[Nfbc-info] GDB lawsuit filed

[Claude Everett]

If the allegations are correct I hope that GDB gets hammered by the court
and jury. 


Claude Everett
"First of all:  what is work? 
Work is of two kinds:
  first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface
relatively to other such matter;
 second, telling other people to do so.
  The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and
highly paid."
>From The collection of essays "In Praise of Idleness" by Bertrand Russell 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbc-info [mailto:nfbc-info-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jim
Barbour
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 7:42 PM
To: NFB of California List
Cc: judotina48kg at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Nfbc-info] GDB lawsuit filed

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

_______________________________________________
Nfbc-info mailing list
Nfbc-info at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbc-info_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbc-info:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbc-info_nfbnet.org/ceverett%40dslextreme
.com