`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
`CIVIL DIVISION
`
`DULENE AMILCAR, BARBARA
`COLOGGI, CRISTINE GALVIN,
`MARTHA HASSALL, BRUCE
`IGVECHT, JODY KNECHT,
`CHARLES LANGDON, SHELLY
`LIGHTSEY, JAMES “MARK”
`TERRELL, and PATRICIA
`THOMPSON,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`WYNDHAM VACATION
`OWNERSHIP, INC., a foreign
`profit corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.:
`
`/
`
`COMPLAINT
`COME NOW, Plaintiffs, DULENE AMILCAR, BARBARA COLOGGI, CRISTINE
`GALVIN, MARTHA HASSALL, BRUCE KNECHT, JODY KNECHT, CHARLES LANGDON,
`SHELLY LIGHTSEY, JAMES “MARK” TERRELL, and PATRICIA THOMPSON, by and
`through their undersigned counsel, and sue Defendant, WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP,
`INC., a foreign profit corporation, and state as follows:
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This is an action for damages in excess of Fifieen Thousand Dollars ($15,000),
`
`1.
`
`excluding interest and costs.
`
`\x
`
`***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 12/17/2018 02:53:55 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***
`
`
`
`Defendant, WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC.,
`(hereinafier
`2.
`“WYNDHAM”) is a Delaware corporation licensed to and doing business in Clearwater, Pinellas
`
`County, Florida.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
`
`this claim occurred in this Judicial District.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiffs were employed at Defendant, WYNDHAM’S, Clearwater Beach Resort.
`Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant, WYNDHAM, as Sales Representatives,
`with the exceptions ofPlaintiffs DULENE AMILCAR, who was employed as Business Operations
`Coordinator, and BARBARA COLOGGI, who was employed as a Community Marketing Agent.
`At all times material hereto, Plaintifi‘s reported to supervisors John Topolosky,
`
`6.
`
`Director of Sales; Brandon Narain, Frontline Manager; Steven Pinta, In-House Manager; Sabrina
`
`Manghir, Community Marketing Agent Manager; Tara Wiles, Director of Marketing; and Susan
`
`Klein, Business Operations Manager (collectively, in whole or in part, “Supervisors”).
`
`Plaintiffs’ job duties as Sales Representatives included giving tours and selling
`7.
`timeshares at Defendant, WYNDHAM’s, Clearwater Beach Resort property.
`Plaintiff, DULENE AMILCAR’s, job duties as Business Operations Coordinator,
`8.
`included running the tour reception area, validating all work flow pertaining to the tour
`
`receptionist, and assigning the potential buyers to Sales Representatives to receive tours through
`the use of Defendant, WYNDHAM’S, “rotation wheel” system.
`Plaintifi', BARBARA COLOGGI’S, job duties as Community Marketing Agent
`included recruiting potential timeshare buyers off the street in the vicinity of Defendant
`WYNDHAM’s Clearwater Beach Resort to receive tours fi'om the Sales Representatives.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Throughout the course of their employment with Defendant, WYNDHAM,
`Plaintiffs objected to and/or refused to participate in various illegal sales practices which their
`
`supervisors engaged in and/or instructed Plaintiffs to engage in, in violation of Fla. Stats.
`
`475.42(1)(a), 475.42(1)(e), 475.42(l)(m), and 475.42(1)(n).
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`Defendant, WYNDHAM, opened its Clearwater Beach Resort property in 2017.
`Before their employment with Defendant, WYNDHAM, Plaintiff
`Representatives were employed in various timeshare sales positions around the country.
`
`Sales
`
`ll.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Sales Representatives were recruited by Vice President Richard
`
`Wieczerzak and were enticed by a supposed once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be part of the
`
`opening sales team for Defendant’s Clearwater Beach Resort where they were promised yearly
`
`profits in excess ofFive Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00).
`
`l4.
`
`In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff Sales Representatives lefi companies
`
`and communities in which they had strong, established roots.
`
`However, beginning on the first day, and over the course of several months, it
`15.
`became clear to Plaintiffs that the promises which were made to them were empty, as they were
`earning only a fi'action of what was represented to them by Mr. Wieczerzak, while at the same
`
`time being forced to engage in, or otherwise resist, unlawfill sales practices at the direction oftheir
`
`Supervisors. Afier a training course which Plaintiffs participated in, Supervisor Narain advised
`Plaintiffs to “forget everything [they] just learned” as they would never make a sale that way.
`Instead, the Supervisors instructed them on various unlawful, unethical, and fi'audulent means by
`which to sell Defendant, WYNDHAM’S, timeshares.
`
`
`
`Violations ofLaws, Rules, or Regulations
`
`16.
`
`Supervisors Narain and Pinta were engaged in the unlicensed practice ofreal estate,
`in violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(a), (c), & (1), by directly making sales of timeshares to
`purchasers.
`
`17.
`
`Supervisors hired non-Plaintiff sales representatives who engaged in the practice of
`
`real estate but were not licensed to practice real estate in the State of Florida or elsewhere, in
`violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(a), (c), & (l). These employees were paid hourly wages higher
`than those of the Plaintifi's, who were licensed; received monthly wage increases if they met their
`
`sales expectations; and they were ofien placed before the Plaintiffs on the “rotation wheel” so they
`
`would receive tours before the Plaintifi‘s.
`
`Supervisors regulme instructed Plaintiffs to intentionally confuse and mislead
`18.
`buyers or “wear them down” so they would buy property, in violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(e).
`
`Supervisors directed Plaintiffs to misrepresent the price of the timeshare through
`19.
`the use ofpoints charts (See Exhibits A and B). Specifically, the “Clearwater Beach Resort Points
`Ch ” (attached hereto as Exhibit A; hereinafter “CBR Points Chart”) accurately depicts the cost
`and value of points buyers can buy fi'om Defendant to use at the Clearwater Beach Resort.
`However, Supervisors removed the CBR Points Chart fi-om the sales floor and instructed Plaintiffs
`to instead fiaudulently show buyers the “RC1 Points Chart” (attached hereto as Exhibit B), which
`depicts substantially cheaper points-—in many cases less than half of the actual cost. Supervisors
`engaged in this conduct themselves as well. This practice was in violation of Fla. Stat.
`
`475.42(1)(e).
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Supervisors regulme instructed Plaintiffs to fraudulently advise buyers that the
`
`timeshare was an investment and its value would increase over time, in violation of Fla. Stat.
`
`475.42(1)(e).
`
`21.
`
`Supervisors regularly instructed Plaintifi's to advise potential buyers that the
`
`property they would be touring was not a timeshare, in violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(e).
`
`22.
`
`Supervisors regularly instructed Plaintiffs to fraudulently misrepresent to buyers
`
`the effect of completing a credit application, which was a necessary step in the sale process as it
`was required to show buyers the pricing. To wit, Plaintiffs were instructed to advise buyers that
`
`the credit application would not hurt their credit score, that it would only be a “sofi hit,” or that it
`
`was not a credit application at all. Supervisors also personally engaged in this conduct directly
`
`with the buyers. This practice was in violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(e).
`
`23.
`
`Supervisors regularly instructed Plaintiffs to fraudulently alter the buyers’ income
`
`level on their credit application ifneeded for them to be approved for credit financing. Supervisors
`
`also personally engaged in this activity. This practice was in violation of Fla. Stat. 817.03 and/or
`
`81 7. l 6.
`
`Supervisors regularly instructed Plaintifi‘s to fraudulently advise buyers that
`24.
`Defendant, WYNDHAM, would buy back their property if they were not satisfied with it, in
`violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(e).
`
`25.
`
`Supervisors intentionally preyed upon the elderly in the use of their unethical and
`
`illegal sales tactics, in violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(e).
`Out-of-state residents fiom certain states were not elig’ble to purchase timeshares
`26.
`at Defendant, WYNDHAM’s, Clearwater Beach Resort. Thus, to sell to these buyers, Supervisors
`
`directed Plaintiffs to fiaudulently advise such buyers that they could purchase a product called
`
`
`
`“Club Wyndham Access,” that doing so would give them access to various other Wyndham
`properties, and that once the buyer’s state was eligible the buyer could transfer their interest to
`Wyndham Clearwater Beach Resort. Supervisors even had a form letter they would give to buyers
`explaining this, knowing it was not true. This practice was in violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(e).
`Supervisors directed Plaintiffs to sell Club Wyndham Access to ineligible out-of-
`state residents under the fi‘audulent misrepresentation that the buyer was actually buying a
`Wyndham Clearwater Beach Resort timeshare, in violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(e).
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Supervisors routinely and fraudulently advised potential buyers of the availability
`
`of the timeshares which were being sold. Specifically, they advised that since there were 105 units
`
`available and 52 weeks in the year, there were about 5,406 timeshares to be sold. In reality,
`however, there were far less available units at any given time, as Defendant, WYNDHAM, also
`rented rooms to hotel guests, which resulted in many owners not being able to use their timeshare
`
`due to overbooking. This practice was in violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(e).
`
`Supervisors directed Plaintiffs to fiaudulently advise current timeshare owners on
`29.
`their refinancing options. Specifically, Plaintiffs were instructed to advise owners Who wanted to
`
`purchase more points that they could keep making the same monthly payments they were currently
`making and pay offtheir loan by the same time, when in actuality Defendant, WYNDHAM, simply
`extended the repayment term. This practice was especially used against elderly owners.
`
`Supervisors also engaged in this practice themselves. This practice was in violation of Fla. Stat.
`
`475.42(1)(e).
`
`Supervisors regularly instructed Plaintiffs to do “whatever they have to do” to close
`30.
`deals, even if it was unlawful or unethical, and used intimidation tactics to make sure Plaintiffs
`
`complied With their demands, in violation of Fla. Stat. 475.42(1)(e).
`
`
`
`3 1 .
`
`Many of the above fraudulent practices were already engaged in by this Defendant
`in Califomia and were the subject of a recent whistleblower lawsuit (Williams vs. Wyndham, Case
`No. CGC-12-5261 87) against Defendant, WYNDHAM, along with other related corporate
`entities. WYNDHAM timeshare sales associates in that jurisdiction were similarly instructed to
`fiaudulently misrepresent: (1) the effect or even existence of a credit application; (2) that current
`owners could increase their points at no cost; (3) that Defendant, WYNDHAM, would buy back
`points or property in certain circumstances; (4) that monthly payments would be reduced when
`they were simply being deferred; and (5) that current owners were making smaller payments than
`
`they actually were, in an effort to persuade them to purchase more. Additionally, unlicensed sales
`
`associates were also alleged to have been engaging in the unlicensed practice of real estate.
`Defendant, WYNDHAM’S, fraudulent sales practices were also alleged in that lawsuit to have
`
`specifically targeted senior citizens.
`
`Protected Activiov and Retaliation
`
`Plaintiffs objected to and refused to participate in the illegal practices described in
`32.
`Paragraphs sixteen (16) through thirty-one (31). To 'wit, Plaintiffs complained numerous times,
`both verbally and in writing, to each Supervisor, Human Resources, and eventually to corporate
`
`attorneys and investigators.
`At least one Supervisor, John Topolosky, threatened Plainfifis who objected and/or
`
`33.
`
`complained that ifthey did not do what he told them to do, he would fire them.
`
`34.
`
`Supervisor Topolosky expressly stated on at least one occasion that he will “starve
`
`out” Plaintiffs that objected to or refused to participate in the illegal practices he was directing
`them to take part in, as Plaintiffs were paid by commission. He and other Supervisors did so in fact
`by manipulating the “rotation wheel”, which determined which sales representative received each
`
`
`
`tour, in order to withhold tours and therefore commission, fi'om Plaintifi‘s who complained. This
`retaliatory practice was also alleged to have been used by Defendant, WYNDHAM, in Williams.
`Plaintiffs were constructively terminated from their employment with Defendant,
`35.
`WYNDHAM, in that they were required to either participate in illegal practices or be stripped of
`the opportunity to earn conunission and therefore earn a living.
`
`Negligent Supervision and Retention
`
`In addition to Plaintiffs reporting the illegal and unethical business practices of
`36.
`Supervisors to Defendant, WYNDHAM, numerous buyers and potential buyers complained to
`Defendant regarding the same. Despite voluminous complaints ofunlawful business practices, no
`corrective action was taken by Defendant, WYNDHAM.
`Due to the volume of complaints received, Defendant, WYNDHAM, initiated a
`supposed internal investigation into the allegations, which consisted of interviews of each of the
`Sales Representatives. Still, no remedial action was taken. On the contrary, Supervisor Topolosky
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`received a promotion.
`Defendant, WYNDHAM, was on advanced notice of its employees engaging in
`similar unlawful conduct by way of the allegations presented in the Williams lawsuit.
`Allegations Specific to Dulene Amilcar
`Plaintiff, DULENE AMILCAR (hereinafier, “AMILCAR”), witnessed on
`numerous occasions Supervisor Narain fiaudulently advising buyers that the credit application
`they were completing would not affect their credit score, when he knew in fact that it would.
`Plaintiff, AMILCAR, reported this fraudulent conduct to Supervisors Topolosky
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`and Klein.
`
`
`
`42.
`
`In response to Plaintifi‘, AMILCAR, reporting the fi'audulent conduct, Supervisor
`41.
`Topolosky told her each time to “mind her own business.”
`In response to Plaintifi‘, AMILCAR, reporting the fi'audulent conduct, Supervisor
`Klein simply said she would talk to Supervisor Topolosky about it, yet the conduct continued.
`Plaintiff, AMILCAR, resigned fiom her position with Defendant, WYNDHAM,
`and was thereby constructively terminated as she was being required to participate and be complicit
`
`43.
`
`in Defendant’s unlawfiJl business practices.
`
`Allegations Specific to Barbara Cologgi
`Supervisors Manghir and Wiles instructed Plaintiff, BARBARA COLOGGI
`44.
`(hereinafter, “COLOGGI”), to fi'audulently advise potential buyers that the property she was
`
`attempting to have them tour was not a timeshare, and to insist instead that it was “vacation
`
`ownership.”
`
`45.
`
`Supervisors Manghir and Wiles instructed Plaintiff, COLOGGI, to fiaudulcntly
`advise potential buyers that the credit application would not affect their credit score, when they
`knew that was not true.
`Plaintiff, COLOGGI, expressly refused to participate in the fiaudulent practices,
`
`46.
`
`and instead chose to be honest with the potential buyers. She did so in the presence of Supervisor
`Manghir, who responded by openly scolding and ridiculing Plaintiff in fiont of other employees
`
`and guests.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff, COLOGGI, complained on multiple occasions to Human Resources
`Representative Sara Rojas regarding the deceptive practices her supervisors were instructing her
`
`to engage in, yet the conduct continued.
`
`
`
`48.
`
`Supervisor Manghjr began writing up Plaintiff, COLOGGI, for fiivolous things in
`
`retaliation for her objections to and refusals to participate in the illegal activity promoted by her
`
`Supervisors.
`
`49.
`
`On or around August 20, 2017, Plaintiff, COLOGGI, had oral surgery. Thereafier,
`
`Supervisors refilsed to allow her to retum to work, despite her doctor providing Plaintifi' and
`Defendant, WYNDHAM, with clearance to work.
`Supervisor Wiles terminated Plaintiff, COLOGGI, via text message, wherein she
`
`50.
`
`instructed Plaintifi' not to return to work.
`
`Allegations Specific to Cristine Galvin
`Plaintiff, CRISTINE GALVIN
`Supervisors Topolosky and Pinta directed
`51.
`(hereinafier, “GALVIN”), to sell Club Wyndham Access to an elderly New Mexico resident, who
`was not eligible to purchase a property at Defendant, WYNDHAM’S, Clearwater Beach Resort,
`under the misrepresentation that the buyer would have access to the Clearwater Beach Resort.
`
`Supervisors knew that was not true.
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, GALVIN, to fiaudulently misrepresent the price of
`52.
`the timeshare to buyers by showing them the “RCI Points Chart” rather than the “CBR Points
`Ch .”
`
`53.
`
`Supervisors Topolosky and Pinta directed Plaintiff, GALVIN, to fiaudulently
`
`advise buyers that the credit application they were to complete would not affect their credit score.
`Supervisors knew that was not true.
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, GALVIN, to fi'audulently advise owners who
`already have a mortgage that they could reduce the number of years lefi on their mortgage or
`
`54.
`
`10
`
`
`
`reduce their cost if the buyer bought more property from Defendant, WYNDHAM, when in fact
`they just transferred the current balance to the new mortgage and extended the repayment term.
`Plaintiff, GALVIN, witnessed Supervisor Pinta engage in the unlicensed practice
`
`55.
`
`of real estate by selling properties to buyers. Specifically, he discussed pricing and finance terms
`
`with the buyers and closed deals without a Florida Real Estate License.
`Plaintiff, GALVIN, complained to Supervisors Topolosky and Pinta, yet no actions
`
`56.
`
`were taken to correct the unlawful conduct.
`Plaintiff, GALVIN, also complained to Human Resources Representative Sara
`
`57.
`
`Rojas regarding Defendant’s unlawful conduct, yet no corrective action was taken.
`Plaintifi', GALVIN, resigned and was thereby constructively terminated from her
`58.
`position as Sales Representative with Defendant, WYNDHAM, as she was being coerced into
`engaging in unlawful activity which put her real estate license in jeopardy.
`
`59.
`
`Allegations Specific to Martha Hassall
`Supervisors directed Plaintiff, MARTHA HASSALL (hereinafier, “HASSALL”),
`to fi'audulently advise buyers that the credit application would not affect their credit score or that
`it would only be a “soft hit” ofone or two points. They knew this was not true.
`Supervisors instructed Plaintifi‘, HASSALL, to fiaudulently misrepresent the price
`60.
`of the timeshare to buyers by showing them the “RCI Points Chart” rather than the “CBR Points
`Chart.”
`
`61.
`
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, HASSALL, to fi'audulently advise owners who
`already have a mortgage that they could reduce the number of years lefi on their mortgage or
`reduce their cost if the buyer bought more property from Defendant, WYNDHAM, when in fact
`they just transferred the current balance to the new mortgage and extended the repayment term.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Supervisors instructed Plaintifi‘, HASSALL, to sell Club Wyndham Access to
`62.
`buyers who were ineligible for Clearwater Beach Resort property under the fiaudulent
`
`misrepresentation that they were actually being sold Clearwater Beach Resort property.
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, HASSALL, to sell Club Wyndham Access to
`63.
`buyers who were ineligible to purchase Clearwater Beach Resort property under the fiaudulent
`
`misrepresentation that they could transfer their ownership into a Clearwater Beach Resort property
`for fi'ee once they were elig'ble, when it would actually cost them about $20,000.
`Plaintiff, HASSALL, witnessed Supervisors Narain and Pinta engage in the
`unlicensed practice ofreal estateby directly making sales oftimeshares to purchasers. Specifically,
`
`64.
`
`they discussed pricing and finance terms with the buyers and closed deals without a Florida Real
`
`Estate License.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff, HASSALL, also witnessed other employees selling properties without
`
`real estate licenses. These employees were paid hourly wages higher than those of the licensed
`
`Sales Representatives, received monthly wage increases if they met their sales expectations, and
`
`they were placed before the licensed Sales Representatives on the “rotation wheel” so they would
`
`receive tours before the licensed Sales Representatives would.
`Supervisor Topolosky told Plaintiff, HASSALL, and the other Plaintiffs that he
`only wanted younger sales representatives and that he was going to replace the older sales
`
`66.
`
`representatives one at a time.
`Plaintiff, HASSALL, objected to and refused to participate in the above-described
`67.
`illegal activity. She complained and made her objections to Supervisor Topolosky, Human
`Resources, and Defendant, WYNDHAM’s, internal investigators and attorneys.
`
`12
`
`
`
`68.
`
`In response to Plaintiff, HASSALL, objecting to and refilsing to participate in the
`
`unlawful business practices, Supervisor Topolosky ridiculed Plaintiff by telling her that she was
`“useless” and that she would “be out of a job,” and by writing her up for fi‘ivolous things that
`would trigger HR reviews.
`Plaintiff, HASSALL, resigned fi'om her position and was thereby constructively
`69.
`terminated fi'om Defendant, WYNDHAM, in that she was being coerced into engaging in unlawful
`activity which put her real estate license in jeopardy.
`
`.
`
`Allegations Specific to Bruce Knecht
`Supervisors instructed Plaintifl, BRUCE KNECHT, to fiaudulently misrepresent
`70.
`the price ofthe timeshare to buyers by showing them the “RC1 Points Chart” rather than the “CBR
`
`Points Chart.”
`
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, BRUCE KNECHT, to have buyers sig1 the credit
`71.
`application by placing it among a pile of other documents they were told to sigm in an effort to
`deceive them into sigling it without asking any questions about it. If a buyer did ask quastions,
`
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff to fiaudulently advise the buyer that the credit application would
`
`not affect their credit score. Supervisors knew this was not true.
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, BRUCE KNECHT, to deceive buyers by
`fiaudulently misrepresenting to them that the timeshare was an investment which would increase
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`in value over time. Supervisors knew this was not true.
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, BRUCE KNECHT, to fi'audulently advise the
`buyers regarding unit availability. Buyers were advised that the timeshare owners had exclusive
`access to the units, when in actuality Defendant, WYNDHAM, was renting the rooms to hotel
`guests which further limited availability for the timeshare owners.
`
`l3
`
`
`
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, BRUCE KNECHT, to fi'audulently advise owners
`74.
`who already have a mortgage that they could reduce the number of years lefi on their mortgage or
`reduce their cost if the buyer bought more property fi'om Defendant, WYNDHAM, when in fact
`they just transferred the current balance to the new mortgage and extended the repayment term.
`Plaintiff, BRUCE KNECHT, witnessed Supervisor Pinta engage in the unlicensed
`practice of real estate by directly making sales of timeshares to purchasers. Specifically, he
`
`75.
`
`discussed pricing and finance terms with the buyers and closed deals without a Florida Real Estate
`
`License.
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff, BRUCE KNECHT, also witnessed other employees selling properties
`without real estate licenses. These employees were paid hourly wages higher than those of the
`
`licensed Sales Representatives, received monthly wage increases if they met their sales
`
`expectations, and they were placed before the licensed Sales Representatives on the “rotation
`
`wheel” so they would receive tours before the licensed Sales Representatives would.
`Plaintiff, BRUCE KNECHT, objected to and refused to panicipate in this illegal
`77.
`conduct, including stating his objections to Human Resources.
`Plaintiff, BRUCE KNECHT, resigned fi'om his position as Sales Representative for
`78.
`Defendant, WYNDHAM, and was thereby constructively terminated as he was being coerced into
`engaging in unlawfifl conduct which put his real estate license in jeopardy.
`
`Allegations Specific to Jody Knecht
`Supervisor Topolosky instructed Plaintiff, JODY KNECHT, to lie to customers to
`79.
`get them to buy a timeshare. On one occasion specifically, Topolosky repeatedly and fi'audulently
`assured a reluctant couple that they could sell back one oftheir Wyndham properties ifthey needed
`to because it qualified as a buyback. Afier Plaintiff, JODY KNECHT, told Topolosky that it did
`
`14
`
`
`
`not qualify, he continued to assure the buyers that it did, leading them to buy the timeshare in
`
`reliance upon his fraudulent misrepresentation.
`Plaintifi‘, JODY KNECHT, witnessed Supervisor Pinta engage in the unlicensed
`practice of real estate by directly making sales of timeshares to purchasers. Specifically, he
`
`80.
`
`discussed pricing and finance terms with the buyers and closed deals without a Florida Real Estate
`
`License.
`
`81.
`
`Plaintiff, JODY KNECHT, also witnessed other employees selling properties
`without real estate licenses. These employees were paid hourly wages higher than those of the
`
`licensed Sales Representatives, received monthly wage increases if they met their sales
`
`expectations, and they were placed before the licensed Sales Representatives on the “rotation
`
`wheel” so they would receive tours before the licensed Sales Representatives would.
`Supervisors instructed Plaintifi', JODY KNECHT, to fraudulently misrepresent the
`82.
`price of the timeshare to buyers by showing them the “RC1 Points Chart” rather than the “CBR
`
`Points Chart.”
`
`Supervisors Topolosky and Pinta regularly instructed Plaintifi‘, JODY KNECHT,
`83.
`to intentionally confuse and mislead buyers and “wear them down” until they bought a property.
`
`84.
`
`If she refused to do this she was publicly chastised.
`Plaintiff, JODY KNECHT, fi'equently witnessed Supervisors Topolosky and Pinta
`fi‘audulently misrepresenting the value of timeshares and fiaudulently advising buyers that the
`timeshares’ value would increase over time, when they knew this was not true.
`Supervisors regularly instructed Plaintiff, JODY KNECHT, to fl'audulently
`misrepresent to buyers the efi’ect of completing a credit application, advising them that it would
`only be a “soft hi ” or even that it was not a credit application at all.
`
`85.
`
`15
`
`
`
`86.
`
`Plaintifi‘, JODY KNECHT, witnessed Supervisors fraudulently alter buyers’
`income levels on their credit applications if it was needed to have them approved for credit
`
`financing.
`
`87.
`
`Supervisors directed Plaintiff, JODY KNECHT, to sell Club Wyndham Access to
`ineligible out-of-state residents under the misrepresentation that the buyer was actually buying
`Wyndham Clearwater Beach Resort property, or that they would be able to transfer their ownership
`
`from the former to the latter. Supervisors Topolosky and Pinta even had a form letter they would
`
`g've to buyers stating this, even though it was not true.
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, JODY KNECHT, to fraudulently advise owners
`88.
`who already have a mortgage that they could reduce the number of years lefl on their mortgage or
`reduce their cost if the buyer bought more property fiom Defendant, WYNDHAM, when in fact
`they just transferred the current balance to the new mortgage and extended the repayment term.
`Plaintiff, JODY KNECHT, on numerous occasions objected to and refused to
`
`89.
`
`participate in the above unlawful conduct, voicing her concerns to Supervisors Topolosky, Pinta,
`
`and Richard Weizerzak. Her objections were met with hostility. At one point, Supervisor
`
`Topolosky told Plaintiff that she should understand what they’re doing since she had previously
`
`90.
`
`been a manager.
`Plaintiff, JODY KNECHT, also reported this illegal activity to Human Resources
`Representative Sara Rojas, yet no corrective action was taken.
`Plaintifi‘, JODY KNECHT, resigned fi'om her position as Sales Representative for
`91.
`Defendant, WYNDHAM, and was thereby constructively terminated as she was being coerced
`into engaging in and being complicit in unlawful conduct which put her real estate license in
`
`jeopardy.
`
`16
`
`
`
`93.
`
`Allegations Specific to Charles Langdon
`Supervisors Topolosky, Narain, and Pinta instructed Plaintiff, CHARLES
`92.
`LANGDON (hereinafter, “LANGDON”), to fi'audulently misrepresent to buyers that the credit
`application would not affect their credit score. Supervisor Topolosky knew that was not true.
`Supervisors Topolosky, Narain, and Pinta instructed Plaintifl‘, LANGDON, to
`fiaudulently advise customers that the timeshare is an invesiment which will increase in value over
`time. Supervisor Topolosky knew this was not true.
`Supervisors Topolosky, Narain, and Pinta instructed Plaintiff, LANGDON, to
`94.
`fiaudulenfly misrepresent the price of the timeshare to buyers by showing them the “RCI Points
`Chart” rather than the “CBR Points Chart.”
`Supervisors Topolosky, Narain, and Pinta instructed Plaintiff, LANGDON, to
`95.
`“grin ” on the buyers to “wear them down” by keeping them on the property as long as possible
`with high pressure to buy until they “caved.”
`Supervisor Topolosky told Plaintiff, LANGDON, that he would be replaced if he
`didn’t fall in line with management’s directives.
`Supervisor Topolosky told Plaintifi‘, LANGDON, that he gives up too easily
`
`96.
`
`97.
`
`because he refiJsed to use Supervisor Topolosky’s high-pressure tactics to coerce the buyers into
`
`purchasing a timeshare.
`Plaintiff, LANGDON, witnessed Supervisors Narain and Pinta engage in the
`unlicensed practice ofreal estateby directly making sales oftimeshares to purchasers. Specifically,
`
`98.
`
`they discussed pricing and finance terms with the buyers and closed deals without a Florida Real
`
`Estate License.
`
`17
`
`
`
`99.
`
`Plaintiff, LANGDON, also witnessed other employees selling properties without
`real estate licenses. These employees were paid hourly wages higher than those of the licensed
`
`Sales Representatives, received monthly wage increases if they met their sales expectations, and
`
`they were placed before the licensed Sales Representatives on the “rotation wheel” so they would
`
`100.
`
`receive tours before the licensed Sales Representatives would.
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, LANGDON, to fiaudulently advise owners who
`already have a mortgage that they could reduce the number of years lefi on their mortgage or
`reduce their cost if the buyer bought more property fi'om Defendant, WYNDHAM, when in fact
`they just transferred the current balance to the new mortgage and extended the repayment term.
`Plaintiff, LANGDON, objected to and refused to participate in the above—described
`101 .
`illegal activity, including making a report to Human Resources Representative Sara Rojas. She
`told him she had received numerous complaints about the managers and that corporate was
`
`pérforming an investigation, yet nothing seemed to be done to remedy the situation.
`Plaintifl‘, LANGDON, resigned fiom his position as Sales Representative and was
`102.
`thereby constructively terminated from Defendant, WYNDHAM, as he was being coerced into
`engag’ng in unlawful conduct which placed his real estate license in jeopardy.
`
`Allegations Specific to Shelly Lightsey
`
`Plaintiff, SHELLY
`and Pinta instructed
`Supervisor Topolosky, Narain,
`103.
`LIGHTSEY (hereinafter, “LIGHTSEY”), to fiaudulently misrepresent the price of the timeshare
`to buyers by showing them the “RCI Points Chan” rather than the “CBR Points Chart.”
`Supervisors Topolosky and Pinta instructed Plaintiff, LIGHTSEY, to confuse and
`104.
`“wear down” the buyers, especially elderly buyers, into purchasing a timeshare or amenities.
`
`18
`
`
`
`105.
`
`Supervisors instructed Plaintiff, LIGHTSEY, to fiaudulently misrepresent to
`
`buyers that the credit application would not affect their credit score. Supervisors knew this was
`
`not true.
`
`Supervisors Topolosky and Pinta instructed Plaintiff, LIGHTSEY, to fiaudulently
`106.
`advise out-of-state buyers who were ineligible to purchase a timeshare from Defendant,
`WYNDHAM’s, Clearwater Beach Resort that they could purchase Club Wyndham Access and
`then transfer their ownership to a Clearwater Beach Resort property when they became eligible.
`Supervisors knew this was not true.
`Plaintiff, LIGHTSEY, witnessed Supervisors Narain and Pinta engage in the
`
`107.
`
`unlicensed practice ofreal estateby directly making sales oftimeshares to purchasers. Specifically,
`
`they discussed pricing and finance tenns with the buyers and closed deals without a Florida Real
`
`Estate License.
`
`108.
`
`Plaintiff, LIGHTSEY, also witnessed other employees selling properties without
`
`real estate licenses. These employees were paid hourly wages higher than those of the licensed
`
`Sales Representatives, received monthly wage increases if they met their sales expectations, and
`
`they were placed before the licensed Sales Representatives on the “rotation wheel” so they would
`
`receive tours before the licensed Sales Representatives would.
`Supervisors instructed Plaintifi‘, LIGHTSEY, to fraudulently advise owners who
`
`109.
`
`alr