throbber
Filing # 82214691 E-Filed 12/17/2018 02:53:56 PM
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket