`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`TYLER M. SLANKARD, an individual
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`HCA HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a HEALTHONE, a Delaware company
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`
`Plaintiffs TYLER SLANKARD, by and through his attorneys at Bryan E. Kuhn, P.C., as
`
`and for Plaintiff’s First Verified Complaint in this action against Defendant HCA
`
`HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a HEALTHONE alleges upon personal knowledge and upon
`
`information and belief as to other matters as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`This is an employment discrimination suit brought by a former employee of
`
`
`
`Defendant HealthONE, who was retaliated against for engaging in the protected activity of
`
`taking intermittent Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave and wrongfully terminated in
`
`violation of public policy for participating in his spouse’s Worker’s Compensation claim with
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-03248-WJM Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
`
` Defendant’s unlawful conduct was knowing, malicious, willful, and wanton and/or
`
`showed a reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s protected rights, which has caused and continues to
`
`cause Plaintiff to suffer substantial economic and non-economic damages.
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, TYLER M. SLANKARD, (“Plaintiff Slankard”) is a citizen of Adams
`
`County, who presently resides at 748 Blue River Ct., Brighton, CO 80601.
`
` Defendant, HCA HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a HEALTHONE, (“Defendant” or
`
`“HealthONE”) is Delaware for-profit company with its principal place of business at One Park
`
`Plaza, Nashville, TN 37203.
`
` Defendant does business in the state of Colorado with a registered agent located at
`
`7700 E. Arapahoe Rd. Ste. 220, Centennial, CO 80112-1268.
`
` At all relevant times, Tyler Slankard was an “employee” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
`
`2611(2).
`
` At all relevant times hereto, HealthONE met the definition of “employer” under 29
`
`U.S.C. § 2611(4).
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related state law claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
` Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction over Defendant as the complained of
`
`unlawful employment practices occurred in Colorado and Defendant does business in Colorado.
`
` Venue is proper in the district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the unlawful
`
`employment practices occurred in this district.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-03248-WJM Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`On or about June 18, 2019, Plaintiff Slankard began his employment with
`
`
`
`Defendant HealthONE as a Patient Care Technician (“PCT”) at Presbyterian St. Luke’s Hospital.
`
`
`
`In Colorado, the COVID-19 pandemic onset on or around March 2020, in which
`
`Mr. Slankard’s hospital was overrun with treating COVID-19 infected patients.
`
`
`
`During this time, Mr. Slankard’s spouse, Ricky Todd Slankard (“Todd Slankard”)
`
`was also employed by Defendant as a Registered Nurse (“RN”).
`
`
`
`In October 2020, both Mr. Slankard and his spouse, Todd, contracted COVID-19
`
`due to exposure through their respective employment positions.
`
` While Tyler and Todd were quarantining, they both filed for continuous leave
`
`pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), which Defendant approved.
`
`
`
`
`
`On or about January 16, 2021, Mr. Slankard returned to work with Defendant.
`
`However, Todd continued to suffer complications from his battle with COVID-
`
`19, including serious neurological and cardiovascular complications, diabetes, and sleep apnea,
`
`requiring increased supervision by Tyler.
`
`
`
`In mid-January 2021, Tyler notified his manager, Jordan Venteicher, of Todd’s
`
`medical condition and recurring episodes or “neuro storms” that required Tyler’s emergency care
`
`and attention.
`
`
`
`As such, Tyler had no other choice but to seek intermittent FMLA leave to care
`
`for his seriously ill spouse, which was granted from February 5, 2021, to August 4, 2021.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-03248-WJM Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
`
` While Todd was on short term disability leave, the Slankards’ filed a Worker’s
`
`Compensation claim to survive financially, as Todd’s medical expenses continued to grow. The
`
`claim was overseen by John Goerke, Defendant’s Associate Chief Nursing Officer.
`
`
`
`However, Defendant contested Todd’s claim, leading to a highly contentious and
`
`hostile work environment for Tyler. On March 30, 2021, Andrew Leveque, Vice President of
`
`Human Resources, met with Tyler to specifically discuss Todd’s Worker’s Compensation claim.
`
`
`
`Around this same time, Mr. Slankard was promoted to Lead Patient Care
`
`Technician (“LPCT”).
`
`
`
`Following Mr. Slankard’s discussion of his spouse’s Worker’s Compensation
`
`claim, Mr. Goerke launched an investigation into Mr. Slankard’s job performance due to
`
`allegedly anonymous complaints. On or about July 8, 2021, John Goerke, David Leslie, Chief
`
`Nursing Officer, Tamara Rychok, Clinical Nurse Coordinator, and Natalie Beshaw, Human
`
`Resources Business Partner, met with Tyler, notifying him that he was suspended without pay
`
`while they investigated his performance. During the investigation, Tyler informed Mr. Goerke
`
`that he previously discussed this topic with his direct supervisor, Ms. Venteicher, and resolved
`
`the confusion accordingly. When Tyler was accused of adding volume to a patient pump and/or
`
`reprogramming a pump, Tyler adamantly denied performing any of these responsibilities.
`
`
`
`Shortly thereafter, on or about July 12, 2021, Tyler was terminated for “practicing
`
`outside his scope” as the company recently “changed policy” on what patient care technicians
`
`could and could not do. Notably, Defendant failed to provide him a probationary period or
`
`opportunity for redress. Plaintiff was only provided with a copy of the investigation report after
`
`he made three separate requests to human resources.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-03248-WJM Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`On the date of termination, Tyler was still on approved intermittent FMLA leave.
`
` Mr. Slankard’s spouse, Todd, remains employed by Defendant on unpaid leave.
`
`Todd’s Worker’s Compensation claim has yet to be adjudicated.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Family Medical Leave Act 29 U.S.C. § 2615 – Interference)
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 above as
`
`28.
`
`if set forth in full herein.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff was eligible for FMLA protection, and the Defendant was a covered
`
`employer as defined by the FMLA.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff was entitled to leave under the FMLA, and he provided sufficient notifce
`
`of his intent to take such leave.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s exercise of FMLA rights by terminating the
`
`Plaintiff while he was on approved FMLA leave, to which he was entitled.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant’s interference caused prejudice to Plaintiff in that he experienced an
`
`adverse employment resulting in loss of compensation by reason of Defendant’s violation.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant would not have made its decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment
`
`had Plaintiff not exercised his right to take leave under the FMLA.
`
`34.
`
`As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant’s intentional
`
`violations, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Family Medical Leave Act 29 U.S.C. § 2615 – Retaliation)
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 above as
`
`35.
`
`if set forth in full herein.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in an activity protected by the FMLA, and the exercise of his
`
`protected rights was known to Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-03248-WJM Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
`
`37.
`
`Defendant took an adverse employment action against Plaintiff in temporal
`
`proximity to the protected activity, and there was a causal connection between the protected
`
`activity and the adverse employment action.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant would not have made its decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment
`
`had Plaintiff not exercised his right to request leave under the FMLA.
`
`39.
`
`As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant’s intentional
`
`violations, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 above as
`
`40.
`
`if set forth in full herein.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff is an “employee” pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 8-401-201(6) and
`
`Defendant is an “employer” for purposes of Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 8-40-201(7).
`
`42.
`
`During the course of employment, Plaintiff complained about discrimination and
`
`harassment in the workplace, which was an exercise of his statutory, regulatory or rule based
`
`rights and an exercise of an important work-related right because he reasonably believed that he
`
`had the right to complain about illegal conduct in his workplace as an employee.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant’s actions violate Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 8-40-201 and Defendant’s
`
`conduct is in violation of clearly expressed public policy regarding Plaintiff’s rights or privileges
`
`as a worker.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant was aware or reasonably should have been aware that Plaintiff
`
`reasonably believed he had a right to discuss and participate in Plaintiff’s spouse’s Worker’s
`
`Compensation claim.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-03248-WJM Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
`
`45.
`
`The Defendant discharged the Plaintiff because he exercised his right or privilege
`
`to engage in dialogue regarding his spouse’s ongoing Worker’s Compensation proceedings with
`
`Defendant.
`
`46.
`
`As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant’s intentional actions in
`
`this regard, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Promissory Estoppel)
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 46 above as
`
`47.
`
`if set forth in full herein.
`
`48.
`
`Through its actions and words Defendant made representations that it reasonably
`
`knew, or should have known, would cause the Plaintiff to believe the Defendant had made
`
`enforceable promises to provide him with a probationary period or opportunity to remedy any
`
`performance errors.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff acted in reliance upon and to his detriment on the Defendant’s statements
`
`or actions by returning to work for Defendant.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the implied conract or promise.
`
`As a direct result of Defendant’s breach, the Plaintiff has incurred damages in an
`
`amount to be proven at trial.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that an award be issued in his favor against
`
`Defendants, and Order the following relief:
`
`a. Front pay and benefits
`
`b. Back pay, benefits, and other economic losses;
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-03248-WJM Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
`
`c. An order directing Defendant to place Plaintiff in the position he would
`have occupied but for Defendant’s unlawful treatment of Plaintiff, as well
`as to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects
`of these unlawful employment practices and other unlawful conduct are
`eliminated and do not continue to affect Plaintiff;
`
`d. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
`prejudgment interest, to compensate Plaintiff for harm to Plaintiff’s
`professional and personal reputation and loss of career fulfillment;
`
`e. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to those for emotional
`distress;
`
`f. Liquidated damages on all claims allowed by law;
`
`g. Punitive and exemplary damages as allowed by law;
`
`h. Relevant statutory damages;
`
`i. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;
`
`j. An award of costs that Plaintiff has incurred in this action, as well as
`Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees to the fullest extent permitted by law;
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`k. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.
`
`Respectfully submitted on 3rd day of December, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRYAN E. KUHN, COUNSELOR AT LAW, P.C.
`
`Original pleading bearing original signature
`maintained in the offices of Bryan E. Kuhn, Counselor
`at Law, P.C.
`
`
`/s Adriana Levandowski
`Adriana Levandowski, Esq. #55825
`1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2330
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-03248-WJM Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
`
`Denver, Colorado 80264
`(p) (303)424-4286 (f) (303)425-4013
`adriana.levandowski@beklegal.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-03248-WJM Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
`Case 1:21-cv-03248-WJM Document1 Filed 12/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
`
`I declare under penalty ofpeqyury that | have read this abowe Complaint and the statements
`contained in it are true and correct tothe best ofmy knowledge and belief.
`
`Date: Detimberg 2021
`
`Subscribed and sworn to before me in the county of FQUVAS_,State of
`this 2 day of Dareniver 2021.
`My commission expires on: Pitucj a 26,2025
`
`|
`
`WESTINMARESALDANA
`
`HOTARYPUBLIC
`STATE OF COLORADO
`HOTTiG21T2156
`LyCOAMMEESION EXPIRESMARCH 38, 2022
`
`AGU NateNe
`
`
`
`