POWER HOME REMODELING JURY DEMAND

Asher Raphael , Corey Schiller , Kaitlin Conrad

Power Home Remodeling | JURY DEMAND

Respondeat Superior

1.??? TO THE HONORABLE COURT, Plaintiff, Ruben Landon Dante brings forth this “Jury Demand” in accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 64. In this amendment plaintiff invokes “21.223(b) Of The Texas Business Organizations Code” and (Joe A. CASTLEBERRY, Petitioner, v. Byron BRANSCUM et al., Respondents. No. C-4536. Supreme Court of Texas. July 2, 1986.) piercing the corporate veil for Actual Fraud. This suit against Power Home Remodeling and managing employees is brought forth under discovery rule and invoking (Artis v. District of Columbia.).

2.??? Per the sexual harassment nature around this cause of action plaintiff strikes all arbitration agreements across the board invoking "Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021," H.R. 4445” and further invoking (Johnson v. Everyrealm, Inc., 2023 WL 2216173 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2023), Turner v. Tesla, Inc., 2023 WL 6150805 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2023), Delo v. Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Inc., 2023 WL 4883337 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2023), Watson v. Blaze Media LLC, 2023 WL 5004144 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2023), on all other plausible matters and otherwise.

?

3.??? Sustaining management liability plaintiff invokes “The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”) Effective September 1, 2021” bringing forth claims against; Asher Raphael, Corey Schiller, Daivy P Dambreville, Joseph Green, Jalen Lewis, Kaitlyn Conrad as permitted per the new provisions detailed in the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”) Effective September 1, 2021 invoking Joint and Several liability or otherwise as the court may direct. Plaintiff sues defendant Power Home Remodeling and Houston management as per their direct contribution, engagement and / or enabling and in tolerance of the same regarding the sexual harassment matters as illustrated in the act.

?

4.??? Striking Daivy P Dambreville’s attorney immunity plaintiff invokes (Poole V. Houston & T.C. Railway Co., Ibp, Inc. V. Klumpe, Invoke Querner V. Rindfuss, Mendoza V. Fleming, Likover V. Sunflower Terrace Ii, Ltd. Likover And Essex Crane Rental Corp. V. Carter).

?

5.??? In addition, this suit is brought forth to further redress other matters which include but are not limited to, employee class discrimination, defamatory comments, fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel, Department of Labor whistleblower retaliation, EEOC whistleblower retaliation and OSHA Whistleblower Retaliation inter-alia.

?

6.??? Plaintiff demands relief individually or as a class per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23. Satisfying all the elements of both Rule 23. (a) and (b). and / or as the court may direct with plaintiff invocation of (JOSHUA YARBROUGH, § and MATT LOFLAND, Individually and on Behalf of Others § Similarly Situated § Plaintiffs, vs. CSS CORP., and §GLOW NETWORKS, INC., Defendants.),

?

7.??? Plaintiffs hereby also invokes jointly and severally liability with individual management, executives, members, or otherwise to the maximum extent permitted by law permissible when a) two or more?defendants act in concert or independently?to injure the?plaintiff and b) the resulting damage cannot be allocated to a particular defendant inter-alia or otherwise as the court may direct.

8.??? This case was first filed but not accepted in District Court November 9th and later in November 2023 in federal court, Texas Workforce Commission 8/28/2022 with attorney through October 2023 and continuation through with the EEOC through 2024 issued 10/17/2023, therefore plaintiff invokes (Artis v. District of Columbia) turning back the date of filing of this accordingly, (Exhibit A). Additionally, The Department of Labor Investigation is still ongoing, inter-alia, and therefore plaintiff invokes the ongoing modification of this suit under discovery rule.

9.??? In this first amended petition plaintiff invokes:

a.??? “21.223(b) Of The Texas Business Organizations Code” piercing the corporate veil applicable when:

i.???? A corporation or individual is an alter ego, committed fraud,

ii.???? The corporation or individual caused the corporation to be used for fraud and did perpetrate a fraud on the oblige, and

iii.???? The fraud was “primarily for the direct personal benefit of the holder, beneficial owner, subscriber, or affiliate.

b.??? In this event, Plaintiff invokes piercing the veil of any domestic entities, in Houston, Texas or Otherwise under Doing business As “Power Home Remodeling Group LLC, Power HRG LLC, as / or inter alia to illustrate the same. In this amendment plaintiff opening up:

i.???? “POWER HOME REMODELING GROUP LLC” headquarters listed to be addressed at “2501 Seaport Drive, Chester, PA, 19013”

ii.???? ADAM J KALINER listed as “PRESIDENT” listed to be addressed at, 1343 WAVERY RD, GLADWYNE, PA 19035

iii.???? ASHER RAPHAEL listed as “CO-CEO” addressed at 133OVERLOOK DRIVE, MEDIA, PA, 19063.

iv.???? COREY SCHILLER, CO-CEO addressed at, 413 RAVENSCLIFF DRIVE, MEDIA, PA, 19063.

c.???? Per The Texas franchise tax public information report filed 09/13/2023, Exhibit F, (See Attached).

d.??? Per “21.223(b) Of The Texas Business Organizations Code” Plaintiff invokes piercing the corporate veil on the basis of law and fact. Subsection (a)(2) does not prevent or limit the liability of a holder, beneficial owner, subscriber, or affiliate if the obligee demonstrates that the holder, beneficial owner, subscriber, or affiliate caused the corporation to be used for the purpose of perpetrating and did perpetrate an actual fraud on the obligee primarily for the direct personal benefit of the holder, beneficial owner, subscriber, or affiliate.

e.???? Actual Fraud occurs when a party knowingly and willfully engages in deceitful practices with the explicit purpose of defrauding the other party. The elements of actual fraud include:

i.???? Intent: An essential component of actual fraud is the deliberate intent to deceive. The party committing the fraud must be fully aware of their deceptive actions.

ii.???? Misrepresentation: There must be a false statement and/or a deliberate concealment of information, or some physical act designed to mislead the victim.

iii.???? Reliance: The victim must have reasonably relied on the false statement or act to their detriment.

f.????? In this controversy, plaintiffs piercing the corporate is just and proper as the nature of “POWER HOME REMODELING”’s Fraudulent Inducement meets all of the elements regarding actual fraud and to which inducement is systemic, premeditated and pervasive. Power Home Remodeling has demonstrated this in a clear and convincing manner from the highest levels having pervasively and systemically lied to federal regulators in matters of correlated fraud in employment practices inter-alia. This meeting the requirement of deliberate intent to deceive in the lying and manipulation to federal regulators in concert with HR and Executive Suite, fully aware of their deceptive actions in the knowing misrepresentation and the entire employee class reasonable reliance on those grounds, and on those grounds the LLC’s created for the purposes to perpetuate the same within and beyond the scope of just fraud in inducement but within other counts in this case for the sole benefit of the holder, beneficial owner, subscriber, or affiliate.

g.??? In invoking so, plaintiff also invokes (Joe A. CASTLEBERRY, Petitioner, v. Byron BRANSCUM et al., Respondents. No. C-4536. Supreme Court of Texas. July 2, 1986.) The courts have adopted?Castleberry’s definition of “actual fraud” as “involving dishonesty of purpose or intent to deceive.” Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations § 41.30 at 30 (Supp.1985); Cary & Eisenberg, Corporations 101 (5th ed. 1980); R. Clark, The Duties of the Corporate Debtor to its Creditors, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 505, 543, 44 (1977); 1 Hildebrand, Texas Corporations § 5 at 40 (1942); 2 G. Hornstein, Corporation Law and Practice § 755 (1959); See also Gentry v. Credit Plan Corp. of Houston, 528 S.W.2d at 573 (1975); Pacific American Gasoline Co. of Texas v. Miller, 76 S.W.2d at 840, 849; Rose v. Intercontinental Bank, N.A., 705 S.W.2d 752, 756 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Tigrett v. Pointer, 580 S.W.2d 375, 385 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); National Marine Service, Inc. v. Thibodeaux, 501 F.2d 940, 942 (Fifth Cir.1974).

h.??? Thus, we held in Pacific American Gasoline Co. of Texas v. Miller that note holders could disregard the corporate fiction without showing common-law fraud or deceit when the circumstances amounted to constructive fraud. 76 S.W.2d at 840, 849. In Tigrett v. Pointer, the Dallas Court of Appeals disregarded the corporate fiction, stating correctly that "[w]hether [the individual] misled them or subjectively intended to defraud them is immaterial ... [f]or the action was so grossly unfair as to amount to constructive fraud." ?in First Nat. Bank in Canyon v. Gamble, the court held that we would disregard the corporate fiction when the "facts are such that adherence to the fiction would promote injustice and lead to an inequitable result." 132 S.W.2d at 105. More recently, in Gentry v. Credit Plan Corp. of Houston, we again took an equitable approach, holding that the purpose in disregarding the corporate fiction "is to prevent use of the corporate entity as a cloak for fraud or illegality or to work an injustice, and that purpose should not be thwarted by adherence to any particular theory of liability."

?

10. ?THE PARTIES TO THIS COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF:

?

RUBEN LANDON DANTE

2113 SAND RIDGE DR.

TEXAS CITY, TEXAS 77568

?PHONE (409) 500-2117

DEFENDANT Respondeat Superior:

POWER HOME REMODELING,

747 N SHEPHERD DR #800,

HOUSTON, TX 77007,

PHONE: (832) 940-7074.

E-MAIL [email protected]

?

?

11. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF THE COURT

a.??? This court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the defendant is a resident of the state of Texas and because most of the underlying facts occurred in Texas.

b.??? This court is a proper venue under 28 USC § 1391 because the defendant is a resident Houston, County of Harris which is within this district, and because most of the underlying facts occurred in this district and before this court.

c.??? Broader disputes have applicable local statutes.

?

1.??? FACTS OF THE CASE

i.????? Ruben Landon Dante is 32 years of age with large cap corporate background, entrepreneur, top sales performer for a billion-dollar company and executive suite experience with residency in California and Texas when interviewing.

ii.??? Power Home Remodeling is a national remodeling company with thousands of employees, at or near at 1 Billion per year touted.

iii.?? This court can exercise control and jurisdiction over this matter per International Shoe v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, where POWER HOME REMODELING GROUP has “continuous and systematic certain minimum contacts” Moreover:

iv.?? This case centers around “sexual harassment”, and it’s reporting, and retaliation thereof as defined by “EEFA, ‘Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 6 2021” and to which complaints happened after March 3rd 2022.

v.???? Therefore, forced arbitration clauses do not apply to any of the claims, (22 CIV. 6669 (PAE), 2023 WL 2216173 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2023, 9 U.S.C. § 402(a))

vi.?? Requirements for SUBCHAPTER F. JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT have been met per (sec. 21.252. of labor code title 2. subtitle a chapter 21 subchapter a). ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A

vii. Power Home Remodeling Group is a company headquartered in Pennsylvania with offices nationwide and thousands of employees.

viii.????????????????? Ruben Landon Dante interviewed for Power Home Remodeling with Joseph Green in Houston for the position of “Remodeling Consultant” with salary listed in rage from 130,000 – 180,000 per year during the employment market highs.

ix.?? Per Ruben Landon Dante’s Resume Joe Green slated plaintiff to start near the higher end of 180,000 per year and spoke of near future VP role with California and Galveston opening soon.

x.???? Ruben Landon Dante reasonably relied on the income promise per his personal background, size of the company and position offered.

xi.?? Ruben Landon Dante maintained his properties based on the reliance of such promises.

xii. Joe Green knew these promises to be false to Ruben Landon Dante’s Detriment.

xiii.????????????????? During his time at Power Home Remodeling Ruben Landon Dante was told training would be two months with elements of such including working and shadowing “Costumer Development Representatives” for the intention of understanding the sales framing “Remodeling Consultants” where walking into.

xiv.????????????????? Instead Ruben Landon Dante and class are placed into this entry level role without knowledge or consent thereof and not “training”.

xv.? The Costumer Development Representative role consisted of commissionable and non-commissionable project like setting estimate appointments which are commissionable, and client costumer service notes and follow ups that are non-commissionable.

xvi.????????????????? This fraudulent inducement is systemic and without consent.

xvii.??????????????? During Ruben Landon Dante’s time in alleged “training” per his background in compliance and mindset of “VP” Training Ruben Landon Dante Brought up compliance red flags regarding systemic race, sex and gender discrimination including but not limited to delegation of territory tiered by race with straight, white male team “Khanenines” getting top territory and special early leave privileges not extended to anyone else.

xviii.?????????????? Next pay cycle Ruben Landon Dante’s Pay inexplicably dropped.

xix.????????????????? Ruben Landon Dante inquired of this drop and asked for “timesheet” and “recordkeeping” being a W-2 Position.

xx.? H.R skirted timesheet questions and proceeded to retaliate. Ruben Landon Dante asked again and mentioned Department of Labor concerns over the same.

xxi.????????????????? H.R Stated they were not required to “record keep” being a “Commission outsides sales” job. Ruben Landon Dante respectfully disagreed and contacted The Department of Labor.

xxii.??????????????? Upon Expressing DOL Communication Ruben Landon Dante received a call on his 91st day on the Job and still in promissory training suggesting he Quit.

xxiii.?????????????? Ruben Landon Dante immediately emailed HR stating he did not quit or intend to.

xxiv.?????????????? Ruben Landon Dante was terminated upon expressing DOL Concerns.

xxv.???????????????? DOL sends letter to Power Home Remodeling that they may not delete anything.

xxvi.?????????????? Power Home Remodeling deletes all manners of communication soon after.

xxvii.???????????? Power Home Remodeling tells DOL no one ever worked past 6:00PM Whereby Ruben Landon Dante provided evidence of management and leadership telling them to lie soon after.

xxviii.??????????? Power Home Remodeling proceeds to lie to all federal regulators thereafter which will be evident upon this court.

2.??? QUESTIONS OF LAW

?

3.??? Class Action As the court may direct in the interest of law, the court may treat this case as a standalone plaintiff case or a class action as all the following elements are true and correct: (a) Class Action PREREQUISITES. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests ?of the class. the class plaintiff seeks to represent pray for, declaratory and injunctive relief; back pay; front pay; compensatory, nominal and punitive damages, expenses to redress Defendants’ pervasive and discriminatory employment policies, fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, sex and gender discrimination practices and procedures. One class consists of employee members who are, or have been, employed by Defendants and have experienced race discrimination at any time during the applicable liability period or have experienced retaliation for reporting or opposing race discrimination in the employee class role at large. The other class has opposed and reported racial discrimination with a separate account of sex, and gender discrimination in the within the scope of the Houston office and faced retaliation for it. Plaintiff has been personally subject to endure all the above and files this suit on those same personal first account grounds as standalone plaintiff while disclosing there is a certification of a class of employees similarly situated and the most efficient and economical means of resolving the questions of law and fact which are common to the claims of the proposed class. The individual claims of the plaintiff requires resolution of the common question of whether Defendants have engaged in a systemic pattern of practice. ??These employment policies, practices and procedures are not unique or limited to any one department; rather, they apply to all departments, and, thus, affect the employee members in the same ways no matter the district, division, or position in which they work.? Throughout the liability period, a disproportionately large percentage of the managers and supervisors at Defendants have not been racial minorities or those who oppose or report race discrimination. The plaintiff and potential class seek to represent have been subjected to a systemic pattern and practice of race discrimination or retaliation involving a battery of practices which have also had an unlawful, disparate impact on them and their employment opportunities. The discrimination includes adhering to a policy and practice of restricting the promotion and advancement opportunities of employees so that they remain in the lower classification and compensation levels, as well as terminating complainants accordingly.

4.??? Defendants in effect bar any who oppose unlawful practices from better and higher, paying positions which have traditionally been held by other employees and selectively terminate their employment. The systemic means of accomplishing such discriminatory stratification include, but are not limited to, Defendants’ promotion, training and performance evaluation policies, practices and procedures. Defendants’ promotion, advancement, training, and performance evaluation policies, practices and procedures incorporate the following discriminatory practices: (a) relying upon subjective judgments, procedures, and criteria which permit and encourage the incorporation of racial stereotypes and bias by Defendants’ predominately non-minority managerial and supervisory staff in making promotion, training, performance evaluation, compensation, and termination decisions; (b) refusing or failing to provide equal training opportunities to those whom have expressed such concern or of member class; (c) refusing or failing to provide the same with opportunities to demonstrate their qualifications for advancement; (d) refusing or failing to establish and follow policies, practices, procedures, or criteria that reduce or eliminate disparate impact or intentional bias; (e) using informal, subjective selection methods which allow for rampant racial discrimination; (f) disqualifying employees for vacancies by unfairly disciplining them; (g) penalizing employees for exercising the rights afforded to them by Section 1981; (h) subjecting employees to racial hostility in the work environment; and (i) selectively terminating the employment of the same.

5.??? Defendants’ promotion policies, practices and procedures have had a disparate impact on plaintiff and the class members. The policies, practices, and procedures are not valid, job-related, or justified by business necessity. There are alternative objective and more valid. selection procedures available to the Defendants that are more closely related to the actual responsibilities of the positions, and which would have less of a disparate impact on such. However, the Defendants have failed to use or have refused to use such alternative procedures.

6.??? Defendants’ promotion, training, performance evaluation, compensation, and transfer policies, practices and procedures are intended to have a disparate impact on Plaintiff and associated demographic.

7.??? The practices form a part of the Defendants’ overall pattern and practice of keeping such in the lower classifications which have fewer desirable terms and conditions of employment and causing termination of their employment.

8.??? Because of Defendants’ systemic pattern and practice of discrimination, plaintiff has been adversely affected and have experienced harm, including the loss of compensation, wages, back pay, and employment benefits. This pattern and practice of gender discrimination includes: being denied promotions in favor of equally or less qualified non-protected employees; being denied training opportunities provided to other employees; receiving lower performance appraisals for performing the same work at the same level as other employees; being disciplined more frequently and more severely other employees, including being disciplined for engaging in behaviors for which minority employees are not disciplined; being subjected to a hostile work environment; and being terminated. The Class Representatives and the class they seek to represent have been subjected to racial hostility or retaliation at work, both severe and pervasive, which affects the terms and conditions of their employment. The Defendants’ actions and inactions encourage this behavior by its employees. ?The individual Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the rampant and pervasive wrongs alleged herein, and this suit is their only means of securing adequate relief. The Plaintiffs are now suffering irreparable injury from Defendants’ unlawful policies, practices and procedures.

CAUSE OF ACTION

?

9.??? COUNT 1: FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

a.??? Plaintiff has private right of action under “Fraudulent Inducement” as a matter of fact of law on the elements.

b.??? On or around April 3rd 2022 Ruben Landon Dante was called to interview with Power Home Remodeling Group for the position of “Remodeling Consultant” Listed as salary position starting at 130,000 Dollars up to 180,000 Dollars.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? i.???? Joe Green, who is titled Vice President for Defendant assured that based on plaintiff resume and background 180,000 was no issue to be met.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ii.???? The defendant made these claims knowing them to be false and do so on a systemic basis

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? iii.???? Plaintiff relied on to be true and expected based on background and resume and to which defendants intended to induce the plaintiff and entire class of employees to act in reliance on that representation to ultimately maliciously income trap and bate them to a different role.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? iv.???? The defendant made a material misrepresentation; The misrepresentation was made with knowledge of its falsity or asserted without knowledge of its truth; The defendant made the misrepresentation with the intention that the plaintiff should rely on or act upon the misrepresentation; The plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation; and The plaintiff’s reliance on the misrepresentation caused injury.

?

10. Count 3:? Sexual Harassment:

a.??? Plaintiff is entitled to private right of action Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) makes it illegal for employers to allow anyone to be sexually harassed at work by anyone else, regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? i.???? Ruben Landon Dante experienced. The workplace environment developed to becoming increasingly hostile with comments from team leaders intensifying in sexual aggression and hostility and reported at the local and corporate level to no avail. Comments such as “Talk to homeowners like trying to get P*ssy at a bar” and filled sexual misconduct in the workplace amongst “Team Leaders” towards employee class. Upon having had expressed this, Plaintiffs income immediately dropped.

11. Count 4: Hostile Work Environment

a.??? Plaintiff Has Private right of action Under Title VII, a hostile work environment exists when the workplace is "permeated with discriminatory, intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. The workplace environment developed to becoming increasingly hostile with comments from team leaders intensifying in sexual aggression and hostility and reported at the local and corporate level to no avail. Comments such as “Talk to homeowners like trying to get P*ssy at a bar” and filled sexual misconduct in the workplace amongst “Team Leaders” towards employee class.

·????? Upon Plaintiff expressing these sexual harassment concerns plaintiff pay immediately dropped during “training period” without explanation.

·????? Upon Plaintiff request and reporting of federally protected action plaintiff was terminated in defiance of Section 15(a)(3) of the FLSA Federal law and federal regulation, DOL, OSHA and other related protections.

·????? Defendant proceeded to lie in coordination with employees to Federal Regulators.

?

12. Count 5: Retaliation, Discrimination, Harassment and Negligence Individual Liability

a.??? Plaintiff has private right of action against defendants jointly and severally liability as lawfully applicable per The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”) provisions Effective September 1, 2021 and potential?individual liability?against one who “acts directly in an interests of the employer in relation to an employee may be liable for failing to adequately address sexual harassment that “reasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.”?Asher Raphael, Corey Schiller, DAIVY P DAMBREVILLE, Joe Green Jaylen Lewis, Kaitlyn Conrad, knew of the rampant sexual harassment taking place and failed to take immediate corrective action and instead enabled and promoted those engaged in it, themselves included.

?

13. Count 6: Retaliation, Discrimination, Harassment and Negligence Respondeat Superior

a.??? Jointly and severally liability per Respondeat Superior holding an employer or?principal?legally responsible?for the wrongful acts of an employee. An employer now “commits an unlawful employment practice if sexual harassment of an employee occurs and the employer or the employer’s agents or supervisors: (1) know or should have known that the conduct constituting sexual harassment was occurring; and (2) fail to take?immediate and appropriate corrective action.”

?

?

14. ?Count 7: Department of Labor Minimum Wage Whistleblower Retaliation:

a.??? Fair Labor Standards?Act?- The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards affecting employees in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments.?

?

15. ?Count 8: Department of Labor Recordkeeping Whistleblower Retaliation:

a.??? Section 15(a)(3) of the FLSA states that it is a violation for?any person?to?“discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.”

b.??? Employees are protected regardless of whether the complaint is made?orally?or?in writing. Complaints made to the Wage and Hour Division are protected, and?most courts have ruled that internal complaints to an employer are also protected.

c.??? “Because section 15(a)(3) prohibits “any person” from retaliating against “any employee”, the protection applies to all employees of an employer even in those instances in which the employee’s work and the employer are not covered by the FLSA”

?

16. Count 9: EEOC Whistleblower Retaliation:

a.??? The EEO laws prohibit punishing job applicants or employees for asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination including harassment.? Asserting these EEO rights is called "protected activity," and it can take many forms. ?For example, it is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for:

b.??? Communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment.

Count 10: Intentional Discrimination based on race during training.

(42 U.S.C Section 1981) Gives Plaintiff Private right of Action on race discrimination based on tangible actions During training. All premier territory was always

openly given to straight white men creating an additional layer of hostility to the work environment. They were also permitted to leave early without having to tell anyone else, “Listed worst performers” or other races, false performance claims and eventual demotions. This

demotions, promotion denials, and getting fired or laid off.

Count 11: Backpay.

Plaintiff re-alleges all previous allegations that appear above.

Defendants made deliberate false claims to The EEOC and Department of Labor under penalty of perjury and manipulated dates and paperwork.

Count 12: pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Plaintiff re-alleges all previous allegations that appear above.

Plaintiff endured great emotional distress not unlike seen in

CSS CORP., ET AL. Plaintiff prays for proper compensation of anguish accrued.

?

III. DISCOVERY

·????? Level two discovery plan.

?

IV. RELIEF

As a result of the Defendant’s actions stated above, Plaintiff suffered the following damages and Plaintiffs prays for non-economic damages, economic damages, and punitive damages, pain and suffering, Plaintiff prays for demand of $315,000.00 U.S. Dollars in restitution, compensatory damages and remedy and pray for the maximum amount of eligible punitive damages of 500,000 Dollars for a total relief of $815,000 dollars joint or several as this court may direct or jury and / or court may find just and proper as lawfully permitted. Moreover, Plaintiff Prays for past wages, punitive damages, loss of income, emotional damages, treble or otherwise as the jury and court may find just and proper.

?

METHOD OF CALCULATION

Case Law precedent weighted by scope, scale, malice and egregiousness or maximum lawfully permitted, Plaintiff Prays for exemplary damages, past wages, punitive damages, loss of income, emotional damages, compensatory damages, treble or otherwise as the jury and court may find just and proper or greater as the court may direct or otherwise lawfully permitted.

?

?WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF DEMANDS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:

A monetary judgment in an amount not less than $815,000 Dollars sum certain plus anything else the court may find just and proper.

Court costs to be awarded to Plaintiff –

Attorney’s fees to be awarded to Plaintiff –

A jury trial to try this action –

Such further relief that the court deems just and proper.

CERTIFICATION AND CLOSING

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that this complaint: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.

Dated this 30th of April 2024.

Brian Sierra Toni Melissare Travis Bowling Chellsy Mysza Great Place To Work US Lou Lombardo Judd Hirschfeld

Matthew Chalupa

EXHIBITS