Ramirez v. Rockwell et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-00592

Complaint

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 11 of of 55 55 RECEIVED In The United States District Court ii.4b1 3 2019 CLERK U.SPICT CLERK For The Western District Of Texas WESTERN OF TXAS cI31T San Antonio Division Isidro Martinez Ramirez, Plaintiff, SA19CA0592 FB Vs. Civil No._____________ Rhonda Rockwell, Ron Merritt, & Kenneth Daney, Defendants'. Plaintiff's Original ComIaint NOW COMES ISIDRO MARTINEZ RAMIREZ (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") and brings forth this civil action against RHONDA ROCKWELL, RON MERRITT1, and KENNETH DANEY (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants"), while employed for the San Antonio Express-News/MySanAntonio.Com/Hearst Corporation2 invoking the Defendant Merritt no longer works for the Hearst Corporation from approximately mid-2018. In compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is providing the clerk of this honorable court to service Defendant Merritt at the only place he knows confirmed that Defendant Merritt may be reached or served by registered mail or as this court set forth, as since Defendant Merritt is no longer employed with the Hearst Corporation, it appears that Defendant Merritt may need to hire private counsel to avoid a default judgment. Either whatever the situation may be, the plaintiff wants to protect and insure that Defendant Merritt too has notice of the claims brought against him and the failure to defend or timely respond to the suit may result in a judgment by default against him. 2 From plaintiffs best knowledge. Both Defendant Merritt and Defendant Rockwell are considered corporate employees for all purposes of this complaint. Defendant Rockwell took a local entity role of being director and then promoted to where she sat last when plaintiff was terminated on January 10th, 2019, as the Vice President Of Marketing for the San Antonio Express News / MySanAntonio.Com. The San Antonio Express-News / MySanAntonio.Com are entities of the Hearst Corporation. Neither the Hearst Corporation, the San Antonio Express-News, nor MySanAntonio.Com are being sued; only the individuals named. Defendant Daney is considered and was known as the Senior Corporate Human Resources contact that oversaw the termination and hiring, complaints, disciplinary, and other integral Human Resource for the San Antonio Express-News/MySanAntonio.Comsince, among many, of the Human Resource local in San Antonio no longer were existing from when the plaintiff exited and during pertinent times after the FINAL WARNING issu* Mfndant Rockwell against the plaintiff on January 31st, 2018. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 22 of of 55 55 selected provisional jurisdiction provided below and in which the pleadings can liberally be construed so as to do justice. Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure 8(e); to wit: I. Statement Of Jurisdiction A. Federal Question Jurisdiction This court has Original Jurisdiction of all federal question daims that arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." See Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1331; see also Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009)(Holding that federal courts "[u]nder the well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit 'arises under' federal law for 28 U. S. C. §1331 purposes 'only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law]") All of the federal claims either expressly identified or otherwise liberally construed or implied from the facts presented herein are all claims that are justifiably under federal law B. State-Law Claims Questions & Jurisdiction Very importantly noted in this Complaint, the timing of the federal claims of that are legally available to litigate from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") are claims that this plaintiff identified from his EEOC complaint filed after he was terminated as an employee on January 10th, 2019. Those claims arise of EEOC claims from series of complaints and other protected activity that occurred relevantly after the investigation of the plaintiff's Human Resources ("HR") investigation was completed. Although this plaintiff respectfully pleads any such other federal claims including but not limited to any such federal claim arising under the First Amendment in engaging in protected activity in which plaintiff too maintains he complained of such activity to the state as well. See e.g.. Pickering v. Board of Education. 391 U.S. 563 (1968). and Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle. 429 U.S. 274 (1977), although there are claims that not only arise under any of the facts either isolated or in wholesome, as available to pursue under Texas law. e.g.. Texas Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. vs. Sears. 84 S. W.3d 604. 608-09 (Tex.2002) (Negligent Firing Under Texas Employment At-Will doctrine): see also e.g.. Texas Labor Code. Chapter 21 (Vernon's 2019) Any such other federal claims that are identified from either 2017 through January, 2018, are federal claims that are presented under the First Amendment and other available factually pleaded and liberally construed federal claims. The state law claims presented are claims that are not intended to confuse those federal claims but to also redress and provide remedies under Texas law, especially since the statute of limitations in pursuing differs over the EEOC 90-Day Filing Rule. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 33 of of 55 55 In addition to Original Jurisdiction on the federal claims -questions invoked in part I. (A) above, this honorable court also has supplemental jurisdiction to hear and consider the plaintiff's state law claims, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. see Exxon Mobil Corp. V. Allapattah Services. Inc.. 545 U.S. 546 (2005) All of the state law claims that the plaintiff pleads factually in this complaint or and otherwise identified by legal verbiage,are claims that the plaintiff pleads under Texas law, including the claims in his complaining of the matters involved at the time of the initial EEOC charge filing. II. The Parties To This Complaint A.Plaintiff The sole plaintiff involved in this lawsuit is: Mr. Isidro Martinez Ramirez 4802 Cambray Drive San Antonio, Texas 78229 Email: lsidro0773@Yahoo.Com Mobile # (210) 544-2894 The plaintiff is a United States Citizen,is over the age of 18 years of age. BDEFENDANTS' 1.) The first named defendant in this lawsuit is Rhonda Rockwell. Defendant Rockwell remains an active employee for the Hearst Corporation. Defendant Rockwell may be served with Citation & Summons With A Copy Of This Lawsuit at: Defendant Rhonda Rockwell San Antonio Express-News 301 Avenue E San Antonio, Texas 78295 Email: RRockwell@MySa.Com Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 44 of of 55 55 2) Defendant Ron Merritt understandably is no longer active with the Hearst Corporation. Throughout Defendant Merritt's contact with the plaintiff and plaintiff meeting with himself and his spouse in one of the Awarded President's Club, it was confirmed to the plaintiff then that Defendant Merritt lives in Charlotte, North Carolina, however, a thorough research and a verified and confirmed contact last contacted with Defendant Merritt confirmed that Defendant Merritt is now employed for Spectrio as the Chief Financial Officer, also confirmed on an online search. Thus, the only address then known to the plaintiff to have Defendant Merritt served with Summon & The Original Complaint is: Spectrio 4033 Tampa Road Suite 103 Oldsmar, Florida 34677 As an alternative, the only other option to have Defendant Merritt served successfully with Summons & The Original Complaint is through the residential contact information obtainable through the Human Resources of this employer.4 3) Defendant Kenneth Daney is confirmed to still be active as a Hearst Corporation employee, remaining active in the Human Resources Department of the main offices at the Houston Chronicle, that had then remains being the Human Resources Division over that oversees the now and then Human Resources Department of the San Antonio Express-News. Defendant Kenneth Daney may be served with Summons & The Original Complaint at: Houston Chronicle Building 4747 Southwest Freeway Houston, Texas 77027 Defendant Kenneth Daney was the then Senior Human Resources contact for Hearst over the San Antonio Express-News Division and understandably had the ability to even Defendant Merritt as a Hearst employee from his investigating and addressing various concerns that involved both a commission Defendant Merritt refused to reverse even after proof in doing so, Defendant Daney reversed his refusal to refuse to provide me the commissions owed to me. Interestingly, within approximately 3 weeks of this apparent meeting with Defendant Daney, Defendant Merritt resigned his employment with Hearst to take the role with Sprectrio. If it were necessary to have Defendant Merritt successfully served and not to avoid the ends of justice, plaintiff will utilize whatever measures provided in Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure that provides remedy to utilize state law solutions to have a defendant served. Texas law is very extensive in these measures to insure a defendant receives Notice Of Suit and actually being served with a copy of the Original Complaint and Summons. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 55 of of 55 55 III. Legal Claims & Remedies Generally Identified & That Otherwise Are Justified At Law Or In Equity With The Facts & Evidence Presented A. General Overview On Claims Presented This civil action presents facts that start from around or about July 2017 and throughout January 10th, 2019, the date the plaintiff was terminated from employment with the San Antonio Express-News/MySanAntonio.Com, Divisions Of The Hearst Corporation. Due the plaintiff's initial EEOC complaint filed on January 11th, 2018, and disposed of on January 18th, 2018, the facts on general EEOC claims are governed from the complaint filed are imperative to identify the legal remedies in which this plaintiff particularly invokes on facts that go as far back as Summer 2017, on other federal claims or equitable claims from redress available under federal law including statutory and or constitutional law. The same facts extend state law remedies also invoked herein. In effort to protect the ends of justice sought of the wrongs done here to plaintiff, regardless of the legal rights involved or remedies sought for relief, plaintiff is proceeding in the filing of this suit5 in coming to this coming to have both the federal and state law claims considered and seeking relief even to the extent in which equity would allow as no matter what plaintiff became a complete target of retaliation. 6 Though it may become necessary to seek the appointment of counsel here due to the extended legal remedies involved and to insure the legal claims are presented fully and fairly, either if counsel if sought through appointment or other measures, 6 Due to plaintiff saving more than 1,000 pages of evidence that were related to one or another form of communication with these defendants' or that involved matters within the control of these defendants, including text message communication and email communication of these defendants' and some of the witnesses involved and former clients', plaintiff is intending to be inasmuch compliant with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules Of civil Procedure, in providing "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief," however, upon a trial on the merits or even a hearing that defendants' could possibly challenge either on a Summary Judgment or Dismissal Motion, plaintiff retains proof and witnesses that would support that his facts support relief being granted under federal law and even justifiably under the state law claims presented, whether the facts cover from July 2017 through the initial EEOC complaint in January, 2018, or receiving a formal Final Warning within 2-weeks after the EEOC disposed of the initial complaint, that was clearly then and facially retaliatory, This is to further say any other proof of discoverable documents after plaintiff was fired would even draw into question why plaintiff was terminated, along with what these defendants' had done scarred plaintiff in the eyes of other employees as various employees confirmed fear of getting close to plaintiff in them either losing their job or facing any retaliatory action from the defendants' the relevant time frames applicable when all 3 were active employees or even after defendant Merritt had left prior to the Summer of 2018. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 66 of of 55 55 The claims provided below are within these parameters to as much as identify generally in which claims plaintiff presents under federal and state law. B. Federal Claims Presented For Relief In Federal Court Among the federal claims plaintiff presents, but not limited too, these claims are: 1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964, as provided in 42 U.S.C., Section 2000e-3(a). Title VII prohibits retaliation against employees who opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII or who made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation. See Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tenn., 555 U.S. 271 (2009). The statute protects, not just those who file complaints, but also those who answer their employer's questions during an investigation. ld."A protected activity acquires a precarious status if innocent employees can be discharged while engaging in it, even though the employer acts in good faith." Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe, 411 F.2d 998, 1005-07 (5th Cir. 1968). This claims is against all of the defendants' named in this lawsuit. 2) Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d). Based upon various comments made of Defendant Rockwell that the plaintiff eventually complained of, not only of plaintiffs age, among other things in 2017, this particular claim is presented against defendant Rockwell,whereas even defendant Daney and defendant Merritt also may have eventually targeted plaintiff too in making this type of complaint against defendant Rockwell with Human Resources and voiced to the EEOC in the first complaint filed in January, 2018.Daniels v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 776 F.3d 181, 192-93 (3d Cir. 2015); see also Heffemeier v. Caidwell Cnty., Tex., 826 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2016). Even though the facts later focused on other complaints of defendant Rockwell, the fact that I complained of possible age discrimination to Human Resources, justifiably considered this as a "protected act" without fear or subject to retaliation. 3) Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 provides rights equality of the law and prohibits retaliation on complaints on bases of discriminatory treatment because of nationality. CBOCS West Inc. vs. Humphries, 128 S.Ct. 1951 (2008). This claim is also asserted against defendant Rockwell. 4) 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-3. Other unlawful employment practices could arguably justify a claim in plaintiff reporting various unlawful employment practices by defendant Rockwell specifically and could extend, under the facts and evidence, claims against defendant Merritt and defendant Daney Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 77 of of 55 55 are also possible under federal law .e.g, WIDEMAN v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., 141F3rd 1453 (11th Cir. 1998)(Reverses Grant Of Summary Judgment Dismissing Retaliation Claim). 5) To any extent applicable under the facts presented either in isolation due to the time window involved of claims prior to the 2018 EEOC complaint, complaints to the state commission on Human Rights, and the subsequent 2019 EEOC complaint, plaintiff believes that the facts presented could also justify relief at law or in equity to any applicable extent of the First Amendment exercise of (a) Freedom of Expression; (b) Freedom Of Speech, and (c)the right to petition the government to the redress of grievances, in hereby too asserting claims against all three (3) of the defendants' under Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. e.g., Pickering vs.Board Of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) and Mt.Healthy City School District Board Of Education vs. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). 6) Plaintiff does not expressly or by any inference abandons any such other legal claim or equitable claim he can pursue against any or all of these defendants' either in isolating the facts or in wholesome. Hence, the plaintiff pleads for liberal construction at any extent necessary in order and in effort to avoid abandoning any claims either at law or in equity. e.g.,, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); see also Grant-Davis v. Supreme Court of S.C. Case No. 2:15-cv-4019-PMD-MGB (D.S.C. Dec. 7, 2015) (Confirms applying Liberal Construction Rule abroad). The "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' "Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell AtL Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id.7 7) Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides a person with the right to complain by a protected right of pay, including overtime pay, hourly, among the various remedial by this federal statute. The plaintiff made some complaints to defendant Daney during a specific time at the early part of the story to this complaint, that was FLSA related in part as related to commission disputed and also of hours plaintiff had worked beyond the 40 hours worked weekly that was provable by appointments, expense reports, and other proof plaintiff voiced and communicated to defendant Daney. This was part that triggered much of the consequential retaliatory action towards the plaintiff that followed. The 5th Circuit, U.S. Court Of Appeals, have declared and affinned precedent that the FLSA does allow a plaintiff to assert a Retaliation In asserting state law claims as well in this Original Complaint, the plaintiff invokes, even if the court done so sua sponte. the Liberal Construction of the state law claims, any recitation of law within this Original Complaint, especially in doing justice. See Fed,R.Civ.Pro. 8(e); see also Ashcroft v. lqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)(Though in a purposeful type of legal case, the U.S. Supreme Court reverses and remands to appellate court to see if plaintiff should be allowed to Amend pleadings in order to suffice any specificity requirements in asserting legal claims). Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 88 of of 55 55 claim in exercising rights or complaining to FLSA matters, and to also be able to recover damages for emotional distress as a result of such damages. Pineda v. JTCH APARTMENTS, LLC, 843 F. 3d 1062 (5th Cir. 2016) (Involved A Plaintiff That Too Worked Overtime & Complained Of Such). C.State Law Claims Presented For Relief In Federal Court In Exercising Supplemental Jurisdiction 1) Texas Labor Code §21.055 prohibits retaliation against an employee who opposes a discriminatory practice, makes or files a charge, files a complaint, or testifies, assists, or participates in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing. With in this state law, retaliation is plainly defines as: An employer. . commits an unlawful employment practice if the employer. . . . retaliates or discriminates against a person who, under this chapter: (1) opposes a discriminatory practice; (2) makes or files a charge; (3) files a complaint; or (4) testifies, assists, or participates in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing. See e.g., Dias v. Goodman Mfg. Co., L.P., 214 S.W.3d 672, 676 (Tex. App.Houston (14th 01st.] 2007, pet. denied) (citing Pineda v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 360 F.3d 483,487 (5th Cir. 2004). 2) At any extent applicable to the facts and evidence to be presented to this court, the plaintiff too asserts a claim of negligent firing under Texas law. Texas Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. vs. Sears, 84 SW. 3d 604, 608-09 (Tex.2002). To any extent, this claim is asserted against defendant Daney.8 3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim in Employment Context is a claim the plaintiff asserts against all three (3) of the defendants'. The elements of the cause of action of intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) 8 It may be clear that suing the San Antonio Express-News should occur in this lawsuit as plaintiff brought to the attention numerous of the matters involved in this lawsuit to the company, even the attorney for the Hearst Corporation, Mr. Adam Colon, in New York, and no one done nothing to correct action. Proof and testimonial evidence of various now former staff and even some existing staff abroad, would confirm that staff fear retaliation in any form from corporate staff, and only follow or concur as instances, evidence, and the testimonies of various active and non-active employees would corrroberate. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 99 of of 55 55 the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe.Texas Farm Bureau Mut. lns.Co. v. Sears, 84 S.W.3d 604, 610 (Tex. 2002). Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Id. Texas has adopted a strict approach to intentional infliction of emotional distress claims arising in the workplace. GTE Southwest. Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605, 612-13 (Tex. 1999) (holding supervisor's ongoing acts of harassment. intimidation, and humiliation, and daily obscene and vulgar behavior went beyond the bounds of tolerable work behavior and were within the realm of extreme and outrageous conduct).. This claim is respectively asserted against all three (3) of the defendants'. 4) Plaintiff further asserts a claim of civil theft, also known as the Texas Theft Liability Act (T1'LA) as provided by Chapter 134 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, that permits to incorporate the criminal statute of theft under Texas law, being Chapter 31 of the Texas Penal Code, specifically against defendant Daney, whom had the power, aside the discretion, to give plaintiff his Severance of $10, 769.22, that plaintiff undeniably entitled to in his separation from the San Antonio Express-News/MySanAntonio.Com/A Division Of The Hearst Corporation, from being actively employed from March 19th, 2012 through January 10th, 2019. At any extent, plaintiff re-incorporates the Texas UnEmployment Compensation Act & the Texas Labor Code, as codified state statute to apply into the claim asserted under the TTLA. IV. Statement Of The Claims Plaintiff was hired by the San Antonio Express-News/MySanAntonio.Com, A Division Of The Hearst Corporation, as an Account Executive on March 19th, 2012 after various interviews of staff superiors and Human Resources. Plaintiff was specifically hired as part of the then corporated created department/team known as Premise. The moral of the complaint starts involving vastly defendant Rockwell, when the plaintiff started to forbicily complain to members of the Human Resources department of the San Antonio Express-News in or around July, 2017. Plaintiff was very afraid of defendant Rockwell as she made clear in OPEN MEETINGS and on staff floor around According to Section 207.049 of the Texas Unemnloyment Compensation Act. "severance pay' "dismissal or separation income paid on termination of the employment in addition to the employee's usual earnings from the employer at the time of termination." Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 10 10 of of 55 55 employees10 that she knew who plaintiff was and knows everything about the plaintiff. Defendant Rockwell was the then understandably Vice-President of Local Edge, A Division of the Hearst Corporation-that handles nationwide all of the digital internet packages11 that were sold by sales reps (Account Executives) abroad as this plaintiff. Local Edge was the Department that was responsible for taking all of the orders that came in from all Hearst properties that involved DMS Packages. 12 Specifically stated, in or around the mid-part of July, 2017, defendant Rockwell, in an open meeting where she was already now the officially assigned Director Of Sales over the plaintiff and then approximately 7 members that were left of the Premise team, mocked plaintiff in front of other employees including members of Account Management and Account Executives, to the effect that plaintiff did not even know where the plaintiff;s then 2nd to the highest paid monthly client was located, making jokes and giving complete impression as confirmed outside of this meeting that defendant Rockwell did not like the plaintiff and intended to demean and belittle the plaintiff. From even this very day, and other various days, defendant Rockwell would come from her Management office and sit behind the plaintiff while plaintiff cold-called businesses in Spanish and would make very disturbing comments that were very offensive in nature to the effect that defendant Rockwell would say that plaintiff sound like he was calling cold-calling businesses names or saying things that were against policy, when plaintiff spoke Spanish, and it sounded like plaintiff was speaking about their dad. It did not matter how plaintiff explained himself or how he tried to explain his cold-calling techniques, it was clear that defendant Rockwell had a different plan in place. 10 2017 is a different situation compared to the very present date and also the date when plaintiff was terminated, on January 10th, 2019. Most of the witnesses, if not all, are now former Hearst employees that were terminated under the supervision of defendant Rockwell. In preparation of this lawsuit, plaintiff has gathered proof, etc, on these witnesses in order to prove his claims against defendant Rockwell or as needed towards the defendants' in this lawsuit. Premise was the corporate assigned team that was recollectively created in 2011, the year prior to plaintiff being hired, that introduced what was call the DMS Packages=Digital Marketing Services. DMS packages Premise employees across Hearst 7 properties (estimated amount) were able to sell these packages, from cities like San Antonio, Houston, San Francisco, CA, Laredo, Connecticut, and New York. etc. 12" LocqiEdge, a Hearst Media Services Company, is a Division of Hearst Communications, Inc. As a premier multi-media organization, LocalEdge has been leading the transition to web-based advertising for small to mid-size businesses across all industries. The organization, previously doing business as White Directory Publishers, Inc., has been in business for over 40 years and services customers nationwide. In 2004 Hearst Corporation purchased White Directory, aligning the organization under its Newspapers Division. With its digital focus on internet marketing, the company would re-brand and quickly become the "digital center of excellence" providing its web-based products to Hearst Newspaper publications like The San Francisco Chronicle and Houston C hronicle."http:1/intern etmarketin g.Iocaledc,e.comlabo ut-us! Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 11 11 of of 55 55 Going by a history of emails that plaintiff saved in a "bce" manner once defendant Rockwell made clear (1) she did not have to like him to work with him; (2) this was personal when complaining about her, and (3) even an apology or any "ass-kissing" what defendant Rockwell later entitled, of the plaintiff, the problems did not diminish they only got worse. Recollectively, from an email that was sent on Wednesday August 23rd, 2017 at 10:19am, the complete tone of this email establishes plaintiff's fear: When there is an opportunity, please advise the status of in which resulted or what is being done or is needed from our conversation last week regarding Rhonda Rockwell. 1 know you had mentioned speaking with Rhonda on Monday. I spoke with Rhonda yesterday, and, again, she makes comments. I stayed silent. Please do get back with me when there is an opportunity later this morning. Nearly immediate shortly after sending this email, plaintiff received a response from Felicia Netherly, the HR Specialist, providing: Good Morning, As I stated last week I would speak with Rhonda and follow up with you I have met with Rhonda and addressed the issues and concerns related to you that you shared with Mary Jessie and me over the phone and via email In addition, you stated you would provide a formal written complaint listing all issues What you have provided via email and over the phone is not an official complaint However, I have addressed those issuesfconcerns Thank you, Felicia 1'. Netherly The email that follows from the plaintiff again reiterates his fear: Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 10:42 AM To Netherly, Felicia Y <FNetherly@expressnews net> Cc Saldana, Mary Jessie <maryjsalexpress_news net> Subject Re Follow Up From Last Week's Phone Call On Investigatory Complaint Thank you for getting back with me In the fear of retaliatory action, I will not file a formal complaint since our conversation you did confirm you would speak with Rhonda on this matter I would however, await any response action taken in direct response to what we had discussed Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 12 12 of of 55 55 last week and you have already spoke with Rhonda of, since you reconfirm now getting bacl with me and follow up. The Subject Line shows there was a phone call conference the week before this email communication. Id. Even after the offensive meeting with plaintiff's 2nd highest paid month client 13 plaintiff confirmed a recollection of even the then client 14, defendant Rockwell continued to belittle and demean and disrespect the plaintiff to the point where plaintiff was trying his hardest not to resort the Human Resources ("HR") Department here in San Antonio, from even an August 6th, 2017 email sent to Mary Jessie Saldana that read as followed: Mary Jessie: In the complete fear of retaliatory action, I expressed a verbal, detailed conversation with Felicia on Thursday, August 3rd, 2017, after various colleagues have come to me peacefully expressing how they themselves feel offended at how Rhonda Rockwell has demeaned me and treat me in front of them. It was not until the recent conversation with Joseph Allen, and earlier in the week, Tina Rabe expressing, and two weeks ago, Veronica Garcia. I truly do not wish to detail or document this matter as I really fear retaliatory action either directly or indirectly. In the years that I have worked for Hearst, I have never been treated by any colleague or superior directly this way. Ijust want to document this expressed concern. This is my job that I really work very hard at and love very much. Rhonda has even gone up and beyond and made threats to me to remove me from a very, very large top paying client that even defended me in front of her when we met with the client a few weeks ago. 13 At that point, the Premise team had monthly billings and commission goals. AquaPro Elite Systems and Tree Service Of San Antonio were the highest monthly paid accounts plaintiff had. AquaPro was blued at about $4300 monthly and Tree Service Of San Antonio was billed monthly at $4, 575. 14 IT was confirmed and clear to the AquaPro then-cleint that defendant Rockwell did not like plaintiff and mocked and put the plaintiff down in knowing the new address they had just within weeks moved too knew. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 13 13 of of 55 55 Th15 is not about decisions on particular accounts at all, even though I ';oned, 1 only ask for clarity to be on the same page as all., This is specifically and only about the tone and how I am handled in front of others and this has gotten more than out of control to where fellow colleagues provide they are shock in how Rhonda treats me. I am not yet ready to pursue a complaint. This email is provided as formal documentation. I am afraid of retaliatory action and a major distract from interfering from fulfilling clients or new clients to be meetings and work relation. Email Sent On Sunday, August 6th, 2017, @ 1:57am, in which included also the then-Human Resource Specialist Felicia Netherly. Within this email, the plaintiff attached various text message communication exchange between the plaintiff and defendant Rockwell, on proof that plaintiff tried consistently over and over in a respective tone in these text messages to communicate with defendant Rockwell in trying to work "together" to retain one of the highest paid clients' he had on his monthly book of business, and defendant Rockwell had a completely different motive and set mentality; in fact, defendant Rockwell reiterated: "It is a Hearst account and I am within my rights as the director to reassign if I decide to, back off Isidro." Quotating Text Message Communication In Message Sent 7:06pm Days Prior To 08-06-2017 Complaint Being Filed. Among other communication the plaintiff maintained with the Human Resource Department within the San Antonio Express-News, plaintiff also formally complained to HR, in an email dated Wednesday, September 27th, 2017, at 7:11pm, regarding defendant Rockwell, that: Greetings and good evening. Attached is the sole three (3) complaints presented regarding Rhonda Rockwell. They are: Firstly, of how she candidly and sarcastically treated me and accused me of it being my sole responsibility of knowing AquaPro Elite System (spending more than $4000 monthly with us), to a point where the client himself (Marvan) got in for me and felt the offense mode and quickly said Isidro did not even know this and was not his fault. Rhonda truly made this into a laughing matter and latter commented in front of colleagues (Tina, Joseph Allen that I know of) it was my Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 14 14 of of 55 55 fault for them going to the wrong address. There is much more in formation on this. Secondly, I have sought to get some accounts re-assigned to me from unassigned accounts in which Joseph Allen, Veronica Garcia, and Alex all have had accounts reassigned to them, but me. Rhonda provides that I have the most accounts of them all, and have not proven myself to be able to maintain to take on more accounts. This comes even after I have two (2) more additional efforts in contacting a total of 16-accounts yesterday and Monday alone, plus also collect $450 over the phone from home almost at 9pm at night yesterday and collect more than $2100 on saving a present advertiser on Monday (client has stage 4 cancer and is determined to retain his advertising with us and making things right; note, client is expecting to provide an additional $539 this week). There is much more in formation on this surrounding issue., and Thirdly, Rhonda continues to refer to some things of the past as she again has done today, stating I will either go to Ron or HR about this so she needs to be carefuL I explained to Rhonda I am only doing my job to retain new sales, collect on unpaying accounts and also help on Spanish speaking accounts (thankfully Rhonda has helped with having a Laredo, Texas employee ---Irma "Veronica" help on phone contact), and to also touch base with them. From my excitement emotion I carry and defend with my accounts and my office personality and home life personality, I admit that it sometimes causes me to have to respond to text messages or comments in person or over the phone she misinterprets my words as done in me making an apparent rude remark that I never stated. I provide Joseph Allen, Tina, Veronica Garcia as witnesses to some referenced here. I truly am focused to do my job and love my job and my clients. I will share this in meeting on Monday, October 2nd, 2017, however, I only will miss this meeting if a meeting intervenes. I ask if this meeting can be bypassed and for what I provide in this email be suffice. I try my hardest to dedicate my time on sales or account issues. Please call me as needed. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 15 15 of of 55 55 Emphasis Added-Email Was Sent To Both HR -Then Officials Mary Jessie Saldana & Felicia Neherly -On Subject Line "Rhonda. Rockwell". Attached to this email the plaintiff attached three (3) of the complaints he had then filed against defendant Rockwell. In this 09-27-2017 email complaint to HR, the plaintiff, among various details, complained of how defendant Rockwell "candidly and sarcastically treated [the plaintiff] of it being [the plaintiff SI sole responsibility of knowing AquaPro Elite Systems" and this was "to a point where the client himself got in for [the plaintiff] and felt the offense mode and quickly said [the plaintiff] did not even know this and was not his fault; [Defendant Rockwell[ truly made this into a laughing matter and later commented in front of colleagues (Tina, Joseph Allen, that I know of) it was my fault for them going to the wrong address."15 In a series of consistent communication with HR in San Antonio regarding a pattern of complaints of mistreatment of defendant Rockwell making even offensive derogatory attacks in plaintiff's age, targets he goes after in Spanish speaking, consistently trying to say plaintiff was saying something he wasn't in Spanish, plaintiff maintained email-communication and at times even phone communication with HR regarding defendant Rockwell. It wasn't until when defendant Rockwell refused to reverse a commission clawback16, plaintiff had to resort back to HR regarding defendant Rockwell and this time included a voiced concern that defendant Merritt17 too himself refused to reverse the clawback despite the plaintiff having miraculously saving an account and getting the customer to pay the monies owed in effort to retain the customer as a customer. This drew in a more obvious action of frustration of these two (2) defendants' in no matter. 15 This is not based on an assumption of the plaintiff, but rather confirmed from when the client himself provided that he felt "a vibe" that defendant Rockwell did not like or "felt something small" about the plaintiff. At the time of the filing of this 09-27-2017 HR email complaint against defendant Rockwell, Tina and the other employees referenced (some by name and other not named) were employees; however, these individuals are no longer active employees for Hearst. 16 "Clawback" in the text of commission is verberiage used to defines when a commission is paid out to the employee in advance of the sale and the customer cancels his or her service prior to the agreed term, those monies are recouped as a clawback to calculatively take back the amount of commission the employee was paid based upon the time when that customer canceled. For instance, if a customer had signed up for 12-months and the employee was paid out on the customer's agreement amount of $20,000, the plaintiff would of been paid out $3, 400 upfront; if the customer cancels at month 6 for example, the employee is taken the remaining months back as a clawback such as $1700 would of been the clawback owed on the example. 17 Defendant Merritt was too a corporate employee that would visit Hearst properties DMS Teams and was defendant Rockwell's superior. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 16 16 of of 55 55 The email provided: From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 7:03 PM To: Netherly, Felicia <FNetherly@express.news.net> Subject: P9 Commissions (Rhonda Rockwell/Ron Merritt) Email 2 attach explains. SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL INTERVENING MA TTER: Rhonda refused to reverse a "clawback" of $1, 083.45 because she maintained that it was cancelled in P9 (Period 9) and it is an exception for me to ask for a reversal of a clawback regardless even after the account has been saved. NOTE: For years, it has always been policy for a sales rep being paid on commission on a sale, if that account cancels before term agreed upon by client (usually 12 months as was the case here with Pascual Madrgial), the company will take on the next commission check of that sales rep the percentage of what the sales rep was paid out in the months remaining in the agreement and that client did not pay overall. Here in Pascual, Isaved the account within days from when the account was cancelled. I not only collected what Rhonda & Anthony requested of me (a check of $839, 2-checks of $300 each, but also a check of $539, but also additional checks post dated for weeks to come, all targeted to pay off the present balance, but also to put client ahead for the upcoming invoice, but also collected payment information now associated directly with the law firm and from the client himself and the bookkeeper-accountant to start taking out monies routinely to keep account current, something that has never been done on this account. Ron refuses to reverse the clawback as well Policy has always been if a sales rep saves or an account that is saved has a clawback, that clawback will be reversed. I have tried talking to them both on this and it makes no sense why they are refusing to reverse a clawback when I saved the account clearly. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 17 17 of of 55 55 Please advise if finance can confirm this policy and procedure because it has always been this way. From: Netherly, Felicia Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 6:37 PM To: Ramirez, Isidro; Saldana, Mary Jessie Subject: RE: P9 Commissions (Rhonda Rockwell/Ron Merritt) Hello, Please clarify what you are requesting. The email below is not clear. Thank you, Felicia Note: All of the checks provided by the then client cleared the bank. From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 3:58 PM To: Netherly, Felicia <FNetherlyexpress-news.net>; Saldana, Mary Jessie <maryjsalexpress-news.net> Subject: P9 Commissions (Rhonda RockwelllRon Merritt) Please me some response on the email sent regarding Rhonda and Ron on the commission matter that I sent an email on in detail that is truly not consistent with policy. The HR official responded back to the plaintiff on October 10th, 2017 that she will be meeting with defendant Merritt and "will discuss this concern." Referencing: Original message From: "Netherly, Felicia" <FNetherly@express_news.net> Date: 10/10/17 12:57 PM (GMT-06:00) To: "Ramirez, isidro" <iramirez@mysa.com> Subject: RE: P9 Commissions (Rhonda RockwelllRon Merritt) Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 18 18 of of 55 55 I am going to have a meeting with Ron and will discuss this concern During this time frame, plaintiff was trying to work with defendant Rockwell in trying to save AquaPr9 Elite Systems)9 Aside from AquaPro, Tree Service Of San Antonio, in which was plaintiff's highest paid monthly billing account (Billed @ $4, 575 monthly) too was becoming a concern in cancelling. From other means of communication during this time period, HR confirmed that they were working remotely from Houston at that time on plaintiff's complaints against defendant Rockwell and defendant Merritt, email communicated dated September 22nd, 2017 at 11:20am (Email Sent To HR) and response received at 11:31am. The conference between both Mary Jessie Saldana and Felicia Netherly took place on or about October 2nd, 2017. On Sunday, December 17th, 2017 @ 546pm, the plaintiff sent HR Specialist Felicia Netherly a detailed email provided below, however, plaintiff admits he at this point too was not confident that even HR could help him not because of the investigative HR Specialist but by virtue of what defendant Rockwell had already voiced to him then that not even HR could help him, that they were corporate staff sent to San Antonio to fix problems and get rid of people: From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 5:46 PM To: Netherly, Felicia <FNetherly@express_news.net> Cc: Rockwell, Rhonda <rrockwell@mysa.com> Subject: Follow-up from our conversation In complete effort to focus on new sales and client's bills being paid, upsell opportunities, and client's maintenance requests and internal cold call and other responsibilities, I wanted to document this in the form of an email. 18 There are far more details on this matter and matters in-between as far as "protected" complaints-activity plaintiff filed on this matter and others, however, for the sake of establishing relevance on the history of where the true ulterior and motive that illustrates the history and lining of protected activity, plaintiff is focusing on these, however, will not abandon any of such other proof existing in writing from the form of text messages and emails to establish plaintiff's complaints and true-real fear of losing his job or retaliatory or such other discriminatory behavior he ultimately suffered consequentially from filing these complaints against two corporate individuals. 19 The then client,AquaPro Elite Systems eventually canceled its' services with Hearst, purchased the website they had first started to advertise with Hearst, and have now a different marketing company that created their website. Shortly after purchasing the then created website by Local Edge (Hearst), AquaPro Elite Systems changed its' business name to Fidelis Elite Systems. https://www.fideliswater.com/;, see also https://www.facebook.com/AguaProEliteSystems/ (Still Bearing Name AQUAPRO ELITE SYSTEMS In Facebook Domain). Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 19 19 of of 55 55 I am not pursuing any complaint against Rhonda Rockwell or Anthony Medina. My instructive directive responsibility on new client's and clients' email communication is adhesive for me to stick and comply too regardless of client's requests or instruction in person to document in email or even if there is a language barrier involved and the client does not speak or and write English and if the co-owner gives the owner the right to sign any document. I will continue to go to Anthony Medina and Rhonda Rockwell for any client concern or solution, and I will stay away from implied comments or directives are coming from me even in providing client' feeling they could not reach Anthony Medina, and make clear which client this is that makes such accusations. In conclusion, I admit that I do have a very large book of business that actually necessitates and requires me to meet with potential client(s) or existing client(s) over the weekend or late in the day as I have done with Eucalyptus Tree Service and again will do tomorrow when 1 meet with Serratos Burglar Bars (Client posing a potential upgrade and has referrals to provide me. I will not accuse or imply to accuse anyone of underdoing or not doing there job, something that I never meant to even as much as imply. My only fears were that no one would ever think this; it is client's as Popo & Tink-A-Tako that tried to claim this of Anthony. I assure you I will never accuse this of a fellow colleague. I only feared that when we are all put into a single room, Anthony takes defense immediately when those subjects come up. Rhonda has admittingly made me better in many aspects and even though a voiced different tone, I accept she has very good intentions and only ask that my view is defended as I defend others. We are all in this together, and this very month, I have had 9 signed contracts (more than any month this year) and 3 additional retained client's, combined to 12 contracts signed this period. That are 12 yeses. Wow! My intentions are good and ultimately look to sell, retain, and keep clients' happy. 1 only have been faced with Spanish speaking management matters that I accept I have to intervene and I accept that even Ron Merritt made clear over 2 years ago in having Aracely Gonzalez help to that extent, I carry this responsibility and 1 will proudly continue too. Rhonda has even extended to offer Veronica from Laredo to help, and she has been great help. Happy Holidays, colleagues. These last 2 weeks of Period 12, 1 have so much in my sales pipeline pending and much personal things in my life to deal with that 1 admit I need to stay focused and strong. I Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 20 20 of of 55 55 learned years ago that I am the smartest when I become more focused and stronger as 1 am now. I assure you all to be and continue to be better each day and learn more for the years to come with Hearst. One other interesting aspect to further establish plaintiff's clearly and plain fear of both defendant Rockwell and defendant Merritt is one of the emails plaintiff sent to defendant Merritt in 2017 when the P9 (2017) Commission Clawback continued: From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 9:34 AM To: Merritt, Ron <rmerritt@hearst.com> Subject: P9 Commissions Ron: Good morning. I am not coming to you to bypass Rhonda. I am only coming to you since Rhonda made clear you made a decision to not reverse clawback on The Law Office Of Pascual Madriagi PLLC ($1, 083.45 Clawback). At the time the decision was made, only 2 checks clear from client. Yesterday another check clear a well as the additional check earlier this week, making this 2 more checks since, and 4 total checks clearing. Yesterday's check was the final check needed to clear to get the account reinstated. I ask this be the final time request for something of this sort being requested of you, Defendant Merritt clearly was very close communicated with defendant Rockwell and there was nothing, no matter how wrong or offensive defendant Rockwell was, defendant Merritt got in for her no matter how and what until it eventually resulted in HR getting involved and an investigation that later it was rumored that defendant Merritt did not like the fact that he had to answer to a local property HR about a sales rep, and decided to move on elsewhere; see e.g.: Original message From: "Merritt, Ronal <rmerritt@hearst.com> Date: 9/30/17 7:05 AM (GMT-06:00) Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 21 21 of of 55 55 To: "Ramirez, Isidro" <iramirez@mysa.com> Subject: RE: Need To Speak To You I will be in SA Tuesday and will send you a meeting invite. Please bring the following: The client is not paid. Sending us a post-dated check means the client lacks the funds to stay current. Obviously, this is a high risk client. Rhonda is following the policy, If the checks clear the chargeback would be reversed in the period the payments clear. Reminder- we pay you upfront assuming the client will stay a year. Clearly there is risk this client will not. Rhonda already send me an email warning ........ you would come to me. We just assume now anytime you will not get your way there will be a complaint. As we discussed before.. ..is this really who you want to be? As discussed ...... stop telling me you work hard. We all know that and it becomes trivial when you repeat it over and over and over to anyone that will listen. You have no right to tell Rhonda where to assign accounts. Management assigns them based on where we feel they will best perform. Here is why Rhonda did not assign the accounts to you. Based on the following why do you think she should? o Your verbal communication skills need improvement. You simply hear what you want. We have numerous clients that refuse to work with you for exactly this reason. o in addition, your written communication needs improvement. Your email below is another example. It's really difficult to follow what you are saying. o You have the highest churn rate on the team. Why would we give you more accounts? o Since you don't follow policies/confuse them ......... CE is adamant ........you are the most difficult rep in the building to work with. I don't need to add challenges to the CE team. Tell me exactly who said what. We will bring that rep in and get to the bottom of it. 20 20 immediately contacted HR on this matter on a pending HR meeting the following Monday and forwarded the email: From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 10:54 AM To: Netherly, Felicia <FNetherlyexpress-news.net>; Saldana, Mary Jessie <maryjsalexpress.news.net> Subject: Need To Speak To You Importance: High Felicia/Mary Jessie: Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 22 22 of of 55 55 From the language of this email, it is clear that defendant Merritt did not respect silence and the integrity of an investigative matter related to an employee complaint regardless of how right that employee is. Plaintiff provided statements that defendant Rockwell had good intentions in the tone and sake to respect complaining of such powerful person. As the above email shows and that mentioned of defendant Rockwell, power and fear were merely 2 words to identify boldly the situation plaintiff underwent. Wishing you both a very good weekend. Below is important to also have when we meet on Monday. Ron now is wanting everyone referencing what Rhonda has done towards me and how she treated me in front of them to come forward and identify themselves (See Below). From Tina Rabe, Brelyn Harris, Joseph Allen, Veronica Garcia, and Alex, I name a few that are witnesses of her treatment towards me. I have from the very,very beginning feared retaliatory action, and only see Rhonda getting worser to me and tells me to do one thing in saving Pascual (account referenced below I saved), and changed everything she said to me. It even seemed as if she said that because she didn't believe that I will go get a total of 6-8 checks this week of money from payroll and attomey business account. I ask for your help here to prevent this meeting Ron wants to have with me and Rhonda and requesting me to identify all my colleagues that came to me in how Rhonda treated me, unless you see something, please give direction here. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 23 23 of of 55 55 During this time, defendant Daney had gotten involved when HR2' in which defendant 21 Plaintiffs concern yet being as strong as he was and believing in someone being able to internally get involved on facial and pure retaliation, plaintiff even emailed corporate counsel Adam Colon on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, during lunch (12:17pm) on a very detailed complaint, and never ever received any response: From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 12:17 PM To: Colon, Adam Subject: Rhonda Rockwell Adam: Greetings and good morning, counselor. In effort to try to come to a best solution here and not going in any legal forum or legal setting, I come to you as a remedy of last resort within Hearst. I truly have no other choice but to given the unfortunate circumstances. What I am completely wanting to stay away from is establishing a claim viable to a trier of fact against or involving my employer. I love Hearst, my job, & my clients', however, I have been complete subject and target here of only one individual that being Rhonda Rockwell, of pure (initially) discrimination that others went to HR and complained of her demeanor and behavior towards, against, and around them, some in which are no longer employed with Hearst and some that remain working for Hearst and provided me that they too fear retaliation here. I completely challenge within Hearst the premise of Rhonda implying, expressly stating, and indicating within the attached document and reporting to HR that I have misrepresented and lied to clients'. Of nearly 100 clients', I am sure that each client are not happy at times because of lack of calls during a particular time frame, etc., however, some of the very clients' Rhonda claims I have misinformed informs me that it seemed at times that Rhonda was calling them, trying to have client confirm something that was not true of me or a misstatement. I don't want to turn this into any Hostile Environment or Retaliation Suit or even a Discriminatory suit within the meaning of policy and law. I am asking for the legal department to intervene here as I have suffice information, documentation, emails, text message communication, and other proof that will raise more that any assumption of where this all started from last summer and how others and then myself went to HR to comply of Rhonda, that this is a pure product of Retaliation in itself, no question or an established hostile work environment, and even establishing discrimination. I want to communicate this within and go nowhere as I truly believe that your department and the higher up deserve the truth here. Please let me know if there is a possibility to communicate with you via phone or an option to speak with you sir. I include the email sent to Kenneth yesterday for enclosed information., Thank you. This is a Dropbox link that has some of the email history relevant information https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qasjgm8mv2owh7b/AADNX42Sk4YzzAFbpRxDaHsa?dI=0. I also have other information involving the text message communication that was very offensive, email communication, etc. I am wanting to resolve this within,sir. I contacted the investigator to not pursue my matter with them and withdrew attachments on their website that would have supported claims. I acted out of fear, pure fear from what Rhonda had made clear to me in she not having to like me work with me, among other comments she made. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 24 24 of of 55 55 Daney was the ultimate investigator over both defendant Rockwell and defendant Merritt refusal to reverse the $1, 083.45 commission clawback, in which ultimately defendant Daney investigated the claims and scheduled conferenc&2 Approximately within the week of this meeting, defendant Daney confirmed with the plaintiff that the commission clawback will be reversed, though defendant Daney provided oral words to the plaintiff that he was right, both defendant Rockwell and defendant Merritt had no good intentions in refusing to reverse the commission clawback, defendant Daney never put this into writing. Defendant Rockwell's behavior worsened throughout the Holiday Season and throughout the New Year 2018, though the plaintiff continued to communicate with HR here locally in San Antonio and defendant Daney. With no other recourse to go to, realistically stated, with nowhere else to run, plaintiff had to file a formal complaint with the EEOC, with the first filing being filed on January 11th, 2018. Later the HR staff confirmed with plaintiff that they were aware of the EEOC complaint as Hearst counsel Adam Colon reached out to them on this matter. The EEOC complaint was disposed of on January 18th, 2018. In one of the weekly 1-On-i's23 with the plaintiff, defendant Rockwell started to continue to label plaintiff as a whiner going over her head and "never happy". Defendant Rockwell commented then that I was the type of person she needs to work close with legal. Defendant Rockwell voice strengthened at times even when sometimes the office door to her office were left open, other employees later would say they could hear how defendant Rockwell yelled at plaintiff and really had no respect for plaintiff, especially in front of others. On January 31st, 2018, plaintiff was summoned by both defendant Rockwell and defendant Merritt to meet in a conference room on the 5th Floor of the San Antonio Express-News Main Building after a staff meeting with employees immediately prior this meeting. This surely is a day the plaintiff could never forget. This day is the day that defendant Rockwell issued a 4-Page FINAL WARNING to the plaintiff. Defendant Merritt was present and was the only of all staff that stood up in a strong manner to address the plaintiff very stern as he done. HR Specialist Felicia Netherly was the HR Specialist that apparently was going to drive the meeting,though realistically she only spoke brief when compared to defendant Rockwell and defendant Merritt. The door to this conference room was left opened, interestingly. HR Specialist Mary Jessie Saldana although she was not in the room itself, she was a few feet away from this conference room and later provided the shocking she heard and others too across the floor that day Defendant Daney sent email confirmation in him scheduling to meet with defendant Merritt and find out his motives, etc, and getting this resolved. As one of the integral tasks of the plaintiff, plaintiff had weekly 1-On-I's with defendant Rockwell on goals, meeting preps, strategies in place, and other sales related matters, where only they 2 were in an office themselves. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 25 25 of of 55 55 that were present. Defendant Merritt accused plaintiff of matters as defendant Rockwell did in which plaintiff countered each time that he had not done with his Spanish speaking clients' on his book of business.24 Defendant Merritt tried very hard to have plaintiff admit to things he had not done, including extending client contracts, something that the plaintiff then told defendant Merritt that he does not believe there are any customers that would say this of him as he worked very hard25 Regardless of the tone and how embarrassing it was to speak boldly, strong tone, and at times literally yell at the plaintiff where even other employees too later said they feared this type of reaction or losing their jobs26, plaintiff was given a 4-Page FINAL WARNING, and had no other choice to sign if plaintiff wanted to keep his job. One of the shocking things that plaintiff learned was the demoralizing manner and way defendant Rockwell and defendant Merritt made their intentions self-apparent. Plaintiff would even go to defendant Merritt prior to and even after this meeting on 01-31-2018, regarding defendant Rockwell, and defendant Merritt would only "circle" in defendant Rockwell in all emails of plaintiffs complaints and concerns of defendant Rockwell. It was clear that there was no secrecy in complaints, and that corporate people "only getting in for each other," as later sarcastically pointed out by defendant Rockwell. Plaintiff continued belief in defendant Daney intervention possibly resolving matters, led to an impasse itself as well, as time will show in the facts that follow and that are also evidenced in the form of text message and email communication,as necessary, and witnesses statements27 The very next day of 01-31-2018, on February 1st, 2018, the plaintiff emailed defendant Daney the following, accompanying 13-attachments to this email, the following: Kenneth: 24 Plaintiff throughout his entire tenure employment with Hearst, was the only employee that had the most smaller paying customers that paid under $500 monthly and the only employee that had the most Spanish speaking clients' on digital advertising with Hearst, as defendant Rockwell would reiterate in weekly 1-On-i meetings, urging plaintiff he should use his talent to sell "bigger monthly spending accounts." 25 Words like "work very hard" both defendant Merritt and defendant Rockwell had plaintiff afraid to even speak, when plaintiff only intended to identify that he worked hard for the customer to retain them, whereas defendant Rockwell and defendant Merritt would say plaintiff bragged about working hard himself. 26 Various of the employees that were ears distance, this 31st day of January, 2018, either were forced to take their retirement and move on or get fired, or quit because of mistreatment of defendant Rockwell, as later confirmed and a very thorough investigation revealed, including HR Specialist Mary Jessie Saldana. 27 Plaintiff is very aware that the laws recited as claims herein even protect witnesses and spouses of retaliation or discrimination in anyway. This is mentioned in the event any Supplemental pleadings or parties are joined if plaintiff's active employee witnesses or former employee witnesses suffer any consequential retaliatory actions. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 26 26 of of 55 55 Greetings, sir. I am keeping my word with you and am getting back with you regarding the matter that related to Rhonda Rockwell. Ihave been truly hoping and hoping that as time passes things will get better and mend and I can truthfully work with Rhonda in a professional and free from hostile work place, however I am undoubtedly wrong. Rhonda escorted me to HR today immediately after a 4 & a half hour training we had today, where Ron, Felicia, & herself were all in conference to meet. I have established contact with witnesses, text communication, some email communication, and other admissible proof to corroborate my claims here. It is clear that I can establish true definition meaning of what is workplace harassment a hostile environment within the meaning of parameters of the law, & retaliation, however, sir, due to the longevity of circumstances here, truly believe that I want 1 to focus on where these circumstances all started from; that being when people were going to HR complaining of how Rhonda was treating me and demeaning me and then my going to HR myself in filing a complaint is to establish motive and when this all started. You asked me what I wanted done of the overall matter and I replied to you in being able to work without reaction and Rhonda coming at me in what is truthfully she building a case against me to support terminating me, however, the question is here if I never complained about her of the Race, comments of me getting old, people complaining of her to HR, and then my going to HR on her influenced her motive here. I truly do not want to have any right to sue or taking action against Hearst, and truly I am asking you now for the options that could be done if I establish Hostile Environment & Retaliation, and even Discrimination within the meaning of policy or law? I truly believe that Rhonda has controlled this situation to a point where no matter what I do or how I come to her in effort to try to get the right solution here, Rhonda made clear to me for months that she does not have to like me to work with me. I have created nearly 20 documented pages and have supported proof & witnesses to support these claims, however, I truly respect Hearst very much and do not want to go against my employer. If established, please advise options here? In the meanwhile, I completely intend to comply with what I had no other choice but to sign today even though I dispute I have never misinformed clients. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 27 27 of of 55 55 This too is one of the complaints that plaintiff made, among other complaints, after the 01-1 1-2018 EEOC filing28 that plaintiff clearly identified that "race, comments of [plaintiff[ getting old, [and] people complaining of her to HR." This complaint came after the plaintiff's EEOC filing. Even after the 02-01-2018 email complaint sent to defendant Daney and various phone conversations and emails the plaintiff sent to him after the FINAL WARNING date, plaintiff complained of various continued and growing retaliatory action of defendant Rockwell and even defendant Merritt buttressing defendant Rockwell when he formally or even verbally would voice complaints to defendant Merritt when he was in town. 29 One of the other disturbing actions came after plaintiff sold a new account and was told to get 2 debit cards and the signed agreement and payment recurring form of El Rodeo Mexican Grill and even complaining of a plaintiff's effort to retain El Mucho Taco Plus, a former then client that wanted to advertise and lost track of payments due to the murder of his son. By email sent on February 21st, 2018, plaintiff sent defendant Daney the following worded email: Kenneth: Greetings and good evening, sir. Iappreciate the time and effort you have put into speaking with me consistently, determinatively to gather all information and answers to your questions, these past couple days. Iknow you have mentioned calling me after 3pm so we can wrap up the final questions you were going to ask me. Tomorrow morning I will start my day off in Boerne, Texas. I can speak with you on the way to that meeting or in-between. I will say for you to call me and I will answer if I am able to speak. 28 Complaints or outcry's against these defendants' not only communicated to the EEOC. In fact, the plaintiff started to include employees of the Texas Workforce Commission -Civil Rights Division (Twc.State.Tx.Us). 29 In defendant Merritt's role, as Senior VP Of Digital Marketing, defendant Merritt would, among other integral duties, would travel weekly sometimes rather monthly to each of the known 7 Hearst properties, that included San Antonio, Houston, Laredo, San Francisco, New York, and Connecticut. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 28 28 of of 55 55 In the meanwhile label and entitle this as an URGENT MATTER on the El Rodeo, I Mexican Grill # I & # 5 and also ElRodeo Mexican Grill #2 & #4, and plead to you to intervene to see that these accounts are reinstated as I have listened, obeyed, and done exactly what Rhonda had asked me to do in when I also obtained credit to an acceptable payment of 2 cards per contract since they already submitted payment on both cards initially. I ask for your intervention here as immediate as possible as I have been asking this since discovering fast Friday that Rhonda has rejected the submission "as contracted." I can reasonably provide to client that I am working on a solution to get alt done as contracted, and this will be the truth since I am still trying to in reaching out to you, however, it has been more than a month since 1/12118 when they signed up for the website for those locations too ahd even with the 1I28118 white-out free agreement date, it has been just about a month on that date as well. Please intervene, sir. Email Sent On February 21st, 2018 6:59pm. The body of such email discloses that since 01-12-2018 I have been working with this client in getting their digital products up and going, with myself having to deal with defendant Rockwell having blocked the submission of this account to get worked on due to having more than 2 payment methods then; I collected 2 payments as defendant Rockwell has approved of and she continued with what defendant Merritt buttressed. By this time, the plaintiff's complaint he filed against defendant Rockwell and defendant Merritt's 01-31-2018 FINAL WARNING given to the plaintiff, defendant Daney conducted his thorough investigation of speaking not only with defendant Merritt, defendant Rockwell, various witnesses (present and some former employees) and even proof plaintiff had presented then, defendant Daney, on April 9th, 2018, concluded the investigation in a 2-page HAND DELIVERED letter, stating: Dear Mr. Ramirez: Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 29 29 of of 55 55 On January 24, 2O18°, you submitted to the Human Resources an email of formal 30 Plaintiffs email sent to defendant Daneey on 01-24-2018 provides: Kenneth: Greetings and good morning, sir. I am working on gathering all supportive to what we discussed on Monday. Due to the extensive information involved, the fact some of the witnesses have already either been terminated or quit, and some have been hard to communicate with being this week is the final week of P1 (2018)---First Sales Period of 2018, I am still working on gathering essential information, it may be necessary to carry this throughout this weekend, regarding: 1. Retaliation (i.e., what is going on now is more likely than not to not have happened had I not gone to HR and voiced concerns others have communicated to HR previously regarding Rhonda Rockwell); 2. Created Circumstances Of Hostile Work Environment, and 3. Discrimination within the meaning of standards involved. I believe given all in totality, there is enough to support either or all of the above. As I mentioned to you, sir, when we spoke on Monday, I am only seeking to be no longer subject to the above by Rhonda, however, this may already be too late based on her comments to me of breaking her trust in my going to HR already among other comments shared with you, sir. In all I shared with you on Monday, this is not about the nearly $1100 commission that I truly believe was not consistent commission general or normal procedure in my saving The Law Office Of Pascual Madrigal PLLC since I saved the account, obtained all payment necessary to secure bring the payment up-to-date, and obtained recurring payment information for credit to use monthly, this is about the details over everything I shared with you. Yesterday, it is clear that Alex is more likely not to support witnessing as Rhonda recently opened the door to another large opportunity to Alex (Joe Gamez) and continues to refuse to provide m with any opportunities; this is one of the pieces of unequalness, stating I have more than enough customers to worry about even though I prove to maintaining contact with all of them routinely and actively. Kenneth, sir, I really fear even coming to you on this matter. Please note that as of yesterday, Kellee Richards in credit here in San Antonio came to a solution in agreeing to use 2-cards on file for each of the two accounts referenced above. I shared this with Rhonda and Rhonda got silent and it is unclear if what Kellee agreed on her own is fine with Rhonda. The tension the two accounts caused above and other matters have further made concentrating on new opportunities to sale complicated, however, rest assured, I am not giving up on what I know I am good in doing that being selling. I have started the email uploaded and other information including some in text message communication, in uploading in Dropbox. I will be in contact with you on this matter, however, may call you prior to the I finalization of this on the solution requested. I really believe that Rhonda has lost her respect for me and "trust" since, as she put it, I have come to HR; something others have addressed to HR initially and she and Ron have known this since the very beginning of these circumstances in Quarter 3/Quarter 4 of 2017. In the meanwhile, please feel welcomed to contact me with any questions you may have. Thank you. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 30 30 of of 55 55 complaint31you submitted to the Human Resources an email of formal complaint against your manager Ms. Rhonda Rockwell. Your complaint against Ms. Rockwell consisted of issues pertaining to retaliation, discrimination, and management creating a hostile work environment. It was your belief that management retaliated against you due to your actions of reporting Ms. Rockwell to HR previously. On January 31st, 2018, you received a final warning letter from your management team for unsatisfactory work performance, violation of company policy, failure to follow instructions, and dishonesty,compromised integrity, You felt the warning letter was unwarranted. You stated that Ms. Rockwell has purposely taken you off of accounts and has mocked your language, making you feel less than. In addition, you've stated she has treated you differently from other sales representatives on the team. Lastly, you've alleged that Ms. Rockwell has created a hostile work environment where at times she will question you on the status of your accounts. Since the start of this investigation, you have admitted to HR that Ms.Rockwell's management style with you has improved. Our investigation did not reveal any evidence 'that you are being treated unfairly or differently because of your race, or any other reason. Our investigation also did not reveal any evidence of retaliation towards you. Accordingly, our investigation is officially closed. While we did not find any evidence of discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment, we do believe that Ms. Rockwell's management style and approach in leading teams could be improved. It was revealed that Ms. Rockwell made inappropriate comments and made them in an open environment. This was also evident based on interviews and statemönts from other employees. Senior management is taking steps to work with Ms. Rockwell to improve these areas. We also believe that the reporting relationship between you and Ms. Rockwell could be improved with better communication. As such, we would like to arrange for a meeting with you, Human Resources and Ms. Rockwell so that you can each communicate clearly with each other with the intent to set expectations and develop a plan for future success. I will be in touch with you to schedule this meeting. 31 The January 24th, 2018 date is actually exactly 1-week from the January 31st, 2018 FINAL WARNING date, and 13 days to-date when plaintiff filed the EEOC complaint. Though plaintiff also complained on 02-01-2018 of the 01-31-2018 FINAL WARNING to defendant Daney, the plaintiff accurately complained of this action on January 24trh, 2018, for purposes of chronological order in the texture of these retaliations claims. Jack vs. Texaco Research Center. 743 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1984)(In reversing the trial court's dismissal of EEOC and 1st Amendment claims of retaliation. appellate court considered chronology and causation in assessing the analyzing leaal standards to reach legal conclusions from clear settled caselaw). Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 31 31 of of 55 55 Also based on documentation reviewed, the disciplinary action administered to you was warranted therefore the warning letter will remain in place. You brought forth an issue of not being paid out on an account, i.f. Law Office Of Pascual Madrigal. That issue has now been resolved after the HR investigation. 32 Hearst strongly believes that all employees should be able to report their concerns, free from retaliation, and we have policies that clearly state our strict prohibition against retaliation. If you have any questions about retaliation, please bring them to my attention immediately." 2-Days after the conclusion of this investigation, defendant Merritt reassigned, providing in part: Iapologize for sending this message via email. I did get a chance to catch up with your managers via phone. If you have not been told, I made the difficult decision to resign a few weeks ago. We have been juggling notifying 3 businesses and making sure everyone is set up for success. SA has an amazing team and since this will impact you the least... .hence the late notification. Friday will be my last day at Hearst. Email Dated Wednesday, April 11th, 2018, 1 1:53am, sent throughout then and stilt active staff members of the San Antonio Express-News. Another yet interesting situation that too appeared plainly retaliatory as defendant Rockwell was knocking one of the plaintiffs highest paid monthly billing client's33, plaintiff again reached out to defendant Daney and complained of defendant 32 The solution referred here is the fact that the plaintiff was given back the commissions he was owed in his miraculously saving and retaining a stage 4 cancer patient, an immigration attorney, Pascual Madrigal. ' Tree Service Of San Antonio was plaintiffs highest paid monthly billing client at $4, 575, AquaPro Elite Systems was biling at about $4, 320 monthly, SA Quality Tree Service billing at $2, 599, and Santiago Law Office was billing at about $2, 040 monthly. Under the scope of management, plaintiff lost Tree Service Of San Antonio, Santiago Law Office, and AquaPro Elite Systems, losing approximately $10, 935 in plaintiff's monthly billing which meant plaintiffs goals year-over-year (YOY) were nearly impossible to hit unless plaintiff sold a more than average considerably larger monthly billing account. Based upon conversations defendant Rockwell had with the brother of SA QUALITY TREE SERVICE, Mr. Steve Huerta, Owner Of Golden Tree Experts, the account too also cancelled as that client commented that not even defendant Rockwell would respect plaintiff the times when they were on phone conference and this impacted his decision to keep working with Hearst. Both SA QUALITY TREE SERVICE and GOLDEN TREE SERVICE both cancelled before the plaintiff left Hearst. Which meant, in total, plaintiff lost approximately $16, 241 in monthly billing, which was a proven more than any revenue client ever lost under any previous or even the manager the plaintiff had when leaving. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 32 32 of of 55 55 Rockwell's handling and decision making that even that very client questioned, providing: Ken: An interesting update on this account today that should provide even more of a concern and establishing that even cancelled, this client communicates to me while Anthony had called him (I was on the road and had no idea Anthony was calling him at that moment) and he does not know why they are calling him and he does want to ultimately do business with us in the future with the Spanish newspaper and probable website, only he does not feel comfortable with Rhonda in the picture. I explained that I cannot intervene in management matters and I must admit I tried to get in for Rhonda and this client provided he understands my intentions and ethic. Italked to Santiago today, I got the client calmed here, however, there is honestly still a way to retain this account, however, due to Rhonda's direction that caused 2 bills to be generated, client did not want to pay those bills as he was misled by Rhonda and had to wait almost 6 weeks to get Spanish content on website when he felt himself that I could of done this within a week, something I got to admit I could of done, as well as saving the $800 Rhonda had spent of company money. I am only intending to give an update here and do not want you to be kept from nothing but the truth, sir. I apologize to you, sir, for clearly shown grave fear of my job and something that I have taken years to build and for Rhonda to come in and say things like she "don't have to like me to work with me" and do various things and mock me in front of other people and other things happening, I admit and confess to you, sir, that I was afraid of losing my job for something that was not the true facts or true expression or statement or meaning of who really is Isidro. Email Dated Friday. April 6 2018. 11:40pm. Sent To Kenneth Daney. Subject Matter SANTIAGO LAW OFFICES: CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT. One of the common questions even too plaintiff questioned defendant Rockwell that never truthfully received an answer that demostrated any efforts to retain Santiago as an active client, especially when Santiago primary customer base were Spanish only speaking customers, is why defendant Rockwell elected to go with hiring someone outside in the East Coast at spending $800 company money to translate the website from English to Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 33 33 of of 55 55 Spanish with a customer that plaintiff proved Spanish was his primary speaking language and that even the client too himself felt more comfortable in working with him since not only did plaintiff sell him the account but also worked with him through a point where defendant Rockwell denounced that plaintiff working with the client himself or with them was not going to happen, to include accounts like Aqua Pro Elite Systems and Tree Service Of San Antonio, especially when Santiago too later announced that he does not want to ever work with the San Antonio Express-News if defendant Rockwell was employed with them. Santiago even provided to plaintiff at later date that had defendant Rockwell allowed plaintiff to translate the website in Spanish himself, the translation could "of done his within a week," quoting the April 6th, 2018 email sent to defendant Daney. From emails efforted of the plaintiff sent to the account manager and defendant Rockwell on Tuesday, April 3rd, 2018, it became clear that there was nothing plaintiff could do to realistically change any retaliatory behavior and it was beyond resolution and making any peace. Interestingly, AquaPro Elite Systems', primary owner's higher up staff contacted plaintiff and wanted to continue to work with Hearst from what plaintiff, from a phone call in January, 2018, however, not even this showed to defendant Rockwell that they could work together to save the account. From: Ramirez, lsidro Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:53 PM To: Medina, Anthony <AMedinamysa.com>; Rockwell, Rhonda <rrockwellcmysa.com> Cc: Rockwell, Rhonda <rrockwellmysa.com> Subject: AquaPro Elite Systems - Cancellation I agree with you completely we should meet so we can set up a proposal and review together (?) as well the Dashboard as Rhonda had done as well and try to prove value. Notably, when Rhonda approved to remove the 20k email marketing, the approval did provide a National SEO solution. From all of the tracking phone I strongly then refuted to Nathan that we should use on this particular campaign as one day we may need to prove the value in each product from print (all print areas ran including SAEN and each of the targeted communities). I do ask you both to believe in me in what is now truthfully a Last Resort coming back to me On the note of client wanting something, I would say for a client that has spent more than $70,000 with us since first signing up with us in November, 2016, having what I think would be at least 3 options of what we should "do" in response to what client is "expecting from us,"I would suggest something within the guidelines of Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 34 34 of of 55 55 1) Print Story Studio, 2) Some SPURS Nation salvage print or measures combined, or 0 and, 3) Some OMS product. In either or oombned of these 3, 1 ask for some configuration of budget if worse comes to worse and this client demands for something. This is not initial approach to retaining the account; this would be means so we have and know what we have in our pockets as an option to fully act in a retention capacity without us freezing or being put in a position to freestyle what we will give him. I really believe if can control the meeting as i did the first day when Nathan went with me to meet this client, I might have a chance to salvage this account. I ask each of you to please do not take any offense in my asking this as I ask this as a question and not a statement. In the end, we are in this together. As Rhonda recalls the day she had initially met Marvan when we waited for you to show since we hadn't known of the address change, this client has a good reaction towards me. I admit I believe in both of you, this is why I have not touched this account for about 6 months aside the fact of Rhonda asking me to be hands off, it was Marvan and Tammy that called me early January this year wanting to make $$$$. With this in mind, I will call Mat-van directly today or tomorrow or no later than Thursday when I will return to work these days I have taken off to be with family and prepare myseff for a procedure later this month. One of the subsequent emails plaintiff sent to account management and defendant Rockwell, provided: In response to the information provided in this paragraph below: Spoke with Marian. Discussed cancellation request with him. He said that he was frustrated with the campaign overall because he signed on and said Isidro and Nathan focused on bringing new sales in. But then Mat-van wanted to focus on service calls instead of new sales, so he wanted to shift the campaign to focus on that around April2017. It was then that we also built him a new website because his website was national but we were only focusing on optimizing in Texas. He did not feel this was the right strategy after discussions with us. He said he was also upset that he signed for a 12 month contract in April of 2017 and Isidro did not tell him it was a new contract Then, he was upset that Nathan left in May/June timeframe. He said he overall only got two new sales from the campaign. Asked him if there was anything we could do for him and he said he would stay with us if Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 35 35 of of 55 55 we gave him6months free.Itold himlwou/dn't be able to approvethat and he understood We discussed transfoning the website to him at the end of the month. lW/I follow up. *ln the meeting of April, 2017, where I was able to convince this client on the advantage website, Nathan and I did inform client this was a 12-month agreement. You were in the meeting with us, Anthony. In fact, getting in for the truth here, it was never about the length of the contract then, Marvin' s focus was on growth and exposure and tweaking the focus of getting service calls. Please note that Rhonda done an excellent job previously when I was in the picture as far as I can look back in they were getting calls from both Service and Sales, however, it was more of their fault in not returning calls, missing those calls, or the calls being routed to a wrong department or staff that was not communicating or forwarding the sales or repair lead to the correct department. Asfarasme&Nathan,Nathanwasthesolecontacttoajunctureastheclientwantedtowork then directly with management when he felt confident that things were in place. I was taken out of this picture only to the extent of 30-day calls or routine follow ups. In fact, Nathan was so close to this client he lived minutes from him in Fair Oaks Ranch-Boerne and would often see him at places as La Gloria in Boeme. As far as the 6 months for free, I believe we can go into reporting from all aspects of the digital products and the print side as well (there are 8 local track phone #' a I believe), I truly believe I can help get pass this with countering the aspect of each product ability and calls that they did get I am honestly ignorant from all details since last August as I have been left out of this as managementhashandledthis,sothedetailslknowiswhatis providedtomenow.Inthesake of retention, I believe, working together we should be good. Inanoldtnjesaying,whenonepointsaflngeratus,hehas4flngersleftpointingathim;thjsfltsthjs situation because I believe you two worked very well on this account and there are only pieces that I believe we can put together in a final meeting worth making possible. This account truly is what I believe our talents together can salvage this account even though I believe not "as is? Plaintiff' $ complaints against defendant Rockwell continued up until defendant Rockwell was interestingly promoted after the April 9th, 2018 HAND DEUVERED letter from defendant Daney that concluded the investigation of the 01-31-2018 FINAL WARNING, matters before then as far as July 2017 August 2017, and other matters identified herein this complaint or and that are existing proof in the event of a trial or any hearing on the merits of this lawsuit. With many other text messages, many other emails, and other pertinent times relevant to the plaintiff's chronological order complaints, plaintiff is trying to minimize a far more detailable lawsuit and be as "short and concise" as possible to validate the merits of both his federal statutory & federal constitutional claims as well s state law tort claims as recited herein. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 36 36 of of 55 55 AquaPro Elite Systems, Tree Service Of San Antonio, and Santiago Law Firm were all cancelled under the management of defendant Rockwell and 2 of these client' s later confirmed to the plaintiff that did not want to work with Hearst because of defendant Rockwell and knew there was nothing I could do about her controlling or handling my accounts. Plaintiff maintains that had it not been of him going to HR, the EEOC, complaining to the state, and voicing complaints of not only defendant Rockwell but also defendant Merritt, even after defendant Merritt resigned per the email sent 2 days after the investigation of defendant Daney was over, further made plaintiff a target of retaliation. Even though when defendant Rockwell was promoted to Vice President Of Marketing and later to operating administrative matters, from plaintiff' s subsequent superior Mr. Pancho Mangual and the superior thereafter, Mrs. Lone Castillo Dye, these superiors boss was always defendant Rockwell, though Pancho would also report to the secondly assigned corporate contact that supersedes any other role of highest management, being the CEO, Steve Bentz, Pancho made clear that defendant Rockwell still had the say. From the mistreatment and way rumors spreaded across the floor, even in how other employees saw how defendant Rockwell disrespected and treated plaintiff while she was management over the plaintiff and the Premise Team, the fact of such damaging effects and impact and for defendant Rockwell to only be promoted, inflicted damaging credibility and any possibility of restoring, maintaining, or effectively communicating with certain employees that were very close to defendant Rockwell.35 to not include how others too admitted that they were afraid of being subjected to retaliatory treatment because they too had a family too feed. Plaintiff was terminated on January 10th, 201936 due to apparent performance issues. In more than 6 years of employment, the performance of plaintiff was never an issue, for this 2Time President' s Club Winner, and for selling, from what other Hearst employees shared with plaintiff when he was on the 2nd President' s Club, that plaintiff sold the most small businesses accounts and had the most upgrades in San Antonio, as a Hearst employee. 37 Revealed in a thorough investigation, at least 4 employees feared defendant Rockwell as well and would not greet or "good morning" because they wanted to keep their jobs and "did not want Rhonda to mess with me too because I have a family to feed," from what one of the witnesses provided. CEO Steve Bentz handed down the official termination of plaintiff and refused to disclose who exactly made the decision or whom teh panel or board or employees consisted of that made that decision. Defendant Rockwell would at times mysteriously remove and reassign accounts from the plaintiffs book of business without giving plaintiff advanced notice or replacing other accounts until plaintiff complained more and more and defendant Rockwell would assigned 3 accounts recollectively. This occurred mostly started in Quarter 4 2017. Per an email dated Thursday, August 7th, 2017 at 7:03pm, defendant Rockwell made clear "any concerns about biling need to go through me, please don't email [Departmental Staff] going forward. Thank you." These words were from plaintiff inquiring on TC Heating & Air, and yet catching another account not on his billing. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 37 37 of of 55 55 The impact defendant Rockwell had in damaging plaintiff' s character further and even in her not liking or taking plaintiff as a true joe that even extent back as far as emails to HR prior to plaintiff's FINAL WARNING and EEOC 1st complaint in January 2018.: From: Ramirez, Isidro M Sent Friday, September 15, 2017 9:43 PM To: Netherly, Felicia Y Cc: Saldana, Mary Jessie Subject Rhonda Rockwell Shortly after this meeting with myseIf Rhonda, & Michelle Alvarez, Rhonda went to Ron Merritt and commented on various general matters, mentioned all to him, & then walked out of the office that sits in front of my desk,that Ron wanted to talk to me, in which we all 3 did meet. I am trying very hard to put things behind us, and have done so very much. Even Ron spoke very well of me and emphasized for me to put this behind, giving Rhonda and myself a fresh start. Rhonda today earlier kind of bothered me in two senses; firstly, Rhonda commented in literally betting $20 that I am going to have trouble with restaurant clients since I sell considerably smaller packages that are within policy between now and December, 2017, kind of hinting to me something, if I don' t start selling "bigger packages." Rhonda also, construes any thing I come back to her with as I am being disrespectful "again," as presented in the attached email. I ask this email and attachment be saved as part of a now complaint I am starting to document and forcing myself to piece together if Rhonda does not continue to be what can be construed as a "hostile" workplace. I explained to Rhonda since she commented in front of Michelle Alvarez that she spoke to HR on about me that many people had went to HR about her, that I am not trying to complain, but work only and focus and mean no harm here. I will include this email if this matter continues, however, I do ask for direction and guidance here as I have never been in a situation this. From when defendant Rockwell left directly managing over the plaintiff, within approximately 2 months, for the first time ever, it was introduced to eliminate Premise as part of the sales team not only in San Antonio but across all 7 Hearst property. This meeting was voiced by the Publisher and also present was defendant Daney and other staff. This effective date was in or about July 2018..38 Recollectively, plaintiff recalls then voicing "it is 38 Plaintiff was hired and trained thoroughly in March 2012 by management then on the Premise team side. Premise team was not associated with the Core team, the actual, direct staff of the San Antonio Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 38 38 of of 55 55 about time the fence is broken and the both sides come together to work together to achieve one company goal." Recollectively, plaintiff recalls that pure silence encompassed that room, though one individual joined plaintiff on the senority and eldest employees pay plan not being affected. Defendant Rockwell made clear comment after comment in front of other employees and with the plaintiff that he was really littler than the 6 feet 3 he stood, making comments like "you are going to learn." From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent Sunday, October 8, 2017 1:17 PM To: Netherly, Felicia; Saldana, Mary Jessie Subject Rhonda Rockwell (Direct/InDirect Action Not Compliant With Policy) Felicia/Mary Jessie: I am attaching 2particular emails that reference and support that Rhonda directly herself and now Ron Merritt are refusing to reverse a clawback of more than a $1000 on an account that I not only saved to continue with us, but also collected more than $3000 in checks from client, that 5 of the 7 collected checks have cleared and now puts the client with money in unapplied which means not behind. Client has additional checks pending, plus also a new monthly recurring signed form for credit records. More importantly, I saved the account, and was able to obtain contact with the accountbookkeeper, Yolanda Ocrowley, that wants to help make things good with us and keep payment right, per specific directive of the client himself. The Rule that I have always understood is if you get paid on commissions and the account cancels, you will be charged back a percentage of what the client did not fulfil in the agreement, and if the account is saved, you will not lose those commissions regardless of what period or month or quarter it is, as what Rhonda and now Ron is stating is the policy. I don' t believe that they are acting compliant with policy but rather in concert with motive of retaliatory measure. Although I fear further clear means of retaliatory action, this decision is not right as the same has happened to me in the past and I was always told what is outlined above. We are suppose to be paid next week on these commissions. Rhonda comment to me on Friday that put fear in my mind because she said "you are going to learn," when addressing me on commissions needing be corrected, in a conversation that I did not even bring up, she brought up. Express-News & MySanAntonio.Com, although Premise team reps could sale Core products, Premise reps had DMS (Digital Marketing Services) Corporate designed by corporate as the employee role of defendant Merritt. The Premise team was the only San Antonio Hearst Corporate function sales team, that first started its' role in The Flannery House of the San Antonio Express-News in 2011, less than a year prior to plaintiff being hired. Premise was not only eliminated in San Antonio but alsos confirmed in the other 6 properties. Upon the confirmed elimination of the Premise Team, plaintiff was shortly integrated to the Core Sales Team as well as his pay plan changed to from having annualized revenue goals sold in a monthly period to a year-over-year goal, shockingly going against 2017 YOY #'s though it was already halfway into 2018 and plaintiff's numbers were declining in various aspects under defendant Rockwell's management to include some of the plaintiffs biggest monthly billed accounts. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 39 39 of of 55 55 want to pursue the above matter. From the point of when the plaintiff entered into a new commission pay plan and now becoming a Core Sales Account Executive, for the first time ever in 6 years, plaintiff' s goals significantly changed"°. Knowing the plaintiff, plaintiff had already suffered the impact and markings from corporate staff, that being defendants' both Rockwell and Merritt. The way plaintiff' s customers' situations were handled were always a final say of defendant Rockwell or she was somehow made away of these matters in weekly management i-On-i, including account management having to report "every detail" from what several plaintiff' s withesses confirmed that 1 of these employees41 In fact, the plainiff continued to complain to defendant Daney of various relevant and supporting consequential interactions and how his customer matters were being handled, nothing to do with how he was not being valued in voice compared to when defendant Rockwell first arrived and started to retaliate against the plaintiff in 2017. Plaintiff' s complaints even after the separation of Premise team continued on matters that affected him that defendant Rockwell had done, for instance as below: From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 9:58 AM To: Daney, Kenneth <kenneth.daney@hearstcom> Subject Southtown 101 (Request To Re-Assign An Account I Sold) Ken: Greetings and good morning, sir. ° These goals changing had nothing immediate to do with defendant Rockwell, as these goals were changed across the 7 Hearst properties, once the Premise Team employees were a intergrated into Core Sales reps for Hearst in each of the cities where the now former Premise Team reps were employed. 41 For the sake of protecting this particular witness-contact identity at this time, plaintiff was asked to not disclose if the person is employed or not employed with Hearst, for the sake of retaliation. Apparently, defendant Rockwell works very close to one of the witnesses that witnessed how defendant Rockwell treated plaintiff from the very beginning and how this caused damaging credibility and impact in other employees befriending or friendly communication when matters were under close watch even after defendant Rockwell no longer managed plaintiff directly; defendant Rockwell still had scope and view ability over the plaintiff and took action adverse on account management, particular client or sales meetings, and even client approvals, regardless the fact that Pancho and then Lone managed the plaintiff, they only did their job in the instances, and had to take those matters to defendant Rockwell when witnesses testimony will establish that defendant Rockwell had plaintiff under scope even after she left her management role, among other proof and credible testimony of witnesses. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 40 40 of of 55 55 I need your intervention here, sir, as I am very careful and fearful of Rhonda as this was a decision that she made and that Pancho is leaving deference to reassign the account. Sincerely, Isidro Martinez Ramirez Senior Account Executive p: 210.250.2348 c: 210-544-2894 IRamirez@Express-News.Net From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent Monday, October 22, 2018 9:06 AM To: Mangual, Pancho <PMangual@express-news.net> Subject Southtown 101 (Request To Re-Assign An Account I Sold) This account I sold, not Mia. This is not fair rules. I come to you directly on this, sir. The rules Rhonda implicated because the rule is that the rep that sold the account with a contract for 12 -months should have that account for those 12 months, etc, unless that rep is terminated. From: Mangual, Pancho Sent Monday, October 22, 2018 9:01 AM To: Rarnirez, Isidro <iramirez©mysa.com> Subject RE: Southtown 101 (Request To Re-Assign An Account I Sold) Unfortunately no. As we have discussed in the past, this is an active account and belongs to the rep that the billing is on. My only advice would be to share any insights w/ Mia in hopes of providing the client with optimum ROI. Good Luck and let me know if I can help further. Be Great, Pancho Mangual Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 41 41 of of 55 55 General Sates Manager p: 210.250.2406 C: 803.381.7983 I pmangualexpress-news. net From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 8:50 AM To: Mangual, Pancho <PMangual@express-news.net> Subject: Southtown 101 (Request To Re-Assign An Account I Sold) Pancho: Good morning. Could you have this account transferred back to me that Rhonda never transferred back to me after Alex left? I did sale this account originally and I know the owner and his father and business partners very well. Additionally, Mia has kept the account at $160 for nearly 11 months now. Lastly, the owner called me last week; I can prove that if necessary. Sincerely, Isidro Martinez Ramirez Senior Account Executive p: 210.250.2348 C: 210-544-2894 IRamirez@Express-News.Net From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 11:56 AM To: Mangual, Pancho <PMangual@express-news.net> Subject: Southtown 101 (Request To Re-Assign An Account I Sold) Importance: High Pancho: Greetings and good morning, sir. Please RE-ASSIGN this account that I originally sold myself last year. Rhonda reassigned this account to this client even white the client was under contract with me and never Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 42 42 of of 55 55 reassigned the account back to me even after Alex Zarazua had left us. The account was reassigned to Mia Ly. This client is still active only paying $160 DMS monthly. I know this owner from other business and his marketing agency wants to work with me on other accounts that they are working with and that are not advertisers. I know this owner and we talked this morning from a phone call he made. This was more than unfair for Rhonda doing this, however, that was and is not the issue now, especially with so much time having passed. I am not guessing this and not saying this to say this, but client cancelled print they had with us at an additional $400 or so monthly and I believe this account should be given back to me as I sold the account and truly have the more advanced potential in my knowing this client, the client' s father, and various of his business partners. Please see if a decision could be made on this as client wants me to get back with him and 2 other owners from completely separate businesses. In qualifying the plaintiff for Unemployment Benefits due to plaintiff being fired, the Texas Workforce Commission through its',own investigation,, found that "[o]ur investigation found that your employer fired you for a reason that was not misconduct connected with work." Determination On Payment Of UnEmployment Benefits Dated Febn,a,y 12th, 2019 Texas Workforce Commission. Plaintiff complained of various specific matters that are supported by internal emails sent to Pancho and or Lone, from complaints that raised matters related to those issues below, but not limited to those matters, and matters were vast majority decided against the plaintiff regardless how many emails or text messages or other proof the plaintiff had that supported matters from adjustments not being given to the clients' or other issues that would have benefited the plaintiff, however, the motive here was clear: In December 2018, it was confirmed that Eisenhauer Flea would be given aside from the already given in November 2018 the $1, 170 credit given, the client was going to be given a $1, 647 additional credit adjustment for December, 2018, that both worked against the plaintiff' s book of business goals and billings goals set for the plaintiff, and that defendant Rockwell met with plaintiff' s then manager Lone Castillo Dye quite often from when the plaintiff would see with his own eyes meeting with defendant Rockwell and that even management information plaintiff that defendant Rockwell approved, though the plaintiff should not the credits awarded due to text message and Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 43 43 of of 55 55 or email communication not received in formally cancelling the older digital services and only leaving the downgraded services.42 Plaintiff went onto a meeting, in or about November 201 8December 2018, meeting Ricos Products, that was accompanied with one staff account manager that was instructed to report every single aspect of the meeting to immediate management including defendant Rockwell, an unusual act that is not done ordinarily and that more than one verified witnessed too confirmed was very shocking and disturbing to various, and brought a "major discomfort" to the very indivudal given such instruction. In or about Spring 2018, recollectively when defendant Rockwell was plaintiff' s immediate manager, the same account management staff member that went with plaintiff to meet with Ricos Products in or about November 2018December 2018, meeting with Santiago, the attorney mentioned earlier in these factual statements in this lawsuit, and even Santiago then made clear to plaintiff and the account management ' In an October 22nd, 2018 email sent to defendant Daney, plaintiff also complained of silent action that defendant Rockwell had done that he had not realized was done to his book of business, in removing Southtown 101, complaining that even now Pancho gave strong deference in her decision that Pancho confirmed defendant Rockwell did not want reremoved or reassigned back to me even after confirmed Mia, the employee defendant Rockwell reassigned to after the reassignment was reeassigned originally to Alexandra Zarazua and both became inactive employees by October 2018 coming around. In an emailthat started on December 28th, 2018, that plaintiff sent to the CEO Steve Bentz, plaintiff communicated: From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 11:05 AM To: Bentz, Steve <Steve.Bentz@express-news.net> Subject Are You Available To Talk Via Phone Today, Sir? Happy New Year' s 2019. 42 There is prima facie proof that plaintiff complied with Hearst policy in asking plaintiff to put IN WRITING the cancellation of the digital products, and that customer let months and months go by and they did not do such! Proof would more than infer that defendant Rockwell, through management, was also in this instance worked against any opposition or position to work against the plaintiff, even through Lone Castillo Dye, though the true and final say was not of Lone Castillo Dye, but of a decision that defendant Rockwell made. This account manager not named due to still being an active employee was also a material witness to the series of begining incidents of "major" disrespect, is identified as Brelyn Harris. Witnesses other testimony are of now confirme inactive employees, including one employee that just this past week resigned. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 44 44 of of 55 55 We did connect, sir, and she did apologize for sort of snapping at me when I tried to come to her for a solution and she consistently acted as if I was questioning her authority or attacking her in some way, in which I made clear from the front of the conversation that I was not in anyway. We are good, sir. I just feared coming to you and alarming Lone in anyway. Thank you for reaching out to me. From: Bentz, Steve Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 11:01 AM To: Ramirez, Isidro <iramirez@mysa.com> Subject RE: Are You Available To Talk Via Phone Today, Sir? Hey Isidro I was out of pocket last week. I understood that you and Lori connected on this shortly after your email. Let me know if you still want to meet and discuss. From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent Friday, December 28, 2018 10:40 AM To: Bentz, Steve <Steve.Bentz@express-news.net> Subject Are You Available To Talk Via Phone Today, Sir? I have a concern that I have been avoiding for sometime that now puts me in a voiced fear of retaliatory action and even fear to even speak with Lone as she construes certain matters as a tone, when I come to her for help. This complaintiff plaintiff made against Lone Castillo Dye, the plaintiff' s manager after Pancho had left Hearst, and that worked very close with both CEO Steve Bentz and defendant Rockwell. Though plaintiff makes clear that Lone apologizes afterwards and the issue appears resolve, looking back closely on these important facts, defendant Rockwell worked very close with Lone in management issues about plaintiff and also in making Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 45 45 of of 55 55 adjustments on accounts that were assigned to plaintiff.44 There are seires of other textt messages and emails that go into more details as needed and relevant.45 On the Eve of plaintiffs termination, that being the day before, on January 9tth, 2019, plaintiff emailed Lone on a truly dedicated, hard working sales period in December 2018 that resulted in "12 saLes and 3 saves..... aside from the 2 additional saves yesterday (01-08-2019)." Plaintiff end at 66% to-goal, the lowest ever seen in nearly 7-years of employment with Hearst. Evidence and testimonial of other employees, would show goals were misses more frequent and often that plaintiff missed goal, and those or that employee or employees remained active regardless. Plaintiff was allegedly fired due to performance when proof establishes, had none of the complaints ever been filed, plaintiff would of more likely not recieived a FINAL WARNING in January 2018, or been terminated, especially when even HR hirning staff and other staff confirmed that plaintiff's sales, even when missing goal, attributed strongly in overall company goals. As reported to Lone, plaintiff sold nearly $5000 in one month alone on 3 sales made in Novemebr 2018: I sold $4804.51, that being: o $1, 526 (Taqueria Mexico,Inc.) o $328 Monthly --SA Quality Tree Service (Upsell & A Retention-Effort Product Conversion Account), and $2, 919.51 J.B, Woolf Sheds (Thanksgiving Weekend---Newspaper Inserts) Compared to other sales reps, plaintiff had consistent activity and did not miss goals as consistent as other sales reps that mostly quit before they got fired. This is additional proof on plaintiff being completley under the radar. ' Even under Pancho, who admitted to plaintiff that defendant Rockwell did not like him and there was noway to restore this relationship, though voicing a concern about Pancho from email to defendant Daney started on this particular matter on August 28th, 2018, plaintif had complications that impacted him undenialably and harmed his reputation even when he provided detail proof on a client-customer expectation: From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 10:39:25 PM To: Daney, Kenneth Subject: Need To Follow Up With You: Concern Now Involves Rhonda Rockwell Interfering With Promises Made To 2-Good Standing Clients' & Failure To Give Me Notice Of Such Action On Buy-I-Get I Print Ad That Were To Run This Sunday 09/02/2018 Kenneth: Greetings, sir. Sorry so late, however, this is very important that I speak with you at the earliest opportunity as I am now having a concern with Pancho's communication with me in 2-senses that make serious sense and also his telling me one thing and doing the complete opposite and then making me seem like a fool when I ask him "what happen" on things that he made clear to me would be in our weekly 1-On-I's. My main, main concern here that needs your intervention as soon as tomorrow 9am or as earliest you can as the deadline that are involved are now time sensitive and if they are not addressed this client will not get the print he had paid for with the purchase and the Buy-I -Get I (BOGO) print ad that Pancho told me last Monday, August 20th, 2018 in front of Ashley Donaldson, that no longer is with us, as long as the purchased exceeded $500, and Pancho later in the week telling me that I misunderstood him and it was not intended to be interpreted this way that I took it. Even though I took that following day off (Tuesday 08/21/1 8), I sold 3-BOGO's, to include Crossroads BBQ, Pollos Asados Don Jose, & J.B. Woolf Sheds, even though I took parts of that Friday off of last week, Friday, August 24", 2018, Rhonda now is moving the BOGO's to 9/9/18, and never gave me Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 46 46 of of 55 55 notice in anyway to give the clients' sold. In fact, it was not until I called Michelle Bogue today, late, after 5pm, and Michelle Bogue confirmed that Rhonda moved the dates. I have a concern here, as I had shared months ago if I am over in anyway over Rhonda Rockwell, or she has a say in my orders. Pollos Asados Don Jose (1/4 page color San Antonio Express-News -Main News) & J.B. Woolf Sheds (1/4 page Main-News Color Ad in San Antonio Express-News) primarily are waiting and expecting these print ads this coming Sunday, September 2id, 2018. I need your help here, sir, as I have no where to go but you, sir, as my voice has not been taken seriously. I am not asking something for myself here but for clients' that were willing to pay nearly $18, 000 combined with us because of my work and dedication and keeping my word with them both (J.B. Woolf more than $5000 in P8 alone & Pollos Asados Don Jose more than $11,000 in an annual agreement). ON another note, Pancho told me since Monday of this week that he will ask Michelle Bogue to send me a lead list of the clients' that ran in 2016 that did not advertise in 2017, so I can pursue reinstatement opportunities. Pancho has not follow-up on this even though I have asked him, the more troubling thing is that, when I asked him, Pancho made ii look as if I am a bother in asking him when I asked him for his help and that I was waiting on something that he will help me on my pursuit of the biggest goal in my Hearst career, being this month. Sincerely, From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:53:46 AM To: Daney, Kenneth Subject: Need To Follow Up With You Ken: Greetings and good morning, sir. I am in the office now and was in the office late yesterday until almost 6pm. I wanted to apologize for not calling you at 530pm, however, I wanted to have a private conversation where Pancho and none of my colleagues were around me I had some concerns with the way Pancho is handling certain things on my end, however, I will reach out back to you if they continue or worsen, if that is okay with you, sir? I usually get so tied up and very busy like I did yesterday in that I got 2 sales yesterday alone, that I guess I try too hard and keep what you had said to me in mind always as I want to focus on success and no one's comments From: Daney, Kenneth Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:22 AM To: Ramirez, Isidro <iramirezmysa.com> Subject: RE: Need To Follow Up With You I should be free around 5:30 pm. I do have a hard stop at 6 pm From: Ramirez, Isidro Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:43 AM To: Daney, Kenneth <kenneth.daneyhearst.com> Subject: Need To Follow Up With You Ken, Good morning. When you have a chance, please call me or advise if you can tall around 530pm today? Thank you. I need to talk to you about Pancho Mangual, our meeting yesterday morning. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 47 47 of of 55 55 Just less than 2 weeks away from plaintiff being fired, plaintiff discovered questionable EMPLOYEE VIOLATIVE conduct that not oiy connected defendant Rockwell but also others, and showed a serious level or favoritism that also drawed up many other, questions and concerns, when plaintiff sent defendant Daney the following email on December 27th, 2018 at 11:56am: Subject Re: Very Suspicious Questionable -Employee Violative Behavior Confirmed DigitallyNeed To Escalate With You? On Dec 27, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Ramirez, Isidro <iramirez@mysa.com> wrote: Ken: Wishing you a very good morning. I came across some very suspicious activity that I rather first speak with you, involving at least 6 active employees, in which I have reason to believe that they are paying each other from sales commissions and or favoring leads or employee treatment. I rather speak with you and show you how I found this, sir. Do you have a chance to talk anytime today, sir? Defendant Daney responded back: Original message From: "Daney, Kenneth" <kenneth.daneyhearst.com> Date: 12/28/18 11:20 AM (GMT-06:00) To: "Ramirez, lsidro" <iramirez©mysa.com> Cc: "Washington, Janice" <Janice.Washingtonchron.com> Subject: Re: Very Suspicious - Questionable -Employee Violative Behavior Confirmed Digitally---Need To Escalate With You? Hi tsidro, I'm actually out on vacation until January 2nd. If it can't wait, please reach out to Janice Washington. Ken Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 48 48 of of 55 55 Sentfrom myiPhone Due to the seriousness of the complaint plaintiff continued to communicate to, defendant Daney on this matter, though plainflff made clear he could wait until when defendant Daney returned back to work on January 2nd, 2019. In this complaint plaintiff while plaintiff was still an active Hearst employee, raised: The complaints' plaintiff raised against defendant Rockwell "complaints have damaged and made clear that the now VP.of Marketing does not like me and that there is no chance to restore this as recently confirmed by 2-individuals, one in which provided to me that in their opinion, even a Christmas Gift will still not restore anything with her herself. want to keep my job here with Hearst, I however, some concerns have risen in myself even ever being respected as an employee in various aspects and retrospect 'Email Seht to Def.ndant Oaney Oh SLindy qecember 30 2018 at 1249pm Attached a very detailed complaint that went way after and beyond the EEOC complaint in January, 2018, against defendant Rockwell and provided much outline detail and was among peers: Kenneth: Wishing you a very good weekend sir. On a matter that I really did not want to document and complain to you all about regarding Rhonda Rockwell, however, it is imperative I document what took place this week. Unfortunately, there are four (4) disturbing situations that either viewed in totality as wholesome or individually standing alone, I see arbitrary action that Rhonda still lives in the past among encounters and complaints, and even Ron Merritt himself. SITUATION ONE: On Monday, May 14th, 2018, as we do every Monday, I had a 1-On-i with Rhonda, and as part of this 1-On-I, Rhonda is to inform me of actual sale numbers where I stand at and my goals on both 0 & 0 (Owned & Operated) and DMS Existing Book Of Business Goal, what I have pending to cancel, Non-Pays, and any account issues. Rhonda specifically provided me that I only needed $2500 to max out my DMS Existing Billing goal, now that I have already maxed out my 0 & 0 goal, and she reviewed numbers very detailed with me in front of me and even went into more details to show of all that I have sold already have been a good number from what I had started from needing about $5k-$Ok, and brought that number to $2500. Iwent with hunger this week as I always do, with this in mind, especially since this week and next week would be the last week of Period 5 (2018) Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 49 49 of of 55 55 Yesterday morning when I questioned to Rhonda after what I sold this week (a number of good sales) I should only need about $1000$1 500 tops: Rhonda said she believed she made an error. In fact, when re-reviewing, Rhonda commented that she made a calculated error on Monday, when I saw the specific numbers she entered and all was accurate, only her indication of needing $1500 now changed to needing an additional $3500, even after selling $1375 in growth this month alone this week, providing I would of needed only $1125 from what Rhonda tells me on Monday I needed, telling me her numbers were right and then telling me that she never made any mistakes with numbers and this I would agree with when oalouiating goals. SITUATION iWO: We had a contest this week that started off with Hermes commenting we should have a gift card award for the rep that sold the most JBSA LEGACY MILITARY PRINT ADS (See Attached Email). Ray then announced Santikos tickets to the rep that sold the most. When Rhonda & I spoke an my numbers (Situation One) yesterday morning, Rhonda kept on making clis-encouraging statements to me that I did not sell the most and that Hermes won because he sold more money and I should give Hermes the tickets as that is the wayitis, Rhonda' s comments to me yesterday encouraged me to inform Hermes if I win, I will split the tickets with him, as Rhonda last provided this and 1 only Want to be fair. Later yesterday, prior to my leaving the office to a meeting, Rhoncla tells me in front of Hermes that they talked about this and she laughed-chuckled-and that is good that I decided this (splitting the tickets), telling me as I saw Hermes walk away, she will talk t Ray later about this. Interestingly, Ray sends an email later that proclaims and announces Hermes as the primary winner in selling 6, in which is not true we both sold 5 (See Below). t When chuckling about thus when going over with me on my numbers I don' believe she made a mistake on but had reason for it, Rhonda tells me that Hermes actually sold 1.25 total in space (1/4 x 5 in ad sizes) and that I sold the same even though Ray calculated me at 1.5 (4 % page ads + i page ad from J.B. Woolf Sheds), because Uptown Cheapskate Was a Make Right and not a sell. Rhonda is Oorrect, however, it was a challenge to get Uptown Cheapskate to run this ad because of what bad experience they had with previous rep and the owners informing me that they did not want to work with Alex r Rhonda (this is the reason Rhonda later told me why she assigned me to that account). Even if Rhonda was correct at both me and Hermes being at 1.25 in sells on ads (Me at 3 x page ad & a Y4 page adl.25 and Hermes being at 1.25= 5 '4 page ads) Rhonda telling mc Hermes had more money. I am going by the results that are apparent from above that are credible and speak for themselves. It is not about me winning tickets here or the sales recognition, it is about fairness I would say #2, but also #3, how Rhonda has been telling more things away from encouragement and has placed some concern on what she commented and said to me in front of Cevallos Insurance on Thursday, May 1 7th, 2018, and # 1, the information Rhonda reports is not correct or consisteitwith what Ray & Michelle Bogue shoes above. SITUATION THREE On Thursday, May 17th, 2018, Me and Rhonda met with the owner of Cevallos Insurance, Orlando Satazar. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 50 50 of of 55 55 While Rhonda brought up to the client that she was taking a new Chief Operating role in San Francisco soon, she will like to arrange to set up a meeting with Brelyn Harris,the acaount manager to help client oh some website requests, etc and Lone Dye, who will take her position as far as nianagerneht, Rhonda brought up various examples and then brought up Ron Merritt in front of this client and stares directly at me telling me,"Yeah, when me and Ron use to work for that company those years ago prior to coming to Hearst," in pointing out the values of print having life and among another example to support our marketing. I am not sure why Rhonda would bring up Ron this way again and in front of a client and then stare at me like she did portraying - frustration towards me. I admit, her own statements did reveal how long connecting relationship Rhonda worked with Ron for many years prior to working together with Hearst, however, of all the examples one could have gave, why this one, I am not sure, and why staring at me like she did, I am not sure either. I only listened and did not reply but only listening. am not sure perhaps it was very early in the morning; we had a 930am meeting. I donot want to complain of everything and I know I have not, especially In not documenting some comments Rhonda made last week around Alex, but I admit to question fairness towards me and Rhonda not making it clear that we had something going on as far as HR or any tension because even Alex said last week when Rhonda walked away, I know you two don t see things the same, and you probably don t like Rhonda. I don' t have anything against anyone and focus on goals and will continue to go to my superior, Rhonda when issues com'e'U on sales. This canie-abbutwitPrRhonda providing us information on change as well coming on new expected goals and commission changes. SITUATION FOUR. On Thursday, May 1 1th, 2018, aftêr leaving CevaUos Insurance, I went pursue a separate sell I had gotten earlier in the week (Allstar Engine Installation) on trying to sell client a JBSA LEGACY print ad that was part of the ads I sold of the contest referenced above. I was able to sell the ad and obtained a new contract, etc. Client also brought to my attention on Thursday, that since they no longer have the HIBU (different company) website, she felt like they are losing business because calls kind of slowed down and their website does not show up on Google like it did; a decision was made with the client to purchase the essentials website instead of an essentials prime website skipping a preview stage that could range from 3-5 days at the earliest depending on what day of the week the client receives the notification, preview website email and bypassing this stage, as they need their website up sooner than possible even understanding that the time to create the webite remained the same,only removing the preview stage, would spare about 3-S days, possibly a week, I converted this website arid increased the client' s website to a higher level SEO from an SEON to an SEONP, only costing client a $30 difference. I called Rhonda to inform her of this sale (mainly the print) but mentioned the DMS product change under client circumstances Rhonda immediately.verbaHy attacked me and criticized me t that the website still won' go UVE this period for your commission, I explained to her that I know that, that I t had done this for the client because the facts warranted this, Rhonda responded that she am' questioning me sales strategy but it did not make sense what I had done; I replied to Rhonda stating that I called her to let her know of the print sale and to inform her of the change as she is my superior and she responded more with obvious frustration towards me and then telling me "well you should hang up then," when I said I felt like I should not have called her because she was more coming off at me and did not commend me on the print sell even at least. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 51 51 of of 55 55 Interestingly Rhonda catted me back within 10 minutes and tells me that she does not Want to argue with me that she hears what I said clearly that her sinuses she just did not feet that welt, something I noticed since leaving Cevallos on Thursday.. Ken---I am not asking you to investigate each of these circumstances, however, please use your judgement, sir, as you see here necessary, as I know for a fact, I have concerns of casual retaliation in which Rhonda does treat .me differently and stifi references,ihe past even in front of an employee or a client, but in a ver, very intelligent way. Please call me on Monday as needed, sir. I had to document this. The email Subjet was entitled RHONDA ROCKWELL, sent to defendant Daney on 5/19/2018 at 6:32 PM. That email attached screenshots to support plaintiff' s targeted retaliatory proof and defendant Daney did nothing to remedy these wrongs. And The final bullet point complaint in the December 27th, 2018 started serious email complaint against defendant Rockwell and also that involved others, included On Dec 27, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Ramirez, Isidro <iramirez@mysa.com> wrote: Ken: Wishing you a very good morning. I came across some very suspicious activity that I rather first speak with you, invoMng at least 6 active employees, in which I have reason.to believe that they are paying each other from sales commissions and or favoring leads or employee treatment I rather speak with you and show you how I found this, sir. Do you have a chance to talk anytime today, si,1? This was the strongest of all that not only involved defendant Rockwell but also involved other employees going to the heart in plaintiff discovering an APP that was being used by, these active employees to eletronically pay each other moniesduring commissions and some including managers paying employees from work on sales and some even having a clientaccount name and that also showed that defendant Rockwell herself also was paying employees through this APP. This according to defendant Daney, was a "very serious, concern" and if proven could get people in "serious trouble." Plaintif was fired before the investigation ended. The overwhelming proof also to support these accusations against Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 52 52 of of 55 55 defendant Rockwell and others were the screenshots the plaintiff saved and sent to defendant Daney.46 Though defendant Daney did speak with plaintiff on more than one ocassion after his return on January 2nd, 2019, and specifically described every angle of the proof sent to defendant Daney, nothing in the end of these complaints were done. 47 V. Prayer For Relief & Relief Requested WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the plaintiff respectfully requests that after defendants' being served and cited with summons to this lawsuit and afforded the means to defend against this lawsuit, the court awards and renders a judgment against the defendants' in either permitted capacity: a) Awarding plaintiff a judgment against defendant Rockwell inthe amount of $30,000 as compensatory damages and $170,000 as punitive damages; b) Awarding plaintiff against defendant Merritt in the amount of $30,000 as compensatory damages and $170,000 as punitive damages; c) Awarding plaintiff against defendant Daney $30,000 compensatory damages and $1 70,000 punitive damages; 46 One of the mysterious actions were that each of the persons that plaintiff had supported proof on of these transactions in specific, all of the screenshots saved, all that information was either blocking plaintiff or deleted, once the plaintiff was fired, on January 10th, 2019. ' To any extent, plaintiff is willing Amend to include any more "specific facts" or "information" on any of the federal statutory, federal consititutiional,and state law claims, even if the information or facts relate to facts or information or damages, however, though this complaint is very detailed to establish satisfactory to the elements of plaintiff's claim suffice to state claims when the facts are accepted as true, the facts provided are as short and concise compared to the much more details plaintiff has in the anticipation how these defendants will try to cover themselves up and lie. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 53 53 of of 55 55 d) Awarding the Severance Pay the plaintiff should have received for each year plaintiff worked for Hearst; e) Awarding the plaintiff any court costs, attorneys' fees, or such other recoverable fee or expense against the defendants, and f) Such other and further relief the plaintiff is entitled to at law or in equity, including such additonal exemplary or punitive damages under state and federal law but not to exceed $1,000,000. Respectfully Submitted, .1sfo Martir(z 4802 Cambray Driv Ramirej (Nintiff'ro-Se) San Antonio, Texas 78229 Mobile: (210) 544-2894 Email: Isidro0113@Yahoo.Com/Isidro0113@Gmail.Com Signed On Thisiay Of June, 2019. Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 54 54 of of 55 55. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE MY SEAL OF OFFICE ON THISJ4)Y OF JUNE, 2019 PERSONALLY APPEARED MR. ISIDRO MARTINEZ RAMIREZ UNDER OATH AND STATES, DECLARES, & AFFIRMS THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF HIS RECOLLECTION AND KNOWLEDGE. ARY PUBUC IN AND FOR THE SrATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BEXAR MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ON THEá26AY OF9,202C **P5EALI* \ Case Case 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB 5:19-cv-00592-FB-HJB Document Document 1-1 12 Filed Filed 07/03/19 06/03/19 Page Page 55 55 of of 55 55