Preview
• CAUSEN0~36 25 3 7 44
• ll_
TEODOZJA KORZENIOWSKI § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ _ _ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS §
AT ARLINGTON, §
JERRY L. LEWIS, §
PHILLIP D. JOHNSON, and
ANDREW J. LEVERENZ
§
§
--.
§
Defendants §
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Teodozja Korzeniewski, for her complaint against Defendants,
University of Texas at Arlington, Jerry L. Lewis, Phillip D. Johnson and Andrew J. Leverenz
would show as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff was denied equal treatment in the terms and conditions of her employment and
was ultimately terminated from her employment with Defendant, UTA because of her age, sex,
national origin and in retaliation for exercising her protected rights under statutes which provide
for equal treatment in the workplace. Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost wages,
lost prestige, emotional distress and other damages to be more fully specified in the course of
this case.
CASE LEVEL
1.01 Discovery is to be conducted under Level2 ofT.R.C.P 190.
Plaintiff's Original Complaint -Page 1
• PARTIES
•
2.01 Plaintiff, Teodozja Korzeniewski ("Plaintiff') is an individual, who is a female of Polish
natural origin and whose date ofbirth is 10116/1948.
2.02 Defendant, University of Texas at Arlington ("Defendant" or "UTA") is a Texas state
university with its principal offices located in Austin, Texas, but operating in Arlington, Texas.
and may be served by delivering a copy of this complaint and summons to the office of the
Attorney General and the President of the University of Texas at Arlington Office of the
President, 321 Davis Hall, Arlington, TX 76019.
2.03 Defendant, Jerry L. Lewis is the Vice-President for University Communications for UTA
and resides in Arlington, Texas and may be served at 2510 Canyon Ridge Ct, Arlington, TX
76006.
2.04 Defendant, Phillip D. Johnson is the Associate Vice-President for University
Communications for UTA and resides in Arlington, Texas and may be served at 1900 Morgan
Woodward Way, Arlington, TX 76006.
2.05 Defendant, Andrew J. Leverenz is the Director of On-line Communications for UTA and
resides in Arlington Texas and may be served at6206 Echo Summit Lane, Arlington, TX 76017.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
3.01 Venue is proper in Tarrant County, Texas, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code §15.002 by virtue of the fact that all or a substantial part of Plaintiff's causes of action
accrued in Tarrant County, Texas.
3.02 Plaintiff has filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and simultaneously with the Texas Human Rights Commission on July
16, 2010 and has received right to sue letters from both agencies. The instant action has been
Plaintiff's Original Complaint- Page 2
timely filed
•
within 90 days of Plaintiffs receipt of the EEOC'
•
Notice of Right to Sue and within
60 days of Texas Work Force Notice of Right to Sue letter.
FACTS
4.01 Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on or about October I, 2005 as a Web Specialist (Pay
Grade: 8, salary bracket $28,440.00 - $43,800.00). At the time of hire, Plaintiff received
assurances from Defendant that she would be reclassified as a Web Designer (Pay Grade 11,
salary range $38,892.00 - $62,232.00) after she was hired. In reliance upon these assurances,
Plaintiff left her former position and accepted employment with Defendant.
4.02 Plaintiff worked in UTA's University Communications Department. Defendants,
Leverenz and Johnson were Plaintiff's immediate supervisors. Plaintiff, Leverenz and Johnson
all reported to Lewis who was the Vice-President for University Communications. At the outset
of her employment, Leverenz and Johnson required Plaintiff to perform Web Designer functions
while being paid the lower pay grade of Web Specialist.
4.03 Defendants provided Plaintiff with business cards with the title of "Web Designer"
conspicuously stated thereon and identified Plaintiff as "Web Designer" on UTA's department
organizational chart.
4.04. Plaintiff repeatedly requested that she be reclassified to the position of Web Designer
with the commensurate salary for that position, but Defendants neglected and failed to promote
Plaintiff to this position as originally promised and continued to require her to perform projects
that required the skills of a Web Designer.
4.05. In late November or early December, 2009, Defendant announced the creation of two
new positions, one of which was "Web Developer/Senior Web Designer" (Pay Grade: 11). In
December of 2009, Plaintiff submitted a written request for reclassification to Web Designer.
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 3
4.06 Prior to the
•
announcement, Johnson began to scrutinize
•
Plaintiffs work closely in an
apparent attempt to find fault where none had previously existed. In February, 2009, while
Plaintiff was working on a project with others in the department, Johnson insisted on several
revisions prior to its completion. Although Plaintiffs role in this project was relatively minor,
Johnson continued to scrutinize Plaintiffs performance and repeatedly went back to her office to
monitor her progress and question Plaintiff about its progress.
4.07 Despite of Johnson's repeated interruptions, Plaintiff promptly implemented all of his
requested revisions as he gave them to her. Johnson nevertheless blamed Plaintiff for a "delayed
completion" and in front of other department members, Johnson chastised Plaintiff in a loud and
abusive manner with the obvious intention of intimidating and distracting her in her work
performance.
4.08 Johnson did not behave in this manner toward the other members of the department, the
majority of whom were male. Plaintiff complained to HR about Johnson's behavior towards her,
but no action was taken. Thereafter, Johnson deliberately withheld projects from Plaintiff and
thus prevented Plaintiff from demonstrating her skills as a Web Designer.
4.09 Johnson never reconciled with Plaintiff over this incident, Instead, Johnson continued to
withhold projects from Plaintiff and assign them to younger, less experienced employees in the
department. Johnson's behavior towards Plaintiff did not escape the attention of Leverenz who
observed Johnson's outburst and his withholding projects from Plaintiff for the duration of 2009
and through 2010.
4.10 In March 2010, Defendant assigned the "Web Developer/Senior Web Designer" position
to a younger male, Michael Tackett, of American origin, who was less experienced and less
qualified than Plaintiff. The Job Code to which Tackett was assigned was "9862," attributable to
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 4
the position of "Web
•
Developer" only and requiring a bachelor's
•
degree in a related field. Mr.
Tackett has no bachelor's degree, but only a two-year associate's degree. Since his assignment,
Mr. Tackett performed the same work as Plaintiff, i.e. that of a Web Designer, but at a
significantly higher pay grade than Plaintiff.
4.11 In April, 20 I 0, Plaintiff notified Defendant's Compliance Office protesting the disparate
treatment between herself and Mr. Tackett and filed a Texas Open Records Act request
pertaining to her employment.
4.12 In May 2010, Defendants, Leverenz and Johnson, with approval from Lewis gave
Plaintiff her first negative job evaluation. Plaintiff was ranked as "Needs Improvement" in all
categories in her position as a Web Specialist. Prior to this evaluation and prior to her protest to
Defendant's Compliance Office, all of Plaintiffs previous annual performance evaluations were
very positive, either "solid performer" or "exceeding expectations."
4.13 During this period, Lewis began pressuring Leverenz to provide him with negative
information about Plaintiffs performance and to record even the most insignificant events in
order to build a record against her so that she could be ultimately terminated from her
employment.
4.14 Leverenz procrastinated in providing this information because he knew that Plaintiffs
performance was exceptional and that Johnson had treated her unfairly. Leverenz also observed
that Johnson's continuing mistreatment towards Plaintiff over the past year was retaliatory. In a
memo dated April27, 2010 to Lewis, Leverenz, thinking that he would be taking another job and
no longer reporting to either Johnson or Lewis, reported that Johnson's interactions with Plaintiff
had made it extremely difficult for him to manage her. Leverenz told Lewis that he witnessed the
exchange between Johnson and Plaintiff in February 2009 and described Johnson's behavior as
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 5
both aggressive and damaging.
• •
Leverenz also reported that Johnson's actions showed a disregard
of Plaintiffs strong performance record and her willingness to work long hours in the evenings
and weekends to meet deadlines. Leverenz further stated that, under such circumstances, any
reasonable person would perceive this as a threat.
4.15 Notwithstanding this first-hand report of continuous aggressive and retaliatory behavior
by Johnson, Lewis directed Leverenz to provide information against Plaintiff in order to build a
record to document and support a decision to terminate her employment.
4.16 Leverenz then delivered to Lewis a copy of memo dated March 26, 2010 that he had
composed and issued to Plaintiff regarding a comment that she made in confidence to Leverenz
about the new Web Developer/Senior Web Designer.
4.17 Plaintiff challenged her May, 201 0 evaluation, but agreed to follow the action plan
described in it in order to keep her job.
4.18 On June 30 2010, before Plaintiff had an opportunity to complete the action plan, Plaintiff
received a "First Warning" regarding her attitude and skills. The warning required Plaintiff to
attend classes in areas in which she was already competent and had performed throughout her
career with Defendant without incident.
4.19 On July 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination based on her age, sex, national
origin and alleging retaliation, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ("EEOC'')
4.20 On September 27, 2010, Defendant issued Plaintiff a "Final Written Warning" advising
her that she was in jeopardy of losing her job if her performance did not improve. Plaintiff had
been attending the classes as they were available and working on projects to which he was
assigned. The incidents relied upon by Defendant in the final written warning were all either
subjective and without merit or had not been addressed in prior appraisals or reviews.
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 6
4.21 On October 12,
•
2010, Plaintiff responded to Defendant's
•
"Final Written Warning" and
pointed out numerous errors in Defendant's reasoning for the issuance of the warning. Plaintiff
also expressed her concern that this discipline was in retaliation for her earlier charge alleging
discrimination and requested that the warning be rescinded.
4.22 On October 20, 2010, Defendant issued Plaintiff a "Notice of Intent to Terminate" and
escorted her off the premises and required her to return her ID badge and office key. The letter
was signed by Leverenz. Johnson and Lewis were copied on this correspondence.
4.23 Plaintiff was notified in letter dated October 25, 2010 that she was effectively terminated
from employment on October 20,2010.
4.24 Plaintiff timely appealed her termination through the UTA's internal procedures and
requested a hearing before UTA's Appeal Board. Plaintiff learned that the hearing was to be
chaired by Lewis, who was clearly not an impartial witness, since he was the decision-maker in
the termination. Plaintiff protested Lewis' acting as hearing officer, but Lewis remained in the
position as hearing officer.
4.25 Defendants, Johnson and Leverenz testified at the appeal hearing and knowingly gave
false testimony in order to uphold Plaintiffs termination. Johnson would not deny that he had
withheld work projects from Plaintiff.
4.26 Leverenz at firstadmitted to observing Johnson's behavior towards Plaintiff and further
admitted that he had e-mailed a memo to Lewis who was pressuring him to prepare a record to
be used against Plaintiff. Leverenz then changed his testimony during the hearing and
contradicted his earlier memo and denying that he had observed the incident between Plaintiff
and Johnson or the hostility between Johnson and thereafter justified Johnson's decision to
withhold assignments from plaintiff.
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 7
4.27 The testimony by
•
Leverenz and Johnson and Lewis' role
•as hearing officer made the
appeal process a one-sided sham and deprived Plaintiff of any meaningful review of the
termination decision.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count One
Age Discrimination
Under the Texas Labor Code
5.01 Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous allegations as though fully set forth
herein.
5.02 Plaintiff is an employee entitled to protection under the under the Texas labor Code being
over the age of 40.
5.03 Defendant, UTA, is an employer within the meaning ofthe Texas Labor Code.
5.04 Plaintiff is a victim of age discrimination because she was denied a promotion and
reclassification into a position for which she was qualified and had been promised that was given
to a younger, less experienced and less qualified employee.
5.06 Defendant's age discrimination against Plaintiffwas intentional. Accordingly, Plaintiff is
entitled to recover damages from Defendant for back pay, front pay Under the Texas Labor Code
and under the Texas Labor Code other past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and
suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses. Further,
Defendant's discrimination was carried out with malice or with reckless indifference to the
plaintiffs federally protected rights. Plaintiff is therefore also entitled to recover liquidated
damages.
5.07 Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 8
• Count Two
•
Sex and National Origin Discrimination
Under Texas Labor Code
6.01 The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
6.02 Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of the Texas Labor Code and is entitled to
protection against sex and national origin discrimination based on her gender (female) and her
national origin (Polish).
6.03 Defendant, UTA is an employer within the meaning of the Texas Labor Code.
6.04 Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff because of her gender and
national origin in violation of the Texas Labor Code by assigning the position of Web
Developer/Senior Web Designer, a higher paid position to younger, less qualified and less
experienced male who is not within any protected class. In doing so, Defendants denied Plaintiff
the opportunity to be promoted or reclassified into the position of Web Designer for which she
was qualified.
6.05 From January 2010 until her termination, Plaintiff performed the same work and held the
same responsibilities as the younger, less experienced male employee, who was hired to perform
the function of Web Developer/Senior Web Designer. However, Plaintiff was paid significantly
less.
6.06 Defendants' discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff was based on her sex and national
origin was intentional. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant for
back pay, front pay, past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering,
inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses
6.07 Plaintiff protested this discrepancy to Defendant on numerous occasions, but Defendant
neglected and refused to remedy the discrepancy and continued to pay Tackett a higher salary.
6.09 Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 9
• Count Three
•
Retaliation in Violation of
Texas Labor Code
7.01 Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
herein.
7.02 By July 16,2010, Plaintiff had protested to Defendants the unequal treatment regarding
her assignment, filed a request under the Texas Public records act and filed a charge of
discrimination with the EEOC protesting discrimination in employment based on her age, gender
and national origin. Plaintiff also notified Defendant's Office of Compliance protesting the
disparate treatment irregularity in her department regarding her assignment, salary and the
assignment of a lesser experienced individual being paid at a higher pay grade but performing
the same work.
7.03 Plaintiff also pointed out disparate treatment and payment and assignments which were
known to her supervisor, Leverenz, who knowingly allowed Johnson's retaliatory behavior to
continue unabated.
7.04 Lewis encouraged this conspiracy and used his influence and authority to pressure
Leverenz into documenting a case against Plaintiff in order to build a record that could be used
to falsely justify her termination of employment.
7.05 Lewis misrepresented his role as an impartial hearing officer by electing to chair
Plaintiffs appeal board hearing and thereby disregard relevant evidence having already decided
in advance to terminate Plaintiff which was motivated by a discriminatory and retaliatory motive.
7.06 Defendants knowingly and willfully retaliated against Plaintiff by giving her adverse
employment appraisals, disciplining her and ultimately terminating her employment on October
20, 2010.
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 10
7.07 Defendants
•
intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff for
•
exercising her legally protected
rights under the Texas Labor Code.
7.08 Defendants, by their actions, violated the Texas Labor Code by unlawfully retaliating
against Plaintiff because of her opposition to discrimination against her and her requests for
equal payment.
7.09 Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant, UTA for back pay,
front pay, past and future pecuniary losses, from all of the defendants for emotional pain and
suffering inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses. Further, this
retaliation was carried out with malice and or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs federally
protected rights. Plaintiff is therefore also entitled to recover liquidated damages under the Texas
Labor Code.
Count Four
Defamation
As to Defendants, Johnson, Leverenz and Lewis
8.01 Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
herein.
8.02 Defendants, Leverenz and Johnson knowingly made false and defamatory statements
against Plaintiff regarding her performance and her character. Specifically, Johnson and
Leverenz accused Plaintiff of poor performance, not completing assignments in a timely fashion
and being disruptive within the department.
8.03 Defendants, Leverenz and Johnson unfairly blamed Plaintiff for certain projects which
they knew were not her fault. Johnson and Leverenz communicated these faults to Lewis and
such statements were used in order to destroy her reputation and discredit her to her employer so
that she would be terminated.
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 11
8.04 Lewis conspired
•
with Defendants, Leverenz and Johnson
• to build a record of false
statements regarding Plaintiffs performance in order to terminate her employment.
8.05 At the appeal hearing regarding Plaintiffs termination, Leverenz and Johnson knowingly
gave false testimony about Plaintiff and portrayed her as a poor performer and unsuitable
employee.
8.06 Lewis incorporated their statements into a final recommendation which resulted m
Plaintiffs termination and is now a permanent record in her personnel file.
8.07 Leverenz, Johnson and Lewis were acting outside of the scope of their employment when
they conspired to defame the Plaintiff and represent that Plaintiff was unfit to perform her job.
Defendants published the aforesaid statements and other slanderous and libelous statements
either knowing that they were. With heedless and reckless disregard as to whether they were
false without any factual basis.
8.08 Publication of such libelous and slanderous with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity
of the statements made constitutes actual malice on the part of the individual defendants acting
jointly and severally. In addition to the publication by defendants, defendants could reasonably
have foreseen the plaintiff would herself be compelled to disclose the libels and slanderous in
trying to defend herself when seeking future employment.
8.09 As a direct and proximate result of the individual defendants' false and libelous
statements, Plaintiff has endured shame, embarrassment, humiliation and mental emotion and
anguish. Additionally, Plaintiff is and will in the future be seriously injured in her good name
and reputation in the professional community and career. The publishing of such statements
complained of constitutes land slander and libel per se and such publications are libelous and
actionable pursuant to Section 73.00 one of the Texas civil practice and remedy code and
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 12
pursuant to, law.
•
Plaintiff therefore seeks general damages
•
against the individual plaintiff
defendants for some far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court.
Jury Demand
9.01 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all claims made herein.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that she recover the
following relief against Defendants:
I. Judgment for actual damages in the amount of past and future lost earnings and benefits;
2. Judgment for past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience,
loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses;
3. Liquidated damages;
4. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
5. An order by the Court reinstating Plaintiff as an employee with Defendant, UTA in a similar
position with similar pay and benefits to that from which she was wrongfully terminated or,
in the alternative, future lost earnings in an amount to be determined by the Court;
prejudgment and post judgment interest at the maximum legal rate, attorneys fees, all costs of
court and such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
tH
Dated this2._9 dayofJune, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
Texas State Bar No. 15241235
ROBERT E. GOODMAN, JR.
State Bar No. 08158100
Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 13
• •
Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC
3019 Carlisle Street
Dallas, TX 75204-2471
(214) 969-9099- Telephone
(214) 953-0133 -Fax
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff's Original Complaint- Page 14
KILGORE & KILGORE
LAWYERS
L \\\
k:rLt:())n: Cr'\TI R
3109 CARLISLE
DALLAS,TX 75204
TEL214.969.9099
June 29, 2011 FAX214.953.0133
W\X'W.KILGORELAW.CO:\l
Via Special Delivery
Tarrant County District Clerk
Justice Center
3'd Floor
401 W. Belknap
Fort Worth, TX 76196
Re: Teodozja Korzeniewski v. University of Texas at Arlington, Jerry L. Lewis, Phillip D.
Johnson, and Andrew J. Leverenz
Dear Clerk:
Attached please find an original and six (6) copies of Plaintiffs Original Petition, a Civil Cover
Sheet, and a check in the amount of $281.00 payable to the Tarrant County District Clerk.
Please file the Petition and issue a citation for each of the defendants. Please return the extra copy
bearing your filemark to the courier.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
~~Jh-r~~
Paralegal to Nicholas O'Kelly :::; ~
.....,
!2
_,
J>
-r:: ::D
-..,
=
'·__.J'j (._
...-~
-; -~
:::~if>
CJ N
= ~:;:-rt
~--
- !I
-;)> .D
nr~l
)> oo
c
.. z
-f
U1
N
-<
A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
CIVIL CASE INFORMA TI~N SHEET
CAUSENUMBER(FORCLERKUSEONLY)2.36 2 53 7l:. l} etml'J:(FORCLERKUSEONLY): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
STYLED le . ofT ~ tt +
t-Ji )1 -ft J1
ith v. All American Insurance Co; In re Mary Ann Jones; In the Matter of the Estate ofG
(e.g .• John rge Jackson) ,e+ 4!f J.
law,~robate,
A civil case information sheet must be completed and submitted when an original petition or application is filed to initiate a new civil, family
or mental
health case or when a post-judgment motion for modification or enforcement is filed in a family law case. The information should be the best available at the time of
filing. This sheet, approved by the Texas Judicial Council, is intended to collect infonnation that will be used for statistical purposes only. It neither replaces nor
supplements the
filings or service of plead.ing or other documents as required by law or rule. The
sheet does not constitute a discovery request, response, or
supplementation, and it is not admissible at trial.
1. Contact information for person completing case information sheet:
Names of parties in case: P.,trson or entity completing sheet is:
~Attorney for PlaintifllPetitioner
Name: Email: Plaintiff(s)!Petitioner(s): 0Pro Se PlaintifflPetitioner
Nicl1olas ft. 0' )felt"'J naa ~ ~ilgare fa£~>.
~
uu.eecd~o-z.:=l~A.-.,__ _
t/ • \.:•
0Title N-D Agency
OOther: - - - - - - - - -
Address: Telephone: J-.OY~ I 0 W$ ~
oJoq cavt is. II S+. ~r q- ?>;q -f1b:;;r Additional Parties in Child Support Case:
Defendant(s)/Respondent(s): Custodial Parent:
City/State/Zip: Fax: I!A ...:,.-."\.a,. ~.. "a.s
f}a llas/1'f./122JJl} ;>.IL\--q5 6-D\'?3 14't11YH ./_,~' ~ :~~ Non-Custodial Parent:
I ~ignatuf\ 1"\ !J)~
t::.. StateBarNo: ll- Ltw\~-~illi~l> ;.}., ... ,Irk att4t
~ ~
l5:ZLf\
1 1/~\,\J-L"""'.·_J',·. _~\.....K'Wb.l!SUl(..,~-"-"\~JXJ"'-
d..o5 "'-
r~l~~~t~~
•t • _ •• 'Z-- 'l>resiimeofather:
-----------
2. Indicate case type, or identifv the m~t important issue in the case (select onlv 1):
Civil FamilvLaw
Post-judgment Actions
Contract Iniurv or Damage Real Property Marriage Relationship (non-Title IV-D)
Debt/Contract ~Assault/Battery 0Eminent Domain! QAnnulment QEnforcement
0Consumer/DTPA Oconstruction Condemnation 0Declare Marriage Void 0Modification-Custody
0 Debt/Contract 0Defamation 0Partition Divorce 0Modification-Other
0Fraud!MisrepresentationMalpractice 0QuietTitle 0With Children Title IV-D
Oother Debt/Contract: 0 Accounting 0Trespass to Try Title 0No Children QEnforcement/Modification
0Legal Oother Property: 0Patemity
Foreclosure 0Medical 0Reciprocals (UIFSA)
0Home Equity-Expedited OOther Professional Osupport Order
Oother Foreclostrre Liability:
Related to Criminal
0Franchise
Matters Other Family Law Parent-Child Relati
Preview
• CAUSEN0~36 25 3 7 44 • ll_ TEODOZJA KORZENIOWSKI § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § § v. § § _ _ JUDICIAL DISTRICT UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS § AT ARLINGTON, § JERRY L. LEWIS, § PHILLIP D. JOHNSON, and ANDREW J. LEVERENZ § § --. § Defendants § PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Plaintiff, Teodozja Korzeniewski, for her complaint against Defendants, University of Texas at Arlington, Jerry L. Lewis, Phillip D. Johnson and Andrew J. Leverenz would show as follows: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff was denied equal treatment in the terms and conditions of her employment and was ultimately terminated from her employment with Defendant, UTA because of her age, sex, national origin and in retaliation for exercising her protected rights under statutes which provide for equal treatment in the workplace. Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost wages, lost prestige, emotional distress and other damages to be more fully specified in the course of this case. CASE LEVEL 1.01 Discovery is to be conducted under Level2 ofT.R.C.P 190. Plaintiff's Original Complaint -Page 1 • PARTIES • 2.01 Plaintiff, Teodozja Korzeniewski ("Plaintiff') is an individual, who is a female of Polish natural origin and whose date ofbirth is 10116/1948. 2.02 Defendant, University of Texas at Arlington ("Defendant" or "UTA") is a Texas state university with its principal offices located in Austin, Texas, but operating in Arlington, Texas. and may be served by delivering a copy of this complaint and summons to the office of the Attorney General and the President of the University of Texas at Arlington Office of the President, 321 Davis Hall, Arlington, TX 76019. 2.03 Defendant, Jerry L. Lewis is the Vice-President for University Communications for UTA and resides in Arlington, Texas and may be served at 2510 Canyon Ridge Ct, Arlington, TX 76006. 2.04 Defendant, Phillip D. Johnson is the Associate Vice-President for University Communications for UTA and resides in Arlington, Texas and may be served at 1900 Morgan Woodward Way, Arlington, TX 76006. 2.05 Defendant, Andrew J. Leverenz is the Director of On-line Communications for UTA and resides in Arlington Texas and may be served at6206 Echo Summit Lane, Arlington, TX 76017. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 3.01 Venue is proper in Tarrant County, Texas, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §15.002 by virtue of the fact that all or a substantial part of Plaintiff's causes of action accrued in Tarrant County, Texas. 3.02 Plaintiff has filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and simultaneously with the Texas Human Rights Commission on July 16, 2010 and has received right to sue letters from both agencies. The instant action has been Plaintiff's Original Complaint- Page 2 timely filed • within 90 days of Plaintiffs receipt of the EEOC' • Notice of Right to Sue and within 60 days of Texas Work Force Notice of Right to Sue letter. FACTS 4.01 Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on or about October I, 2005 as a Web Specialist (Pay Grade: 8, salary bracket $28,440.00 - $43,800.00). At the time of hire, Plaintiff received assurances from Defendant that she would be reclassified as a Web Designer (Pay Grade 11, salary range $38,892.00 - $62,232.00) after she was hired. In reliance upon these assurances, Plaintiff left her former position and accepted employment with Defendant. 4.02 Plaintiff worked in UTA's University Communications Department. Defendants, Leverenz and Johnson were Plaintiff's immediate supervisors. Plaintiff, Leverenz and Johnson all reported to Lewis who was the Vice-President for University Communications. At the outset of her employment, Leverenz and Johnson required Plaintiff to perform Web Designer functions while being paid the lower pay grade of Web Specialist. 4.03 Defendants provided Plaintiff with business cards with the title of "Web Designer" conspicuously stated thereon and identified Plaintiff as "Web Designer" on UTA's department organizational chart. 4.04. Plaintiff repeatedly requested that she be reclassified to the position of Web Designer with the commensurate salary for that position, but Defendants neglected and failed to promote Plaintiff to this position as originally promised and continued to require her to perform projects that required the skills of a Web Designer. 4.05. In late November or early December, 2009, Defendant announced the creation of two new positions, one of which was "Web Developer/Senior Web Designer" (Pay Grade: 11). In December of 2009, Plaintiff submitted a written request for reclassification to Web Designer. Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 3 4.06 Prior to the • announcement, Johnson began to scrutinize • Plaintiffs work closely in an apparent attempt to find fault where none had previously existed. In February, 2009, while Plaintiff was working on a project with others in the department, Johnson insisted on several revisions prior to its completion. Although Plaintiffs role in this project was relatively minor, Johnson continued to scrutinize Plaintiffs performance and repeatedly went back to her office to monitor her progress and question Plaintiff about its progress. 4.07 Despite of Johnson's repeated interruptions, Plaintiff promptly implemented all of his requested revisions as he gave them to her. Johnson nevertheless blamed Plaintiff for a "delayed completion" and in front of other department members, Johnson chastised Plaintiff in a loud and abusive manner with the obvious intention of intimidating and distracting her in her work performance. 4.08 Johnson did not behave in this manner toward the other members of the department, the majority of whom were male. Plaintiff complained to HR about Johnson's behavior towards her, but no action was taken. Thereafter, Johnson deliberately withheld projects from Plaintiff and thus prevented Plaintiff from demonstrating her skills as a Web Designer. 4.09 Johnson never reconciled with Plaintiff over this incident, Instead, Johnson continued to withhold projects from Plaintiff and assign them to younger, less experienced employees in the department. Johnson's behavior towards Plaintiff did not escape the attention of Leverenz who observed Johnson's outburst and his withholding projects from Plaintiff for the duration of 2009 and through 2010. 4.10 In March 2010, Defendant assigned the "Web Developer/Senior Web Designer" position to a younger male, Michael Tackett, of American origin, who was less experienced and less qualified than Plaintiff. The Job Code to which Tackett was assigned was "9862," attributable to Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 4 the position of "Web • Developer" only and requiring a bachelor's • degree in a related field. Mr. Tackett has no bachelor's degree, but only a two-year associate's degree. Since his assignment, Mr. Tackett performed the same work as Plaintiff, i.e. that of a Web Designer, but at a significantly higher pay grade than Plaintiff. 4.11 In April, 20 I 0, Plaintiff notified Defendant's Compliance Office protesting the disparate treatment between herself and Mr. Tackett and filed a Texas Open Records Act request pertaining to her employment. 4.12 In May 2010, Defendants, Leverenz and Johnson, with approval from Lewis gave Plaintiff her first negative job evaluation. Plaintiff was ranked as "Needs Improvement" in all categories in her position as a Web Specialist. Prior to this evaluation and prior to her protest to Defendant's Compliance Office, all of Plaintiffs previous annual performance evaluations were very positive, either "solid performer" or "exceeding expectations." 4.13 During this period, Lewis began pressuring Leverenz to provide him with negative information about Plaintiffs performance and to record even the most insignificant events in order to build a record against her so that she could be ultimately terminated from her employment. 4.14 Leverenz procrastinated in providing this information because he knew that Plaintiffs performance was exceptional and that Johnson had treated her unfairly. Leverenz also observed that Johnson's continuing mistreatment towards Plaintiff over the past year was retaliatory. In a memo dated April27, 2010 to Lewis, Leverenz, thinking that he would be taking another job and no longer reporting to either Johnson or Lewis, reported that Johnson's interactions with Plaintiff had made it extremely difficult for him to manage her. Leverenz told Lewis that he witnessed the exchange between Johnson and Plaintiff in February 2009 and described Johnson's behavior as Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 5 both aggressive and damaging. • • Leverenz also reported that Johnson's actions showed a disregard of Plaintiffs strong performance record and her willingness to work long hours in the evenings and weekends to meet deadlines. Leverenz further stated that, under such circumstances, any reasonable person would perceive this as a threat. 4.15 Notwithstanding this first-hand report of continuous aggressive and retaliatory behavior by Johnson, Lewis directed Leverenz to provide information against Plaintiff in order to build a record to document and support a decision to terminate her employment. 4.16 Leverenz then delivered to Lewis a copy of memo dated March 26, 2010 that he had composed and issued to Plaintiff regarding a comment that she made in confidence to Leverenz about the new Web Developer/Senior Web Designer. 4.17 Plaintiff challenged her May, 201 0 evaluation, but agreed to follow the action plan described in it in order to keep her job. 4.18 On June 30 2010, before Plaintiff had an opportunity to complete the action plan, Plaintiff received a "First Warning" regarding her attitude and skills. The warning required Plaintiff to attend classes in areas in which she was already competent and had performed throughout her career with Defendant without incident. 4.19 On July 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination based on her age, sex, national origin and alleging retaliation, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ("EEOC'') 4.20 On September 27, 2010, Defendant issued Plaintiff a "Final Written Warning" advising her that she was in jeopardy of losing her job if her performance did not improve. Plaintiff had been attending the classes as they were available and working on projects to which he was assigned. The incidents relied upon by Defendant in the final written warning were all either subjective and without merit or had not been addressed in prior appraisals or reviews. Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 6 4.21 On October 12, • 2010, Plaintiff responded to Defendant's • "Final Written Warning" and pointed out numerous errors in Defendant's reasoning for the issuance of the warning. Plaintiff also expressed her concern that this discipline was in retaliation for her earlier charge alleging discrimination and requested that the warning be rescinded. 4.22 On October 20, 2010, Defendant issued Plaintiff a "Notice of Intent to Terminate" and escorted her off the premises and required her to return her ID badge and office key. The letter was signed by Leverenz. Johnson and Lewis were copied on this correspondence. 4.23 Plaintiff was notified in letter dated October 25, 2010 that she was effectively terminated from employment on October 20,2010. 4.24 Plaintiff timely appealed her termination through the UTA's internal procedures and requested a hearing before UTA's Appeal Board. Plaintiff learned that the hearing was to be chaired by Lewis, who was clearly not an impartial witness, since he was the decision-maker in the termination. Plaintiff protested Lewis' acting as hearing officer, but Lewis remained in the position as hearing officer. 4.25 Defendants, Johnson and Leverenz testified at the appeal hearing and knowingly gave false testimony in order to uphold Plaintiffs termination. Johnson would not deny that he had withheld work projects from Plaintiff. 4.26 Leverenz at firstadmitted to observing Johnson's behavior towards Plaintiff and further admitted that he had e-mailed a memo to Lewis who was pressuring him to prepare a record to be used against Plaintiff. Leverenz then changed his testimony during the hearing and contradicted his earlier memo and denying that he had observed the incident between Plaintiff and Johnson or the hostility between Johnson and thereafter justified Johnson's decision to withhold assignments from plaintiff. Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 7 4.27 The testimony by • Leverenz and Johnson and Lewis' role •as hearing officer made the appeal process a one-sided sham and deprived Plaintiff of any meaningful review of the termination decision. CAUSES OF ACTION Count One Age Discrimination Under the Texas Labor Code 5.01 Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous allegations as though fully set forth herein. 5.02 Plaintiff is an employee entitled to protection under the under the Texas labor Code being over the age of 40. 5.03 Defendant, UTA, is an employer within the meaning ofthe Texas Labor Code. 5.04 Plaintiff is a victim of age discrimination because she was denied a promotion and reclassification into a position for which she was qualified and had been promised that was given to a younger, less experienced and less qualified employee. 5.06 Defendant's age discrimination against Plaintiffwas intentional. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant for back pay, front pay Under the Texas Labor Code and under the Texas Labor Code other past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses. Further, Defendant's discrimination was carried out with malice or with reckless indifference to the plaintiffs federally protected rights. Plaintiff is therefore also entitled to recover liquidated damages. 5.07 Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 8 • Count Two • Sex and National Origin Discrimination Under Texas Labor Code 6.01 The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as though fully set forth. 6.02 Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of the Texas Labor Code and is entitled to protection against sex and national origin discrimination based on her gender (female) and her national origin (Polish). 6.03 Defendant, UTA is an employer within the meaning of the Texas Labor Code. 6.04 Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff because of her gender and national origin in violation of the Texas Labor Code by assigning the position of Web Developer/Senior Web Designer, a higher paid position to younger, less qualified and less experienced male who is not within any protected class. In doing so, Defendants denied Plaintiff the opportunity to be promoted or reclassified into the position of Web Designer for which she was qualified. 6.05 From January 2010 until her termination, Plaintiff performed the same work and held the same responsibilities as the younger, less experienced male employee, who was hired to perform the function of Web Developer/Senior Web Designer. However, Plaintiff was paid significantly less. 6.06 Defendants' discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff was based on her sex and national origin was intentional. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant for back pay, front pay, past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses 6.07 Plaintiff protested this discrepancy to Defendant on numerous occasions, but Defendant neglected and refused to remedy the discrepancy and continued to pay Tackett a higher salary. 6.09 Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 9 • Count Three • Retaliation in Violation of Texas Labor Code 7.01 Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 7.02 By July 16,2010, Plaintiff had protested to Defendants the unequal treatment regarding her assignment, filed a request under the Texas Public records act and filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC protesting discrimination in employment based on her age, gender and national origin. Plaintiff also notified Defendant's Office of Compliance protesting the disparate treatment irregularity in her department regarding her assignment, salary and the assignment of a lesser experienced individual being paid at a higher pay grade but performing the same work. 7.03 Plaintiff also pointed out disparate treatment and payment and assignments which were known to her supervisor, Leverenz, who knowingly allowed Johnson's retaliatory behavior to continue unabated. 7.04 Lewis encouraged this conspiracy and used his influence and authority to pressure Leverenz into documenting a case against Plaintiff in order to build a record that could be used to falsely justify her termination of employment. 7.05 Lewis misrepresented his role as an impartial hearing officer by electing to chair Plaintiffs appeal board hearing and thereby disregard relevant evidence having already decided in advance to terminate Plaintiff which was motivated by a discriminatory and retaliatory motive. 7.06 Defendants knowingly and willfully retaliated against Plaintiff by giving her adverse employment appraisals, disciplining her and ultimately terminating her employment on October 20, 2010. Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 10 7.07 Defendants • intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff for • exercising her legally protected rights under the Texas Labor Code. 7.08 Defendants, by their actions, violated the Texas Labor Code by unlawfully retaliating against Plaintiff because of her opposition to discrimination against her and her requests for equal payment. 7.09 Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant, UTA for back pay, front pay, past and future pecuniary losses, from all of the defendants for emotional pain and suffering inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses. Further, this retaliation was carried out with malice and or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs federally protected rights. Plaintiff is therefore also entitled to recover liquidated damages under the Texas Labor Code. Count Four Defamation As to Defendants, Johnson, Leverenz and Lewis 8.01 Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 8.02 Defendants, Leverenz and Johnson knowingly made false and defamatory statements against Plaintiff regarding her performance and her character. Specifically, Johnson and Leverenz accused Plaintiff of poor performance, not completing assignments in a timely fashion and being disruptive within the department. 8.03 Defendants, Leverenz and Johnson unfairly blamed Plaintiff for certain projects which they knew were not her fault. Johnson and Leverenz communicated these faults to Lewis and such statements were used in order to destroy her reputation and discredit her to her employer so that she would be terminated. Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 11 8.04 Lewis conspired • with Defendants, Leverenz and Johnson • to build a record of false statements regarding Plaintiffs performance in order to terminate her employment. 8.05 At the appeal hearing regarding Plaintiffs termination, Leverenz and Johnson knowingly gave false testimony about Plaintiff and portrayed her as a poor performer and unsuitable employee. 8.06 Lewis incorporated their statements into a final recommendation which resulted m Plaintiffs termination and is now a permanent record in her personnel file. 8.07 Leverenz, Johnson and Lewis were acting outside of the scope of their employment when they conspired to defame the Plaintiff and represent that Plaintiff was unfit to perform her job. Defendants published the aforesaid statements and other slanderous and libelous statements either knowing that they were. With heedless and reckless disregard as to whether they were false without any factual basis. 8.08 Publication of such libelous and slanderous with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements made constitutes actual malice on the part of the individual defendants acting jointly and severally. In addition to the publication by defendants, defendants could reasonably have foreseen the plaintiff would herself be compelled to disclose the libels and slanderous in trying to defend herself when seeking future employment. 8.09 As a direct and proximate result of the individual defendants' false and libelous statements, Plaintiff has endured shame, embarrassment, humiliation and mental emotion and anguish. Additionally, Plaintiff is and will in the future be seriously injured in her good name and reputation in the professional community and career. The publishing of such statements complained of constitutes land slander and libel per se and such publications are libelous and actionable pursuant to Section 73.00 one of the Texas civil practice and remedy code and Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 12 pursuant to, law. • Plaintiff therefore seeks general damages • against the individual plaintiff defendants for some far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. Jury Demand 9.01 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all claims made herein. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that she recover the following relief against Defendants: I. Judgment for actual damages in the amount of past and future lost earnings and benefits; 2. Judgment for past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses; 3. Liquidated damages; 4. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; 5. An order by the Court reinstating Plaintiff as an employee with Defendant, UTA in a similar position with similar pay and benefits to that from which she was wrongfully terminated or, in the alternative, future lost earnings in an amount to be determined by the Court; prejudgment and post judgment interest at the maximum legal rate, attorneys fees, all costs of court and such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. tH Dated this2._9 dayofJune, 2011. Respectfully submitted, Texas State Bar No. 15241235 ROBERT E. GOODMAN, JR. State Bar No. 08158100 Plaintiffs Original Complaint- Page 13 • • Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC 3019 Carlisle Street Dallas, TX 75204-2471 (214) 969-9099- Telephone (214) 953-0133 -Fax ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Plaintiff's Original Complaint- Page 14 KILGORE & KILGORE LAWYERS L \\\ k:rLt:())n: Cr'\TI R 3109 CARLISLE DALLAS,TX 75204 TEL214.969.9099 June 29, 2011 FAX214.953.0133 W\X'W.KILGORELAW.CO:\l Via Special Delivery Tarrant County District Clerk Justice Center 3'd Floor 401 W. Belknap Fort Worth, TX 76196 Re: Teodozja Korzeniewski v. University of Texas at Arlington, Jerry L. Lewis, Phillip D. Johnson, and Andrew J. Leverenz Dear Clerk: Attached please find an original and six (6) copies of Plaintiffs Original Petition, a Civil Cover Sheet, and a check in the amount of $281.00 payable to the Tarrant County District Clerk. Please file the Petition and issue a citation for each of the defendants. Please return the extra copy bearing your filemark to the courier. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, ~~Jh-r~~ Paralegal to Nicholas O'Kelly :::; ~ ....., !2 _, J> -r:: ::D -.., = '·__.J'j (._ ...-~ -; -~ :::~if> CJ N = ~:;:-rt ~-- - !I -;)> .D nr~l )> oo c .. z -f U1 N -< A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CIVIL CASE INFORMA TI~N SHEET CAUSENUMBER(FORCLERKUSEONLY)2.36 2 53 7l:. l} etml'J:(FORCLERKUSEONLY): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ STYLED le . ofT ~ tt + t-Ji )1 -ft J1 ith v. All American Insurance Co; In re Mary Ann Jones; In the Matter of the Estate ofG (e.g .• John rge Jackson) ,e+ 4!f J. law,~robate, A civil case information sheet must be completed and submitted when an original petition or application is filed to initiate a new civil, family or mental health case or when a post-judgment motion for modification or enforcement is filed in a family law case. The information should be the best available at the time of filing. This sheet, approved by the Texas Judicial Council, is intended to collect infonnation that will be used for statistical purposes only. It neither replaces nor supplements the filings or service of plead.ing or other documents as required by law or rule. The sheet does not constitute a discovery request, response, or supplementation, and it is not admissible at trial. 1. Contact information for person completing case information sheet: Names of parties in case: P.,trson or entity completing sheet is: ~Attorney for PlaintifllPetitioner Name: Email: Plaintiff(s)!Petitioner(s): 0Pro Se PlaintifflPetitioner Nicl1olas ft. 0' )felt"'J naa ~ ~ilgare fa£~>. ~ uu.eecd~o-z.:=l~A.-.,__ _ t/ • \.:• 0Title N-D Agency OOther: - - - - - - - - - Address: Telephone: J-.OY~ I 0 W$ ~ oJoq cavt is. II S+. ~r q- ?>;q -f1b:;;r Additional Parties in Child Support Case: Defendant(s)/Respondent(s): Custodial Parent: City/State/Zip: Fax: I!A ...:,.-."\.a,. ~.. "a.s f}a llas/1'f./122JJl} ;>.IL\--q5 6-D\'?3 14't11YH ./_,~' ~ :~~ Non-Custodial Parent: I ~ignatuf\ 1"\ !J)~ t::.. StateBarNo: ll- Ltw\~-~illi~l> ;.}., ... ,Irk att4t ~ ~ l5:ZLf\ 1 1/~\,\J-L"""'.·_J',·. _~\.....K'Wb.l!SUl(..,~-"-"\~JXJ"'- d..o5 "'- r~l~~~t~~ •t • _ •• 'Z-- 'l>resiimeofather: ----------- 2. Indicate case type, or identifv the m~t important issue in the case (select onlv 1): Civil FamilvLaw Post-judgment Actions Contract Iniurv or Damage Real Property Marriage Relationship (non-Title IV-D) Debt/Contract ~Assault/Battery 0Eminent Domain! QAnnulment QEnforcement 0Consumer/DTPA Oconstruction Condemnation 0Declare Marriage Void 0Modification-Custody 0 Debt/Contract 0Defamation 0Partition Divorce 0Modification-Other 0Fraud!MisrepresentationMalpractice 0QuietTitle 0With Children Title IV-D Oother Debt/Contract: 0 Accounting 0Trespass to Try Title 0No Children QEnforcement/Modification 0Legal Oother Property: 0Patemity Foreclosure 0Medical 0Reciprocals (UIFSA) 0Home Equity-Expedited OOther Professional Osupport Order Oother Foreclostrre Liability: Related to Criminal 0Franchise Matters Other Family Law Parent-Child Relati