0F can? 35 west Granite JEIIIIIFI LR ERNST-3H. Fax: _.,. ' FILED BY M Attorney for Plaintiff

Transcription

1 W. Wayne Harper '. GALLATIN c:- 1!":. 7 : CLERK; HARPER LAW FIRM 0F can? 35 west Granite JEIIIIIFI LR ERNST-3H Butte. Montana o-l.g _.7, _u Tel: m m 15 H" 10 H Fax: _.,. ' FILED wayne@wharperlaw.com. BY M Attorney for Plaintiff DEPUTY l MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT GALLATIN COUNTY WENDY HOUGHTON, ) ' r ya '. )Cause NO/PV/y fi PIaintiff, ) I '. ). vs. ) COMPLAINT AND ) DEMAND FOR JURY ) TRIAL GALLATINGATEWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ). SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 35, GALLATIN ) No SUMMONS ISSUED COUNTY and KIMDEBRUYCKER, ) individually and as SUPERINTENDENT OF ) GALLATIN GATEWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) AND JOHN DOES 1 through 5. ) - ) _ Defendants ) COMES NOWthe Plaintiff herein. Wendy i-ioughton. by and through her counsel, W. Wayne Harper, and for her'.c aims against Defendants herein; complains and alleges against each Defendant as follows: COMPLAINTAND DEMAND FORJURY TRIAL 1

2 JURISDICTION Plaintiff, Wendy Houghton (hereafter Plaintiff) is a resident and citizen of the State of Montana, residing in Manhattan, Gallatin.County. Montana. Named Defendants are the GALLATlN GATEWAY DISTRICT, SGHOGL DISTPIGT NO. 35, GALLATIN COUNTY (hereafter Gallatin Gateway District). a public school system in Manhattan. Montana and KIM DEBRUYCKER, individually and as SUPERINTENDENT OF GALLATIN GATEWAY DISTRICT. Each Defendant is a resident cf Montana and all acts that occurred in this matter happened in.gallatin County, Montana. The Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over this action as all Parties are located in.work in, or live in Manhattan.Montana. FACTUAL ALLEQAno Ns Plaintiff was hired by the Gallatin Gateway District on August 2(l, 2612' as the Kitchen Manager. Such contract was renewed in August Plaintist immediate SUpervisor was Defendant. Debruycker. the Superintendent of the Defendant District. I v. From some time in 2010 and until Plaintiffs constructive discharge, the Defendant District and Defendant Debruycker had adbpted a- team approach to the food service tasks using generally a HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) plan for food service employees. Directives forthe Kitchen Manager are included in the plan and were used throughout Plaintiff s employment. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2

3 Gallatin Gateway School, like other public and'private educational facilities, is subject to guidelines. standards, and directives of the USDA, which are updated frequently throughout the year. Molly Stenbergga representative of Team Nutrition Montana, helda staff meeting on October 10, 2012 to discuss the 2012 Federal Menu Standards. The school board was informed by on December about-the changes in the Federal Guidelines. During her employment. Plaintiff was repeatedly misguided by the Defendant Debruycker s directives which conflicted with and did not meet the USDA Guidelines. 10. in addition to conflicting directives. Plaintiff 'Houghtonwas the target of perpetual bullying by Defendant Debruycker due to her questioning the directives which were in violation of the USDA Guidelines and in violation of the District s Policies and Procedures. - v. 11. Defendant District was well aware of Defendant Debruycker s bullying tactics and her 1 my way or the'highway' directives. Defendant District had received resignation letters from three tenured employees which specifically noted Defendant Debruycker s inappropriateand unlawful actions andbullying. 12. To Plaintiffs knowledge, no direction or interaction between the District and Defendant Debruycker addressed the reported inappropriate and unlawful actions. and she was allowed to continue with them in her supervisory duties. 13. Defendants'vactions (fills. Debruycker's and District allowances) and omissions (failure to act on previous resignation allegations) led.to Defendant Debruycker s treatment of Plaintiff. This treatment caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress which led to sleepless nights, nausea, and other physical traumas. COMPLAINTAND DEMAND FORJURY-TRIAL. _. - 3

4 14. Plaintiff, by December l6, had finally reached a point where no objective, reasonable person would tolerate such treatment and resigned her position with Defendant District. I 15. After her resignation. Plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss and; when follow-up appiitions were filed for employment. Ms. Debruycker. gave misleading and unprivileged information to potential employers. These actions led to Plaintiff continuing to incur monetary loss and more emotional distress. V I COUNT!. NegligentSupervision 16. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 15; as though herein restated. 17. Defendants owed'plaintiff a duty to adequately supervise. train, and thereafter monitor Ms. Debruycker as an employee working within the employ and guidance of the Defendants. _ I. t Iv I 18. Defendants breached their duty to adequately supervise. train, and monitor its employee DefendantDebruycker. 19. As a direct and proximate.result of Defendants' breach of their duty to adequately supervise. train, and monitor its employee. Defendant Debruycker, Plaintiff incurred personal and monetary damages. 20. As a result of Defendants?- own conductin its-breach of this duty, Plaintiff suffered physical. and emotional distress, mental anxiety, loss of self-esteem, damage to herrepuhation and other general damages. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURYTRIAL ' 4

5 COUNTII Breach of Contract. 21. Plaintiff incorporates the ailegations'contained in Paragraphs 1 through 20, as though herein restated That the Defendants entered into a contract with Plaintiff. That the Defendants. breached. their contract with Plaintiff by allowing Defendant Debruycker to inappropriately alter it and to~ usurp its main intent - the proper following of USDA guidelines to feed the students at the District. I I n I 24. That Plaintiff relied upon the contract with the Defendants. That Defendants knew, or ' should have knewn, that Plaintiff would rely upon their promises and would act in good faith to await the fulfilling said promises. 25. The Defendants' breach has- caused Plaintiffs damages in the form of monetary damages and physical and emotional distress. mental anxiety, loss. of self-esteem, damage to her reputation and other general damages. 26. As a result of this breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages to her reputation; in an amount to be proven' at trial. ' _ O ; COUNT m _. Comractiial Violation of t_he Covenantof Good Faithand FairDealing 27. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 though 26- as though. herein restated-1 7' I f. 28. Plaintiff Wendy Houghton had a 'justified and reasonable expectation that the Defendants would act in a reasonable manner in honoring and satisfying the promises and assurances made by the Defendants relative to hercontractual employment status. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. 5

6 29'. The Defendants violated the covenant to act in good faith and acted outside cf accepted practices to deprive Wendy Houghton of the benefits which were promised to her per her contract. a 30. The Defendants accepted the benefits provided by Wendy'Houghton's commitments under the contract and in disregard of their obligations and duties refused to allow her to perform her job without improper intimidation, harassment. and bullying by Ms. Debmycker. 31. While Plaintiff was negotiating with Defendants; there existed a fiduciary relationship between the parties. Defendants hadfiduciary duties of utmost good faith. honesty, full disclosure and fair dealing with Plaintiff.forher contractual'rights. 32. in addition, "special circumstances' existed. as defined by Montana law. Defendant District created a false impression that it was unaware of Ms. Debruycker s past tactics of bullying and intimidation when they allowed Plaintiff to enter into the contract with the District. Defendants failed to disclose relevant facts. and Plaintiff reasonably relied to her detriment on such misrepresentations-and false impressions. If the true nature of the Ms.. Debruycker s tactics had been disclosed, Wendy Houghton would-not have executed thecontractbut would have negotiated'changed language to insure proper oversight and treatment. 33. That Defendantsknew, or should haveknown,that they were required to disclose Ms. Debruycker s past tactics That the Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the Defendants breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Ms. Hought on s contract. like all contracts in Montana contained the Covenant of good faith and fair dealing. COMPLAINTAND. DEMAND FORJURY TRIAL V ' ' 6

7 _ " COUNT IV Tortirous Viola_t_ion of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealigg 35. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained. in paragraphs 1 though.34 as though herein restated A b. 36. The Plaintiffwas in an unequal bargaining position when the Defendants negotiated the contract at issue in this matter. The Plaintiff did not have the expertise to know that Ms. Debruycker s past tactics, in fact and contrary to Montana State law, had been reported to the Districtand were unaddrtessed.orcorrected The Plaintiff relied solely on the expertise of the Defendants which were in superior bargaining positions and had superior knowledge about the actual factual issues relative to her supervisor. 38. The Plaintiff s motivation for'entering the contracts and other agreements was to secure monetary benefits for her family security and she had a no other motivation when entering thecontracts. The Plaintiff was attempting to provide securityand future protection for her family based upon the promises made by Defendants. 39. Ordinary contract damages are inadequate in this case, because they do not make the Defendants account for their actions of forcingithe Plaintiff out'her position. Contract damages do not make Plaintiff whole because her position afforded her numerous financial and health benefits which are now irreplaceable. 'Further. her ability to attain the vesting of a full retirement has been destroyed by Defendants actions and breaches. Plaintiff has also had] to hire an attorney to prosecute these claims and attempt to be afforded her rights. She has suffered emotional distress and has been greatly inconvenienced by the problems associated with her constructive discharge. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FO'R JURY TRIAL ' 7

8 The Plaintiff was especially vulnerable in this matter beoause she did. not 'have the expertise to recognize that Defendants had no right to force her to resign from her position due to the inappropriate and unlawful actions of Defendant Debruycker. 41. The Defendants were aware that the Plaintiff did not have the expertise to recognize that the Defendants would not disclose their knowledge of Defendant Debruycker's tactics and Defendants knew that she was vulnerable in that respect and used it to their unfair advantage. 42. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result ofthe Defendants tortuous breach of the implied covenant of good faith han'd fair dealing. By their conduct the Defendants were guilty of actual malice and fraud and should be punished by way of punitive damages for the sake of example. 0.. coum v Magnum Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in pararaphs 1 though 43 as though herein restated. _ t 45. Defendants had a duty to advise Plaintiff of all pertinent.facts known to them and to properly address any employee (such as Defendant Debruycker) who did not live by the Policies and Procedures. i i. 46. Defendants breached.that duty to-plaintiff when they hid such information from Plaintiff and. in fact, negligently made representations to Plaintiff that it knew would not. in all likelihood, be performed under the contract betinreen the parties. I Plaintiff relied on these negligent representations and acted in reliance thereon, to her detriment. causing monetary and non monetary damaged to herself. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FORJURY TRIAL... _ 8

9 COUNT VI Constructive Dischagge 48. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained'in' paragraphs 1 though 47 as though herein restated Plaintiff, on December 16, 2013, resigned from her position with the Defendants. Plaintiff s resignation was based upon being subjected to tactics of bullying and intimidation by Defendant D'ebruycker and her staff which led to a situation wherein an objective, reasonable person could, not tolerate it. 51. Plaintiffs only reasonable alternative was to resign, as within weeks of submitting her resignation, she had learned that the Defendant District's Board was well'aware of Defendant Debruycker's improper and unlawful actions; and somehow condoned them. 52. Plaintiffsconstructive discharge has caused hermonetary damages in an amount to be proven at- trial-. ' t I couu'r v" lnflictlonof Emotional Distress Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 though' 52 as though herein restated. As a result of Defendants actions against Plaintiff, she has suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, sleepless nights. rage, insecurity, fright, ho'rror,'grief_, shame, humiliation. disappointment, worry, and nausea. Further, given Plaintiff s close working relationship with, the, Defendants,they knew, or should have known,iof her susceptibility to such types of distress. Such effects on Plaintiff have caused her to suffer serious and severe emotional distress, COMPLAINTAND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.. 9

10 55. That Plaintiff s serious and severe emotional distress was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Defendants intentional acts-and/or omissions. Defendants, knew or should have known that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress, by the actions of its employees. Such damages are inta monetary amount to be proven at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff. having fully set forth her claims herein, prays for judgment as follows: 1. For lost benefits and-lost fringe benefits, including but not limited to retirement benefits, health insurance benefits, sick days, holiday pay. and any other benefits of being employed by Defendants. all both past and future. as are alloyved byllavir, I 2. For emotional distress damages as allowed by law; 3. Fordamages to her reputation and good name; 4. For attorney's fees and casts in bringing this action; 5. For punitiye damagesi and.. 6. For all such other relief which the Court deems equitable and-just, including attorney fees allowed bylaw. DATED the 16?" day of December HARPER LAW V F W. \ygyne Harper / P.0 Box Butte, MT Attorney for Plaintiff COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FORJURY TRIAL 10

11 D_EMAND"FOR.1 n gtrial Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on allissues triable to a jury. DATED the 16 " day of December Attorney for Plaintiff COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FORJURY TRIAL 11