throbber
Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 13
`
`! l
`
`;.~
`
`'
`
`oi·::/(:.; :. ) _ _:.; (~·l):::ioVT
`
`-
`
`-
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE
`DISTRICT OF VERMONT
`
`i
`
`·-~-~.)
`
`2021 HAR 22 AH fl: 51
`
`SAMANTHA AGRICOLA,
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`v.
`
`VITALCORE HEALTH STRATEGIES, LLC,
`
`DEFENDANT.
`
`CASE NO.: -d-~ ;J--./-. c-v--F--,-lo-
`
`>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`PLAINTIFF Samantha Agricola brings this action against VitalCore Health
`
`Strategies, LLC ("VitalCore"), for wrongful termination (Breach of Implied Employment
`
`Contract), age discrimination and illegal retaliation, seeking judgment and monetary
`
`damages, as follows:
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`1. The Plaintiff is a resident of Milton town in Chittenden County, Vermont.
`
`2. Defendant VitalCore is a health consulting firm that contracts with correctional
`
`facilities to provide health care services, including at several Vermont correctional
`
`facilities.
`
`3. Defendant is headquartered in Topeka, Kansas.
`
`4. Subject Matter Jurisdiction is proper under Diversity of Jurisdiction because the
`
`parties reside in two different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`28 u.s.c. § 1332.
`
`Watts Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 270, Quechee, vr 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`1 of13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 13
`
`5. Venue is proper because plaintiff resides in Vermont and was a Vermont employee at
`
`the time that the claims raised in this proceeding occurred.
`
`Introduction
`
`6. The Plaintiff holds a master's degree in clinical psychology and has experience in
`
`mental and behavioral health.
`
`7. The plaintiff has specialist expertise in crisis intervention techniques, biopsychosocial
`
`assessments, learning disability awareness, and student assessments, including
`
`perlorming mental health assessments to determine needs and level of functioning.
`
`8. Plaintiff was hired as a Mental Health Clinician by Centurion Managed Care
`
`("Centurion") in May 2020; at the time, Centurion was contracted with the State of
`
`Vermont to provide health care services at Vermont correctional facilities.
`
`9. VitalCore replaced Centurion under the prison health care contract with the State of
`
`Vermont Department of Corrections on July 1, 2020.
`
`10. VitalCore hired plaintiff as a VitalCore employee in July 2020, employing her as a
`
`Mental Health Clinician from July through October 2020; she held the same position
`
`and perlormed the same job responsibilities that she had with Centurion.
`
`11. The plaintiffs transfer from Centurion to VitalCore interrupted her training and
`
`disrupted her assignment to a designated facility.
`
`12. For several months, VitalCore transferred plaintiff between the state prison facilities
`
`in Chittenden, St. Albans, and Newport facilities.
`
`13. In a previous position, the plaintiff interviewed incoming callers to collect
`
`immigration information, interpreted caller information and prepared cohesive
`
`Watts Law Firm, P .C. PO Box 270, Quechee, VT 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`2 of13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 3 of 13
`
`reports for field agents; her reports included facts to be disseminated to specialized
`
`departments within Homeland Security investigations.
`
`14. The plaintiff was required to keep the information she collected confidential and
`
`determine solutions for clients promptly and professionally.
`
`15. In past positions, the plaintiff also collaborated with teachers and administrators
`
`concerning academic and mental health needs and provided therapeutic program
`
`services to students, including creating treatment plans using the DSM-5 and z-codes.
`
`16. The plaintiff is also fluent in assessment instruments, including intelligence,
`
`behavioral-social-emotional and projected tests.
`
`17. VitalCore employed two other female clinicians in the same role as plaintiff.
`
`18. Soon into plaintiffs employment, VitalCore's Northwest Site Supervisor (at the State's
`
`St. Albans facility), Amy Kelley, demonstrated obvious favoritism toward the other
`
`two clinicians and disdain toward the plaintiff.
`
`19. Kelley told plaintiff she "didn't matter" as much as one of the other clinicians who had
`
`been hired just five weeks prior to plaintiff.
`
`20.Kelley demanded that the third clinician attend all staff meetings but used the excuse
`
`of COVID-19 social distancing to exclude plaintiff and the other clinician.
`
`21. Kelley eventually permitted the second clinician to also attend the meetings but
`
`continued to use COVID-19 protocols as an excuse to exclude the plaintiff.
`
`22.As a result of Kelley's exclusionary practice, plaintiff was often unaware and
`
`uninformed about important patient and staff developments.
`
`23. Kelley's exclusionary practice prevented the plaintiff from fully accomplishing her job
`
`responsibilities and duties.
`
`Watts Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 270, Quechee, vr 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`3 of13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 4 of 13
`
`24. Kelley repeatedly greeted and spoke to the other two clinicians and ignored the
`
`plaintiff.
`
`25. Kelley invaded plaintiffs office unannounced on several occasions and yelled at the
`
`plaintiff or reprimanded her for insignificant actions the plaintiff had taken, such as
`
`distributing coloring pages to inmates as part of their therapy.
`
`26. The criticisms that Kelley freely hurled at plaintiff were reserved only for her.
`
`27. The plaintiffs two counterparts were never reprimanded for acting in nearly identical
`
`ways as the plaintiff.
`
`28. The plaintiff has been diagnosed with depression and anxiety.
`
`29. The plaintiff is regularly treated for her diagnosed conditions.
`
`30. The plaintiff manages her symptoms well through a prescription for a mood stabilizer.
`
`31. On one occasion, while in the staff bathroom, the plaintiff accidentally and
`
`unknowingly dropped one of her mood stabilizing pills on the bathroom floor, where
`
`a co-worker found it.
`
`32. When defendant inquired, the plaintiff readily admitted that the prescription
`
`medication belonged to her.
`
`33. Nevertheless, Kelley reprimanded the plaintiff for the incident.
`
`34.Although a DOC officer was present for the reprimand, at no point did a DOC
`
`representative reprimand plaintiff or pursue the issue.
`
`35. There is a protocol forbidding staff from leaving medications around the facility- even
`
`in a staff bathroom.
`
`36. During the summer months, Kelley demanded that plaintiff remain in her poorly
`
`ventilated office with all halogen lighting fully electrified.
`
`Watts Law Firm, P .C. PO Box 270, Quechee, VT 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`4of13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 5 of 13
`
`37. The result was that the plaintiff was forced to work in the extreme heat while Kelley
`
`permitted the other two clinicians to tum their lights off.
`
`38. Kelley's disparate treatment of plaintiff in these and numerous other ways, compared
`
`to how she treated the two other employees in similar positions, created a hostile
`
`working environment for the plaintiff.
`
`39. On August 3, 2020, plaintiff was in the back office at the Northwest facility when the
`
`room reached 90 degrees.
`
`40. When plaintiff removed her sweater to reduce her discomfort and possible heat stroke,
`
`Kelle~ screamed at her, ordering her to put her sweater back on.
`
`41. Kelley's angry intensity made plaintiff feel blindsided, bewildered and fearful.
`
`42. Two months later, plaintiff was meeting with an inmate at the Northwest facility when
`
`Kelley barged in, told the inmate to leave immediately and demanded to speak with
`
`plaintiff.
`
`43. Subsequently, Ms. Kelly pulled plaintiff into a meeting room with a security officer
`
`and the head nurse and reprimanded plaintiff for not having a radio in her office while
`
`meeting with an inmate.
`
`44. Neither Centurion nor VitalCore trained or informed the plaintiff about the
`
`requirement to locate a radio in her office with an inmate.
`
`45. Ironically, VitalCore had informed its employees that it did not possess enough radios
`
`for all staff and suggested that staff would not be provided radios.
`
`46.After chastising the plaintiff about the absent radio, Kelley launched into a tirade
`
`against the plaintiffs attire.
`
`47. The attire that plaintiff wore was a simple V-neck blouse and cardigan.
`
`48. The plaintiffs attire did not violate dress code policies.
`Watts Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 270, Quechee, VT 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`5 of13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 6 of 13
`
`49. That same day, VitalCore's Clinical Supervisor at the Newport facility confirmed the
`
`plaintiffs attire did not violate any dress code.
`
`50. Kelley suggested that the plaintiffs attire was sexual in nature and tempting to the
`
`facility's inmates.
`
`51. Kelley's conduct humiliated the plaintiff in the presence of other staff.
`
`52. Kelley also reprimanded the plaintiff for ignoring some "direct order" from her
`
`supervisor.
`
`53. The "direct order" allegation was baseless; Kelley was plaintiffs supervisor but failed
`
`to specify any order plaintiff allegedly ignored.
`
`54. Kelley's erratic behavior, outright hostility and constant massaging of the rules to fit
`
`her whims so she could embarrass and harass the plaintiff caused the plaintiff to
`
`experience severe anxiety.
`
`55. The plaintiff frequently arrived home after work in tears because of Kelley's repeated
`
`humiliations of her.
`
`56. Plaintiff complained about Kelley's harassment of her to VitalCore's Newport Site
`
`Supervisor, Jane Nuse, and to VitalCore's Chittenden Clinician Supervisor, Kasha
`
`Brown, on several occasions.
`
`57. In October 2020, after one such occasion when plaintiff reached out to Ms. Brown for
`
`assistance, Ms. Brown promised plaintiff that her work environment would improve
`
`eventually, but did not actually address any of plaintiffs substantive concerns about
`
`Kelley's harassment and bullying of her.
`
`58. On October 15, 2020, plaintiff received a written warning dated October 14, 2020,
`
`referred to as a "2nd Reminder," alleging three violations: "Dress code;" "Not Adhering
`
`to all security policy and procedures;" and "Not adhering to all COVID protocols."
`Watts Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 270, Quechee, VT 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`6 of13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 7 of 13
`
`59. The written warning did not describe any examples of these three alleged violations.
`
`60.The warning threatened termination or cancelling plaintiff's security clearance if she
`
`failed to resolve the alleged violations.
`
`61. Immediately following the warning, the plaintiff contacted VitalCore's vice president,
`
`Stephanie Sullivan, to discuss the warning.
`
`62. Around the same time, recognizing Kelley's harassment, Ms. Brown's supervisor
`
`reached out to the plaintiff since Ms. Brown had contacted her seeking support for the
`
`plaintiff.
`
`63. The plaintiff met with Ms. Sullivan and relayed the chronology of Kelley's bullying that
`
`the plaintiff had experienced.
`
`64.Ms. Brown's supervisor, Jacee Sutton, participated in the meeting via teleconference.
`
`65. The two managers, Sullivan and Sutton, assured the plaintiff that they had heard
`
`strong, positive reports of her performance record and promised her that they valued
`
`her as an employee.
`
`66. The two managers, Sullivan and Sutton, promised the plaintiff they would address
`
`Kelley's abusive conduct with her.
`
`67. Ms. Sullivan acknowledged that Kelley's conduct was "a clear case of bullying."
`
`68.Ms. Sutton also acknowledged that Kelley was difficult to work with.
`
`69. Ms. Sullivan suggested to plaintiff that if the issues she was experiencing with Ms.
`
`Kelley did not resolve, defendant would assist plaintiff in laterally transferring her
`
`away from working with Ms. Kelley.
`
`70. The two managers also informed plaintiff that they were investigating a recent
`
`incident where a female inmate had beaten a security guard; they indicated they
`
`Watts Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 270, Quechee, VT 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`7of13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 8 of 13
`
`wanted plaintiff to be apprised of the episode because she had been the last employee
`
`to meet with the inmate.
`
`71. On October 28, 2020, Kelley barged into plaintiffs Northwest office unannounced and
`
`told her she must resign or she would be dismissed.
`
`72. When the plaintiff asked for the reason for Kelley's demand, Kelley gave a vague
`
`excuse about plaintiff being a "security risk."
`
`73. The plaintiff informed Kelley that she would not resign.
`
`74. Kelley immediately called security to have the plaintiff removed from the building.
`
`COUNTONE:
`WRONGFUL TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT
`(BREACH OF IMPLIED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT)
`
`75. The plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-74 into this claim.
`
`76. Defendant issued personnel policies.
`
`77. Defendant's personnel policies constituted an implied employment contract between
`
`defendant and its employees including the plaintiff.
`
`78. Defendant's personnel policies prescribe progressive discipline for its employees.
`
`79. Defendant's progressive discipline policy contains a five-step procedure that it
`
`implements "under normal circumstances."
`
`So.The five steps
`
`include "Informal Discussion," "Counseling," "Reprimand,"
`
`"Suspension" and "Failure to Improve."
`
`81. The policy also provides that in cases of an employee's "serious misconduct," or "a
`
`major breach of policy or violation of the law," the progressive discipline may be
`
`disregarded.
`
`82. Defendant identified no circumstances that were out of the ordinary justifying its
`
`arbitrary and unceremonious dismissal of the plaintiff.
`Watts Law Firm, P .C. PO Box 270, Quechee, VT 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`8 of13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 9 of 13
`
`83. Defendant identified no abnormal circumstances reasons for its dismissal of the
`
`plaintiff that would justify it ignoring the progressive discipline process.
`
`84.Nor did defendant identify any "breach of policy or violation of the law" that would
`
`justify it ignoring the progressive discipline process.
`
`85. Nevertheless, defendant ignored its progressive discipline policy when it dismissed
`
`the plaintiff without any justification for its action.
`
`86. Defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff without justification, ignoring the implied
`
`contract provisions, breached the implied employment contract between the parties.
`
`87. Defendant also ignored the implied contract provision in the personnel policies that
`
`required it to provide its employees, including the plaintiff, with complete orientation
`
`concerning her job duties and responsibilities to "familiarize" herself with "the
`
`environment and job duties."
`
`88.Defendant's failure to provide introductory orientation also breached the implied
`
`employment contract between the parties.
`
`89.As part of defendant's "Problem Resolution" provision in its personnel policies,
`
`defendant warranted that employees, including the plaintiff, would not be retaliated
`
`against for seeking redress of unfairness or circumstances that concerned her.
`
`go.After the plaintiff sought redress for the unfairness and circumstances that concerned
`
`her, especially from Ms. Brown, Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Sutton, it permitted Kelley to
`
`fire her.
`
`91. Kelley's dismissal of the plaintiff was a clear case of retaliation for the plaintiff seeking
`
`redress for the unfairness and circumstances that concerned her, especially from Ms.
`
`Brown, Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Sutton, and defendant permitted Kelley to fire her.
`
`Watts Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 270, Quechee, VT 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`9 of13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 10 of 13
`
`92. Defendant's conduct violated the personnel policies and breached the implied
`
`employment contract between the parties.
`
`93. Defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff constituted wrongful termination in violation of
`
`the implied employment contract between the parties.
`
`94. The plaintiff demands judgment for defendant's wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff in
`
`breach of the implied employment contract between the parties.
`
`95. The plaintiff also demands an award of monetary damages in the form of lost
`
`compensation and benefits, including back and front pay, interest and all other
`
`damages that the jury awards in its discretion.
`
`COUNT1WO:
`ILLEGAL AGE DISCRIMINATION
`VIOIATION OF 21 V.S.A. Chapt. 5
`
`96. The plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-95 into this claim.
`
`97. The Vermont statute forbids age discrimination in employment. 21 V.S.A. Chapt. 5.
`
`98. The plaintiff is older than 40 years of age.
`
`99. The plaintiff is a member of a legally protected category of employees.
`
`100. The plaintiff was qualified for the position she held in defendant's employ.
`
`101. Kelley's favoritism, described above, gave distinct advantages to the other two
`
`female clinicians.
`
`102.
`
`In particular, the other clinicians, who were younger than the plaintiff, avoided the
`
`severe anxiety that Kelley foisted upon the plaintiff.
`
`103. The other two clinicians were not the targets of Kelley's bullying conduct.
`
`104. Yet, the two other clinicians were similarly situated to the plaintiff in terms of job
`
`responsibilities, compensation and benefits and duties.
`
`105. The defendant did not discriminate against the two similarly-situated employees.
`Watts Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 270, Quechee, VT 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`10 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 11 of 13
`
`106. The other two employees suffered no adverse employment action.
`
`107. The plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action that the other two similarly(cid:173)
`
`situated employees did not experience.
`
`108. Defendant based the plaintiffs dismissal on her clothing, the simple V-neck blouse
`
`and cardigan, referring to it as "an unacceptable security risk."
`
`109. Defendant's alleged reason for dismissing the plaintiff was mere pretext for age
`
`discrimination.
`
`110. Thus, defendant discriminated against the plaintiff in terms and conditions of her
`
`employment because of her older age.
`
`111. The plaintiffs older age was defendant's motivation for its permitting Kelley to
`
`harass and bully the plaintiff.
`
`112. The plaintiffs older age was defendant's motivation for its adverse employment
`
`action against her.
`
`113.
`
`In other words, but for her older age, defendant would not have discriminated
`
`against the plaintiff in dismissing her.
`
`114. At minimum, age played a role in defendant's decision-making process.
`
`115. Age had a determinative effect on the outcome of the manner in which defendant
`
`administered its dismissal process.
`
`116. With its dismissal of the plaintiff, defendant engaged in illegal age discrimination
`
`in employment.
`
`117. The plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for its age discrimination
`
`against her.
`
`Watts Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 270, Quechee, VT 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`11 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 12 of 13
`
`118. The plaintiff also demands an award of monetary damages
`
`including
`
`compensatory damages in the form of lost compensation and benefits as well as
`
`punitive damages, interest, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
`
`COUNT THREE:
`ILLEGAL RETALIATORY DISCHARGE FROM EMPLOYMENT
`MOLATION OF 21 V.S.A. CHAPf. S, §§ 495 & 405b)
`
`119. The plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-118 into this claim.
`
`120. When the plaintiff complained about Kelley's harassment of her, she was engaging
`
`in a protected activity under the statutes.
`
`121. Kelley's workplace harassment caused the plaintiff to experience a hostile working
`
`environment.
`
`122. Defendant's human resources officials and other managers were aware of the
`
`plaintiffs complaints about Kelley's workplace harassment.
`
`123. Defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff was an adverse employment action against
`
`her.
`
`124. There was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse
`
`employment action.
`
`125. Kelley's workplace harassment of the plaintiff, including her false accusations
`
`about the plaintiffs attire allegedly causing a "security risk," caused the plaintiff to
`
`experience employment disadvantages including anxiety and mental distress.
`
`126. When the plaintiff complained about Kelley's workplace harassment and the
`
`hostile working environment it caused, defendant fired her in retaliation.
`
`127. Kelley's harassment and defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff were sufficiently
`
`material to deter her protected activity, complaining about workplace harassment,
`
`and constitute illegal retaliation against the plaintiff for her protected activity.
`Watts Law Firm, P .C. PO Box 270, Quechee, vr 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`12 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00086-cr Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 13 of 13
`
`128. The plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for defendant's illegal
`
`retaliation against her.
`
`129. The plaintiff also demands an award of monetary damages in the form of
`
`compensatory and punitive damages, restitution of wages and other benefits,
`
`reasonable attorney's fees, interest, court costs and any other damages the Court
`
`and/ or jury may impose.
`
`NOTE: PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY.
`
`DATED: March 16. 2021
`
`SAMANTHAAGRICOLA, PLAINTIFF
`
`By=~l~1
`vw~·evi_rl;~. _
`
`Norman E. Watts, Esq.
`Watts Law Firm, PC
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`Watts Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 270, Quechee, VT 05059
`Phone (802) 457-1020, Fax (802) 369-2172, Email: info@wattslawvt.com
`
`13 of 13
`
`

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