Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`Laura E. Rosenbaum, OSB No. 110061
`laura.rosenbaum@stoel.com
`Noah H. Morss, OSB No. 172845
`noah.morss@stoel.com
`STOEL RIVES LLP
`760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
`Portland, OR 97205
`Telephone: 503.224.3380
`Facsimile: 503.220.2480
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Kaiser Foundation
`Health Plan of the Northwest
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`EUGENE DIVISION
`
`EMILY CASTELLANOS,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN
`OF THE NORTHWEST; SERVICE
`EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
`LOCAL 49,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 6:22-CV-00149
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION
`UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`1441, and 1446
`
`
`
`
`TO:
`
`THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT
`
`AND TO: PLAINTIFF EMILY CASTELLANOS
`
`AND TO:
`
`SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 49
`
`Page 1
`
`- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`1441, and 1446
`
`112838411.3 0056250- 00171
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 34
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Defendant Kaiser
`
`Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest (“Kaiser”) hereby removes to this Court the state court
`
`action described below.
`
`1.
`
`On October 14, 2021, an action was commenced against Kaiser in the Circuit
`
`Court of the State of Oregon in the County of Marion, entitled Emily Castellanos v. Kaiser
`
`Foundation Hospitals, No. 21CV40666 (“State Action”). Plaintiff filed her First Amended
`
`Complaint against Kaiser on December 6, 2021, adding Service Employees International Union
`
`Local 49 (“SEIU”) as a Defendant. Attached as Exhibit 1 are copies of the First Amended
`
`Complaint and the Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`On December 28, 2021, Kaiser was served with a copy of the Summons and First
`
`Amended Complaint. Attached as Exhibit 2 are copies of the Proofs of Service, Summonses,
`
`and the Acceptance of Service.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibits 1 and 2 constitute all of the process, pleadings and orders in the State
`
`Action to date.
`
`4.
`
`This Removal Notice is filed timely within 30 days after service of process under
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
`
`5.
`
`Kaiser did not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint or the First
`
`Amended Complaint prior to filing this Notice of Removal and the associated paperwork.
`
`Kaiser will file its Answer in this court upon Removal.
`
`6.
`
`The First Amended Complaint makes allegations that require interpretation of a
`
`Collective Bargaining agreement between Kaiser and Defendant Service Employees
`
`International Union.
`
`Page 2
`
`- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`1441, and 1446
`
`112838411.3 0056250- 00171
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 3 of 34
`
`7.
`
`This action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331, and is one which may be properly removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1441(a) because Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint asserts claims that are preempted by § 301
`
`of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).
`
`8.
`
`Removal to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene
`
`Division, is proper because it is the judicial district embracing the place where this action is
`
`pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Local Rule 3-2(a).
`
`9.
`
`Upon filing this Notice of Removal, Kaiser shall give written notice to Marcus
`
`Vejar and Amanda Reilly, attorneys for Plaintiff. Defendant SEIU has not yet appeared in this
`
`case. Kaiser shall also file a copy of the Notice of Removal with the Clerk of the Circuit Court
`
`of the State of Oregon for the County of Marion, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
`
`10.
`
`By filing this Notice of Removal, Kaiser does not waive, and expressly reserves,
`
`any defenses that may be available.
`
`WHEREFORE, Kaiser removes the above-captioned action now pending against it in the
`
`Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Marion to the U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of Oregon, Eugene Division, where it shall proceed as an action originally commenced
`
`there.
`
`
`
`DATED: January 27, 2022.
`
`STOEL RIVES LLP
`
`
`/s/ Laura E. Rosenbaum
`LAURA E. ROSENBAUM, OSB No. 110061
`laura.rosenbaum@stoel.com
`NOAH H. MORSS, OSB No. 172845
`noah.morss@stoel.com
`Telephone: 503.224.3380
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Kaiser
`
`Page 3
`
`- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`1441, and 1446
`
`112838411.3 0056250- 00171
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I served the foregoing NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION
`
`UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446 on the following named person(s) on the date
`
`indicated below by
`
` mailing with postage prepaid
`
` hand delivery
`
` facsimile transmission
`
` overnight delivery
`
` email
`
` notice of electronic filing using the Cm/ECF system
`
`to said person(s) a true copy thereof, and if by mail, contained in a sealed envelope, addressed to
`
`said person(s) at his or her last-known address(es) indicated below.
`
`
`
`Marcus I. Vejar
`Amanda L. Reilly
`Lafky & Lafky
`429 Court St. NE
`Salem, OR 97301
`mvejar@lafky.com
`areilly@lafky.com
`
`DATED: January 27, 2022.
`
`
`
`STOEL RIVES LLP
`
`
`/s/ Laura E. Rosenbaum
`LAURA E. ROSENBAUM, OSB No. 110061
`laura.rosenbaum@stoel.com
`NOAH H. MORSS, OSB No. 172845
`noah.morss@stoel.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`Page 1
`
`- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`10/14/2021 5:00 PM
`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 5 of 34
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
`
`21CV40666
`Case No. ___________________________
`
`COMPLAINT- WHISTLEBLOWER
`DISCRIMINATION (ORS 659A.199);
`WRONGFUL TERMINATION; NURSE
`STAFFING LAWS (441.181); BREACH OF
`CONTRACT
`
`(Jury Trial Requested; Not Subject to
`Mandatory Arbitration)
`
`(Prayer for Relief: $500,000)
`
`)))))))))))))))
`
`EMILY CASTELLANOS,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,
`
`Defendant.
`
`_____________________________________
`
`Emily Castellanos (“Plaintiff”) alleges:
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a resident of Marion County, Oregon. Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
`
`(“Defendant”), is national organization with offices and hospitals throughout the country, including
`
`in Marion County Oregon. The North Lancaster Urgent Care operated by Defendant located in
`
`Marion County, Oregon was the physical place of employment for Plaintiff.
`
`Venue and jurisdiction are proper in this Court because Defendant is a business entity which
`
`2.
`
`owns and operates locations within Marion County Oregon.
`
`3.
`
`The events giving rise to this complaint occurred primarily in Marion County, Oregon.
`
`COMPLAINT - 1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`Page 1 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 6 of 34
`
`Defendant is an “employer” as defined in ORS Chapter 659A.106, and employs more
`
`4.
`
`than six (6) employees.
`
`Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter.
`
`5.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff was employed by Defendant and worked there for approximately 4 years, holding
`
`the title of Licensed Practical Nurse at the time of termination. Plaintiff worked in Primary Care for
`
`Defendant for roughly 2 years before being transferred to Urgent Care. Plaintiff was primarily
`
`working from the North Lancaster location prior to her termination on October 17th, 2020. Plaintiff
`
`worked part-time, 20 hours per week for Defendant and chose to continue with this schedule, despite
`
`being offered a full-time position with Defendant. Plaintiff had been described as a hardworking
`
`nurse that is determined to give her best care to her patients. There was no history of corrective
`
`action, ethical problems, or concerns regarding her standard of care prior to her termination.
`
`7.
`
`Approximately 1-2 months prior to September 19th, 2020, Plaintiff was approached by her
`
`supervisor and was informed that Defendant was struggling financially and employees working
`
`under 40 coded hours were offered to move full-time. At the time, Plaintiff was then informed by
`
`her supervisor that she was looking out for the employees because she heard that it was “coming
`
`down the pipeline that they are wanting to get rid of part-time employees in our department.” Despite
`
`having this information, Plaintiff declined the offer as she was a full-time RN student.
`
`8.
`
`On September 19th, 2020, Plaintiff was informed that employee Tirzah Lanoie would be
`
`acting as supervisor for Saturdays as Aimee Orr-Besa, who is the typical department supervisor, is
`
`out of the office on Saturdays. Ms. Lanoie then had let staff know that they could come to her with
`
`any concerns or questions. Upon asking how the day looked, Ms. Lanoie was informed that they
`
`COMPLAINT - 2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`Page 2 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 7 of 34
`
`were very short staffed and she responded that they had two Medical Assistants working in primary
`
`care who could potentially help out. Ms. Lanoie had then stated that both employees could help with
`
`rooming patients, immunizations, and COVID tests. Ms. Lanoie noted that these employees were
`
`both trained and checked off by her for COVID testing. Not long after, Plaintiff had left the area to
`
`work on her morning tasks.
`
`9.
`
`Around 1pm on September 19th, 2020, Ms. Lanoie came to Plaintiff’s department to inform
`
`them that the two Medical Assistants were willing to stay and help out. Ms. Lanoie, along with
`
`another employee, began to help the Medical Assistants in their preparations. The Medical Assistants
`
`were shown the testing room for the COVID tests and the swabs. Plaintiff informed her coworkers
`
`that since they have the help, Plaintiff would get on top of the nursing tasks that the Medical
`
`Assistants were unable to cover. Prior to this, Plaintiff was preparing the COVID swabs and then
`
`moved to more time sensitive concerns that had to take priority. Plaintiff had agreed with her
`
`coworker, Staci Hoover, that the Medical Assistants could do the COVID swabs to best utilize the
`
`Medical Assistants and allow for Plaintiff to focus on nursing tasks. Plaintiff did not delegate these
`
`tasks to the Medical Assistants and assisted them in preparations only after the Medical Assistants
`
`had volunteered and were approved by management. Plaintiff then left to work on nursing tasks and
`
`reminded her other coworkers about the restrictions on the tests Licensed Practical Nurses and
`
`Medical Assistants could administer.
`
`10.
`
`Around 6:15 on September 19th, 2020, after the last patient was discharged, Lenae Trussell,
`
`Plaintiff’s shift lead, sat down with Plaintiff and Ms. Hoover to let them know she was disappointed
`
`in the decision to allow Medical Assistants to administer the COVID tests. This was contradictory
`
`to the protocol that had been given to Plaintiff regarding who could administer the tests. Plaintiff
`
`informed Ms. Trussell that they were following protocol and that Ms. Lanoie had stated expressly
`
`that the Medical Assistants assisting were trained and checked off by her directly. Plaintiff then
`
`apologized that she upset Ms. Trussell and that they were overwhelmed and did the best they could
`
`COMPLAINT - 3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`Page 3 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 8 of 34
`
`with the resources given. As Plaintiff was not usually working on Saturdays, she was simply going
`
`off protocol and what Ms. Lanoie had informed them. Plaintiff did not apologize as to any
`
`recognition of wrong doing as this practice was clearly allowed by protocol, but did feel remorseful
`
`that Ms. Trussell was upset over the situation. Despite this lecture from Ms. Trussell, she had
`
`notified staff via a note that she was impressed at the hard-work displayed by staff throughout the
`
`busy day.
`
`11.
`
`The following day, on September 20th, 2020, Ms. Orr-Besa had went to check-in with the
`
`team. At that time, Plaintiff informed Ms. Orr-Besa that the previous day had terrible staffing issues
`
`and that the day was a nightmare, with Plaintiff feeling as though she was drowning in work.
`
`Plaintiff noted she had too many nursing tasks to do in a safe and efficient manner and there could
`
`have been medical errors made due to the complete lack of support. Plaintiff shared that Ms. Trussell
`
`did not support the staff when this happened and Plaintiff had an excessively difficult time coping
`
`with the impossible workload. Plaintiff had approached Ms. Trussell while she was overwhelmed
`
`and Plaintiff was told that this was the job and her complaints concerning staffing were dismissed.
`
`This situation was made worse by Ms. Trussell’s decision to scold and lecture Plaintiff and Ms.
`
`Hoover after the shift. A week after the incident, Plaintiff had met with Ms. Orr-Besa in her office
`
`to discuss the staffing issues further and discussed calling the compliance hotline provided to
`
`employees for issues. In addition to these complaints, Plaintiff stressed that, due to the staffing
`
`issues, it may not be possible to treat certain conditions at any given time in Urgent Care, which
`
`could lead to potential complications, including death of a patient. Plaintiff was instructed not to
`
`contact this number and was later questioned about the compliance hotline as Plaintiff had informed
`
`another employee that she could use the hotline if the employee was concerned about reporting
`
`issues to management.
`
`12.
`
`On October 4th, 2020, Plaintiff was informed that she would need to participate in a discovery
`
`meeting with her employer to discuss the events of September 19th, 2020. Plaintiff was given no
`
`COMPLAINT - 4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`Page 4 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 9 of 34
`
`basic information as to what the meeting would be concerning outside of addressing potential fraud,
`
`waste, and abuse of position and it was not clear that Plaintiff was to be disciplined at this meeting.
`
`Plaintiff is aware that employees may participate in discovery meetings that do not directly address
`
`their conduct. Furthermore, Defendant made no assertion to Plaintiff that she was unable to
`
`communicate with fellow employees about the meeting. That night, Plaintiff had spoken with Ms.
`
`Hoover regarding the meeting, simply to inquire if she had a meeting scheduled as well. This
`
`conversation was fairly brief as both Plaintiff and Ms. Hoover were unaware of what the meeting
`
`was for. Plaintiff later learned that Defendant had taken Ms. Hoover’s statement on September 29th,
`
`2020, prior to Plaintiff’s communication with Ms. Hoover and prior to Plaintiff’s knowledge of the
`
`discovery meeting.
`
`13.
`
`The discovery meeting took place October 17th, 2020 and this was to discipline Plaintiff for
`
`her conduct on September 19th, 2020, despite the fact that she was acting according to protocol, had
`
`express permission from the acting supervisor that ratified her conduct, and no other employees were
`
`disciplined or reprimanded. In complete disregard to Defendant’s discharge of Plaintiff, Defendant
`
`allegedly still used Medical Assistants to administer COVID testing. At the conclusion of this
`
`meeting, Plaintiff was terminated and began the grievance process with her union to address the
`
`termination. This grievance process resulted in Plaintiff’s termination being upheld. Plaintiff
`
`vehemently disputes this termination and the union’s conduct in addressing her grievances. At the
`
`time of termination, Plaintiff was covered under a Collective Bargaining Agreement between Kaiser
`
`Foundation Hospitals and the Service Employees International Union Local 49.
`
`14.
`
`As a result of his termination, Plaintiff has now sustained approximately $150,000 in
`
`economic damages including lost wages, benefits of employment, and continuing therapy costs
`
`associated with this incident to be proven with more particularity at trial with an additional $350,00
`
`in non-economic damages. Furthermore, Plaintiff requests continuing lost wages and benefits as
`
`compensation for her wrongful termination.
`
`COMPLAINT - 5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`Page 5 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 10 of 34
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT–STATE STATUTORY
`WHISTLEBLOWER DISCRIMINATION
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-14 above. According to ORS 659.199(1), “It is an unlawful
`
`employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discriminate
`
`or retaliate against an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or other terms, conditions
`
`or privileges of employment for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information
`
`that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.”
`
`16.
`
`As described in detail above, Plaintiff had made an official complaint to her manager
`
`regarding issues of nurse staffing on two separate occasions, stressing the difficulty of the job with
`
`the staffing issues and impacts it has on staff. This report is protected under ORS 441.181 which
`
`states that a hospital may not take retaliatory action against nursing staff because the nursing staff,
`
`“Discloses or intends to disclose to a manager, a private accreditation organization or a public body
`
`an activity, policy or practice of the hospital or of a hospital that the nursing staff reasonably believes
`
`is in violation of law or a rule or is a violation of professional standards of practice that the nursing
`
`staff reasonably believes poses a risk to the health, safety or welfare of a patient or the public.”
`
`Plaintiff had expressed her concerns about staff and the impact it would have on their ability to
`
`exercise proper care for the patients.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff did not receive notice of the proposed discipline for two weeks after the incident had
`
`taken place and Plaintiff was the only person disciplined terminated for this incident. This was after
`
`Plaintiff had made complaints to management on two separate occasions and had informed another
`
`employee of their right to use the compliance hotline provided to staff, which Plaintiff was
`
`discouraged from utilizing.
`
`COMPLAINT - 6
`
`18.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`Page 6 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 11 of 34
`
`As a result of Defendant’s violation of ORS 659A.199(1), Plaintiff requests equitable relief,
`
`economic damages as set forth in paragraph 14, along with reasonable costs and attorney fees
`
`pursuant to ORS 659A.885.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT–WRONGFUL
`TERMINATION
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-18 above. Defendant terminated Plaintiff because she
`
`exercised a legal right to make a report to management concerning the potential violations, the
`
`impacts the staffing was having on the care of patients, and the difficulty staff was having in properly
`
`completing their job duties. According to Section 49.0 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
`
`Plaintiff was covered by, no employee is to be disciplined or discharged without just cause. No other
`
`employee faced similar discipline or discharge as Plaintiff for this conduct and Defendant bypassed
`
`its progressive discipline process. The stated reasons Defendant gave in the notice of termination
`
`completely disregards the protocol given to staff regarding the Medical Assistants Guidance
`
`provided. The foundation Defendant based its termination on is not supported by the actual events
`
`of September 19th, 2020 and the Defendant’s failure to engage in progressive discipline demonstrates
`
`its ulterior motives for terminating Plaintiff.
`
`22.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s wrongful termination of Plaintiff due to the complaints made
`
`protected by law and in violation of ORS 441.181, Plaintiff requests remedies consistent with her
`
`requests in paragraph 14 of this complaint.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT–-NURSE STAFFING LAWS
`(441.181)
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-22 above. Pursuant to ORS 441.181, a hospital may not take
`
`retaliatory action against a nursing staff because the nursing staff discloses or intends to disclose to
`
`a manager, a private accreditation organization or a public body an activity, policy or practice of the
`
`hospital or of a hospital that the nursing staff reasonably believes is in violation of law or a rule or
`
`COMPLAINT - 7
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`Page 7 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 12 of 34
`
`is a violation of professional standards of practice that the nursing staff reasonably believes poses
`
`a risk to the health, safety or welfare of a patient or the public.
`
`24.
`
`Pursuant to ORS 441.183, a nursing staff aggrieved by an act prohibited by ORS 441.181
`
`may bring an action in circuit court of the county in which the hospital is located. All remedies
`
`available in a common law tort action are available to a nursing staff if the nursing staff prevails in
`
`an action brought under this subsection and are in addition to any remedies provided in subsection
`
`(2) of this section. This would include the following remedies which Plaintiff is pursuing:
`
`(1) Reinstate the nursing staff to the same or equivalent position that the nursing staff
`
`held before the retaliatory action;
`
`(2) Reinstate full benefits and seniority rights to the nursing staff as if the nursing staff
`
`had continued in employment;
`
`(3) Compensate the nursing staff for lost wages, benefits and other remuneration,
`
`including interest, as if the nursing staff had continued in employment;
`
`(4) Order the hospital to pay reasonable litigation costs of the nursing staff, including
`
`reasonable expert witness fees and reasonable attorney fees; and
`
`(5) Award punitive damages as provided in ORS 31.730
`
`25.
`
`As explained above, Plaintiff made complaints to management on two separate occasions
`
`regarding staffing issues and the potential impacts it was having on patient care. Not long after these
`
`protected complaints were made, Plaintiff was subjected to termination without progressive
`
`discipline and without just cause. For these reasons, Plaintiff requests relief consistent with
`
`paragraph 14 and 24 of this complaint for the violations under ORS 441.181, including reasonable
`
`attorney fees, provided under ORS 441.183(2)(e).
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT–BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-25 above. As stated above, Plaintiff was covered by a
`
`26.
`
`COMPLAINT - 8
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`Page 8 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 13 of 34
`
`Collective Bargaining Agreement as a represented employee. As part of this agreement, Section 49.1,
`
`no employee is to be disciplined or discharged without just cause. As Plaintiff was terminated
`
`without just cause, Defendant knowingly breached the contract that covered Plaintiff’s employment.
`
`27.
`
`As Defendant knowingly breached the agreement between itself and Plaintiff, Plaintiff is
`
`requesting to be made whole as though the contract was properly enforced between Plaintiff and
`
`Defendant. For this reason, Plaintiff is requesting reinstatement, along with her lost wages and
`
`benefits, as are guaranteed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement covering Plaintiff’s employment.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following for his claims for relief:
`
`1. Economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which sum is
`
`alleged to be $150,000, along with continuing lost wages and benefits and
`
`$350,00 in non-economic damages.
`
`2.
`
`Expert witness fees, interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`ORS 659A.885;
`
`Equitable relief in the form of reinstatement;
`
`Reasonable litigation costs of Plaintiff, including reasonable expert
`
`witness fees and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to ORS 441.183.
`
`6.
`
`Such other relief as this Court may Order.
`
`DATED this 14th day of October, 2021.
`
`/s/ Marcus I. Vejar
`Marcus I. Vejar, OSB#194708
`Amanda L. Reilly, OSB#194422
`Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`COMPLAINT - 9
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`Page 9 of 9
`
`

`

`1/13/2022 10:04 AM
`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 14 of 34
`21CV40666
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
`FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
`Case No. 21CV40666
`
`EMILY CASTELLANOS,
`Plaintiff,
`
`ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
`
`v.
`KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
`PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST;
`SERVICE EMPLOYEES
`INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL
`49,
`
`Defendants.
`I, Laura Rosenbaum, hereby accept service of a true copy of the Complaint heretofore
`filed in the above-entitled matter, along with the summons, on behalf of the defendant, KAISER
`FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST. I hereby attest that I am duly
`authorized by my client to accept this service.
`
`28th
`DATED this ___ day of December 2021.
`
` Laura E Rosenbaum OSB#110061
` lerosenbaum@stoel.com
` Stoel Rives LLP
` 760 SW Ninth Ave Ste 3000
` Portland OR 97205
` Attorney for Defendant Kaiser Foundation
` Health Plan of the Northwest
`
`1 - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 15 of 34
`1/13/2022 10:04 AM
`21CV40666
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
`IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
`
`Case Number: 21CV40666
`
`Plaintiff: EMILY CASTELLANOS
`vs.
`Defendant: KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
`PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST; SERVICE
`EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
`LOCAL 49,
`
`For:
`Lafky & Lafky
`429 Court Street N.E.
`Salem, OR 97301
`
`Service Documents:
`Summons and First Amended Complaint
`
`Received by MALSTROM'S PROCESS SERVING CO. on the 28th day of December, 2021 at 3:09 pm to be
`served on SEIU LOCAL 49, 3536 SE 26TH AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97202.
`
`I, Wayne Savage, Process Server, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 4th day of January, 2022
`at 9:44 am, I:
`
`SERVED SEIU LOCAL 49 at 3536 SE 26TH AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97202 by personally serving a true
`copy of the Summons and First Amended Complaint upon NATALIE MCALLISTER, the clerk on duty in
`the office of the Registered Agent and who is authorized to accept service.
`
`MAILING was completed on 1/11/2022 by mailing a true copy of the doucments served to the defendant
`at the address of service along with a statement regarding the date, time and manner of service.
`
`Description of Person Served: Age: 34, Sex: F, Race/Skin Color: CAUCASIAN, Height: 5'5", Weight: 160,
`Hair: RED, Glasses: Y
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that I am a resident of the State of Oregon . I am a competent person 18
`years of age or older and not a party to or attorney in this proceeding and am authorized to serve the
`process described herein. I certify that the person, firm , or corporation served is the identical one named
`in this action. I am not a party to nor an officer, director, or employee of, nor attorney for any party,
`corporate or otherwise.
`I hereby declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and th t it is
`made for use as evidence in court and is subject to penalty for perjury.
`
`Subscribed and Sworn to before me on the 11th day
`of January, 2022 in the county of Multnomah by the
`affi nt who is personally known to me.
`
`OFFICIAL STAMP
`MYLINDA MORENO
`NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
`COMMISSION NO.1 009462
`.....
`MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 02, 2025
`
`ne avage, Process Server
`prresr Server
`, II aQ~'02
`I
`Date
`
`MALSTROM'S PROCESS SERVING CO.
`155 CULVER LANE S
`Salem, OR 97302
`(503) 585-0234
`
`Our Job Serial Number: ONE-2021 004642
`Ref: CASTELLANOS
`
`1111111111111111111111111111111111111
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`Page 2 of 2
`
`

`

`1/13/2022 10:04 AM
`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 16 of 34
`21CV40666
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
`FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
`
`Case No. 21CV40666
`
`EMILY CASTELLANOS,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`SUMMONS
`
`
`v.
`KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
`PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST;
`SERVICE EMPLOYEES
`INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL
`49,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` SEIU Local 49, 3536 SE 26th Ave, Portland, OR 97202.
`
`TO:
`
`IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF OREGON: You are hereby required to appear and
`defend the complaint filed against you in the above-entitled cause within 30 days from the date
`of service of this summons on you; and if you fail to appear and defend, the plaintiff will apply
`to the court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`READ THESE PAPERS CAREFULLY!
`You must "appear" in this case or the other side will win automatically. To "appear" you
`must file with the court a legal paper called a "motion" or "answer." The "motion" or
`"answer" must be given to the court clerk or administrator within 30 days along with the
`required filing fee. It must be in proper form and have proof of service on the plaintiff's
`attorney or, if the plaintiff does not have an attorney, proof of service on the plaintiff.
`If you have any questions, you should see an attorney immediately. If you need help in
`finding an attorney, you may call the Oregon State Bar's Lawyer Referral Service at (503) 684-
`3763 or toll-free in Oregon at (800) 452-7636.
`
` /s/ Kevin T. Lafky
`Kevin T. Lafky, OSB#852633
`klafky@lafky.com
`LAFKY & LAFKY
`429 Court Street NE
`Salem, OR 97301
`Ph: 503-585-2450
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`1 - SUMMONS
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`Page 1 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 17 of 34
`
`STATE OF OREGON
`
`)
`County of Marion
`I, the undersigned attorney of record for the plaintiff, certify that the foregoing is an exact
`and complete copy of the original summons in the above entitled action.
`
` ss.
`
`))
`
` /s/ Kevin T. Lafky
`Kevin T. Lafky, OSB#852633
`klafky@lafky.com
`LAFKY & LAFKY
`429 Court Street NE
`Salem, OR 97301
`Ph: 503-585-2450
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`TO THE OFFICER OR OTHER PERSON SERVING THIS SUMMONS: You are
`hereby directed to serve a true copy of this summons, together with a true copy of the complaint
`mentioned therein, upon the individual(s) or other legal entity(ies) to whom or which this
`summons is directed, and to make your proof of service on the reverse hereof or upon a separate
`similar document which you shall attach hereto.
`
` /s/ Kevin T. Lafky
`Kevin T. Lafky, OSB#852633
`klafky@lafky.com
`LAFKY & LAFKY
`429 Court Street NE
`Salem, OR 97301
`Ph: 503-585-2450
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`1 - SUMMONS
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`Page 2 of 19
`
`

`

`1/13/2022 10:04 AM
`Case 6:22-cv-00149-MC Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 18 of 34
`21CV40666
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
`FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
`
`Case No. 21CV40666
`
`EMILY CASTELLANOS,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`SUMMONS
`
`
`v.
`KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
`PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST;
`SERVICE EMPLOYEES
`INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL
`49,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` SEIU Local 49, 3536 SE 26th Ave, Portland, OR 97202.
`
`TO:
`
`IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF OREGON: You are hereby required to appear and
`defend the complaint filed against you in the above-entitled cause within 30 days from the date
`of service of this summons on you; and if you fail to appear and defend, the plaintiff will apply
`to the court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`READ THESE PAPERS CAREFULLY!
`You must "appear" in this case or the other side will win automatically. To "appear" you
`must file with the court a legal paper called a "motion" or "answer." The "motion" or
`"answer" must be given to the court clerk or administrator within 30 days along with the
`required filing fee. It must be in proper form and have proof of service on the plaintiff's
`attorney or, if the plaintiff does not have an attorney, proof of service on the plaintiff.
`If you have any question