exhibit a - Kaiser Bad News

Casel-:l-2-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
Document
3 Filed02lL3lL2 USDCColoradopage1 of 3L
EXHIBIT A
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
Document
3 FiledO2lL3lL2USDCColoradoPage2 of 31
3 Filedo2tL3lL2USDCColoradoPage3 0f 31
Document
case 1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
DISTRICTCOURT,DENVERCOUNTY'
STATEOF COLORADO
CourtAddress:
Clerk of theDistrictCourt
1437BannockStreet,Room256
Denver,CO 80202
Plaintiff:
COURTUST]ONLY
Dr. Jeryl McGaw
v.
Defendants;
THE PERMANENTEF'EDERATION,LLC' A
corporation;KAISERFOUNDATIONHEALTH PLAN'
INi., a corporation;KAISER FOUNDATIONHOSPITALS'
a corporation;LINDA SMITH, an individual;andDOESI
through100,Inclusive'
Attorneysfor Plaiutiff:
Keith F. Cross,#8934
Cross& Bennett,LLC
108E. St.Vrain St.'Suite20
ColoradoSprings'CO 80903
Phone: (719)633-1359
Fax: (719)633-5788
Email: [email protected]
CaseNo.:
Division:
COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND
plainriff, JERYL MCGAW, throughher counsel,respectfullysubmitsthe following
Complaint:
of 31Filed02lL3lL2 USDCColorado Page4
3
Document
EH
M-M
12-cv-00382-WJ
1:
Case
l,
of
theyareresidents
because
overtheDefendants
jurisdiction
Thiscourt haspersonal
in theStateof Colomdo'
andaredoingbusiness
2,VenueisproperpursuanttoC.R.C.P'98(c)becausetortiousconductbythe
tookplacein theCityandCountyof Denver'
Defendants
PARTTEg
,.PLAINTIFF,,)
wasat al|
"McGAw, or
Plaintiff,JERYL MCGAW $lereinafter
untilshe
of Defendants
andanemployee
of theStateof Colorado
heretoa resident
timesrelevant
on or aboutApril 7 '2010'
waswrongfullyterminated
by
NurseDirector'dulylicensed
herctowasa Doctorate
4. Plaintiffatall timesrelevant
by theDefendants'Shewas
andemployed
Nursingin thisState,
to practice
Colorado
theState.of
5,lg66,andis cunentlyforty-fiveyearsof age'
bornonNovember
the stateof colorado'Jefferson
5. At all timesrelevant,Plaintiffwasa residentof
3.
County,
that DefendantKAISER
Plaintiff is informedand believesand thereonalleges
andexistingunder
organized
F.UNDATIoN HEALTHPLAN,INc. ("KtlHP,')is a corporation
6.
in
andprincipalplaceof business
thelawsof an unknownstatewith ttreirregionalheadquarters
thestateof colorado'includingthecity and
ttuoughout
Denver,colorado,anddoingbusiness
Plaintiff is informedand
county of Denver. KAISER is in form a "non-profitcorporation"'
statusclaimis a sham'
andthereonallegesthatin reality,KAISERs "non'profit'
believes
that DefendantTHE
7. Plaintiff is informedand believesand thereonalleges
is a corporationorganizedand
PERMANENTEFEDERATION,LLC (.FEDEIIATION")'
andprincipalplaceof
headquarters
statewiththeirregional
underthelawsof anunknown
existing
tluoughoutthe stateof colorado'
locatedin Denver,colorado,anddoingbusiness
business
theCity andCountyof Denver'
including
CaseL:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
Document
3 Filed02lL3lLZ USDCColoradoPage5 of 31"
8.
Plaintiff is informed and believesand thereon alleges that DefendantKAISER
FOLINDATIONHOSPITALS("KFH"), is a corporationorganizedand existingunderthe lawsof
an unknown state with their regional headquarters
and principal place of businesslooatedin
Denver,Colorado,andbusinessthroughouttheStateof Colorado,includingtheCity andCountyof
Denver.
9.
Plaintiff is informed and believesand thereon alleges that Defendants,THE
PERMANENTEFEDERATION, LLC, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLANS,INC., ANd
I(AISER FOLINDATIONFIOSPITALS(collectively,"KAJSERDEFENDANTS'oT"KAISER"),
arecorporations
organizedandexistingunderthe lawsof theStateof Colorado,with theirprincipal
placeof businesslocatedat 10350E. DakotaAve.,Denver,Colorado3023I .
10. Plaintiff is informed and believesand thereonallegesDefendant,LINDA SMITH
("SMITH') is, and at all times relevantwas, a residentof the Stateof Colorado. Plaintiff is
informedand believesandthereonallegesthatat all timeshereinrelevant,DefendantSMITH was
a SeniorDirectorfor KAISER, (now an ExecutiveDirector)employedin the City andCountyof
Denver.
I l.
Plaintiff is informedand believesand thereonallegesthat I(AISER DEFENDANTS
are an "integrated"healthcare delivery systemcomposedof the insurancecompany,KFHP, its
doctorsandits hospitals. I(AISER DEFENDANTS'doctors
arefictitiouslyemployedin a variery
of purportedlyseparatebusinessentilies. The KAISER hospitalsand most relatedphysical
fbcilitieswhereKaiserPermanentedoesbusinessare wholly ownedand/orcontrolledby KFHp
throughDefendantHospitals, Plaintiff is informedand believesand thereonallegesthat the
boardsof directorsof DefendantsKFHP andHospitalsareidentical.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believesand thereonallegesthat DefendantKFHP is an
insurancecompanythat purportsto providecomprehensive
total medical cBreto its members.
DefendantKFHP describesitself as the largestHeslthMaintenanceOrganization("HMO") in the
3 Filed02lL3lL2 USDCGoloradoPage6 of 31
Document
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
KFHPexercises
allegesthatDefendant
andthereon
country.Plaintiffis informedandbelieves
total controlover FEDERA'|IONand I{OSPITALSand a numberof other corporateand
separale
entitiesis in fact
asa purported
veryexistence
partrership
entitiessuchthattheseentities'
KFHP is a legitimale"non'profit"
the myth that Defendant
a sham,designedto perpetuate
corporation.
KFHP is in fact a "non-profit"
13. Plaintiff is informedandbelievesthat Defendant
much
compensation,
publicly,andpayingenormous
enterprise
regularlyreportingits profitability
whocontroltheorganization.
to thedoctorsandotherindividuals
of it hidden,
andthereonallegesthatKFHP'stotaldominance
14. Plaintiffis informedandbelieves
entireannualbudgetis
by thefactthattheFEDERATION's
is evidenced
overth'eFEDERATION
operations
come
by KFHP;all fundsfor theFEDERATION's
setby,controlled
by, andapproved
is allowedto make;the
what"profit,"if any,theFEDERATION
fromKFHP;KFHPdetermines
from
theFEDERA|IONis precluded
for its service;
doesnot bill anycustomers
FEDERATION
workingfor any otherpersonor entity;KFHP providesvirtuallyall legal,humanresources'
advertising,billing, and other necessaryservicesfor the
lnsurance,comrnunrcations,
to theFEDERATION
renderlegaladviceandcounsel
FEDE11ATION.
KFHPlawyersroutinely
department
KFHP'sHumanResources
records;
to theFEDERATION
access
andhaveunfettered
againstthe FEDERATIONpractices
of discrimination
EEOCcomplaints
routinelyinvestigates
and
KFHPlawyers
onall suchinvestigations;
to KFHP'slegaldepartment
reporting
andemployees
records
of theFEDERATION
staffdo notobtainprivacywaiverswhenseeking
humanresources
employees
or investigating
theirclaims;KFHPprovidesandpaysfor all facilitiesin whichthe
notownedor controlled
fromanyentityor individual
anybusiness
fromaccepting
FEDERATION
by KFHP.
namedhereinasDOESI through10,
oftheDefendants
15. Thetruenamesandcapacities
suessuch
areunknownto Plaintiff,who therefore
associate,
or otherwise,
inclusive,
corporate,
CaseL:l-2-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
Document
3 FiledO2lL3lI2 USDCColoradoPage7 of 31-
Defendantsby fictitious namespursuantto C,R,C.P,10.Plaintiff is informed and believesand
thereonallegesthatthe DOE Defendanls,
andeachof them,areColoradoresidenls, Plaintiffwill
amendthis Complaintlo showtrue namesandcapacities
if andwhenthey are ascertained,
16. Thetrue namesandeapacities
namedhereinas DOES l through10,
of theDefendants
inclusive,whether individual Defendantsand their parents,subsidiaries,their succesorsin
interest,partners,and theiremployeesand/oragents,
actedonbehalfof, and forthe benefitof,at
the directionof, andunderthe control of, andin conspiracywith, eachand every Defendant,known
or unknown,and their agentsand/oremployees,
and eachof them, to do the actscomplained
herein.
17, Plaintiffis informedandbelievesandon thatbasisallegesthat at all timesreferredto in
this Complaint,eachDefendantwas the agent,servantand/oremployeeof eachotherDefendant,
andwasactingin the courseand scopeof thatagencyand/oremployment.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSESOF ACTION
18, Plaintiff receivedher Bachelor'sof Sciencedegreefiom the Universityof Colorado,
Boulder,in 1989,with an emphasisin Biology, Sheobtaineda Master'sDegreein Biology in
1991, also from the University of Colorado,Boulder. In 1997, Plaintiff was swardedher
RegisteredNurse degree from the University of Colorado,Health Sciences,and a Nurse
Practitioner/Doctorate
in I 999.
19, In or aroundJanuary2001, KAISER DEFENDANTShired Plaintiff as a Research
Associatein the Allergy Department,underthe supervisionof Arne Beck, She workedout of
Kaiser'sRegionalOffice (Headquarters)
in Denver,Colorado, As ResearchAssociatein the
Nursing Department,Plaintiff had the responsibilityof developing systemsand measuring
oulcomes.
of 31
M-MEH Document3 Filed02lL3lL2 USDCColorado Page8
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJ
of sMITH'
underthesupervision
20, In or aroundoctober2002,Plaintiffbeganworking
andoutcomes'During
for nursingresearch
asthecoordinator
theDirectorof Nursingservices,
nurses(alsoknown
for thechronicSpecialNeeds
evaluations
thistime,Plaintiffbeganoutcomes
redesign'
or 'CCC'). Withina year'Plaintiffled the program's
as ChronicCareCoordinator
in multiple
for theprogram'Thisworkwaspublished
a $3 millioncostsavings
demonstrating
NationalVohsAwardfor quality'
andultimatelywontheKaiserPermanente
articles
ill
thebirthof herson,Elijah'whobecame
er 23,2003,Plaintiffwelcomed
21. on septemb
ilt againin early2004,
2003,ElijahbEcame
forthe first timein December
andwashospitalized
("FMLA') to carefor her
leadingPlaintiffto applyfor leavEundertheFamilyMedicalLeaveAct
comorbidities
palsy,andsufferedlife-threatening
with cerebral
son who was later diagnosed
FMLA leaveandinitiallytook5
palsy,At thattimePlaintiffwasgranted
to hiscerebral
secondary
leave
to work,Ptaintiffwasgrantedintermittent
weeksoff fromwork to carefor herson.Returning
aftera year,ThiswasPlaintiffsfirst FMLA leave
statusto carefor herson.ThisFMLA expirecl
with Kaiser.
in touchwith SMITH, Duringoneof these
22. while on FMLA, Plaintiffremained
had
sMITH mentionedthat themanagerfur ccc (chroniccare coordination)
conversations,
onaninterimbasisandthenapplyforthe
andaskedplaintiffif shewouldtaketheposition
resigned
SMITH
positionfutl time.Plaintiffcouldnot committo this dueto her son'smedicatneeds'
Plaintiffthather
thatthepositionwouldbeinterim' SMITHfurtherassured
persisted,
requesting
to carefor
wouldbe flexibleandshewouldbeableto workfromhomewhennecessary
schedule
at thispointin
herson, Ptaintiffagreedto thepositionuponreturnfromFMLA' SMITHagreed
awayfrom
timeto permitPlaintiffto workoutof theHiddenLakeOffice,whichwasl5 minutes
ptaintif?shome,This permittedPlaintifftheflexibilityto Ieturnhomewhenthe child needed
SMITHwasaware
to haveit reinserted'
care,suchaspullingouthisg-tubeandneeding
emergent
care'SMITH
of Plaintiffsneedingto becloseto hometo providethisemergent
of thenecessity
3 FiledO2lL3tL2USDCColorado Page9 of 31
Document
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
ableto continuein this position'
knew that if Plaintitr was not able to do this, shewould not be
her son'slife would be endangered'
because
manager'SMITH reguested
23. After the Plaintiff servednearly4 monthsas the interim
had concernsabout the permanent
thar Plaintiff apply for the position permanently.Plaintiff
needs' SMITH again assured
appointmentdue to Elijah's medical fragility and health care
andageedto allow plaintiff to work from the facility
plaintiff of the flexibirity of theappointment
facility was HiddenLake clinic in
closerto her home in orderto providefor Elijah'scare. This
Arvada,Colorado.
underPlaintiff' The
24. Over the next two years,the programcontinuedto be successful
demonstrationof annual
program received a Resourcestewardshipaward for the continued
.
savingsof millions of dollarsforthe company'
staffof approximately10,
ZS. During this time,plaintiffalsohadthe SeniorCarenurses,a
departmentalso received
transferredinto her department- senior care coordination- The
includingtheCentersof Medioareand Medicaid
nationalrecognitionfrom multipleorganizations,
(CMS), for the high quality and affordablecaredeliveredto patients'
Director of Cluonic CarE
26. In or around September2007, Plaintiff was promotedto
as the amount of inoreased
Coordination,based on her outcomesand evaluations'as wetl
responsibilityshehad accruedovErthe previousyears'
again expressedher
27. During the discussionsregardingthis promotion, Plaintiff
her that she
of her son'shealthcareneeds. SMITH assured.
sonc€rnsregardingthe nranagenrent
maintain her office in
would retain the flexibility to manageher son's appointmentsand could
HiddenLake to remaincloseto her son.
progBm
Zg. In or around the Fall of 2007, Plaintiff had the diseasemanagement
Nurse
to her, which includcd:AsthmaCare,DiabetesCare,and a Lipid Management
transferred
Plaintiff was also
Practitioner(approximately 20 addifionalstaff members)' At this time,
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
Document
3 FiledO2lL3lL2USDCColoradoPageL0 of 3L
appointedby SMITH to representKaiser on a committeewith the State Health Departmentto
later to be named'CzuCC" (ColoradoRegional
overseeinitiatingnew Medicaidl partnership,
IntegratedCareCollaborative). CRICC is a stateand federally fundedprogramsupervisedby the
("HCPF') wi0r thestaledgoalof
StateofColorado'sHealthCarePolicyandFinancingDeparonent
clients
highest-cost
improvingthe quality of care reccivedby ColoradoMedicaid'shighest-need,
by bettercoordinatingphysical health,mentalhealth,and substanceabuseservices.This contract
would re'establishKaiser'sprovision of Medicaidseryicesin the stateof Coloraclo.z
29. Similarly, Plaintiff was appointedby SMITH to work with Dr. BarbaraMorris of
Kaiser to representthe Coloradoregionin a collaborativeprogramwith the Centersfor Medicare
and Medicaid,refened to as "SNP,"or the SpecialNeedsPlan. SNP was an opportunityfbr
increasedfunding for Kaiser to provideenhancedcareto at-risk Medicaremembers.
30. Congressauthorizesfrrndingto organizationssuch as Defendantsfor SpecialNeeds
Plansto providefor medicalservicesto "dualeligibles'(personsqualifiedfor both stateMedicaid
and Medicare)and individuals with chronicallysevereand disablingconditions. SNPs are
requiredto have an evidence-basedmodel of care with appropriatenetworks of providers and
specialists,Additionally, they me required lo conduct an initial assessmentand annual
reassessrnent
of each individual participant'sphysical,psycho-social,and functionalneEds,to
developa care plan, in consultationwith the individual if feasible,that identifiesgoals and
objectivesand specificservicesandbenefitsto be provided,and to utilize an interdisciplinaryteam
in the managementof care,
I
healthcareprogram(in Coloradofunded5070by thestateand
Medicaidis theJointfederalandstatefundedgovernment
Stf/obythefederalgovernment)
thatprovideslorvcosthealthcareto indigentindividuats.
t Kaiserhad previously
it felt thatthe statehadnot appropriately
reimbunedKaiser,
suedthe staEof Coloradobecause
of
Kaiserwonthatlawsuit,whichmadestateHCPFoflicialsreluctantto getbackIntobusiness
with Kaiser,Represcntatives
statcHCPFwereexpressing
to thepoor,
concems
to thePlaintiffthatKaiserwasnota goodproviderof Morlicaid
sprvices
PageL1of 3L
3 FiledO2lL3lT2USDCColorado
Document
Case1:12-cv-00382'WJM-MEH
with Kaiser
plaintiffbeganworkingon Kaiser'ssNP program
level
national
the
on
31.
emp|oyeeDr.RichardDellaPenaofSanDiego,Califomia,whowasmedica|directorforthe
nationalagingnetwork'
Defendants'
32.Plaintiffalsochairedanewcommitteeinearly200storeducetheutilizntionofthe
emergencydepartmentforpatientswhofrequentlysoughtcareinthisvenue'Theproject
local recognition'andSMITH
$l million in costsavings'receiving
an arurualized
demonstrated
work'
Plaintiffwith a $700spotbonusforthis
rewarded
for Medicaid'Plaintiffwas
onthestateconrmittee
33. As theonly clinicalrepresenlative
aboutKaiserand its reputation'as indicated
privy to concerningcommentsmadeby the state
and
Kaiserwasnotsigning
contract
abouta Medicaid
pr.uiourty. stateofficialsalsocomplained
werefrustratedithadnotbeensigned.StateofticialssaidthatthiswasareputationissueforKaiser'
at a higher
that someone
with SMITH,aswell asherconcerns
thesecomments
Plaintiffshared
However'SMITH
in thesenegotiations'
levelof authoritythanPlaintiffshouldbe participating
anyone
to include
necessary
herthatshewasdoingwell,andtoldherthatit wouldnotbe
reassured
elsefromKaiserat thistime.
for KaiserwasHealthysolutions'
34. Theagencybeingutilizedto providesNPservicEs
basedin a differentstate(Texas)
plaintiffwasconcerned
thatHealthysolutions,asanewcompany
defined
andto providethe,care
wouldnotbeableto oversee
beingserved,
thantheactualpatients
with
shared
wereongoingandwersrepeatedly
withintheMedicaresNP contract.Theseconcems
SMITH.
35.lnearly2008,sMlTHmetwithPlaintifftodiscussfurtherexpandingherrole'
At
Services'
andPrevention
intotherole of SeniorDirectorof Population
SMITHhadtrarrsitioned
management
to includedirectionof the disease
this time, Plaintiffs role was also expanded
program,nearlydoublingthesizeof Plaintiffs staff'
programandtheweightmanagement
3 FiledAzlL3lLZ USDCColoradoPageL2 of 31
Document
Casej-:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
team
36. plaintiffwas appointedin May or Juneof 2008by SMITH sit on a newly designed
Nancy Wollen from KFHP
to addressexternalcostsfor the company,a teamled by Vice President
Medical Group' Plaintiff was actively
and Vice PresidentDale Varner from the Permanente
involved in multiple su$committeeson this team. This work was very labor intensiveand
proactiveto reducecostsand help with regionalbudgetcontrol. Plaintiff discussedher concerns
with SMITH on
with the amountof work with this projectcombinedwith herotherresponsibilities
particularly{br analytical
multipleoccasions,SMITH continuedto promiseadditionalresources,
to havel to all meetings. SMITH told
services,and advisedPlaintiff that it was not necessary
Plaintiff to encourageher administrativeassistant,Donna Vaugh-King, to scheduleas many
meetingsaspossibleasteleconferences.SMITH alsocoachedPlaintiffon filteringthroughemails
andnot to worry aboutrespondingto all emails,as somedid not requirea response. Ihey also
discusseddecreasingthe numberof committeesPlaintiff sat on. SMITH agreedto makesome
to somecommittees,
but did not everidentiff
andappointothersin herdepartment
recommendation
specificcommitteesthat Plaintiff could decline.SMITH was becomingincreasinglyconcerned
role with the company.When Plaintiffraised
aboutP.laintiffsnot beingableto meether expanded
concernsaboutbeing able to accomplishall of this, SMITH would not permit any reductionin
Plaintiffs responsibil
ities.
37, During or aroundthis time, Plaintiffs son'svision beganto deteriorate,and an exam
indicatedthat Elijah might havedevelopeda brain tumor. Despitethis
undergeneralanesthesia
news, Plaintiff continuedto worlg albeit while she was very distressed.Plaintiff
disheartening
receivedan email from Elijah's surgeonduringa meetingat work, describingthe rypesof tumorshe
may have. Plaintiff left, visibly upset. SMITH waspresentat thatmeetingandobservedPlaintiff
beginto cry as a rezult of the news abouther son.
concernsaboutHealthy
38. In or aroundSummer2008, becausePlaintiff had expressed
Solutions'adequ*elyprovidingtheservicesthatCMS waspayingfor in the SNPprogram,Plaintiff
l0
3L
O2lI3ltZ USDCColoradoPage13 of
Filed
3
Document
EH
M-M
12-cv-00382-WJ
Case1:
due to
in a site visit to Healthysolutions'
staffparticipated
Kaiset's
of
members
staff
and several
members'as well as concems
lack of careprovidedto the sNP
continuedconcemsregardingthe
it becameclear
Medicare' During this site visit'
with
obligations
contractual
meeting
aboutnot
(l) not all memberswere
including,but not limited to:
concerns,
major
several
were
that there
receiveda survey;(2) no
5% of the total sNP population
only
fact,
in
and,
service,
this
receiving
at all; (4)
patientsreceivedno serviceor education
(3)
institutionalized
provided;
directcarewas
careprovidedwasnotgeriatricappropriate;and(5)therewaseitherinadequateorabsenl
regionregardingthework of HealthySolutions'
backto directcareprovidersin the
communicalion
officials'
concemsabouttheseissuesto Kaiser
Plaintiff immediatelybeganto expressherserious
includingSMITH.
39.Followingthisvisit,in200sandcontinuinginroearly200g,thereweremultiple
were
Kaiser'sexecutivestaff where these concems
meetingswith Plaintiff and membersof
and
executiveleadershipregarctingtheseconcerns'
discussed. However,no action was takenby
was not in atignmentwith thedirectionthe
SMITH advisedPlaintiff that pursuingtheseconcems
companywas going.
Plaintiff to implementthe state Medicaid
40. In or aroundmid-2008,SMITH instructed
projectas"r€sourqeneutral'despitereceivingsubstantialfundingfromthestatetohireadditional
stafftocarefortheseveryhighriskpatients'theaged,theblindandthedisabled'"Resource
providingadditionalcapitatfundingto pay for sNP
neutralomeansthat, even though cMS was
providingadditionalFTE's'Plaintiffwas
Kaiserwouldnot be hiring anyadditionalstaffor
services,
veryconcemedaboutthisandsharedwithSMITHthatshefeltthatwasirnpossibleforherto
or notprovidingthelevelof carerequiredby the
complywithoutcompromisingcarefor thepatients
on throughout the remainderof 2008 and
sNP program. This conversationcontinuedoff and
2009.
ll
o2lL3tL2 usDc colorado Page14 of 31
Filed
3
Document
case 1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
4l.WithrespecttotheCNCCprogram'Kaiser,throughSMITH,persistedint[eresource
be divertedonly to pay for
in orderfor the fundingfrom the stateto
neutralimplementation
currentlyemployedstaff.However,theCNCCprogramwasprovidingKaiserwithcompletely
previouslyprovidingcareto thesf medically
new patients. The staff of l(aiserhad not been
homehealthcarenotprovidedby Kaiser'bu!Kaiserwas
patients,
someof whomrequired
complex
to handle
to provideadditionalemployeps
govemment
not utilizingthemoneysreceivedfromthe
thiscare.
longtime{tentor'Vice
andself-proclaimed
42, At theendof 2008,sMITH',ssupervisor
with Plairitiffthatthis
SMITHshared
Kristinsnyder,Ph.D.,retiredfromthecompany'
President
a4rdSMITH's
Dr. Snyderwasnot goingto be replaced
concernbecause
hertremendous
caused
pitherGinny
in placeVice-Presidents'
reportto oneof theothercurrently
wouldinstead
department
MclainorNancywollEn.ultimately,NancywollenwasaPpointedtothispositionassMlTH',s
newsupervisor.
aboutKaiser'sfailingto perfprmits legal
complaints
43. Followingplaintift'scontinuing
at and duringPlaintiffs holi{ay partyin
underthe sNp and czucc programs,
obligations
because
with herthattheywereveryuncomfortable
shared
of 2008,Ptaintiffsmanagers
December
Plaintiffsferformance'
SMITIJhadbeenaskingeachof themto cometo heroffrceanddiscuss
andtheyfelt shewastryingto gefthemto say
SMITHwasaskingleadingandnegativequestions
negativeremarksabout Plaintiff'
her team co{nPletea Hay
44. In or aroundearly 2009, SMITH requestedthat everyoneon
employeeis bein$promotedin
360 degreeevaluation. A Hay 360 evaluationtakesplacewhenan
personnelbelow, at thp samelevel'
an organization.The Hay 360 evaluationinvolvesa queryof
with Ms' Woflen and Ms'
and abovethe personbeing evaluated, Plaintitf continuedto meet
meetings,Plaintiff sharedherponcernsthat
Mclain separatelyduringthis time. During separate
that SMITI{ intendedto fire Plaintiff' Bot(rMs' Mclain
rumorsweregoingaroundthe department
t2
3 Filedo2lL3lL2 USDCColoradoPage 15 of 31
Document
case 1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
Plaintiffthat SMITHwouldnot fire her' Despitetheir
andMs. Woilenassured
dishonesty
dueto SMITH'srepeated
with thesituation
Plaintiffwasnoicomfortable
her
worls
for
resources
to follow throughon necessary
own behaviorandunwillingness
whom are
Plaintiff sharedsome of theseconcernswith Ms' Mclain and Ms' Wollen, both
executiveleaders.
for NCQA
in a mockFederal
45. ln or aroundspring2009,Plaintiffparticipated
. Inrs
by SMITH's
whichwasprepared
(National
Committee
for QualityAssurance),
auditconcemedthe CorirplexCareInitiative, a federallyfundedprogramthat Kaiser
in.
icipated
During this meeting,Plaintiff presenteda solutionto the identifiedpopulation
the auditor
approved of and shareil this with SMITH, This solution involved targeting
appropriate
Plaintiff
thismeeting,
Fotlowing
population
thatwouldmeedtheNCQAstandards,
withDr.
MichaelRaggio,the physicianlead for Quality,includingNCQA, for Kaiser' Al
SMITH
agreedwith this solution,shewas unwilling to addany staff to effectuateyour
of 2009with SMITH
metin theSpringor earlySummer
46. Plaintill'later
by Kaiserto
resources
andneedfor additional
withhertheNCQAconserns
fundedSNPand CRICCprogramsandtheNCQA initiatives, Kaiserthrcugh
discussed
the federally
was not
supportiveof providing additionalresourcesdespitethe shorttime frame they had be re the actual
audit. Concernedaboutfraud againststateand federalgovernmenthealthcare
took theseconcernsand the potentialrisks to the highestlevelsof Kaiser
Plaintiff
, goingto
Ms. Wollen,Mr, Kerry Kohnen,and Ginny
threeof Kaiser'sVice Presidents:
Lain (Vice
thego
usedtheterm'fraud'against
of Operations).Plaintiffspecifically
President
when
to theseexecutives.
speaking
47. During this same time, Plaintiff received her results from the Ha 360 degree
fromMs. MargaretTumerfromHumanResources.Plaintiffsresults
evaluation
in fact she was told by Kaiser HR consultantMargaretTumer that it was the hi
I3
verygood;
she had ever
M'MEhl Document3 FiledO2tL3lL2USDCColorado
Case l-:l-2-cv-00382-WJ
16 of 31
goalto "improve[Plai
personal
wasto workon Plaintifes
seen. Theonlysuggestion
recognitionofher skills as a greatleader"'
advi .byhuman
48. Fromlate2008throughupto early2009,Plaintiffwascontinuously
PlaintiffhadaboutSMITH uestioning
to applyfor FMLA for herson,dueto concerns
resources
for Elijah.Elijahmetall criteriafor FMLA, andPlaintiff
her aboutappointments
granted
made severalcommentsto Plaintiff
l2-month intermittentleave of absence, SMITH had also
and was
plaintiffappried
for FMLA for herselfas
of this,
aboutherownhearth.Because
FMLA withina monthof thefirstFMLA' Up
for 12monthsintermittent
approved
the factthat
Plaintiffhadbeenvery openwith SMITHaboutherhealth,including
thispoint,
had been
flu
intravenous
on multipleoccasionsdueto medicalconditions,requiring
dehydrated
d by Vice
49,InSummer200g,PlaintilTwasperformingsowel|thatshewasselec
Lynne,
of theKaiserHealthPlanc'E'o"
Dr, Dalevarnerat therecommendation
President
presentcarecoordi
to representHEalthPlan on a trip to the united Kingdomto
prograrnsin the colorado region, PlaintiffnotifiedsMITH of this'
containment
and cost
clinicatstaffforthenewlyfunded
50. In Fall2009,all Kaiserapproved
aboutthe lackof clinicalstaffnecessary implement
(CzuCC)wasin placeandthe concerns
analytical
additional
needed
with SMITH. Theprogram
cRlcc werediscussed
by the state. SMITH mentionedthat she
continuousreportingrequirements
divertingthe fundingto anothermanagerin her department.Plaintiff responded
think that wasallowablesincethe statewaspayingfor the full+ime employees
used for the Medicaid work.
After confening with the Kaiser Medicaid
StephanieDenning,Plaintiff and Denningagreedthat Medicaid funding could
work with Kaiserandwasintendedto fund work for Medicaid
supportgeneralized
programs, Plaintiff sharedthis informationin an email witlr the managertn
dueto the
considering
shedid not
to be
I lead,
be usedto
and
and with
to Plaintiff,telling her shedid not be ievethatthis
SMITH, SMITH sentout a very hostileresponse
l4
Page17 of 31
M-MEH Document3 FiledQ2lL3lL2 USDCColorado
Case l,:1-2-cv-00382-WJ
wastrue,but couldnot provideinformarionfrom
thestateto veri$ theiragreementfor theirfunding
to be usedfor otherKaiserinitiatives'
workingin the LegacyHighlandbuilding
on oneoccasionin early2009,Plaintiff was
office and shutthe door' Shesharedwith
when SMITH's administrativeassistantoameinto her
going through, that she had seen many of
Plaintiff that she was sorry for what Plaintiff was
to orhErpeople' and describedsMITH's
sMITH's emails and how she talked about Plaintiff
assistant
,,witchhunt"to destroyPlainriff. PlaintifTwasstunned' The administrative
behaviorasa
talkedaboutplaintiffs son,quotingthatshehad
arsosharedrhatshewas sorryfor theway sMTH
rhatshewas "so tired of hearingabout[her]
heardsMITH say to Beth Martin (a peeranda friend)
5l,
son''
handicapped
had an appointmentfor her son' SMITH
52, on or about September30,2009,P|aintiff
shewas at children'sHospitalwith
a faceto facemeetingwith Plaintif4who explained
requested
meetingaftercompletinghis appointrnent'
her son. SMITH told Ptaintiff to bring her son to lhe
of
to agree' Because
with doingthis,shefelt pressured
AlthoughPlaintiff wasvery uncomfortabie
hasa very shortattentionspan'In addition'
his cerebralpalsy,Plainriffs sonis easitydistracledand
to opportunisticinfectionswhen in the
he is susceptible
becauseElihah is immunocompromised,
or a groupof people.SMITH wasawareof theselimitations'
presence
of a strangers
53.onoraboutoctoberl,2009,SMTHhaddecidedrohaveanoff.sitemeetingforher
for
a multi-disciplinaryappointment
reamar sMITH's house. Prior ro rhis,Plaintiffhadscheduled
which is approximatelyan hour from
Elijah and three therapistsat Children'sHospitalNorth,
to
dueto the numberof therapists'was exlremelydifficult
SMITH's home. Elijah'sappointment,
beenscheduledprior to SMITH's
schedule,had taken about a. month to be scheduledand had
assistantimmediately
meeting, when sMITH scheduledthe meeting,Plaintiffs administrative
shereceivedthis' andPlaintiff
declined,dueto Elijah'sappointment, SMITH calledPlaintiffwhen
very importantto her and requested
had to explainthe situation. SMITH saidthis meetingwas
l5
Page1-8of 3L
3 FiledO2lL3lL2 USDCColorado
Document
H
E
M-M
Case 1-:12-cv-00382-WJ
but
had to dectine'given the circumslances'
go to SMITH's afterwards'
meetingsearlierso that shecould
offeredto seeif they could startthe
Plaintifffor makingthe
lunchhours') SMITH thanked
on
their
meeting
all
wer€
(The therapists
for the therapistsat her son'smulti'disciplinary
agreements
effort. Plaintiff not only acquired
to get
attendso thatshecouldleaveearly
husband
her
had
also
but
early,
hour
half
a
meetingto stalt
twice during her
efforts,SMITH still oallerlPlaintiff
to sMITH's meeting, Despiteall of these
meetingaskingherwhereshewas'
son'srnulti-disciptinary
her severe
virus duringthe Fall of 2009' Due to
54. Plaintiff becameill with the HtNl
andshewasseenin the emergency
her physicalconditionbecamedebilitating'
respiratorydisease,
joumeyingto
This prohibitedPlaintiff from
and advisedto stay hometo recuperate'
department
Elijah's appointment'Plaintiff
plaintiff reschedule
Englandon a previoustyplannedKaiserassignmenL
55'PriortoNovemberof200g,becauseofhermedica|conditionandthecomplex
Ptaintiffput in an applicationfor intermittent
problemsinvolvedin taking careof her son,Elijah,
in
felt it was necessaryto havea formal FMLA
FMLA leavefor both her and her son' Ptaintiff
from sMITH to compromiseher own mEdical
plaoebecauseshe was getting increasingpressure
demands'SMITH told Plaintiff that she was not
careand her son,scarebecauseSMITH,swork
JanetPerry,informedthe
assistant,
happywith this FMLA application.SMITH'S administrative
utilized her
plaintiff that sMITH had requestedthat she keep track of times that Plaintiff
notifyherimmediatelyof anytimesthatPlaintiff
intermittentFMLA leavefor her or for hersonand
hadto leavework'
56. On or aboutNovember6,20QI,SMITH had
a meetingwith Plaintiff in her office and
meeting,during which SMITH informed
includedMargaretTumer from HR. This wasa one-hour
felt shewas
plaintiffthat her performancewas concerning,leadershipthroughgutthe organization
and shewas not a teamplayer' amongst
not performingwell, shetalked too mushabouther famity,
plaintiff that she would be putting her on a performance
other negativeremarks. she informed
l6
of 31FiledO2lL3lL2USDCColoradoPage19
3
Document
EH
M-M
12'cv-00382-WJ
1:
Case
andfelt at this
shockedat this suddenturn of events'
improvementplan. Plaintiff wascompletely
andher
her applyingfor FMLA leave for herself
point in time that SMITH',shostilitywas due to
the sNP and
to Kaiser'sfailure to adequatelyfund
son,8s well as Plaintiffs vocal objections
CRICCPrograms.
a faceto face meelingrvith Plaintiff'
57. In or aboutDecember2009, SMITH requested
phrasessuchas "[I am] red hot',o"so angry[]
Duringthis meeting,SMITH was livid. she USed
employee"'etc' Three times she accused
couldn'tspeaktO [her]," "neverbeenangrierwith an
God sakes'Jeryl' you are on an actionplan"'
Plaintiffof "insubordination."SMITH stated,"For
havingpermittedsupervisorsworking
The purportedreasonfor SMITH's outburstthat Plaintiffs
ar an off-sitemeeting' Plaintiff immediately
underher to buy lunchesfor their respectivestaffs
lunches,and was not evenawareofit
explainedthat shedid not approvethe purchasingofthose
her administrativeassistanthad made those
until she anived al the off-site and realized that
Plaintitf of "lying in frontof
purchases
and deliverieswithouther authorization-SMITH ascused
with her administrativeassistant
200 people,,,whichplaintiff deniedand said shecould validate
Plaintiffs insistencethatshe
Ms. DonnaVaughn-King. sMITI-l continuedto be angry,despite
end,SMITH orderedPlaintiffto ( | )
wasunawareof andhadnothingto do with thelunches. In the
policy wherebyher staff may not
instructMs. King to apologizeto JanetPerry;(2) initiatea new
decisionsto
purchaselunch without her direct approval;(3) discussthe ramificationsof the
went; and (4)
purchaselunch with her staff and repo( back to SMITH on how the discussion
for their staff and for allowing
apologizeto SMITH,s otherdirect reportswho did not buy lunch
demands'
Plaintiffs staff to buy lunch. Plaintiffcompliedwith all of SMITH's
Plaintiff met with Dr'
5g. At approximatetythe sametimq in or aboutDecember2009,
long discussionabout
Glen Gade,who was the physicianleadfor the SNP program. They had a
ancihis fearthat
for SNP reimbursement
Dr. Gade,sconcemsregardingmeetingthe requirements
alsoPlaintiffs
theprogramwas setup to fail. PlaintiffconveyedDr. Gatle'sconcerns'which were
l7
M-MEH Document3 Filedo2lL3tL2 USDCColorado Page20 of 31
Case1:12-cv-00382'WJ
SurnanGraber' Kaiset'sVice
concems,to SMITH, as well as Kaiset'sregulaforysupervisor
Joni McGuire'
NancyWollen andKaiser'sManagerof theSpecialNeedsProgram'
President
to me€t' either
59. FromNovember2009ro January2010,SMITH andPlaintiff continued
improvementplarl SMITH
by phoneor in-person- on a weeklybasis' As partof herperformance
which wasapproximately
insisredrhatplaintiffmove heroffice to theLegacyHighlandsbuilding,
This move madecarefor her son
45 minutesfrom Plaintiff s currentoffrce andalsofrom her son.
for
home' and it wasnecessary
extremelydiffrcult, ashe wasreceivingthempytwice nearPlaintiffs
this but SMITH insisted'
Plaintiff to attendthesesessions,Plaintiff sharedher concernsover
plaintiffcornpliedandoften foundthat otherstaffmemberslookedfor her "to makesureshewasat
providedtoherand she
Legacy.' AlthoughSMITH insistedPlaintiffmove,therewas no office
usuallyhad to bonow a spaceto setup hercomputer'
coachfor Plaintiff,PatrickHeiser' Mr' Heiser
60. SMITH alsoarrangedfor a professional
aboutmany
goalsandhavingdiscussions
andPlaintiffmerthroughoutthis time period,establishing
thattheperformanceplan sMITH wastryingto
topics. Plaintiff sharedher ooncerns
professional
at the end of
implementdid not haveobjectivegoalsand was not surehow she could document
Plaintiff to challengeSMITH and ask
threemonthsthat shehad met them. Mr. Heiserencouraged
to
andto speakup abouther issues,includingher concernsaboulbeingable
the ,,toughquestionsD
her son'soare'
useher FMLA leaveto accommodate
calledher
61. On or aboutJanuary21, 2010,Plaintiffssonwokeup vomiting, Plaintiff
ro norify SMITH that shewouldbe late for her meeting. Plaintiffmade
administrativeassisranr
andin
for sick child careandanivedat themeelingonehour late. After themeeling,
arrangements
Plaintiff on her tardinessfor the meeting'
the presenceof Ms. Sue Schriner,SMITH questioned
plaintiff explainedthat she had askedher administrativeassistantto leave word. SMITH stated
andPlaintiffpromisedto follow up on miscommunicalions'
shenevergot the message,
l8
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
Document
3 Filed02lL3lL2 USDCColoradoPage21 of 31
62. On or aboutFebruaryl, 2010,SMITH calledPlaintiff and was very frustrated,She
stated that Plaintiffs input for her (Plaintifl's) staff evaluationswas incomplete. Plaintiff
explainedthatshewasnot awareofthe levelof detailthatSMITH wasaskingfor and,perSMITI-I's
requesl,would makeit a priorityandhaveit to SMITH by theendof theday. Plaintiffclearedher
calendarand spentall day gettingthe datatogetherthat SMITH required.Howeverthis caused
Plaintiffto missa meetingwith SMITH. SMITH thenexpressed
her displeasurewith Plaintifffor
missingthe rneeting.
63. On or aboutFebruary10,2010,SMITH and Plaintiff discussedin detail an apparent
miscommunication
betweenPlaintiffand Ms, SueSchreiner.Plaintiffwas surpriserlat how much
SMITH knew abouttheconversation,
sinceMs, Schreiner
hadsaidit wasconfidentialandtheemail
which Plaintiff had written in an attemptto work on "courageous
conversation"(asencouraged
by
her coach)had beensentconfidentially. Clearly,SMITH had-r,ea*wasaccessingPlaintiffs and
Ms. Schreiner's
confidentialemail at this point in time.
64, SMITH continuedto try to find purportedexamplesof under-performance
by Plaintiff.
On or aboutFebruaryI l, 2010,SMITH trackedPlaintiffdown,attemptingto requestexplanations
for the evaluationsPlaintiff gaveto her staff,who received"exceeds"on the evaluations.
SMITH
felt the evaluationswere inappropriate.
Plaintiff hadcompletedtheseevaluationsin the samethat
SMITH had always previously required,llowever, SMITH was now adding an additional
requirementPlaintiff had neverseenbefore,which was to supply specific datato substantiate
each
of the staff member'sgoalsthat had beenmet. Perthis request,Ptaintiffpreparedan explanation
for SMITH. Nonetheless,
SMI'I'Hstill insistedto Plaintiffthatthetaskwas incomplete. Plaintiff
pointedout to SMITH that she had never requiredthis level of documentarionand SMITH
reluctantlyagreed.
65. In or aboutMarch 2010, Plaintiff was refenedto an atlergydesensitization
program
that requiredher to have9 to I I differentappointments
one week in the observationroom in the
l9
3 FiledO2lL3lL2USDCColoradoPage22 ot 3L
Document
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
allergy departnentin Kaiser'sRock Creekfacility, which is one hour away from the Legacy
Highlandsbuilding where SMITH and Ptaintiffs offtces were located. Appointmentswere
to vary in length and could lastup to 3 hourseach. Plaintiff sharedthis information,
scheduled
includingappointmenttimes, during her staff meetingwith SMITII and her physicianpartner.
Althoughtheseappointmentswere cover€dby Plaintiffs FMLA leave,SMITH's hostility to this
requestfor accommodationwas evidencedby a banage of hostile questions.Despite the
notification,SMITH neverthelessinsistpdon multiple occasionsthat Plaintiff attendeither by
at the allergy
duringthis time, This madeattendance
phoneor in personthe meetingsscheduled
desensitization
appointmentsvery difficult for thePlaintiff,
66. Multiple individuals went to Plaintitf to express their concernsfor Plaintiffs
emptoymentpredicament. Rumorsweregoingthroughthe department,includingthe fact that she
wason a performanceplan=
67. Duringa meetingwith SMITH,SMITH statedshewas liustratedthatPlaintiffhadbeen
seencryingin heroffrcewith her offrcedoorclosed, SMITH specificallystatedthat shehasasked
Plaintiffnotto haveher door closedunlessabsolutelynecessary,Plaintiff told SMITH that when
sheis tearful,sheshutsher door so otherswon'tseeherandknow sheis upset, SMITH agreedthat
Plaintiffcouldshuther door at that time, Duringthis samemeeting,SMITH askedFlaintiff aboul
shehad siheduled. Plaintiffwassurprisedat this inquiry,asshenevertotd
a cardiacappointment
SMITH about this. Apparently, SMITH was either accessingPlaintiffs medical records or
inquiringof anotheremployeeor a Kaiserphysician,
an extrahalf hourto meelwith SMII'H
68. On or aboutMarch I 5, 2010,Plaintiffrequested
duringtheir regularlyscheduledtime. Plaintiffhadbeenreceivinginformationthat SMITH was
planningon firing her and that this hadbeendiscussed
in emails. Plaintitf askedSMITH, "Do you
I don't."
I do wantyou to leaveandsometimes
wantme to leave?' SMITH responded,
"sometimgs
The meetingscontinuedwith very opendiscussion
aboutthe working relationship,ctc. Plaintiff
20
bocument3 Filed02lL3lLZUSDCColoradoPage23 of 3L
CaseL:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
thar
shelovedherwork andshe
alsotold SMITH thateventhoughtheyhavehadproblems,
ntiffstated
theyhad in prior years'
lhe two of themcouldgetbackto the workingrelationship
to staywith $MITH in her currentrole.
that it wouldbe her preference
with Tom c
6g,on or abourAprit 6, 2010,Plaintiffhada conveNation
from the
Medicaiddepartmentat Kaiser. They discussedPlaintiff going to work for Mr.
asa
clinical Directorfor Medicaid. They wereboth very excitedaboutthe potential'
. Cunigan
stated,"l know Linda will be angry but this will be very goodfor my departmenl'"
agreedto
put togethera businessplanlo put this into place'
70.Theverynexrday,April 7,2010,SMITHandPlaintiffhadan early
After arriving at SMITH's office, SMITH informedPlaintiff that lhey were going t meelin the
department, When they got there'SMITH left and said she was ing to get
HumanResources
DirectorKardell Websterto join them.OnceMr. Websterarrived,
HumanResources
thedoor and stated,"You askedme whenwe met onceif I wantedyou lo leaveand I
ITH shut
decided
thal I do," Mr, WebstErthen passedout a copy of a documentthat was called
"volunlary
resignalion," Mr. Websterwent over thedocument,pointingout a markingindicati
is
Plaintiff
"ineligiblefor rehire." Mr. WebsterthencollectedPlaintiffsbadge,BlackBerr)'and P-card,
wasrnadefor her to
of herlaptop,soanappointrnent
Plaintiffwasnot in possession
thisitem.
There was a brief discussionabout how her staff would be notified, and Plai
requested
permissionto sendan emailsayinggoodbye,which SMITH loudly answered,"No'" SMITH said
shewould composerhe email, and she promptlyIeft the room. When Plaintiff
at the very highestlevels
Mr. Webstersaid,"Thishasbeendiscussed
Webster,
thatyou havedoneverygoodworkat Kaiserandthatyou
Everyoneacknowledges
savedthe
companya greatdeal of money."Mr. Webstertold Plaintiff she had done nothi
wrong.The
documenthe askedher to sign includeda completereleaseof all claims and o
six months'
for this.
compensation
zt
3 FiledOZlL3lL2USDCColoradoPage24 of 31
Document
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
I
that her administrative
t f . Plaintiff left at that point. She requested
everythingand did not pack anythinghenelf. She had a brief meetingwith Mr'
coach,whowasvery surprisedto hearthatshehadbeenterminated.
FIRSTCAUSEOF ACTION
INTERFERENCEWITE FMLA
l)
(29U.S.c'$2615(aX
t);29c'F.R'S82s'220(aX
LLC,KAISERFOLNDATION
FEDERATION,
(Againsr
THEPERMANENTE
TH PLAN,
SMITH,andDOESl'l
HOSPITALS,
INC.,KAISERFOLINDATION
I through7l of theComplaint if thesame
Paragraphs
andrealleges
72. Plaintiffrepeats
werefulty setforth hereinandwith thesamefull forceandeffect.
by the
covered
heretoan employee
73. Plaintiffwasat all timesmaterial
LeaveAct ('FMLA').
Plaintiff workedat a worksitewhere Defendants
ily Medical
50 or more
in
within 75 miles duringeachof 20 or moresalendarwork-weeks
employees
currentor
for at leastl2 months.Plaintiff
year. Plaintiffworkedfor Defendants
preceding
edat least
of leave'
thecommencement
preceding
I 250hoursof serviceduringthe I 2 months
wereat all timesmaterialheretoan employerwithin the
74. Defendants
FamilyMedicatLeaveAct and,as such,banedfrom interferingwith Plaintiffs right
of the
takeleave.
75. Underthe FMLA, an employeeis entitledto takefull or intermittentlea
interferedwith Plaintiffs exerci
76. As fully describedabove,Defendants
her rights
and/ordenyingPlaintiffs
interfering,
restraining,
underFMLA by discouraging,
of her full
leaveasdefu:edby 29U.S.C.526l5(a)(l); 29 C'F.R.$825.220(a|), (b).
and/orintermittent
againstPlaintiff,Plaintiff
77. As a proximaleresultof Defendants'astions
sufferedand
andotheremploymenlandreti
continuesto suffersubstantiallossesin earnings,
and
beneflrts
humiliationand mental
has suffercdand continuesto suffer embanassment,
all to her
damagein an amountaccordingto proof,
22
3 FiledO2lL3lL2USDCColorado
Document
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJM'MEH
25 of 3L
actsas allegedherei4Plaintiffis entitled Iiquidated
78, As a resultof Defendants'
pursuant
to 29U.S.C.2617(a)(l xAxiii); 29 c'F.R'825'400(c)'
damages
Plaintiffis entitled reasonable
herein,
as alleged
79. As a resultof Defendants'acts
29 C.F'R'
by 29 U'S.C.52617(aX3);
suitasprovided
feesandcostsof said.
attomeys'
asallegedherein,Plaintiffis entitledto
80, As a resultof Defendants'acts
,a000),
on her
29 C.F,R.,S 825'400(c)'
pursuant
to 29 U.S.C.,2617(a)(lXA)(iXll);
damages
8l .
actsas allegedherein,Plaintiff is entitledto i
As a resultof Defendants'
C.F'R',S 825'400(c)'
pursuant
to 29 U.S.C.,2617(a)(l)(e)(i)(ll);29
damages
g2, As a resultof Defendants'actsas allegedherein,Plaintiff is entitledto
nstatement
C.F'R.,$ 825.a00(c)'
pursuant
to 29 U.S.C.,2617(a)(l)(B);29
SECONDCAUSEOF'ACTION
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OT'FMLA
(3),(c))
(29U.S.c'526ls(a)(2);29
C.F'R.S825'220(a)(2)'
LLC,KAISERFOLINDATION
FEDERATION,
(Againsr
TIJEPERMANENTE
TH PLAN,
SMITH,andDOESl-t0)
HOSPITALS,
INC.,KAISERFOLINDATION
I through82 of ths Complaint if thesame
83. Plaintiffrepeatsandreallegesparagraphs
werefutly sel forth hereinandwith the samefull forceandeffect'
84. Plainliff was at all timesmaterialheretoan employeecoveredby the F
LeaveAct.
employed50 or
Plaintiff worked at a worksitewhereDefendants
within 75 milesduringeachof 20 or morecalendarwork-weeksin thecurrentor
for at leastl2 months. Plaintiffworkedat
year. Plaintiffworkedfor Defendants
ly Medical
employees
calendar
I250hours
of leave,
of serviceduringthe l2 monthsprecedingthecommencement
wereat all timesmaterialheretoan employerwithin the
85, Defendants
Family MedicalLeaveAct and,assuch,banedf'romretaliatingagainstPlaintiff for
FMLA rights.
23
of thethe
isingher
3 FiledOzt]'gl].zUSDCColoradoPage26 of 31
M-MEH Document
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJ
her
of herson,Plaintiffexercised
healthcondition
86. As a resultof a serious
for takingleave'
leaveunderFMLA,andwasterminated
herstatutorilyauthorized
persons
87, Defendantshavea pattemard practiceof retaliatingagainst
t to take
medicalleave.
in
havea faciallyneutralpolicyof non-retaliation
88. AlthoughDefendants
who
decisions,Defendants'policy hasan unfavorableimpacton thoseemployees
tn a slmllar
positionto the Plaintiff'
actionsagainstPtaintiff,Plaintiff
89, As a proximateresultof Defendants'
and
andotheremployment
in eamings,
losses
to suffersubstantial
continues
humiliationand mentalan
hassufferedand continuesto sufferembarrassment,
to proof.
in anamountaccording
damage
actsas allegedherein,Plaintiffis entitlei
90. As a resultof Defendants'
29C'F'R',$ 825'400(c)'
pursuant
to 29 U'S.C',2617(a)(l)(AXiii);
damages
ach as allegedherein,Plaintiffis entitled reasonable
91. As a resultof Def'endants'
S
feesand costsof said suit as providedby 29 U.S.C,'S 2617(aX3); c,F,R.,
attomeys'
825.400(c).
actsasallegedherein,Plaintiffis entitledto
92. As a resultof Defendants'
29C'F.R,'S 825'400(c))'
2617(a)(l)(AXiXU);
pursuant
to 29U.S.C.,
damages
plaintiffis entitledto i
hErein,
actsasalteged
93. As a resultof Defendants'
29C'F'R.,$ 825'400(c))'
2617(a)(l)(nXiXll);
pursuant
to 29U.S.C.,
damages
actsasallegedherein,Plaintiffis entitledto
94. As a resultof Defendants'
2gC.F.R.,
pursuant
2617(a)(l)(B);
S 825.a00(c)).
to 29U.S.C.,
THIRD CAUSEOFACTION
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF F'MLA
(3)'(c))
(29U.S,C.,S 26ls(aX2);
29C.F.R.,
S 825.220(a)(2),
24
27 oI 3L
3 FiledA}tL3tLZUSDCColorado
M-MEH Document
Case1:L2-cv-00382-WJ
(AgainstTHEPERMANENTEFEDERATIoN,LLc,KAISERFoUNDATIoN
P L A N , I N C , , K A I S E R F O U N D A T I O N H O S P I T A L S ' S M I T H ' a n )d D O E S l
if thesame
95.Plaintiffrepeatsandreallegesparagraphslthroughg4oftheComplaint
were fully set forth hereinand with the samefull forceand effect.
coveredby theFa
heretoanemployee
96. Plaintiffwasat all timesmaterial
LeaveAct.
Plainliff worked at a worksitewhereDefendantsemployed50
or
in thecurrentor
work'weeks
within75milesduringeachof 20or morecalendar
for at least12monthi. Plaintiffworkedal
year. Plaintiffworkedfor Def'endants
of leave'
thecommencement
of serviceduringthe12monthspreceding
withinthe
heretoanemployer
g7. Defendants
wereatall timesmaterial
Plaintifffor
agairtst
FamilyMedicalLeaveAct and,assuch,barredfromretaliating
Medical
employees
calendar
1250hours
of the the
isingher
FMLA rights.
Plaintiffe
healthcondition,
98. As a resultof Ptaintiffsownserious
for taking
leaveunderFMLA,andwasterminated
takeherstatutoillyautborized
herrightto
gg. Defendantshave a patteln and practitn of retaliatingagainst persons
medicalleave.
in
100. Moreover, f)efenclants'facialty neufal policy of non-retaliation
who arein a similar positior
decisionshasan unfavorableimpacton thoseemployees
l0l.
actionsagainstplaintift' plaintiff
As a proximateresultof Defendants'
and
andotheremployment
lossesin earnings,
to suffersubstantial
continues
bumiliation and mental angt
has suffered and continuesto suffer embarrassment,
menl
plaintiff.
and
benefitsand
all to her
damagein an amountaccordingto proof.
102. As a result of Defendants'acts as allegedherein,plaintiff is entitled
c.F.R.,S 825.400(c)).
pursuant
to 29 U.S,C.,2617(a)(lXA)(iii);29
damages
25
liquidated
28 of 31
M'MEH Document3 FiledO2lL3lL2 USDCColorado
CaseL:12-cv-00382-WJ
actsas allegedherein,plaintiffis entitledto reasonable
103. As a resultof Defendants'
c.F.R.,
s
feesand costsof sriidsuit as providedby 29 U.S,C.,$ 2617(aX3);
atrorneys,
825.400(c)).
on her
herein,plaintiffis entitledto
actsasatleged
104. As a resultof Defenclants'
c'F'R" S 825'a00(c))'
pursuant
to 29 u's'c', zotz(axrXnXiXll);29
damages
actsasallegedherein,plaintiffis entitledto i
105. As a resultof Defendants'
C'F'R"S 825'400(c))'
pursuant
to 29 U.S,C.,2617(aXlXAXiXtl);29
damages
on her
herein,plaintiffis reinstateme
actsasallegecl
106. As a resultof Defendanls'
29C.F.R.,
$ 82s'a00(c))'
261?(a)(l)(B);
29U.S.C.,
FOURTHCAUSEOF ACTION
WRONGFULTERMINATIONIN VIOLATION OF PUBLICPOLI
LLC,KAISERFOUNDATIOI'I EALTH
FEDERATION,
(Againsr
THE PERMANENTE
andDOESI'l
HOSPITALS,
PLAN,INC.,KAISERFOTNDATION
if thesame
I throughI 06 of the complaint
paragraphs
I 07. Plaintiffrepeatsandrealleges
werefully set forth herein and r,,'iththe samefull force and effect.
in and
for
108.Plaintiffas an employeeof Kaiserwas given responsibility
Program
the SpecialN
monitoringstateand federal governrnentftuded prograrns'particularly
(CNCC). P
carecollaborative
Integrated
(sNP)andthecolorado Regional
consistently
signi
complainedto her superiorsat Kaiser that, although it was receiving
amountsof
it wasnotutilizingthemoneyreceivedfrom government
government
fundsfor theseprograms,
to implemenlthe program's the use of
the programsbul insteadpretending
to implernent
administr ion that this
existingpersonnel. Plaintiff madeclearto the highestlevelsof Kaiser's
Health
policy amountedto health care fiaud. Plaintiffalso madeher concemsknown to
were awareI
Care Policy and FinancingDepartmentofficials. Kaiser officials
Plaintiff was
exposingirs fraudbothinternallyto Kaiseroflicialsandexternallyto thegovenrmen
Case1:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
Document
3 Filed02lL3lL2.USDCColoradoPage29 of 31
thatit wouldnotbudge
109.KaisertoldPlaintiffonmorethanoneoccasion
is policyof
"resoureeneutral"treatmentof the SNP and CRICCprograms,and refused
accepther
personnel.
in thediversionof
recommendation
for additional
Thisresulted
fundsfrom
purpose
in theSN
theirintended
useandthefailureto usethefundsfor theirintended
CRICC
programs.
Plaintiffbecause
to andrefused
to comply
I I 0. Kaiserdischarged
sheobjeoted
itspolioy
of t'ailingto frrndthe SNP and CNCC prograrmand insteadusingfundsrecei
from the
governmentfor day-to-dayoperations.
suffered
of Plaintiffsemployment,
I I l. As a resultof Defendants'
illegaltermination
pastandfuture,lossof eaming
damages,
economic
includinglossof eamings
, lossof
employeebenefits,including health insuranceand otherbenefits,and has suffered
damages
includingemotional
distress,
insultto dignityandhumiliation.
FIFTH CAUSEOF ACTION
WR0NGFULTERMTNATIONrN VTOLATTON
OF 3l U.S.C.A.$
(AgainstTHEPERMANENTE
LLC,KAISERFOLTNDATION
FEDERATION,
PLAN,INC.,KAISERFOUNDA]]ONHOSPITALS,
SMITH,andDOES l 0 )
ll2. Plaintiffrepeatsand
reallegesparagraphs
l ttuoughI ll ofthe Complaint if thesame
were fully setforth hereinand with the samefull force andeffect,
| 13.As statedherein,Plaintiff,duringthecourse
andscopeof heremployment,
complainedto Defbndantsabouttheir divenion of federalfundsprovidedto Kaiser
NeedsProgramto Kaiser'snormalday to day activities. Plaintiff madeit clearto
stently
the Special
offrcials
that, by not using the firnds to provide fbr additionalernployeesto provide care
patients
as
requiredby the SpeoialNeedsProgram,Defendants
werecommittinghealthcare
againstthe
United States,specifrcally,Kaiser was acceptingmoneysfrom the United States
a specific
purpose,providingcareto MedicareandMedicareAdvantagepatientseligiblefor the
lNeeds
Program,
divertingthosefundsto otheruses,andnotprovidingtheservices
the
nt was
27
3 Filedo2lL3lL2 USDCColorado
Document
case L:12-cv-00382-WJM-MEH
30 of 3l-
payingfor.
of herlawfully protectedactivity
Plaintiffbecause
I | 4. Defendantsdischarged
3l u.s.c.A.
$ 3730(h),
with the
ll5. Defendantsare thereforeliableto Plaintifffor reinstatement
for lossof employeebenefits,ingl
status,2 limesthe amountof backpay,compensation
and retirementbenefits, front pay, intereston all damages,litigation and
seniority
health
fees in
with 3l U.S.c.A.$ 3730(hX2)'
accordance
thattheCourtenterjudgmentin favor and
requests
Plaintiffrespectfully
WHEREFORE,
herfor herecon ic and
compensate
in anarnountthatwill reasonably
againsttheDefendants
attorney
andnecessary
damages,andthatthe Courtawardreasonable
non-economic
interest,togetherwith suchotherrelief,includingequitablerelief,
andprejudgment
andcosts
the Court
deemsappropriate.
PLAINTIFF'DEMANDSTHAT ALL CAUSESOF ACTION BE TRIED
201l'
dayof Decetnber,
this3Orh
submitted
Respectfully
& BENNETT,L.L.C,
CROSS
/s/ KeithF. Cross
By:
#8934
KEITHCROSS,
L.L.C.
Cross& Bennett,
108E. St.Vrain,#20
CO80903
Springs,
Colorado
Ph.:(719)633-1359
Fax:(719)633-5788
com
K cross@crossbennett,
28
JURY.
3 FiledOzlL3lLZUSDCColorado
M-MEH Document
Gase1:L2-cv-00382-WJ
ProHacVice):
(to beadmitted
Of Counsel
Esq' SBN55889
T, Mathews,
Charles
(ted@ctmesq'com)
TITE MATHEWS LAW GROUP
Suite204
2596MissionStreet,
9l108
SanMarino,Califomia
Ph.: (626)683-8291
Fax: (626)683-8295
AppearlngPro Hac Vice
Esq. SBN185216
JeffreyA. Rager,
(j eff@raeerlawoffi ses'cgm)
THE RAGERLAW FIRM
Suite304
970W. l90rhStreet,
Califomia90502
Tonance,
Ph.: (310)s27-6994
Fax: (310)527'6800
AppearingPro l{ac Vice
Plaintiffsaddress;
9441West63'dPlace
Arvada,CO 80004
29
3L of 31