10/28/2016 3:49:25 PM
16CV35971
1
2
3
4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
5
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
6
7
DEBORAH MULLER,
Case No. __________________________
Plaintiff,
8
COMPLAINT
v.
9
10
11
RICHARD R. HARRIS, CPA, P.C.;
RICHARD HARRIS; and CELIA A.
BARLOW d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF CELIA
A. BARLOW,
12
Defendants.
13
14
15
1. Whistleblowing/Retaliation for Reporting
Unlawful Conduct ORS 659A.199
2. Whistleblowing/Cooperation in Criminal
Investigation ORS 659A.230
3. Aiding, Abetting or Inciting ORS
659A.030(1)(g)
4. Unlawful Wage Deductions ORS
652.610/615
5. Intentional Interference w/Economic
Relations (Barlow)
6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Negligence
(Barlow)
[NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY
ARBITRATION]
16
17
[Prayer: $375,000]
18
Fee Authority: Ch. 595, Sec. 15(1)(c)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff, Deborah Muller, was employed by Defendant Richard R. Harris, CPA, P.C., from July
2013 until the date of her unlawful termination on July 7, 2015, and for her Complaint alleges as
follows:
///
///
26
Page 1 -
COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND PARTIES
2
1.
3
Defendant Richard R. Harris, CPA, P.C. (“HARRIS P.C.”) is a domestic professional
4
5
6
corporation created under the laws of the State of Oregon. HARRIS P.C. conducts regular and
sustained business activities in Multnomah County.
7
2.
8
Defendant Richard R. Harris (“HARRIS”) was at all material times an authorized agent of and/or
9
employed by HARRIS P.C. and was in substantial part acting within the course and scope of
10
11
such agency and/or employment, unless otherwise alleged in the alternative. At all material
times, HARRIS was the President/Owner of HARRIS P.C. and held supervisory authority over
12
13
Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes that HARRIS is a resident of the State of Oregon.
14
3.
15
Defendant Celia A. Barlow d/b/a Law Office of Celia A. Barlow (“BARLOW”) is a licensed
16
Oregon attorney practicing law as a sole proprietor. BARLOW conducts regular and sustained
17
business activities in Multnomah County. Plaintiff is informed and believes that BARLOW is a
18
resident of the State of Oregon.
19
STATEMENT OF FACTS
20
4.
21
22
Plaintiff is an experienced bookkeeper who began working for HARRIS P.C. as an Accounting
23
Assistant in or about July of 2013 at a rate of $12.00 per hour. At the time of her hire, HARRIS
24
promised Plaintiff two weeks (80 hours) of accrued PTO after one year of employment.
25
26
Page 2 -
COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
5.
2
Plaintiff was extremely organized and very detailed oriented. HARRIS often praised her for her
3
bookkeeping abilities and diligent work. She never once was given a warning or received any
4
5
type of discipline while she was employed by HARRIS P.C. prior to the date of her termination.
6.
6
7
Sometime in 2014, Plaintiff was tasked with submitting some tax documents to the Oregon
8
Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in connection with what she believed to be a routine accounting
9
audit of Mary Holden a/k/a Mary Ayala (“Holden”) and one of her non-profit organizations.
10
11
Thereafter, plaintiff came to believe that the audit was successfully completed and no further
accounting action was required.
12
7.
13
14
In late April of 2015, Holden, who was the President and Executive Director of Give Us This
15
Day (“GUTD”), a non-profit organization assisting foster children, came to HARRIS P.C.’s
16
office in great distress begging for help. Holden ran GUTD which was provided with funds by
17
the State of Oregon to care for vulnerable foster children. A short time later, another individual
18
from GUTD delivered several boxes of papers to the office. Plaintiff noticed that GUTD’s
19
records were a disorganized mess that consisted of various papers that appeared to have been
20
21
haphazardly shoved into boxes.
8.
22
23
In early May of 2015, Plaintiff was assigned the job of reviewing, organizing, and reconciling
24
GUTD’s financial records. Soon after Plaintiff began reviewing the records, she learned that a
25
serious investigation was being conducted by the DOJ into misuse and theft of public funds at
26
Page 3 -
COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
the hands of Holden.
2
3
9.
Concerned, Plaintiff brought the DOJ investigation to HARRIS’ attention, but HARRIS was
4
5
6
already aware of the investigation and even told Plaintiff that he was worried that Holden could
possibly go to jail for her it.
10.
7
8
In June of 2015, HARRIS P.C. officially took on Holden and GUTD as clients. As Plaintiff
9
continued to sort and organize GUTD’s business records and prepared to reconcile its accounts
10
and bookkeeping, she discovered suspicious transactions that appeared fraudulent and illegal.
11
11.
12
13
Plaintiff also noticed suspicious payments from GUTD to persons that appeared to be relatives of
14
Holden. Plaintiff further noticed frequent cash withdrawals from ATMs by Holden. Plaintiff
15
even discovered that GUTD paid bills for several different companies, including a for-profit
16
daycare “PALS Child Care” owned and operated by Holden.
17
18
19
12.
Most disturbing were disbursements for purchases of clothing from Victoria’s Secret, Lane
Bryant, Men’s Warehouse, assorted jewelry stores, and even a plastic surgeon’s fees, all paid
20
21
from GUTD’s business accounts.
13.
22
23
Concerned about the highly suspicious transactions, Plaintiff brought them to the attention of
24
HARRIS. In response, HARRIS was dismissive of Plaintiff’s concerns and told her that it was
25
not their job to investigate the charges and only to do their accounting.
26
Page 4 -
COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
2
3
14.
Plaintiff in good faith believed that the bookkeeping and financial reconciliation she was asked
to prepare was going to be ultimately submitted to the DOJ in response to their investigation into
4
5
GUTD and Holden.
15.
6
7
Plaintiff stressed to HARRIS the need to figure out the true nature of the disbursements for the
8
DOJ’s investigation. HARRIS did not advise Plaintiff that the information was confidential or
9
that it would not be used by the DOJ.
10
11
16.
Plaintiff continued her attempts to do the back-bookkeeping for GUTD by sorting through its
12
13
business records. During this process, Plaintiff also noticed a large number of cash withdrawals
14
from GUTD’s business accounts with no description of the nature of the transactions or their use.
15
17.
16
Plaintiff took it upon herself to create a QuickBooks category to track the unidentified cash
17
withdrawals from various GUTD bank accounts. Plaintiff was shocked to discover that during a
18
19
one year period, in excess of $90,000 in unidentified cash withdrawals had been taken from
GUTD’s bank accounts, and for another year in excess of $60,000 in cash was similarly taken.
20
18.
21
22
Plaintiff attempted to get information from GUTD regarding the unidentified cash withdrawals,
23
but GUTD was uncooperative and resistant in providing any information. Plaintiff brought up
24
the suspicious cash withdrawals to HARRIS and explained that GUTD was refusing to provide
25
her the needed information, such as purchase receipts, copies of the checks, and other
26
Page 5 -
COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
information regarding these transactions to accurately complete GUTD’s bookkeeping.
2
3
19.
HARRIS appeared annoyed, told Plaintiff she did not need receipts and to just enter the figures.
4
5
6
7
Plaintiff insisted that she needed to correctly categorize the transactions and could not do so
without receipts. HARRIS then told Plaintiff he would take care of the receipts himself.
Plaintiff never received the documents she had requested.
8
9
10
11
20.
In or around mid-June of 2015, Plaintiff again went to HARRIS with her concerns about the
unidentified cash withdrawals and receipts for transactions from suspicious vendors, such as
Victoria’s Secret and Lane Bryant.
12
21.
13
14
Plaintiff told HARRIS that she was still unable to identify most of the cash withdrawals because
15
she was not provided with the information regarding the nature of the transactions from GUTD.
16
Plaintiff then asked HARRIS how he wanted her to categorize the suspicious receipts for plus-
17
sized women’s clothing and lingerie. HARRIS impatiently instructed Plaintiff to put the
18
transactions in the “clothing” category without any specific reference to vendors.
19
22.
20
21
Plaintiff complained that placing them in “clothing” category would make it appear that the
22
money was used for children’s clothing. She insisted that those transactions could not possibly
23
have been for foster children, because they were clothing from Victoria’s Secret and Lane
24
Bryant, a store that only sold clothing for adult plus sized women.
25
///
26
Page 6 -
COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
23.
2
HARRIS became very frustrated with Plaintiff and firmly instructed her to stop investigating and
3
researching the vendors and to just enter the figures. HARRIS angrily told Plaintiff that the
4
5
records were just disorganized and there was no evidence that anything inappropriate was done.
24.
6
7
At beginning of July 2015, HARRIS and Plaintiff discussed the existence of two suspicious
8
cashier’s checks GUTD had issued. Knowing there were other suspicious cashier checks,
9
Plaintiff suggested that the information regarding the cashier’s checks be forwarded to GUTD’s
10
board of directors and Holden’s attorneys.
11
25.
12
13
14
Plaintiff was shocked when HARRIS firmly told her “no, that would only make things worse for
her [Holden].”
26.
15
16
At this point, Plaintiff was becoming increasingly concerned that HARRIS was involved in
17
covering up Holden’s misuse and theft of public funds from GUTD, was tampering with
18
evidence, and was assisting Holden in withholding evidence from the DOJ by attempting to
19
create false accounting information.
20
27.
21
22
Plaintiff was in good faith worried that what HARRIS was doing was illegal and could result in
23
her own culpability if she remained silent and continued to work on the account in the manner
24
HARRIS had requested. Plaintiff was seriously stressed and was losing sleep over this matter.
25
She was worried sick that she might end up getting in trouble with the DOJ.
26
Page 7 -
COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
2
3
4
28.
On or about July 6, 2015, Plaintiff opened a document while reviewing GUTD’s file that stated
Holden’s payroll was subject to an IRS lien for back taxes. Concerned, Plaintiff immediately
brought the issue to HARRIS’ attention.
5
29.
6
7
In response, HARRIS exploded at Plaintiff and yelled at her to “stop reading things!” Plaintiff
8
was terrified and confused by his reaction because it was impossible for her to do her job without
9
reading the documents she was organizing, documenting, and categorizing.
10
11
30.
Plaintiff did not want to lose her job but was also not willing to turn a blind eye to HARRIS’
12
13
cover-up of Holden’s illegal activities and his tampering with evidence. Plaintiff remained
14
worried that she could be implicated in the cover-up since she was the one entering the
15
misleading data.
16
17
18
31.
The following day, having gotten little-to-no sleep the night before and feeling extremely
anxious, Plaintiff waited for HARRIS to leave the office and approached attorney BARLOW in
19
her office for legal advice on how to deal with the situation.
20
32.
21
22
BARLOW shared the office suite with HARRIS P.C. Plaintiff had previously sought some legal
23
advice from BARLOW and had been assured that their conversations were privileged and
24
confidential and most importantly would not be shared with HARRIS.
25
///
26
Page 8 -
COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
2
3
33.
Plaintiff explained to BARLOW that there was an on-going investigation of GUTD and Holden
by the DOJ. Plaintiff expressed her concerns that she believed what HARRIS was doing was
4
5
6
7
illegal and unethical. Plaintiff explained that she was convinced that HARRIS was assisting
Holden in her efforts to hide her own wrongdoing and was tampering with evidence. Plaintiff
asked BARLOW if she could get into trouble for doing the bookkeeping.
8
9
10
11
34.
BARLOW listened to Plaintiff and then advised her not to not worry about getting into trouble
for doing what was asked of her and that there were “no ethics” in accounting. BARLOW
elaborated further by explaining the differences between ethical obligations attorneys have in
12
13
14
contrast with those of accountants. BARLOW never advised Plaintiff that the information about
GUTD or Holden was confidential.
35.
15
16
Thereafter, Plaintiff tried to go back to work on GUTD’s books but found it was making her
17
extremely anxious to the point that she felt lethargic and nauseous. Plaintiff noticed a phone
18
number for the DOJ on one of the investigation documents in the GUTD file. Plaintiff decided
19
that she needed to contact the DOJ regarding her concerns and to make sure that she was not
20
21
doing anything illegal for which she could personally get in trouble.
36.
22
23
During her break, Plaintiff left the office building to call the DOJ. While Plaintiff was on the
24
telephone with the DOJ CPA, HARRIS drove up to the building and saw Plaintiff on the phone.
25
Plaintiff became fearful and told the DOJ’s CPA she had to go. She then quickly hung up and
26
Page 9 -
COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
ran up to the office.
2
3
37.
Plaintiff walked directly into BARLOW’s office and told her that she had just called the DOJ
4
5
and had spoken to their CPA about her concerns.
38.
6
7
In response, BARLOW immediately started yelling at Plaintiff. BARLOW accused Plaintiff of
8
compromising HARRIS. BARLOW then angrily walked up to Plaintiff who was forced to step
9
back in the hallway and slammed the door shut.
10
11
39.
Plaintiff was stunned by BARLOW’s unexpected outburst. Plaintiff was terrified and decided
12
13
14
that she needed to take a walk to sort things out in her head. Plaintiff walked a couple of blocks
from the office and called a friend to get her mind off the situation.
40.
15
16
As Plaintiff was talking to her friend on the phone, HARRIS drove up to where she was
17
standing. HARRIS confronted Plaintiff about calling the DOJ and kept asking her, “Why did you
18
call them [the DOJ]? What did you tell them?”
19
41.
20
21
Plaintiff tried to explain that she had come to HARRIS for help with her concerns about GUTD
22
but he refused to address them. Plaintiff, on the verge of tears, told HARRIS that she had a
23
grandson in foster care and what Holden was doing did not seem right to her. Plaintiff told
24
HARRIS that she is an honest woman and works very hard for her $12/hour and did not need the
25
stress of worrying about getting into trouble. HARRIS was so furious he just kept yelling at
26
Page 10 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
Plaintiff.
2
3
42.
HARRIS angrily asked Plaintiff for her key to the office and fired her. Plaintiff handed her key
4
5
to HARRIS and left without incident.
43.
6
7
Plaintiff alleges that BARLOW knowingly and intentionally violated her attorney-client
8
privilege with Plaintiff, and/or otherwise breached duties owed to Plaintiff, by not telling
9
Plaintiff that the information regarding Holden or GUTD was confidential, and by informing
10
11
HARRIS that Plaintiff had called the DOJ. Plaintiff was berated and lost her job because
BARLOW did not keep her confidence.
12
44.
13
14
In addition to her July 7, 2015 legal advice to Plaintiff, BARLOW had previously given legal
15
advice to Plaintiff on at least two other occasions. On both occasions, she had assured her that
16
their communications would be confidential and most importantly would not be shared with
17
HARRIS.
18
45.
19
On one occasion, Plaintiff had sought legal advice from BARLOW relating to a juvenile
20
21
22
dependency matter in connection with her grandson. BARLOW was helpful in giving Plaintiff
specific instructions on how to contact the right agency to get the needed information.
46.
23
24
On another occasion, Plaintiff was concerned about HARRIS honoring her right to take a one
25
week paid vacation as outlined in the employee handbook. Plaintiff sought legal advice from
26
Page 11 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
BARLOW as to whether HARRIS was bound by the terms of the employee handbook to give her
2
the paid vacation. BARLOW explained that the handbook did not create a contract and
3
therefore HARRIS was not legally obligated to give her any paid vacations.
4
47.
5
6
After her termination, Plaintiff completed her cooperation with the DOJ’s investigation into
7
Holden and GUTD. When the DOJ found out that Plaintiff had been terminated for contacting
8
them regarding the GUTD investigation, they strongly suggested Plaintiff retain an attorney and
9
seek justice.
10
11
48.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, in addition to GUTD, Holden and other charitable
12
13
organizations with which Holden had been involved were being investigated by the DOJ for
14
diversion of State funds intended for the benefit of children in foster care for personal gain.
15
For example, Holden had used GUTD charitable funds for personal travel to Hawaii, Jamaica,
16
and Las Vegas; to purchase luxury handbags and shoes; to pay for clothing and health and beauty
17
services for herself and family members; to pay for her for-profit business ventures; and to
18
19
remodel her personal residence and to redeem that property from foreclosure twice. In addition,
Holden had withdrawn over $280,000 in cash from GUTD’s business accounts and diverted the
20
21
money for personal use.
49.
22
23
The DOJ investigation would ultimately reveal that Holden wasted or diverted more than $2
24
million in charitable assets that were supposed to be utilized for the benefit of foster children.
25
Plaintiff is informed and believes that HARRIS assisted Holden in her efforts to raid GUTD’s
26
Page 12 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
accounts and steal public funds, either directly or indirectly through the concealment of
2
information and tampering with evidence during the DOJ’s investigation into GUTD.
3
50.
4
5
6
In further retaliation for her complaints, HARRIS failed to pay Plaintiff all wages due and owing
within the time period required by ORS 652.140.
7
51.
8
Plaintiff timely filed a claim with the Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries (BOLI) and this
9
Complaint was filed within 90 days of the issuance of BOLI’s Right-to-Sue letter.
10
DAMAGES
11
52.
12
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic
13
damages, including, emotional distress that a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s circumstances
14
would experience, anguish, humiliation, fear, worry, and anxiety, and requests an award of
15
compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a jury at the time of trial, and in the
16
amount not to exceed $300,000.
17
53.
18
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has also suffered and continues
19
to suffer economic damages, including, loss of earnings, loss of benefits, loss of job
20
opportunities and other employment benefits which will likely continue to accrue in an amount
21
to be determined at the time of trial and currently estimated not to exceed $75,000, together with
22
23
24
interest and the amount necessary to offset the income tax consequences of the award pursuant to
ORS 659A.885(1) and/or as special damages under common law.
25
54.
26
Plaintiff also seeks equitable relief including reinstatement to Plaintiff’s former position, if
Page 13 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
feasible, and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from engaging in any employment
2
practice which discriminates on any basis as alleged in this Complaint.
3
4
5
6
55.
Plaintiff places Defendants on notice of Plaintiff’s intent to move the Court to amend this
Complaint to seek punitive damages and to seek discovery of all relevant financial documents
from Defendants.
7
8
9
56.
Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in an amount to be proven at trial
pursuant to ORS 659A.885(1) and/or ORS 20.107 and/or other applicable statute.
10
12
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Retaliation for Reporting Unlawful Conduct (Whistleblowing) – ORS 659A.199
(Against Defendant HARRIS P.C.)
13
57.
11
14
Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-51, inclusive.
15
58.
16
In perpetrating the actions described in the above paragraphs, Defendant, acting through its
17
agents and/or employees, subjected Plaintiff to retaliation for opposing and reporting in good
18
faith information Plaintiff believed to be evidence of a crime and other violations of state laws,
19
rules, and regulations and/or criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, violations of ORS
20
161.450 (criminal conspiracy); ORS 162.235 (obstruction); ORS 162.295 (evidence tampering);
21
ORS 162.235(d)(e) & (f) (hindering prosecution); ORS 165.080 (falsifying business records);
22
and ORS 162.119/167.720 (public investment fraud racketeering).
23
59.
24
Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting this unlawful and/or criminal activity by
25
terminating Plaintiff in violation of ORS 659A.199, causing Plaintiff to suffer damages.
26
///
Page 14 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
60.
2
3
4
Plaintiff requests an award of damages, equitable relief, costs, and attorney’s fees as alleged in
paragraphs 52-56, inclusive, supra.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Retaliation for Reporting Criminal Conduct/Cooperating in Civil/Criminal Investigation
(Whistleblowing) – ORS 659A.230
(Against Defendant HARRIS P.C.)
5
6
7
61.
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-51, inclusive, as though fully set
forth herein.
62.
Plaintiff made a criminal complaint to the DOJ alleging that HARRIS was instructing her to
12
13
14
tamper with evidence with respect to the DOJ’s investigation into Holden and GUTD. Plaintiff
believed in good faith that the DOJ had jurisdiction over Defendant and the ability to sanction
15
Defendant for the alleged criminal conduct. Plaintiff also contacted the DOJ in an effort to
16
cooperate in the civil/criminal investigation of Holden and GUTD.
17
18
63.
Defendant knew and/or believed that Plaintiff had made complaints to the DOJ and/or had
19
contacted the DOJ to cooperate in a criminal investigation.
20
64.
21
22
Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for contacting the DOJ and/or good faith reporting of
23
criminal conduct and/or cooperating with the DOJ in a civil/criminal investigation by terminating
24
her employment.
25
///
26
Page 15 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
65.
2
Plaintiff requests an award of damages, equitable relief, costs, and attorney’s fees as alleged in
3
paragraphs 52-56, inclusive, supra.
4
6
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding, Abetting or Inciting Retaliation (ORS 659A.030(1)(g))
(Against Defendant HARRIS)
7
66.
8
Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-51, inclusive, as though fully set
5
9
forth herein.
10
67.
11
12
13
As set forth in detail above, Defendant HARRIS aided, abetted and/or incited unlawful
retaliation against Plaintiff by HARRIS P.C.
14
68.
15
Defendant HARRIS incited Plaintiff’s unlawful termination by Defendant HARRIS P.C.
16
Defendant HARRIS did so while knowing that his conduct was unlawful, intending to cause
17
Plaintiff’s termination.
18
69.
19
20
Defendant HARRIS also aided and/or abetted Plaintiff’s unlawful termination by Defendant
21
HARRIS P.C. Defendant HARRIS did so while knowing that his conduct was unlawful,
22
intending to cause Plaintiff’s termination.
23
70.
24
Defendant HARRIS violated Oregon Revised Statute 659A.030(1)(g) by aiding, abetting and/or
25
inciting unlawful retaliation, causing Plaintiff damages.
26
Page 16 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
71.
2
Plaintiff requests an award of damages, equitable relief, costs, and attorney’s fees as alleged in
3
paragraphs 52-56, inclusive, supra.
4
6
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unlawful Wage Deductions (ORS 652.610/615)
(Against Defendant HARRIS P.C.)
7
72.
8
Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-51, inclusive, as though fully set
5
9
forth herein.
10
73.
11
12
13
Defendant is an employer in the State of Oregon subject to ORS 652.610 which prohibits an
employer from withholding, deducting, or diverting any portion of an employee’s wages unless
14
the deduction was authorized in writing by the employee, was for the employee’s benefit, and
15
was recorded in the employer’s books.
16
17
74.
HARRIS P.C. unlawfully deducted pay from Plaintiff on 27 separate paychecks between May
18
29, 2014 and July 7, 2015 totaling $15,696.80. Plaintiff did not authorize HARRIS P.C. in
19
20
writing to make these deductions.
75.
21
22
Defendant unlawfully deducted and diverted approximately $15,696.80 from Plaintiff’s
23
paychecks. Plaintiff hereby demands actual damages or $200 per unlawful deduction, whichever
24
is greater, upon proof at the time of trial, as a result of the unlawful deductions and diversion
25
pursuant to ORS 652.615.
26
Page 17 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
76.
2
Plaintiff requests an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to ORS 652.615 in an
3
amount upon proof at the time of trial.
4
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Intentional Interference with Economic Relations
(Against Defendant BARLOW)
5
6
7
77.
8
Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-51, inclusive, as though fully set
9
forth herein.
10
11
78.
Plaintiff had a contract of employment with Defendant HARRIS P.C.
12
79.
13
14
15
Defendant BARLOW was not a party to Plaintiff’s employment contract with Defendant
HARRIS P.C.
16
80.
17
Plaintiff had a “special relationship” with Defendant BARLOW in the form of an attorney-client
18
relationship or prospective attorney-client relationship as a potential client.
19
81.
20
21
Defendant BARLOW intended to interfere with Plaintiff’s employment contract with Defendant
22
HARRIS P.C. by disclosing confidential information to HARRIS obtained from Plaintiff that
23
Plaintiff had contacted the DOJ regarding HARRIS P.C.
24
82.
25
Defendant BARLOW interfered with Plaintiff’s employment contract with Defendant HARRIS
26
Page 18 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
P.C through improper means and/or for an improper purpose as alleged more fully by Plaintiff
2
supra.
3
4
5
6
7
83.
Defendant BARLOW’s interference caused harm to Plaintiff’s employment contract with
Defendant HARRIS P.C. by resulting in Plaintiff’s termination from employment with
Defendant HARRIS P.C.
8
84.
9
As a proximate result of Defendant BARLOW’s interference, Plaintiff suffered economic and
10
noneconomic damages.
11
85.
12
13
14
Defendant BARLOW’s actions caused interference and continue to cause interference and
damage to Plaintiff’s reputation and employment opportunities.
15
86.
16
Plaintiff requests an award of damages, equitable relief, and costs as alleged in paragraphs 52-56,
17
inclusive, supra.
18
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Professional Negligence
(Against Defendant BARLOW)
19
20
87.
21
22
Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-51, inclusive, as though fully set
23
forth herein.
24
88.
25
A fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant BARLOW existed due to the
26
Page 19 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
establishment of an attorney-client relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant BARLOW, as
2
alleged more fully supra.
3
89.
4
5
6
7
Defendant BARLOW breached her fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and confidentiality owed to
Plaintiff by disclosing to Defendants HARRIS and HARRIS P.C. that Plaintiff had contacted the
DOJ and describing that contact as a “problem” for Defendants HARRIS and HARRIS P.C.
8
9
10
11
90.
Defendant BARLOW also breached her fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and confidentiality
owed to Plaintiff by failing to advise Plaintiff that the information about GUTD or Holden was
confidential and that Plaintiff should not report it to anyone.
12
91.
13
14
Defendant BARLOW’s breach of her fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff caused Plaintiff damages
15
because the breaches resulted in the termination of her employment with Defendant HARRIS
16
P.C. resulting in economic and noneconomic damages to Plaintiff.
17
18
92.
Plaintiff requests an award of damages, equitable relief, and costs as alleged in paragraphs 52-56,
19
inclusive, supra.
20
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
21
22
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all claims and issues to the extent allowed under the law.
23
24
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following judgments and relief according to proof:
25
26
1.
Economic damages, as alleged;
Page 20 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201
1
2.
Non-economic damages, as alleged;
2
3.
Reasonable costs and attorney’s fees per statute, as alleged;
3
4.
Reinstatement, if feasible, and a permanent injunction;
5.
For prejudgment and post-judgment interest as appropriate and allowed by law;
6.
On all claims, amounts necessary to offset any income tax consequences;
5
7.
For actual damages or $200 per unlawful deduction pursuant to ORS 652.615;
6
8.
Upon motion, punitive damages, as alleged; and
7
9.
All such other relief as this Court may deem proper.
4
8
9
Dated: October 28, 2016.
10
11
12
13
14
MITRA LAW GROUP
s/Mitra Shahri
Mitra Shahri, OSB No. 021100
[email protected]
Daniel K. Le Roux, OSB No. 085510
[email protected]
Tel. 503-243-4545
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page 21 - COMPLAINT
MITRA LAW GROUP
T E LE PHO NE : (503) 243 -4545
FACSIMI LE : (503) 243 -4546
1500 SW FIRST AVE N UE , SUIT E 800
PO RT LAN D, OR 97201