throbber
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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-05128 Document 1 Filed 03/03/22 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Court
`For the Western District of Washington
`Tacoma Division
`
`Cassia Grandin,
`
`No.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vs.
`Great Rivers Behavioral Health
`Administrative Services
`Organization LLC, Great Rivers
`Behavioral Health Organization
`LLC, and Community Integrated
`Health Services LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Complaint for Damages
`
`Jury Trial Requested
`
`Plaintiff Cassia Grandin, through her attorneys, Beck Chase Gilman PLLC, alleges as follows:
`
`I. Parties
`Plaintiff Cassia Grandin (Grandin) was a Washington resident at all relevant times.
`
`1.1.
`
`1.2. Great Rivers Behavioral Health Administrative Services Organization LLC (BH-
`
`ASO), UBI Number 604 497 793, operates in Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis, Pacific, and
`
`Wahkiakum counties.
`
`1.3. Defendant Great Rivers Behavioral Health Organization, LLC (Great Rivers), UBI
`
`Number 604 410 263, operates in Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis, Pacific, and Wahkiakum counties.
`
`1.4. Defendant Community Integrated Health Services, LLC (CIHS), UBI Number 604
`
`473 830, operates in Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis, Pacific, and Wahkiakum counties.
`
`Complaint – 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-05128 Document 1 Filed 03/03/22 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`II. Jurisdiction & Venue
`2.1. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington has
`
`jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction) via 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2000e et seq., 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2601 et seq., and other applicable federal laws.
`
`2.2. Venue is proper in the Tacoma Division pursuant to Western District of
`
`Washington Local Civil Rule 3(e)(1) because Defendants operate in Lewis County, Washington,
`
`and the acts and omissions described in this Complaint occurred in Lewis County, Washington.
`
`III. Facts
`Plaintiff Grandin is a 52-year-old Black female. She and her husband live in
`
`3.1
`
`Chehalis, Washington. Her husband has Hydrocephalus, a neurological disorder which prevents
`
`him from being able to perform one or more major life activities.
`
`3.2
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants receive Medicaid funding to provide
`
`behavioral health services to individuals of all ages in Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis, Pacific, and
`
`Wahkiakum counties. See www.greatriversbho.org/ (last visited March 3, 2022).
`
`3.3
`
`Medicaid is a federal-state assistance program that provides health coverage to
`
`millions of Americans, including eligible low-income adults, children, pregnant women, elderly
`
`adults and people with disabilities. See www.medicaid.gov/ (last visited March 3, 2022). It is
`
`administered by state and local governments according to federal guidelines. Id.
`
`3.4
`
`Medicaid-eligible patients usually pay no or low costs for covered medical expenses,
`
`with medical providers being reimbursed by the government directly for medical costs. The
`
`Medicaid program is funded jointly by states and the federal government. The federal Centers for
`
`Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for implementing laws passed by Congress
`
`related to Medicaid. See https://www.cms.gov/ (last visited March 3, 2022).
`
`Complaint – 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-05128 Document 1 Filed 03/03/22 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`
`3.5
`
`Grandin began working for Great Rivers Behavioral Health in April 2017 as an
`
`Administrative Assistant. Her position was split between doing administrative work for Great
`
`Rivers Behavioral Health Organization half of the time and Community Integrated Health Services
`
`the other half of the time.
`
`3.6
`
`At the time she was hired, she notified her employer that her husband was disabled
`
`and that she needed to care for him, including driving him to and from his place of employment.
`
`3.7
`
`At one point, Grandin’s supervisor Heather Gamble called her “monkey” in front
`
`of another coworker and Human Resources (HR) director Darla Carlson. Later that day, given the
`
`applicable historic and racial connotations, Grandin communicated with Carlson regarding her
`
`discomfort about being called “monkey” by Gamble. Carlson responded that it was merely a term
`
`of endearment. Defendants did not investigate or follow up on this issue and, wanting to fit in with
`
`her supervisors and coworkers, Grandin did not raise it again.
`
`3.8
`
`In or about June 2019, Grandin applied for a Lead Administrative Assistant
`
`position. This would have been a promotion.
`
`3.9
`
`Instead of promoting Grandin, defendants promoted Marie Davis, a Caucasian
`
`administrative assistant who had been with the company less time than Grandin. With that
`
`promotion, Davis became a supervisor of Grandin along with Program Manager Jessica Stickley.
`
`3.10
`
`In October 2019, Grandin filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC for
`
`differential treatment she experienced at work based on her race, including not being promoted to
`
`the job for which she was qualified and being treated differently than her non-Black coworkers,
`
`including being singled out, scrutinized, micromanaged, and undermined by management.
`
`3.11
`
`On or about October 30, 2019, in an internal communication with Program Manager
`
`Stickley and Chief Operations Officer (CEO) Todd Broderius, HR Director Carlson stated:
`
`
`
`Complaint – 3 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05128 Document 1 Filed 03/03/22 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`I just want to be sure that I can document the reason for marking [Grandin] as
`unexcused appropriately since I know [Grandin] is aware of the attendance
`practices outline and has a tendency to complain to HR about being bullied or
`targeted.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`3.12
`
`Carlson was referring to Grandin’s previous reports of race discrimination in her
`
`correspondence with Program Manager Stickley and CEO Broderius. Grandin was not copied on
`
`this correspondence about her.
`
`3.13
`
`In or about early November 2019, Grandin reported Marie Davis’ treatment of her
`
`to HR director Carlson. At that time, Grandin reported to Carlson that she felt micromanaged by
`
`Davis and singled out because of her race.
`
`3.14
`
`A few weeks later, Carlson instructed Grandin to come to her office to further
`
`discuss her discrimination reports regarding Davis and was surprised to find CEO Broderius
`
`present. Grandin was not informed Broderius would be present and this felt intimidating to her.
`
`3.15
`
`During that November 2019 meeting, Broderius informed Grandin that if she felt
`
`the agency was not a good fit for her, they could have a conversation about Grandin’s departure
`
`from employment.
`
`3.16
`
`In or about January 2020, Grandin was put on a Performance Improvement Plan
`
`(PIP) by Davis, Carlson, and Stickley. The examples provided as the basis for the PIP dated back
`
`six months in time. Grandin had not been made aware of these alleged performance concerns prior
`
`to filing her charge of race discrimination with the EEOC or reporting her concerns to HR.
`
`3.17
`
`In the weeks following the PIP, Davis, Carlson, and Stickley conducted meetings
`
`about Grandin. Grandin was notified that the meetings were occurring and that her performance
`
`was being discussed at each meeting, but she was not permitted to attend the meetings.
`
`3.18
`
`Grandin began experiencing anxiety and panic attacks as a result of being singled
`
`out, scrutinized, micromanaged, undermined, and reviewed on a weekly basis by management. She
`
`Complaint – 4 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-05128 Document 1 Filed 03/03/22 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`
`feared that she was going to be terminated in retaliation for her protected activity. Added to her
`
`fears was the reality that she was the primary wage earner for herself and her husband.
`
`3.19
`
`3.20
`
`In or about March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic hit the Pacific Northwest region.
`
`In or about early Spring 2020, Grandin reported an issue with management
`
`instructing staff to code their client progress notes to indicate they were seeing clients in the
`
`community when they were not. Because Defendants were coding progress notes in order to trigger
`
`reimbursement from the state and federal government for services that were not actually provided,
`
`in her report Grandin expressed her concern that this practice amounted to Medicaid fraud.
`
`3.21
`
`In or about early April 2020, Grandin developed an upper respiratory infection and
`
`was told to quarantine at home. Grandin requested to work from home during her quarantine
`
`period and this request was denied. Grandin was instead instructed to utilize her paid time off
`
`(PTO) for her days in quarantine.
`
`3.22
`
`Grandin did not have PTO available to cover the days of quarantine because of the
`
`time off she needed to care for her husband and her own disabilities. She communicated this to
`
`Carlson and Broderius, providing them examples of coworkers who were permitted to work from
`
`home rather than using PTO and reiterating her request that she receive the same treatment.
`
`3.23
`
`Also in or about April 2020, Grandin was notified by Carlson and Broderius that
`
`her Administrative Assistant position was being dissolved. What was previously her full-time role
`
`would now be divided into two separate positions.
`
`3.24
`
`On or about April 24, 2020, Grandin requested leave under the Family Medical
`
`Leave Act (FMLA) for her anxiety attacks, which had become more frequent and severe as her
`
`work environment became more hostile and her position there became more precarious.
`
`3.25
`
`Grandin was initially hired into a new position within the agency and scheduled to
`
`return from FMLA leave in June 2020.
`
`Complaint – 5 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-05128 Document 1 Filed 03/03/22 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`
`3.26
`
`When she returned to work after her protected leave, however, Grandin was
`
`notified she would no longer be allowed to work her previous schedule of 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
`
`which was needed in order to care for her disabled husband.
`
`3.27
`
`Grandin also returned to an unwelcome work environment in which all of her
`
`personal items had been boxed up and placed under a desk in her absence.
`
`3.28
`
`The continued hostile and retaliatory work environment exacerbated Grandin’s
`
`own disability and she was forced to go back on medical leave.
`
`3.29
`
`While on medical leave, on or about July 7, 2020, the agency sent Grandin an email
`
`terminating her employment.
`
`3.30
`
`Defendants discriminated against Grandin in the terms and conditions of her
`
`employment.
`
`3.31
`
`This discrimination was a substantial and/or motivating factor in Grandin’s
`
`termination from employment.
`
`3.32
`
`Grandin opposed this discriminatory conduct and engaged in protected activity
`
`under federal law.
`
`3.33
`
`Grandin suffered retaliatory adverse actions that would dissuade a reasonable
`
`person from opposing such discriminatory conduct.
`
`3.34
`
`Grandin was required to go on protected medical leave because of anxiety and panic
`
`related to the hostile work environment.
`
`3.35
`
`Grandin’s protected activity and protected leave was a substantial or motivating
`
`factor in her termination.
`
`3.36
`
`As a result of Defendants’ wrongful, unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory
`
`actions, Grandin has suffered both general and special damages, including lost wages, benefits,
`
`emotional distress, and humiliation.
`
`Complaint – 6 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-05128 Document 1 Filed 03/03/22 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`
`IV. First cause of Action:
`Discrimination and Retaliation – Title VII and ADA
`
`5.1.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all allegations above.
`
`5.2. Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibit discrimination
`
`and retaliation in the workplace. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 12101-02.
`
`5.3. Defendants’ willful and unlawful conduct described herein discriminated against
`
`Grandin based on her race, disability, and her association or relationship with someone with a
`
`disability. Grandin engaged in protected activity and Defendants retaliated against her for such
`
`activities in violation of federal law.
`
`5.4. Defendants’ actions constituted discrimination and retaliation against Grandin in
`
`violation of federal law including Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §
`
`12101-02 (see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8).
`
`5.5.
`
`Plaintiff filed a complaint of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in August 2020. On December 6, 2021, the EEOC
`
`issued a Right to Sue letter.
`
`5.6. Under Title VII and the ADA, Grandin is entitled to recover actual and
`
`compensatory, economic and noneconomic, special and general damages, liquidated damages, and
`
`punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and an enhanced award to offset
`
`any negative tax consequences.
`
`V. Second cause of Action:
`Retaliation – False Claims Act
`
`6.1.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all allegations above.
`
`6.2. The False claims Act (FCA) prohibits retaliation against an employee who engages
`
`in protected activity by reporting conduct the employee reasonably believes to be in violation of
`
`the FCA. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).
`
`Complaint – 7 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-05128 Document 1 Filed 03/03/22 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`
`6.3.
`
`In or about Spring of 2020, Grandin reasonably and in good faith believed that
`
`Defendants were violating the FCA when she reported that “management told staff to code their
`
`client progress notes to note they’ve been seeing their clients out in the community when they are
`
`not… That is Medicaid fraud.”
`
`6.4. Grandin reasonably believed her reports about Medicaid fraud were reports about
`
`Defendants submitting fraudulent claims for reimbursement of federal government funds and were
`
`protected conduct under the FCA. Grandin expressly raised her concerns about this fraudulent
`
`practice with Defendants. Grandin took steps to prevent false claims from being submitted through
`
`the Medicaid program.
`
`6.5. Grandin’s conduct described herein was activity protected under the FCA.
`
`6.6. Defendants knew that Grandin engaged in activity protected by the FCA.
`
`6.7. Defendants’ adverse actions described herein leading up to and including her
`
`wrongful termination were motivated in part by her protected activity in violation of the FCA. By
`
`these actions, Defendants violated 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).
`
`6.8. Defendants’ wrongful actions in violation of the FCA were a proximate cause of
`
`damage to Grandin, including past wage loss and benefits, future wage loss and benefits, emotional
`
`distress, as well as attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and other damages to be proven at trial.
`
`Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), Plaintiff is also entitled to reinstatement to her previous position with
`
`the same seniority status she would have had but for the discrimination, as well as double back pay
`
`and interest on the back pay for past time loss through the date of trial.
`
`VI. Third cause of Action:
`Discrimination and Retaliation – FMLA
`
`7.1.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all allegations above.
`
`7.2. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) prohibits discrimination and retaliation in
`
`the workplace. See 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Defendants are subject to the FMLA. Grandin was
`
`Complaint – 8 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-05128 Document 1 Filed 03/03/22 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`
`employed by Defendants for more than 1,250 hours in the year preceding her request for benefits
`
`under the FMLA. Grandin was eligible for protection under the FMLA and entitled to leave
`
`because of her health condition.
`
`7.3. Defendants’ willful and unlawful conduct described herein discriminated and
`
`retaliated against Grandin based on her leave protected under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.
`
`7.4. Under the FMLA, Grandin is entitled to recover actual and compensatory,
`
`economic and noneconomic, special and general damages, liquidated damages, and punitive
`
`damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and an enhanced award to offset any
`
`negative tax consequences.
`
`VII. Prayer for Relief and Jury Demand:
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all allegations above and asks the Court for the
`
`9.1.
`
`following relief:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`For judgment against Defendants for all actual and compensatory, economic and
`
`noneconomic, general and special damages as allowed by law;
`
`For all injunctive, declaratory, or punitive relief as authorized by law, including
`
`but not limited to liquidated, double, or other damages;
`
`For all costs, expenses of litigation, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as
`
`allowed by law;
`
`For an enhanced award for federal tax consequences to make her whole;
`
`For trial by jury; and
`
`For any and all other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
`
`Dated March 3, 2022.
`
`Complaint – 9 of 10
`
`
`
`
`Beck Chase Gilman PLLC
`By: /s/ Janelle E. Chase Fazio_________
`Janelle E. Chase Fazio, WSBA No. 51254
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-05128 Document 1 Filed 03/03/22 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`
`janelle@bcglawyers.com | D 253.289.5136
`By: /s/ James W. Beck_______________
`James W. Beck, WSBA No. 34208
`james@bcglawyers.com | D 253.289.5122
`By: /s/ Eric D. Gilman ______________
`Eric D. Gilman, WSBA No. 41680
`eric@bcglawyers.com | D 253.289.5108
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Cassia Grandin
`
`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
`
`Complaint – 10 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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