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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`