants, and each of them, are agents and/or employees and/or
parents, subsidiaries or sister corporations of each other, and are
responsible for the acts complained of herein, unless otherwise
alleged in this Complaint.

Page 3

II.

BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS

8. GDB employed Plaintiff Knapp from February 16, 1990 to April 9,
2013. Plaintiff Simone was employed by GDB from June 18, 1990 to April
9, 2013. Plaintiff Torres was employed by GDB from May 28, 1996 to
April 9, 2013. Plaintiff Spencer was employed by GDB from October 9,
1991 to April 9, 2013. Each Plaintiff is female and more than forty
years old. In total, Plaintiffs served GDB loyally for over 80
combined years during which time Plaintiffs experienced positive work
performance reviews, promotions, and raises.

9a. PLAINTIFF TEAL KNAPP. GDB hired Ms. Knapp in 1990 as an instructor
assistant and promoted Ms. Knapp several times before Ms. Knapp
ultimately became the Field Service Manager for Northern
California/Southern Oregon/Northern Nevada in 2004. As the Field
Service Manager, Ms. Knapp provided assistance to graduates within
Northern California, Southern Oregon, and Northern Nevada through home
visits and telephone conversations. Assigned duties ranged from
representing Guide Dogs and Graduate Services inside and outside of
the organization as required for outreach and educational purposes,
public relations, or advocacy for GDB’s blind constituents, at O&M
seminars as well as other duties or assigned projects. During all
times relevant, GDB misclassified Ms. Knapp as overtime exempt.

9b. PLAINTIFF LINDA MARIE TORRES. GDB hired Ms. Torres as an
orientation and mobility specialist. GDB changed Ms. Torres’ title to
Assessment Specialist and eventually to Senior Assessment
Specialist. During Ms. Torres’ tenure with GDB, Ms. Torres received
positive evaluations, reviews and raises. Ms. Torres’ job duties
included interviewing applicants in non-field manager zones throughout
the U.S. and Canada, organizing home interview/assists/emergent
business trips for training department staff in San Rafael and Oregon,
helping field managers with home interviews and assisting on an ”as
needed basis” with admissions staff and phone consults. During all
times relevant, GDB misclassified Ms. Torres as overtime exempt.

9c. PLAINTIFF EMILY SIMONE. GDB hired Ms. Simone on June 18,
1990. Through various promotions, Ms. Simone became a Field Service
Manager on or about

Page 4

March 18, 2000. Ms. Simone received positive reviews and a further
promotion to Senior Field Service Manager on March 30,
2002. Ms. Simone served in this capacity until her untimely
termination. Prior to termination, and during the four years past,
Ms. Simone was responsible for providing service and support to GDB’s
clients and covered the geographical area of Central California and
Colorado. Among other responsibilities, Ms. Simone conducted home
interviews with potential clients and other duties as directed. During
all times relevant, GDB misclassified Ms. Simone as overtime exempt.

9d. PLAINTIFF SHEILA SPENCER. GDB hired Ms. Spencer as an Instructor
Assistant in 1991 and promoted Ms. Spencer several times. Initially,
Ms. Spencer had been located in California. A position with GDB opened
in Oregon, and Ms. Spencer relocated to pursue the position. Prior to
termination, Ms. Spencer held the job title Field Service
Manager. During the four years past, Plaintiff was responsible for
providing direct service and support to GDB’s clients throughout the
geographical regions of Idaho, eastern Washington, central and eastern
Oregon, as well as the northwestern Oregon coast pursuant to GDB
direction and supervision. Among other tasks, Plaintiff conducted home
interviews with potential clients, and provided support, as needed,
for the wheelchair guide dog program. During her tenure Ms. Spencer
received positive reviews. During all times relevant, GDB
misclassified Ms. Spencer as overtime exempt.

10. In January 2012, GDB hired a new CEO, Paul Lopez. Prior to
Plaintiffs’ termination, Paul Lopez promoted Brad Hibbard to Director
of Training Operations from director of training in Oregon. During a
”core support” meeting, Mr. Hibbard announced the findings of a study
he had conducted focusing on the longevity of guide dog
instructors. Mr. Hibbard reported that the job-life expectancy for
instructors was approximately 10 years and that women instructors
could not be expected to last as long as male instructors.

11. Following his hire, Paul Lopez began a campaign to eliminate
veteran women GDB employees. In April and May, 2012, GDB terminated
three women: Michele Davis, Elizabeth Swan and Joanne Ritter. In
Elizabeth Swan’s case, the dormitory manager - - a man with less
seniority - - was appointed to serve as her replacement. In the fall
of 2012, GDB

Page 5

laid off all but one of the San Rafael dormitory staff. All were
women. And in March, 2013, eight employees in the admissions and
graduate service department were terminated. Seven of the eight were
women. During this campaign, Mr. Lopez told a GDB employee words to
the effect that he believed long-term employees were neither motivated
nor productive — implying that long-term employees were lazy and
needed to be replaced. Mr. Lopez commented in a group meeting that
many GDB employees had ”grown grey” in their jobs. On another
occasion, Mr. Lopez was reported to have said he hoped to bring ”new
blood” into the organization, with the implication that younger
workers would replace the ”grey” haired workers. Mr. Lopez bragged to
the remaining field managers (of those that remained five of the six
were men) that the strategy to terminate these veteran employees
carried with it a $900,000.00 savings that could be used to increase
their salaries.

12. Mr. Lopez has a well-documented history of treating women
oppressively in the work place. See Williams v. Pharmacia, Inc. 137
F.3d 944 (1998). [Paul Lopez’ treatment toward women was described as
oppressive and vengeful.] Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
Defendant GDB was aware of Mr. Lopez’s history prior to Plaintiffs’
terminations, but did not take steps to ensure that such conduct would
not happen again. Further, Mr. Lopez expressed to GDB employees his
desire to terminate senior employees and openly expressed views
against employees having significant longevity with GDB.

13. On or about March 4, 2013, Ms. Knapp filed a complaint with the
State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of
Labor Standards Enforcement. On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff Knapp
submitted a letter to Katie Petcavitch of the Human Resources
Department of GDB, the Manager of Admissions and Graduate Services,
Brian Francis, and the Director of Training Operations, Terry
Barrett. The letter identified both field managers and community field
representatives (”CFR”), as employees classified incorrectly as exempt
(i.e. all Plaintiffs to this action). Among other things, Ms. Knapp
told the Human Resources Department that she believed that field
managers had been misclassified as overtime exempt. The employees
within the group identified by Ms. Knapp were working significant
overtime for which they were

Page 6

not paid consistent with the labor code requirements. All Plaintiffs
fell within the class of misclassified individuals.

14. Ms. Knapp expressed her desire to work hand in hand with GDB to
resolve the misclassification of employees.

15. On March 5, 2013, Brian Francis confirmed that he had received the
letter by 5:00 pm that day. Additionally, Ms. Knapp received an e-mail
from HR Katie Petcavitch stating that Ms. Knapp was within her rights
under the law to file the complaint and that GDB would address the
concerns raised, if necessary. GDB did not confirm or deny
misclassification. On or about March 26, 2013, Defendant GDB
terminated Plaintiffs’ employment. GDB claimed that the terminations
were part of a reorganization within the department of admissions and
graduate services. Within the department, all field service managers
selected for termination were women who had been with GDB for a
significant period of time, and were all above the age of forty. For
those field service managers that remained, five were men and only one
was a woman. GDB informed Plaintiffs that the selection process had
nothing to do with job performance.

16. Plaintiffs filed complaints with the department of fair employment
and housing for discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiffs have
received their right to sue letters.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(BY ALL PLAINTIFFS for Unfair Competition in Violation of the Bus. and
Prof. Code § 17200, Based on Non-Payment of Wages Against Defendant)

17. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 16, above, and by this reference
incorporate those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause
of action.

18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that,
during the four years last past, Defendant GDB systematically failed
to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees overtime
wages and wages that were earned, which Defendant intentionally
declined to pay in violation of the Labor Code and applicable Wage
Orders.

Page 7

19. Plaintiffs were entitled to receive overtime compensation pursuant
to either Wage Order No. 4-2001 or Wage Order No. 17-2001 and Labor
Code §1194. Defendant’s non-payment of Plaintiffs’ overtime
compensation constituted unfair business practices in violation of
Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200. Plaintiffs worked in an amount according
to proof and, on average, in excess of 10-15 hours per week, and in
some instances significantly more hours in a given week, for which
Plaintiffs were not compensated in conformity with the Labor Code and
applicable Wage Orders. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were not
overtime-exempt employees.

20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, at all
times relevant, Plaintiffs worked an amount according to proof in
excess of 40 hours per week and eight hours in a day over the four
years last past, for which Plaintiffs were not paid overtime wages. At
all relevant times, Plaintiffs were misclassified as overtime exempt
employees. Defendant has failed to pay unpaid overtime wages in an
amount according to proof, but not less than the minimum
jurisdictional limit of this Court.

21. Under Labor Code §1194, Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover
interest on unpaid overtime wages, reasonable attorney’s fees and
costs of suit. Plaintiffs have retained the Whelan Law Group in
asserting claims for overtime wages. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek
recovery of interest and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in an
amount according to proof.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(BY ALL PLAINTIFFS for Penalty Assessment Under Labor Code §§203, 226,
226.3, and 1194.2 Against Defendant)

22. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 21, above, and by this reference
incorporate those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause
of action.

23. In addition to unpaid overtime wages, interest, and attorney’s
fees and costs, which Plaintiffs seek to recover under their First
Cause of Action, Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover wage
penalties under Labor Code §§203, 226, 226.3, and 1194.2 in an amount
according to proof.

Page 8

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(BY ALL PLAINTIFFS for Failure to Prevent Discrimination and
Harassment [Violation of Cal. Gov’t Code §§12940(j) and (k)] Against
Defendant)

24. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 23, above, and by this reference
incorporate those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause
of action.

25. In violation of Cal. Gov’t Code §§12940(j) and (k), Defendants,
and each of them, and/or their agents and/or employees, failed to take
all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and
harassment on the basis of gender from occurring, and to remedy such
discrimination and harassment.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(BY ALL PLAINTIFFS for Failure to Prevent Discrimination and
Harassment [Violation of Cal. Gov’t Code §§12940(j) and (k)] Against
Defendant)

26. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 25, above, and by this reference
incorporate those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause
of action.

27. In violation of Cal. Gov’t Code §§12940(j) and (k), Defendants,
and each of them, and/or their agents and/or employees, failed to take
all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and
harassment on the basis of age from occurring, and to remedy such
discrimination and harassment.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(BY ALL PLAINTIFFS for Common Law Claim for Gender Discrimination,
Harassment and Retaliation Against Defendant)

28. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 16, and paragraph 27, above, and by
this reference incorporate those allegations as though fully set forth
in this cause of action.

29. In perpetrating the above-described conduct, Defendants, and each
of them, and/or their agents and/or employees engaged in a pattern and
practice of unlawful discrimination and harassment in violation of
California’s public policy against gender

Page 9

discrimination and harassment as embodied in the Fair Employment and
Housing Act (Gov’t. Code §§12900, et seq.), the California
Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, and other related
laws. Defendants, and each of them, and/or their agents and/or
employees discriminated against Plaintiffs on account of gender and/or
failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Plaintiffs
were exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to
which male counterparts were not exposed to on account of Plaintiffs’
gender. The harassment was sufficiently pervasive and severe as to
alter conditions of employment and to create a hostile or abusive work
environment.

30. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant acted intentionally,
maliciously, despicably, in bad faith, with malice and in conscious
disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights; as a consequence, Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover punitive damages against Defendant, in an amount
according to proof.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(BY ALL PLAINTIFFS for Common Law Claim for Age Discrimination,
Harassment and Retaliation Against Defendant)

31. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 16, and paragraph 30, above, and by
this reference incorporate those allegations as though fully set forth
in this cause of action.

32. In perpetrating the above-described conduct, Defendants, and each
of them, and/or their agents and/or employees engaged in a pattern and
practice of unlawful discrimination and harassment in violation of
California’s public policy against age discrimination and harassment
as embodied in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov’t. Code
§§12900, et seq.), the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 8,
and other related laws. Defendants, and each of them, and/or their
agents and/or employees discriminated against Plaintiffs on account of
age and/or failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective
action. Plaintiffs were exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions
of employment to which younger counterparts were not exposed to on
account of Plaintiffs’ age. The harassment was sufficiently

Page 10

pervasive and severe as to alter conditions of employment and to
create a hostile or abusive work environment.

33. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant acted intentionally,
maliciously, despicably, in bad faith, with malice and in conscious
disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights; as a consequence, Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover punitive damages against Defendant, in an amount
according to proof.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)

34. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 33, above, and by this reference
incorporate those allegations as though fully set forth in this cause
of action.

35. Plaintiffs were terminated from their employment in violation of
the public policy discrimination in the workplace and/or in
retaliation for Plaintiff Knapp’s complaint to the Labor Commissioner
that Plaintiffs receive overtime compensation consistent with the law.

36. As a direct consequence of their wrongful termination in violation
of public policy, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to
suffer, compensatory damages, including lost wages (past and future),
employee benefits (past and future) and emotional distress damages
(pain, suffering and mental anguish) in an amount according to proof,
but not less than the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

37. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant acted intentionally,
maliciously, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights,
oppressively and despicably; as a consequence, Plaintiffs are entitled
to recover punitive damages against Defendant.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5)

38. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 31, above, and by this reference
incorporate those allegations as though set forth in this cause of
action.

Page 11

39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that
Defendant retaliated against Plaintiffs because of Plaintiffs’
opposition to practices forbidden under the Labor Code and because of
Plaintiff Knapp’s filing of a complaint on behalf of Plaintiffs’ and
others with the Labor Commissioner.

40. As a direct result of Defendant’s retaliation against Plaintiffs
in violation of Labor Code §1102.5, Plaintiffs have suffered lost
wages and benefits, past and future, emotional distress damages,
diminished employability, and other compensatory damages in an amount
according to proof, in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this
Court.

41. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant acted intentionally,
maliciously, despicably, in bad faith, with malice and in conscious
disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights; as a consequence, Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover punitive damages against Defendant, in an amount
according to proof.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs EMILY SIMONE, TEAL KNAPP, LINDA MARIE TORRES,
and SHEILA SPENCER pray for judgment as follows:

1. For a money judgment for loss of employability, mental pain and
anguish and emotional distress, according to proof;

2. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including
lost past and future wages, and all other sums of money, including
past and future employment benefits, together with interest on said
amounts, and any other economic injury to Plaintiffs, in an amount
according to proof;

3. For an award of punitive damages against any and/or all Defendants;

4. For costs of suit, including attorney’s fees, under any applicable
statutory or contractual basis;

6. For prejudgment interest under Civil Code §3288 and Code of
Civ. Proc. §998, and any other applicable statutory, or contractual
basis;

7. For prejudgment interest according to statute;

8. For costs of suit according to statute; and

Page 12

For any other relief that is just and proper.

Dated: June 13, 2013

WHELAN LAW GROUP,

A Professional Corporation

By Brian D. Whelan

Attorneys for Plaintiffs EMILY SIMONE, TEAL KNAPP, LINDA MARIE TORRES,
and SHEILA SPENCER

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs request that each and every factual issue raised by each
and every cause of action alleged above be tried by a jury.

Dated: June 13, 2013

WHELAN LAW GROUP,

A Professional Corporation

By Brian D. Whelan

Attorneys for Plaintiffs EMILY SIMONE, TEAL KNAPP, LINDA MARIE TORRES,
and SHEILA SPENCER