IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS WANDA HILL ) and DR. ROBIN BOWEN ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) WASHBURN UNIVERSITY, ) CASE NO. BOARD OF REGENTS OF WASHBURN ) UNIVERSITY, and DR. JERRY B. FARLEY, ) individually and in his official capacity as ) President, Washburn University, ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring this Complaint against the above-named Defendants, and provide the following statements in support: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This action seeks damages for violations of the fundamental constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, including claims brought pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983, together with state law claims. Plaintiffs also seek an award of reasonable costs of litigation, including attorneys fees and expenses, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. For their state law claims including retaliatory discharge for engaging in protected whistleblower activities and breach of contract, Plaintiffs seek an award of damages based on Defendants wrongful and illegal actions in terminating the Plaintiffs employment contracts without cause. For their state law tort claims against Defendants Washburn University and the Board of Regents of Washburn University, the Plaintiffs timely filed notice pursuant to K.S.A. 12-105b(d) under the Kansas Tort Claims Act 1

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 16 (KTCA), and Plaintiffs claims were rejected in their entirety by the governing body of Washburn University. Finally, Plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory and punitive damages against Washburn University President Dr. Jerry Farley ( Farley ) in his individual capacity, for his wrongful and malicious termination of the Plaintiffs employment with Washburn University for engaging in protected whistleblower activities and violating their constitutional rights. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This action arises under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to grant relief under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1367 over Plaintiffs claims arising under state law. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because all of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this District. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Wanda Hill ( Hill ) was employed by the Washburn University Board of Regents ( Board of Regents or the Board ) as Vice President for Administration and Treasurer pursuant to a series of one-year written contracts commencing in September 1999 and continuing until she was terminated on or about April 1, 2010. 5. Plaintiff Robin Bowen ( Bowen ) was employed by the Board of Regents as the Vice President for Academic Affairs pursuant to a series of one-year written contracts commencing July 2007 and continuing until she was terminated on or about March 30, 2010. 6. Defendant Washburn University is a municipal subdivision of the State of Kansas, receives Federal and State funding and is responsible for creating, adopting, and 2

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 3 of 16 implementing the policies, practices, and/or customs of Washburn University, including its policies, practices, and/or customs regarding the rights of its employees to speak freely on matters of public concern and preservation of due process rights. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Washburn University was a person acting under color of state law. 7. Defendant Board of Regents is the governing body of Washburn University and is responsible for creating, adopting, and implementing the policies, practices, and/or customs of Washburn University, including its policy, practice, and/or custom regarding the Due Process Rights of its employees. At all relevant times, Defendant Board of Regents was a person acting under color of state law. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times hereto, the individual members of the Board of Regents referenced below acted with the full authority and consent of the entire Board of Regents pursuant to their polices, practices and/or customs. 8. Defendant Farley at all times relevant herein served as president of Washburn University and was employed by the Board of Regents. As President, Defendant Farley is designated under the By-Laws adopted by Defendant Board of Regents as the Chief Executive Officer, and is responsible for creating, adopting, and implementing the policies, practices, and/or customs of Washburn University, including its policy, practice, and/or custom regarding preservation of its employees due process rights. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Farley was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant Washburn University, acting under color of law. Defendant Farley is sued both individually and in his official capacity, and at all times hereto was a person acting under color of state law. 3

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 4 of 16 STATEMENT OF FACTS 9. Plaintiffs Hill and Bowen together with Defendant Farley served as the primary administrators of Washburn University pursuant to employment contracts with the Defendant Board of Regents. As President of Washburn University, Defendant Farley was charged with the responsibility of conducting annual written evaluations of both Plaintiffs Hill and Bowen. Notwithstanding, during the entire tenures of both Plaintiffs Hill and Bowen, Defendant Farley failed and neglected to make such evaluations. However, Defendant Farley frequently advised both Plaintiffs they were excellent administrators and performing their respective services in a professional manner, consistent with the policies and goals of the University. In an email dated April 25, 2008, Defendant Farley sent to Plaintiff Hill a message regarding her nine years of employment, stating, it has flown by and been a delight. Finally, every year that the Board of Regents approved funds for merit pay raises, both Plaintiffs received merit salary increases at the recommendation of Defendant Farley. 10. In their capacity as administrators, Plaintiffs were frequently approached by members of the Board of Regents in connection with regular Board meetings concerning various matters relating to Washburn University, and Plaintiffs always responded to the Board members in a forthright and honest manner. These communications involved various aspects of the administrative functions of the University. During the year 2008, Plaintiffs were approached separately by at least three members of the Defendant Board of Regents concerning Defendant Farley s job performance and verbal representations Defendant Farley had made to the Board of Regents. These members of the Board of Regents were concerned, in part, that information Defendant Farley was relating to them in private communications and at Board meetings was not consistent with the truth. As hereinafter set forth, these matters generally 4

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 5 of 16 involved compliance with Board policy including the proper administration of the University s financial affairs. These Board members urged Plaintiffs Hill and Bowen to provide information on these substantive issues. Both Plaintiffs were requested by these Board members to respond fully and truthfully to their inquiries. These discussions were not initiated by either Plaintiff Hill or Bowen. Plaintiffs initial reaction was to express concern to these members of the Board of Regents because Defendant Farley was their immediate supervisor and they feared he would take retaliatory employment action against them, up to and including termination of employment. These Board members advised Plaintiffs that the Board of Regents was ultimately responsible for the affairs of the University and assured Plaintiffs that cooperating with the Board by truthfully responding to their inquiries would not result in their respective jobs being terminated and further that these discussions with the Board members would assure them their jobs would be safe. On multiple occasions, Plaintiffs were assured that their jobs would be protected by at least three Board members. Both Plaintiffs Hill and Bowen responded to inquiries from Board members in an honest and forthright manner and urged Board members to work out their differences with Defendant Farley. 11. All faculty at Washburn University, including Defendant Farley, Plaintiff Hill and Plaintiff Bowen, are bound by the Faculty handbook requirements at Appendix XIII. 2: Conflict of Interest and Standards of Conduct Policy governing Standards of Conduct, including the following: employees and others acting for and/or on behalf of the University shall conduct themselves in an ethical manner, beyond reproach, exemplifying the principles of professionalism, honesty, trustworthiness, respect, and accountability. 12. Examples of the subjects the Board Members believed they were not being provided candid and truthful information from President Farley are summarized as follows: 5

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 6 of 16 a. During the 2008 term, it was discovered that a significant number of individuals had enrolled in one or more classes at Washburn and subsequently made the decision not to attend. For a variety of reasons, many of these individuals failed to drop the classes, and consequences of this failure included: i) denying a seat in a class with limited enrollment to a student who desires to take the class by holding an empty seat for an individual who is ultimately revealed to be a "noshow;" ii) skewing enrollment and credit hour calculations by including "phantom" students; and iii) delaying or preventing the re-allocation of scarce scholarship dollars awarded to individuals who are "no-shows". This issue especially created problems for individuals who received federal financial aid and scholarship funds and never attended classes at Washburn University. For many of these individuals, Washburn University was required to recover both federal funds and Washburn funds expended on phantom students. b. On or about January 1, 2009, a committee consisting of both Plaintiffs met and discussed an internal memorandum regarding how to address the phantom students issue. The committee recommended to President Farley that procedures be changed to reflect the true enrollment at Washburn University, and that students get dropped prior to disbursement of financial aid. In spite of these recommendations, made to insure compliance with financial aid regulations, President Farley repeatedly refused to accept the recommendations on accelerating dropping students. Specifically, President Farley directed Plaintiff Bowen to forgo the recommendations to drop students from enrollment at Washburn University. This was done so that the students could be shown as enrolled to artificially inflate enrollment numbers and prevent Washburn University from discovering students who wrongfully received federal financial aid credited to their University accounts. c. In academic year 2006-2007, Washburn University provided more scholarships to students than had been authorized by the University. This mistake was committed again in academic year 2007-2008, when the University provided $500,000.00 more in scholarships to students than the Board of Regents had authorized. When the Board of Regents discovered the $500,000.00 2007-08 budget shortfall had been created as a result of this wrongful practice, Defendant Farley was asked about the shortfall at a regularly scheduled Board of Regents meeting on May 16, 2008. He was also asked whether this mistaken or intentional act had been done before. Defendant Farley s response was that this was the first time this had happened. This response was false and known to be false when it was made. When Plaintiffs were asked about this issue by members of the Board of Regents outside of the regular Board meetings, both Plaintiffs Hill and Bowen disclosed that the same budget issue had occurred in 2006-07 involving awarding scholarships in excess of the approved budget. They additionally revealed the fact to two Board members that it was Defendant Farley that directed other University funds be used to cover the shortfall in 2006-07. When asked why they would know that Defendant Farley knew that the budget shortfall had occurred in 2006-07, Plaintiff Hill produced an email 6

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 7 of 16 from Defendant Farley to one Board member directing Washburn University officials to utilize other University funds to cover such budget shortfall in 2006-07. In subsequent discussions with another Board member regarding this issue, the Board member thanked Plaintiff Hill for her candor, and stated: Jerry lies to the Board and should be fired. d. Plaintiffs truthfully responded to multiple inquiries from at least three separate Board of Regents members on these issues with the above information from 2008 through their termination by Defendant Farley. 13. At a June 2009 Executive Staff meeting in which Plaintiffs attended, Defendant Farley instructed Plaintiffs to let him know immediately when Plaintiffs were contacted by Board members and to relay the substance of those conversations to him. Plaintiffs complied with Defendant Farley s request and advised him each time they had been contacted by a Board member and related the substance of the conversations. On one such occasion, Defendant Farley suggested to them techniques they could use to appear to be answering questions honestly but in fact would evade making a direct factual response. Because Plaintiffs Hill and Bowen were convinced they were serving the best interests of Washburn University, and complying with the terms of their employment and University policy, they openly and honestly continued to answer questions from the members of the Board of Regents. 14. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, Defendant Farley knew that certain members of the Board of Regents were dissatisfied with his job performance and was fully aware certain Board members did not believe he was being truthful to them on several matters involving University policy, including the above issues. 15. On or about October 5, 2009, Defendant Farley met with Plaintiff Hill to discuss the Board s inquiries. Defendant Farley asked Ms. Hill if she thought board members were her friends and wanted to know why she was talking to them. Plaintiff Hill stated that she responded to direct questions and that as Treasurer of the Board of Regents, she was held to an 7

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 8 of 16 even higher standard to respond truthfully to questions from Board members. Defendant Farley demanded that Ms. Hill tell him if she was trying to get me fired. Approximately one month later, Defendant Farley held a similar meeting with Plaintiff Bowen, and demanded to know if she was trying to get the Board to fire me. 16. On or about January 9, 2010, a member of the Board of Regents contacted Plaintiff Hill regarding a conversation that Board members had with Defendant Farley that included negative references about both Plaintiffs Hill and Bowen by Defendant Farley. The Board member indicated during this conversation that Defendant Farley told two Board of Regents members that he uses personnel in his office to spy on his top administrators and further that Defendant Farley expressed concern over staff members talking to the Board of Regents about University policies. 17. Upon information and belief, on or about the first part of 2010, it was becoming apparent to Defendant Farley that certain members of the Board of Regents were dissatisfied with him and his job was in jeopardy. On or about February 19, 2010, members of the Board of Regents conducted separate meetings with both Plaintiffs to discuss concerns about Defendant Farley, including the issues detailed in 12 herein. During one of these conversations, two Board of Regents members specifically stated that Defendant Farley had been at Washburn University too long and it was time for him to go. In a subsequent conversation with another Board of Regents member, Plaintiffs were told that a vote would be imminent regarding terminating Defendant Farley based at least in part on the information provided by the Plaintiffs. 8

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 9 of 16 18. Subsequent to the February 19, 2010 meeting with the Plaintiffs, at least three members of the Board of Regents began contacting various Washburn University officials regarding Defendant Farley s performance. 19. On or about March 11, 2010, two members of the Board of Regents contacted Washburn Endowment Association President JuliAnn Mazachek regarding the effect on Washburn University if Defendant Farley would be terminated. During this conversation, Dr. Mazachek informed these Board members that she believed she was qualified and prepared to assume the position of President of the University. Dr. Mazachek was then advised that the Board had other plans for an interim appointment, and that a nationwide search would be conducted to employ Dr. Farley s permanent successor. 20. Plaintiff Hill was subsequently advised of the discussion with Dr. Mazachek and was told by a Board member that another Board member intended on asking Defendant Farley to resign. 21. On or about March 16, 2010, a Board member contacted Plaintiff Hill requesting more information regarding issues related to Defendant Farley. Specifically, this Board member requested information regarding the financial aid over-award situation, and asked, well it has been taken care of now, right? Following a discussion regarding the issues related to Defendant Farley, this Board member commented that, we are being asked to make grave decisions, and I want to make sure I have all the information. Plaintiff Hill responded to the inquiries honestly and provided all requested information. 22. On or about March 26, 2010, another Board of Regents member contacted Plaintiff Hill regarding the upcoming April Board of Regents meeting, where the Board was considering a 360 degree assessment on Defendant Farley during his annual review. This 9

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 10 of 16 Board member indicated that another Board member had a frank discussion with Defendant Farley at the Association of Governing Board s conference and was to meet with other Board members regarding that discussion. 23. Upon information and belief, because Defendant Farley knew that members of the Board of Regents were questioning the Plaintiffs regarding his job performance and because he feared the Board of Regents planned on taking action to terminate his employment, Defendant Farley determined it was in his best interest to terminate both Plaintiffs prior to the April Board of Regents meeting. 24. On March 30 and April 1, 2010, Defendant Farley met with each Plaintiff in separate meetings and terminated their employment for the stated reasons that he had lost confidence in both Plaintiffs and that the University needed to go in a different direction. On or about March 31, 2010, Defendant Farley met with the Deans of Washburn University and told them that the Plaintiffs were let go for loyalty issues. Defendant Farley additionally stated to the Deans that the decision to terminate the Plaintiffs was difficult, particularly for Plaintiff Bowen who he stated would now have a difficult time securing a President s position with another university. 25. On or about April 2, 2010, a member of the Board of Regents called both Plaintiffs and apologized for their terminations. This Board member stated he feared the terminations were a result of Defendant Farley discovering that Plaintiffs had met with Board members and openly discussed the issues involving Defendant Farley. If asked as a reference for future employment of the Plaintiffs, this same Board member indicated the reference would include the statement that the Plaintiffs were forced out because of an incompetent and untruthful president. 10

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 11 of 16 26. On or about April 5, 2010, a Washburn University official spoke with Plaintiff Hill about a conversation he had with Defendant Farley regarding her termination. Defendant Farley falsely told this official that Plaintiff Hill stepped down to pursue other interests, that we (Plaintiff Hill and Defendant Farley) had reached an agreement for her to pursue interests with other people in leadership. On that same day another Washburn official told Plaintiff Hill that Defendant Farley told this official that the University decided to go in a different direction. During this same time period several University officials made similar comments to Plaintiff Bowen regarding Defendant Farley s explanation of her termination, up to and including telling one official that the decision to terminate her was mutual. 27. On or about April 7, 2010, false reports of the Plaintiffs resignations first appeared in the campus newspaper, with Defendant Farley falsely stating that the Plaintiffs had left their jobs voluntarily, and it would be unfair to reveal the details. 28. On or about April 14, 2010, President Farley was quoted at a faculty brunch in a Washburn Review article that the resignations of Plaintiffs Hill and Bowen were of a sensitive nature. The article concludes that the resignations must have been for scandalous reasons. 29. Since their terminations, Plaintiffs have received numerous notes, and other correspondence, and have been contacted by several Washburn University officials expressing surprise and shock at their terminations. 30. On or about May 7, 2010, a Washburn University official spoke with Plaintiff Hill and stated that Tom Ellis, Defendant Farley s former special assistant, stated Plaintiff Hill was let go for loyalty issues and undermining his (Farley s) initiatives. Additionally, that same official indicated that Mike Haze, local Union President for facility services employees 11

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 12 of 16 at Washburn University, stated that Plaintiff Hill was terminated for accepting favors from a service company connected to the University. 31. As members of the General Faculty under the Washburn University Bylaws, Plaintiffs cannot be terminated from their respective positions except for cause. These Bylaws, fully incorporated by direct reference into both Plaintiffs employment contracts, provide that no member of the faculty (defined in the Bylaws under Art. V, Sec. 2 to include President, Vice Presidents, Deans, Librarians, and other persons appointed by the Board ) can be terminated from their employment except for cause including, substantial and manifest neglect of duty, personal conduct which substantially impairs the individual's fulfillment of his/her University responsibilities, engaging in or substantially contributing to actions materially disruptive to the effective operations of the University, substantial falsification of credentials, or violation of other faculty, staff, or student's civil rights. (Washburn University Bylaws at Art. V, Sec. 8). As of this date, no for cause reason has been provided to support the termination of either Plaintiff. 32. Due to the actions of Defendant Farley, on behalf of all Defendants in terminating the employment contracts of the Plaintiffs, neither Plaintiff can nor will ever find comparable employment. Plaintiff Bowen, who was in strong consideration to become a university president at another university, was advised to withdraw her name from consideration as a result of Defendant Farley s termination. CAUSES OF ACTION Count I - Deprivation of Plaintiffs Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Right to Due Process of Law All Defendants 33. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 32 are fully incorporated herein by this reference. 12

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 13 of 16 34. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide that, no person shall, be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. 35. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that their contracts would continue indefinitely so long as they fully complied with the terms of their contracts, including abiding by the Bylaws of Washburn University. 36. Plaintiffs employment contracts and continued expectation of employment represented a property right that could not be deprived without due process of law. Plaintiffs right to due process is protected from the actions of government employees by 42 U.S.C. 1983, which imposes liability on any person acting under color of state law who deprives Plaintiffs of their rights to due process of law. 37. Defendant Farley s termination of the Plaintiffs employment contracts without cause in violation of the Bylaws of Washburn University violates Plaintiffs right to Due Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. By terminating Plaintiffs from their employment, Defendant Farley deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to due process of law under color of state law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. 38. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Farley s actions can fairly be said to represent the custom, policy and/or practice of Defendants Washburn University and the Board of Regents and/or the Board s deliberate indifference in failing to take action to prevent the constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege the actions of Defendant Farley were taken pursuant to policies, customs and practices of Defendants Washburn University and/or the Board of Regents. These polices, customs and practices were either ratified, adopted and/or approved by the Defendants Washburn University and Board of Regents, and were the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injuries herein. 39. Plaintiffs have suffered significant damages as a result of Defendant Farley s deprivation of their rights to Due Process of Law. 13

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 14 of 16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant Farley for actual damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), including back pay, loss of future earnings, attorney s fees and costs, compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant Farley, individually, an award of pre and post-judgment interest and such other further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. Count II Breach of Contract Washburn University and Board of Regents 40. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 39 are fully incorporated herein by this reference. 41. Plaintiffs employment was subject to valid contracts with the Defendant Board of Regents that provided for termination only for cause pursuant to the Bylaws of Washburn University. 42. Additionally, Defendant Board of Regents modified the existing contract of the Plaintiffs by offering job protection in the event that the Plaintiffs would provide the information detailed above regarding Defendant Farley s violations of law, rules, regulations and/or policies of Washburn University. 43. Plaintiffs provided such information requested by the Board of Regents as consideration for and in reliance of the promised job protection offered by the Board of Regents. 44. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that their contracts would continue indefinitely in the future so long as they fully complied with the terms of their contracts, including abiding by the Bylaws of Washburn University. 45. Plaintiffs at all times complied with the terms and conditions of their employment contracts. 14

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 15 of 16 46. Defendant Farley s termination without cause in violation of the Bylaws of Washburn University and in retaliation for Plaintiffs good faith responses to inquiries from the Defendant Board of Regents breaches the contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Board of Regents. 47. Plaintiffs have suffered substantial damages in the form of lost present and future income as a result of the Defendants breach and termination of their employment contracts. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray of judgments against the Defendants Washburn University and Board of Regents for damages, including back pay, front pay, lost benefits, other actual damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), pre and postjudgment interest, the costs of this action and such other relief the Court deems reasonable. Count III Common Law Retaliatory Discharge (Whistleblower) All Defendants 48. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 47 are fully incorporated herein by this reference. 49. Plaintiffs made good faith reports regarding Defendant Farley s serious infractions of law, rules and regulations regarding public health, safety or the general welfare to the Defendant Board of Regents. 50. Defendant Farley had knowledge of Plaintiffs good faith reporting of such serious infractions of law, rules, regulations and/or policies of Washburn University. 51. Plaintiffs were maliciously, willfully and wantonly discharged from Washburn University for their good faith responses to Board of Regents inquiries regarding Defendant Farley s serious infractions of law, rules, regulations and policies of Washburn University. 52. As a result of the malicious, willful and wanton conduct of Defendant Farley in terminating Plaintiffs in retaliation for their good faith responses to the Board of Regents inquires, Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages as enumerated below. 15

Case 2:10-cv-02371-WEB -KMH Document 1 Filed 07/08/10 Page 16 of 16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray of judgments against the Defendants for compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, other damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), the costs of this action and such other relief the Court deems reasonable. Plaintiffs also believe that punitive damages are appropriate against Defendant Farley, individually for his malicious, willful and wanton behavior, and request that an appropriate award of punitive damages be made. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b) and D.Kan.Rule 14(a), Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues triable. DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL Plaintiffs designate Kansas City, Kansas as the place of trial in this matter. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ John C. Frieden John C. Frieden #06592 jfrieden@fufblaw.com Brenda L. Head #15657 bhead@fufblaw.com Clinton E. Patty #18912 cpatty@fufblaw.com FRIEDEN, UNREIN, FORBES & BIGGS, LLP 555 S Kansas Avenue, Suite 303 P O Box 639 Topeka, KS 66601-0639 TEL 785-232-7266 FAX 785-232-5841 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 16