Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
8/23/2019 11:52 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
Martin Reyes
No. DC — 18 - 17317
REBECCA HAYNES,
§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff
§
§
§
V
§ OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
§
HEART 0F CENTRAL TEXAS INDEPENDENT
§
LIVING CENTERAND MARIA FERNANDEZ, §
§
Defendants
§ 95th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE DAVID EVANS, JUDGE OF SAID COUR
T:
1. Rebecca Haynes, Plaintiff, files this First Amended Original Petition against the Heart
of Central Texas Independent Living
Center ("HOCTILC") and Marie Fernandez
(“Fernandez") and would show:
DISCOVERY LEVEL
1. Discovery in this case should be conducted under Level 3.
RULE 47 DISCLOSURE
2. Plaintiff seeks in excess of $100,000'but less than $1,000,000
.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Personal jurisdiction available because
is
HOCTILC does business in Texas. Subject
matter jurisdiction lies because Haynes seeks damages in excess of the minimum
jurisdiction of this Court. Venue is proper in Dallas County pursuant to Tex. Civ. Proc.
& Rem. Code § 15.002 (a) (1) in that Dallas County is the County in which all or a
substantial part of the events or omiss
ions giving rise to this claim occurred.
PARTIES AND SERVICES
4. Haynes is an individual resident of Texas. HOCI'ILC is a non-profit corporation
headquartered at 222 East Central Avenu
e, Belton, TX. It has appeared herein. Maria
Fernandez has also appeared herein.
5. Haynes was employed by HOCTILC from September
1, 2016 to June 5, 2018 when she
was wrongfully terminated. During that time, she was subjected to racial
discrimination; she was retaliated against and fired based
on illegitimate and
pretextual grounds. She has been subjected to discrimination due
to a disability
(sensorineural hearing loss). She has been
passed over for promotions for which she
had better credentials than those who received the
promotions.
6. Moreover, Haynes, who is African American, lost out on promotions
to persons who
were not members of a protected class. Furthermore, Haynes suffers this
discrimination and retaliation because she
brought to the attention of management
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
2
the fact that money that was supposed to be being used for charitable purpo
ses was
not and was, in effect, punished for being a whistleblower.
7. Haynes received her right to sue letter from the U.S. Equal Employme
nt Opportunity
Center on November 8, 2018; thus, she has exhausted Administrative
Remedies.
8. By way of her termination and memorandum ofJune 5, 2018, Fernandez wrongfully
accused Haynes of committing a federal crime
and thus committed defamation per se.
Texas automatically presumes damages
for defamation per se. The natur
e of the
inherent damages from defamation was
discussed by Abraham Lincoln who stated in
his lastjury trial, ”who steals my purse steals trash, tis nothing, it was mine, tis his and
has been slave to thousands. But he that filche
s from me my good name, robs me of
that which not enriches him but makes me poor indeed.” 1 Haynes has employed two
expert witnesses who concluded that there was no falsification of a customer
signature. Indeed, the defamation is so gross that Fernandez will not be entitled to
the defense of qualified privilege. The evide
nce will show actual malice, which will
defeat privilege. Dixon v. Southwestern Bell Co., 607 S.W. 2d 240, 242 (Tex. 1980).
HOCTILC is liable for these damages attributable to the conduct
of Fernandez under
the doctrine of respondeat superior. Hayne reque
s sts judgment for these damages.
CAUSES OF ACTION, ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COMPENSA
TORY DAMAGES
9. Haynes restates the allegations above. The conduct of
HOCTILC constitutes violations
lAbrams and Fisher, Lincoln’s Last Trial (Hanover Square Press, 2018, p. 270)
of Texas Labor Code provision, sections §§ 21.051, 21.055, and 21.056 of the Texas
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
3
Labor Code. Hayes entitled to an
is award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and
expert
witness fees under those statutes;
the fees are estimated to be $50,
000 through a
trial thereof; an additional $20,000 in the event of an appeal to the Court
of Appeals;
and an extra $12,000 review sought
if is in the Supreme Court of Texas.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
10. Because the conduct of HOCTILC and Fern
andez was carried out intentionally,
maliciously, or at least with reckless
indifference and/or gross negligence
of the rights
of Haynes, Haynes requests all such exemplary damages as are allowed
by Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.008.
WHEREFORE, Haynes prays:
(1) that Haynes be awarded all of the compensatory damages requested hereinabove;
(2) that Haynes be awarded punitive or exemplary
all damages requested above; (3)
that Haynes recover reasonable attorneys'
fees, as requested hereinabove;
(4) that
Haynes recover such pre—judgment and post-judgment
interest as is allowable by law;
(5) that Haynes recover all other damages, whether general or special,
at law or in
equity, to which she may show herself to be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
BOYD 8L ST L
By z A
Dan. S. Boyd
State Bar No. 02765500
P.O. Box 803596
Dallas, Texas 75380
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
4
dan@b0ydstag.com
Tel. (214)478-0152
Fax: (214)481-1878
Web www.boydstag.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the above and foregoing has been serv
ed through the
ECF system and by email to opposing couns
el, Kevin Robinowitz (kevin.
robinowitzQstinson.com[ on this 23m
day of August, 2019.
Dan Stewart Boyd
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
S
Preview
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 8/23/2019 11:52 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Martin Reyes No. DC — 18 - 17317 REBECCA HAYNES, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff § § § V § OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § § HEART 0F CENTRAL TEXAS INDEPENDENT § LIVING CENTERAND MARIA FERNANDEZ, § § Defendants § 95th JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE DAVID EVANS, JUDGE OF SAID COUR T: 1. Rebecca Haynes, Plaintiff, files this First Amended Original Petition against the Heart of Central Texas Independent Living Center ("HOCTILC") and Marie Fernandez (“Fernandez") and would show: DISCOVERY LEVEL 1. Discovery in this case should be conducted under Level 3. RULE 47 DISCLOSURE 2. Plaintiff seeks in excess of $100,000'but less than $1,000,000 . PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Personal jurisdiction available because is HOCTILC does business in Texas. Subject matter jurisdiction lies because Haynes seeks damages in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. Venue is proper in Dallas County pursuant to Tex. Civ. Proc. & Rem. Code § 15.002 (a) (1) in that Dallas County is the County in which all or a substantial part of the events or omiss ions giving rise to this claim occurred. PARTIES AND SERVICES 4. Haynes is an individual resident of Texas. HOCI'ILC is a non-profit corporation headquartered at 222 East Central Avenu e, Belton, TX. It has appeared herein. Maria Fernandez has also appeared herein. 5. Haynes was employed by HOCTILC from September 1, 2016 to June 5, 2018 when she was wrongfully terminated. During that time, she was subjected to racial discrimination; she was retaliated against and fired based on illegitimate and pretextual grounds. She has been subjected to discrimination due to a disability (sensorineural hearing loss). She has been passed over for promotions for which she had better credentials than those who received the promotions. 6. Moreover, Haynes, who is African American, lost out on promotions to persons who were not members of a protected class. Furthermore, Haynes suffers this discrimination and retaliation because she brought to the attention of management PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION 2 the fact that money that was supposed to be being used for charitable purpo ses was not and was, in effect, punished for being a whistleblower. 7. Haynes received her right to sue letter from the U.S. Equal Employme nt Opportunity Center on November 8, 2018; thus, she has exhausted Administrative Remedies. 8. By way of her termination and memorandum ofJune 5, 2018, Fernandez wrongfully accused Haynes of committing a federal crime and thus committed defamation per se. Texas automatically presumes damages for defamation per se. The natur e of the inherent damages from defamation was discussed by Abraham Lincoln who stated in his lastjury trial, ”who steals my purse steals trash, tis nothing, it was mine, tis his and has been slave to thousands. But he that filche s from me my good name, robs me of that which not enriches him but makes me poor indeed.” 1 Haynes has employed two expert witnesses who concluded that there was no falsification of a customer signature. Indeed, the defamation is so gross that Fernandez will not be entitled to the defense of qualified privilege. The evide nce will show actual malice, which will defeat privilege. Dixon v. Southwestern Bell Co., 607 S.W. 2d 240, 242 (Tex. 1980). HOCTILC is liable for these damages attributable to the conduct of Fernandez under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Hayne reque s sts judgment for these damages. CAUSES OF ACTION, ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COMPENSA TORY DAMAGES 9. Haynes restates the allegations above. The conduct of HOCTILC constitutes violations lAbrams and Fisher, Lincoln’s Last Trial (Hanover Square Press, 2018, p. 270) of Texas Labor Code provision, sections §§ 21.051, 21.055, and 21.056 of the Texas PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION 3 Labor Code. Hayes entitled to an is award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees under those statutes; the fees are estimated to be $50, 000 through a trial thereof; an additional $20,000 in the event of an appeal to the Court of Appeals; and an extra $12,000 review sought if is in the Supreme Court of Texas. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 10. Because the conduct of HOCTILC and Fern andez was carried out intentionally, maliciously, or at least with reckless indifference and/or gross negligence of the rights of Haynes, Haynes requests all such exemplary damages as are allowed by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.008. WHEREFORE, Haynes prays: (1) that Haynes be awarded all of the compensatory damages requested hereinabove; (2) that Haynes be awarded punitive or exemplary all damages requested above; (3) that Haynes recover reasonable attorneys' fees, as requested hereinabove; (4) that Haynes recover such pre—judgment and post-judgment interest as is allowable by law; (5) that Haynes recover all other damages, whether general or special, at law or in equity, to which she may show herself to be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, BOYD 8L ST L By z A Dan. S. Boyd State Bar No. 02765500 P.O. Box 803596 Dallas, Texas 75380 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION 4 dan@b0ydstag.com Tel. (214)478-0152 Fax: (214)481-1878 Web www.boydstag.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the above and foregoing has been serv ed through the ECF system and by email to opposing couns el, Kevin Robinowitz (kevin. robinowitzQstinson.com[ on this 23m day of August, 2019. Dan Stewart Boyd PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION S