Case 6:12-cv TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#: 1

Similar documents
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1/29/2019 8:49 AM 19CV04626

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

10/24/2017 4:33:20 PM 17CV46621 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 23

Case 2:16-cv GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 10

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Courthouse News Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv LTS Document 5 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9. Plaintiff, Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 13

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1. Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT

10/18/ :38 AM 18CV47218 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. COMPLAINT.


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE PARTIES AND VENUE

Case5:11-cv EJD Document28 Filed09/09/11 Page1 of 10

Case 3:14-cv BR Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case 2:16-cv JTM-TJJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 3:16-cv KI Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 8

Case 3:16-cv SB Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 10

Case 6:13-cv AA Document 20 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 132

8/31/2018 2:12 PM 18CV38516 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 1:19-cv PAB Document 1 Filed 01/04/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

Case 3:18-cv HZ Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, DRAFT. Defendants.

Courthouse News Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, DRAFT. Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case: 5:15-cv SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/20/15 2 of 9. PageID #: 2

Case 3:17-cv BRM-DEA Document 1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 1. Plaintiff, : v. : : : Defendant. : COMPLAINT

Case 1:17-cv WHP Document 1 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, DRAFT. Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 0:08-cv JRT-FLN Document 1 Filed 01/04/2008 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case 6:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10/25/ :43 AM 17CV47062

Case 2:10-cv RAJ Document 1 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 8

7/19/2018 6:06 PM 18CV30704 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Plaintiff WOF SW GGP 1 LLC alleges as follows:

Case tmr Doc 1 Filed 02/18/13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON IN THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION NO. } 1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division Civil Action No.

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/23/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/20/17 Page 1 of 13

thejasminebrand.com SO SO DEF PRODUCTIONS, INC., thejasminebrand.com

Case 3:14-cv ST Document 1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 13 Page ID#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/06/ :34 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2017

EBERHARD SCHONEBURG, ) SECURITIES LAWS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv RJS Document 2 Filed 03/06/13 Page 1 of 16

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(212) (212) (fax) Attorneysfor Named Plaintiffand the proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6

2:18-cv CSB-EIL # 1 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION COMPLAINT

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No.

Case 2:18-cv JLL-JAD Document 1 Filed 12/14/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NADEL IONA BARRETT, I. INTRODUCTION

Case 2:16-cv MMD-CWH Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 5

Case 3:14-cv BR Document 1 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 7

similarly situated, seeks the recovery of unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime hours worked, while employed by Bab.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION AMENDED COMPLAINT

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/06/ :48 PM INDEX NO /2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018

9:12-cv PMD-BHH Date Filed 09/17/12 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CASS COUNTY, MISSOURI AT HARRISONVILLE

11/9/2017 9:48 AM 17CV48960 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES. Case No.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/20/ :58 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2016

DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

Case 6:17-cv TC Document 1 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/20/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2018

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT. similarly-situated employees or former employees of PESG of Alabama, LLC

muia'aiena ED) wnrn 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, DRAFT. Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Plaintiff, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 15-CV-1588

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/25/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No.: Plaintiff, Defendants

DJAS FILED. eelveo PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. Case 1:18-cv RP Document 1 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 18. Case No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

6:15-cv MGL Date Filed 10/13/15 Entry Number 26 Page 1 of 13

Case 4:18-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/21/18 Page 1 of 15

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

11/29/2018 2:22 PM 18CV54567 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. COMPLAINT PARTIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 3:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/11/16 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No. Plaintiff, Defendants

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

Case 3:16-cv LB Document 1 Filed 06/11/16 Page 1 of 14

Case 3:17-cv PK Document 9 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:15-cv SVW-AS Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1

Transcription:

Case 6:12-cv-00667-TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#: 1 Anne D. Foster, OSB No. 993152 Email: afoster@dunncarney.com DUNN CARNEY ALLEN HIGGINS & TONGUE LLP 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97204-1357 Telephone: 503.224.6440 Fax: 503.224.7324 Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION DAVID McCURDY, an individual, LIA McCURDY, an individual, PAUL MONACO, an individual, JUDY PEOPLES, an individual, WILLIAM DASSENKO, an individual, and ROCHLYN YESS, an individual, v. Plaintiffs, SORENSON CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, CARE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, CARE SENIOR LIVING, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, and SCP CARE ACQUISITION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, No. COMPLAINT (Breach of Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Violations of ORS 659A.030 -- Age Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Retaliation) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants. Plaintiffs David McCurdy, Lia McCurdy, Paul Monaco, Judy Peoples, William Dassenko Page 1

Case 6:12-cv-00667-TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 2 of 10 Page ID#: 2 and Rochlyn Yess (collectively, Plaintiffs ), for their Complaint against Sorenson Capital Partners, LP ( SCP ), CARE Holding Co., LLC ( HOLDCO ), CARE Senior Living, LP ( CARE ) and SCP CARE ACQUISITION, LLC ( SCP ), allege and state as follows: THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiffs David McCurdy, Lia McCurdy, Paul Monaco, William Dassenko and Rochlyn Yess are individuals and reside in the State of Oregon. 2. Plaintiff Judy Peoples is an individual and resides in the State of Michigan. 3. Defendant SCP is a Delaware limited partnership, with its principal place of business in Lehi, Utah. 4. Defendant HOLDCO is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Lehi, Utah. 5. Defendant CARE is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Lehi, Utah. 6. Defendant SCP, is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Lehi, Utah. 7. This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1), as the matter in controversy involves citizens of different states and the controversy exceeds $75,000. 8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in Eugene, Oregon. Page 2

Case 6:12-cv-00667-TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 3 of 10 Page ID#: 3 Page 3 FACTS 9. SCP is a private equity firm that, on information and belief, invests tens of millions of dollars each year in various ventures throughout the Western United States. 10. The principals of SCP, including a number of its managing directors and officers, are former partners or executives at Bain Capital and Bain & Company. 11. Plaintiffs are six of the seven employees who made up the management team of CARE. CARE s offices are located in Eugene, Oregon. 12. David McCurdy was employed as President and CEO of CARE; Lia McCurdy was employed as Executive Vice President of Re-Development of CARE; Judy Peoples was employed as Executive Vice President of Operations of CARE; Rochlyn A. Yess was employed as General Counsel of CARE, William Dassenko was employed as Executive Vice President for Acquisitions of CARE; and Paul Monaco was employed as Executive Vice President of Technical Services of CARE. 13. Plaintiffs, prior to being hired by CARE, had a proven track record of success in the senior housing industry. 14. HOLDCO was formed for the purpose of purchasing and renovating senior housing properties in eleven western states. 15. CARE was formed to manage the interests of HOLDCO and the assets purchased. 16. Plaintiffs were brought on board in March 2011 as employees and also became minority interest owners in HOLDCO. 17. Although CARE was set up as a separate business entity, SCP retained control over the day-to-day operations and made all meaningful decisions concerning the operation of

Case 6:12-cv-00667-TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 4 of 10 Page ID#: 4 CARE and employment of Plaintiffs. Page 4 18. At all times relevant hereto, CARE was acting solely as an agent for SCP. 19. At the time Plaintiffs became employees of Defendants, representatives of Defendants promised that Plaintiffs term of employment would be a minimum of 5 years and that their artificially low starting salaries ($60,000) would increase over a short period of time. to $260,000. 20. The average salary for executives with Plaintiffs expertise ranges from $160,000 21. Plaintiffs were induced into accepting the low salary levels based on Defendants promises to grow the company quickly. 22. Plaintiffs relied on these representations. 23. Despite Defendants promises to grow the company quickly and the guarantee of 5 years of employment, Defendants repeatedly rejected various business opportunities to grow the company. 24. During this same time period, SCP funded (from their investors) and paid to SCP (themselves) excessive management fees, thereby enriching SCP while paying below market salaries ($60,000) to Plaintiffs. 25. Despite Defendants representations concerning raising Plaintiffs salaries to market rates, their salaries remained at the artificially low level of $60,000 throughout their employment. 26. Despite the promise of 5-years employment, in mid-november 2011, after only 7 months Plaintiffs were told that their employment would be terminated effective February 2012. 27. Yess, Dassenko, Monaco and Peoples were actually terminated effective

Case 6:12-cv-00667-TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 5 of 10 Page ID#: 5 February 17, 2012. Page 5 28. David and Lia McCurdy were terminated effective February 29, 2012. 29. At the time of termination, approximately 49 months remained on Plaintiffs 5- year employment contracts. 30. No explanation has ever been given for Defendants decision to terminate Plaintiffs employment only 7-months in to their 5-year contract except that Defendants claimed they would no longer make investments in the senior housing industry. 31. Defendants continue to invest, operate and remain active in the senior housing industry through another entity Western States Lodging and Management. 32. Plaintiffs are aged 52 to 62. 33. In the fall of 2011, Defendants inquired about the ages of all Plaintiffs. Shortly thereafter Defendants advised Plaintiffs that their employment was being terminated. 34. During their tenure with Defendants, Plaintiffs learned that SCP strongly favored hiring, employing, and doing business with other members of the LDS Church. 35. SCP partners, in particular Curtis Toone and Mike Scott, made comments about religion and questioned the beliefs of Plaintiffs and other employees. 36. None of the Plaintiffs are members of the LDS Church. 37. The partners of Western States Lodging and Management the entity Defendants continue to fund and operate in the senior housing arena and the entity that operates the one property under management by CARE ( Villa Rosa ) are all members of the LDS Church. 38. On or about March 16, 2012, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendants, inter alia, asserting Plaintiffs opposition to Defendants unlawful and discriminatory employment

Case 6:12-cv-00667-TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 6 of 10 Page ID#: 6 practices based on age and religion. Page 6 39. Defendants responded to this letter by filing a lawsuit in the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Utah, Utah County, on or about April 2, 2012, captioned SCP CARE Acquisition et al v. David McCurdy et al, Case No. 120400486 ( the Utah Lawsuit ). 40. The Utah Lawsuit is frivolous and without foundation in law or fact. Defendants filed the Utah Lawsuit in retaliation for Plaintiffs expressing their opposition to Defendants discriminatory employment practices. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim for Relief (Breach of Oral Contract) 41. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 40 as though fully set forth herein. 42. On or about March 2011, Plaintiffs entered into an oral contract of employment with Defendants for a minimum term of 5 years. 43. Plaintiffs have performed all of the conditions, covenants, and promises required to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of that oral contract, except those that Plaintiffs were prevented from performing due to Defendants broken promises and failure to perform as promised. 44. Defendants breached the oral employment contract by terminating Plaintiffs employment after only 7 months. 45. As a result of Defendants breach of the oral contract, Plaintiffs have suffered substantial losses by virtue of Defendants breaches. Plaintiffs damages are believed to be in excess of $5,350,000.

Case 6:12-cv-00667-TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 7 of 10 Page ID#: 7 Page 7 Second Claim for Relief (Promissory Estoppel) 46. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 45 as though fully set forth herein. 47. Defendants promised Plaintiffs a minimum of 5-years employment. 48. Defendants promised Plaintiffs that their artificially low starting salaries would increase over time. 49. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs would reasonably rely on these promises and in doing so would put forth their best efforts as employees of Defendants. 50. Plaintiffs actually relied on the promises made by Defendants. 51. As a result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered substantial losses believed to be in excess of $5,350,000. Third Claim for Relief (Age Discrimination ORS 659A.030(1)(a), (b) and (g)) 52. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 51 as though fully set forth herein. 53. Defendants decision to terminate Plaintiffs employment was based, at least in part, on Plaintiffs respective ages. 54. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs in their terms and conditions of employment on the basis of age in violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(a) and (b). 55. Defendants conduct constituted aiding and abetting age discrimination, in violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(g). 56. As a proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered lost wages in excess of $5,350,000.

Case 6:12-cv-00667-TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 8 of 10 Page ID#: 8 57. As a proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered mental and emotional distress in an amount to be determined at trial and believed to be no less than $5,000,000. 58. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable costs and attorney s fees pursuant to ORS 659A.885. Fourth Claim for Relief (Religious Discrimination Pursuant to ORS 659A.030(1)(a), (b) and (f)) 59. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 58 as though fully set forth herein. 60. Defendants decision to terminate Plaintiffs employment was based, at least in part, on Plaintiffs non-affiliation with the LDS Church. 61. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs in their terms and conditions of employment on the basis of religion in violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(a) and (b). 62. Defendants conduct constituted aiding and abetting discrimination on the basis of religion, in violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(g). 63. As a result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered lost wages in excess of $5,350,000. 64. As a result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered mental and emotional distress in an amount to be determined at trial and believed to be no less than $5,000,000. 65. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable costs and attorney s fees pursuant to ORS 659A.885. / / / / / / Page 8

Case 6:12-cv-00667-TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 9 of 10 Page ID#: 9 Fifth Claim for Relief (Retaliation for Engaging in Opposition to Discrimination Pursuant to ORS 659A.030(1)(f)) 66. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 65 as though fully set forth herein. 67. Defendants filing of the Utah lawsuit was in retaliation for Plaintiffs asserted opposition to Defendants unlawful and discriminatory employment practices based on age and religion. 68. As a proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered compensatory and non-economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 69. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable costs and attorney s fees pursuant to ORS 659A.885. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court assume jurisdiction and grant judgment as follows: 1. An award of lost wages and fringe benefits and prejudgment interest at the statutory rate in an amount to be determined at trial; 2. An award of damages for mental and emotional distress in an amount to be determined at trial; / / / / / / / / / Page 9

Case 6:12-cv-00667-TC Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 10 of 10 Page ID#: 10 3. An award of costs and reasonable attorney s fees; and 4. All other fit and proper relief. Dated this 13th day of April, 2012. DUNN CARNEY ALLEN HIGGINS & TONGUE LLP /s/ Anne D. Foster Anne D. Foster, OSB No. 993152 Telephone: 503.224.6440 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Page 10