Professional Documents
Culture Documents
vs. OBJECTION TO
EXHIBITS A & B & C
PIERSON PIZZA Inc.,
Defendant. Judge, ___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pursuant to the 21 day “Safe Harbor” provision of Rule 11, of the Minnesota Rules of Civil
contention that is unwarranted by existing law, unwarranted on the evidence, or for being a
matter that First District Judge, Rex Stacey, has declared to be an incompetent matter, in Case
No. 70-CV-10-25301. Plaintiff hereby serves and files his Objection to Defendant’s Exhibit A &
B & C that are again re-introduced in its Motion To Dismiss for judgment thereupon. Therefore,
1. On the 23rd day of February, 2011, Plaintiff received a Motion To Dismiss, together with a
Rooney, did declare that the Exhibits are a true and accurate copy of the Charge of
1
Department of Human Rights (MDHR) Discrimination Charge, and a true and accurate copy
3. However, in its Memorandum, the Defendant falsely asserts that (Exhibit C) is proof of a
finding of No Probable Cause, and Defendant additionally has introduced an unsigned and
unverified Memorandum from the MDHR that is without representation by the person who
prepared it. In addition, this Memorandum does contradict the letter of MDHR
Commissioner, who clearly states that, “the Commissioner may dismiss a charge if further
use of the Departments resources is not warranted,” and, that this charge has been dismissed
4. Therefore, no final adjudication on the merits of this Charge has been made, and Plaintiff has
Not been given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the Charge issues; and, District
Court Judge, Rex Stacey, did Not render any final adjudication on the merits of this Charge,
in Case No. 70-CV-10-25301, and Judge Stacey additionally declared that the District Court
5. As a result, the Defendant has knowingly re-introduced evidentiary matters to prejudice the
mind of the Court against Plaintiff, and to bring prejudice to the administration of justice in
Rule 3.1, Meritorious Claims and Contentions. A lawyer shall not bring or
defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a
basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good
faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. ***
without representation by the person who prepared it, therefore, (Exhibit C, Memorandum) is
inadmissible hearsay evidence that cannot be considered by any Court of Law. In addition,
Judge Stacey has declared, in Case 70-CV-10-25301, that the District Court is Not Bound by
2
anything that occurred in the MDHR; therefore, the re-introduction of process and procedure
in the MDHR is hereby unwarranted by existing law, and by judicial decree, and the
Defendant has knowingly violated Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by falsely
contending that a finding of No Probable Cause has been made by the MDHR Commissioner
7. When reviewing Defendant’s (Exhibit B), this generalized statement has introduced many
unsworn conclusory allegations and many unverified statements that are unsupported by
sworn Affidavit from the person asserting it, or from the personal knowledge of the witness;
opinions and contentions of legal counsel, and the Pierson Defendant has only applied his
signature to agree with the contentions, the opinions, the conclusory allegations, and the
occurrence that is completely void of evidentiary support, that is prepared by an attorney who
was not part of the res gestoe, and the statements made are not from personal knowledge of
Court of law, and (Exhibit B) cannot be considered for the truth of anything asserted therein
Radloff v. First American Natl. Bank, (MN App. 1991) 470 N.W.2d 154, 156-157.
9. Wherefore, since the District Court cannot be bound by anything that occurred in the MDHR,
Defendant’s (Exhibit A & B & C) is also irrelevant, immaterial, collateral matters outside the
hearsay statement that cannot be introduced or considered by a Court of Law, and the
3
representation by the person who prepared it, which cannot be considered for the truth of
anything asserted therein. Furthermore, the letter from MDHR Commissioner in (Exhibit C)
does Not make a finding of No Probable Cause, and the attorney who has made such
contention has knowingly violated MRPC Rule 3.1, and has knowingly and willfully engaged
10. Therefore, Counsel for the Defendant is now afforded the 21 day “safe harbor” provision of
Rule 11, to withdraw, remove, or correct the Motion to Dismiss and Evidentiary Exhibits A
& B & C, and Defendant has 21 days before the hearing, on 3/23/11, to withdraw the
Exhibits that are irrelevant and immaterial and unwarranted by existing law.
By: _________________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-se
x. x. xxx xxx
Sxxxxxx xx xxxxx
PROOF OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, certifies that a true copy of his 1st Amended Complaint, his Notice
of Motion and Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint, and his Objection to Exhibits of
Defendant has been placed in an envelope, addressed to Defendant’s Counsel, and that said
documents were serviced to Defendant, by first class mail through the U. S. Postal Service, on
the 1st day of March, 2011, at the following address:
By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se
4
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
To: the Defendant, PIERSON PIZZA, and Clerk of Court of First Judicial District.
NOTICE OF MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on March 23, 2011, at 9:00 A.M., the Defendant has
scheduled a hearing for its Motion To Dismiss; therefore, in Reply to said motion, the Plaintiff,
Joshua J. Israel, must be present at said hearing, and the opportunity to be heard and to defend, of
Plaintiff, must include a Motion For Leave of Court to Amend the original Complaint.
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15.01, this Motion For Leave of Court
to Amend the original complaint is to fulfill the fact-finding and issue-forming functions of
Notice, and to clarify pleadings and allegations to facilitate an Answer to the Complaint. In
addition, the Court Calendar will not be disturbed, neither party will be prejudiced by delay, and
this Reply is served and filed in accordance with Minn. Gen. Prac. Rule 115.03.
By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se
5
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
To satisfy the specifics that Defendant is unsure of, and pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 15.01, the Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, moves the Court for Leave to Amend the
Original complaint, filed herewith, so as to fulfill the fact-finding and issue-forming function of
Notice, so as to set forth that the statute of limitations is current and active; and additionally, so
as to demonstrate that the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is still valid; therefore, to
specifically allege and clarify the pleadings so that Defendant can Answer the Complaint, the
11. On the 23rd day of February, 2011, the Plaintiff did receive a Motion To Dismiss of the
12. When reviewing the Memorandum in support of motion to dismiss, Plaintiff did take notice
that Defendant made general statements regarding the non-specific nature of pleadings;
therefore, Plaintiff moves the Court for Leave to Amend the complaint so as to make a more
definite statement, and more specific pleadings, so that Defendant can file its Answer.
6
13. In addition, Plaintiff did take notice that Defendant did set forth a subject matter jurisdiction
issue, and also raised a statute of limitation issue, and has asserted a contention that this case
Original complaint, Exhibits (PA. 1-2) did set forth that this case arises out of the Minnesota
Department of Labor, under Minn. Stat. 181.171, where the statute of limitation is two years,
where Plaintiff was denied delivery travel expense reimbursement, and where Defendant is in
violation of the Federal Minimum Wage. Therefore, Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to
Amend the complaint to specify and clarify this subject matter jurisdiction.
14. Moreover, the Defendant asserted that the issue in this case is identical to the issue in the
Charge of Discrimination, that the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) is exclusive, and
that therefore the doctrine of collateral estoppel and res judicata does preclude this issue from
a 2nd final judgment; however, the character of this matter has changed and the issues in this
case are different; and most important, there has been No final adjudication on merits of this
issue, these issues have Not been adjudicated by the MDHR, nor by this Court, in Case No
70-Cv-10-25301, rendered a final judgment of the merits herewith; and additionally, Plaintiff
has been deprived of a full and fair opportunity to be heard on any matter herewith.
Therefore, Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to Amend the complaint to clarify the different
issues and demonstrate that res judicata and collateral estoppel cannot apply, herewith.
15. Furthermore, the Defendant has asserted that constructive discharge, as a stand alone cause
of action, cannot withstand a motion to dismiss, and Defendant has introduced the most
recent case authority to support its contention. However, the original complaint has set forth
a constructive discharge that is in violation of the 363A.08, that is in violation of 363.15, that
7
that is in violation of 541.07. As a result, Plaintiff moves the Court to Amend the complaint
so as to isolate and specifically clarify the underlying illegality in constructive discharge that
16. Wherefore, since no final adjudication on the merits of this issue has been made, since
Plaintiff is deprived of a full and fair opportunity to be heard on any issue, since the character
of the MDHR issues have changed dramatically, and since this case arises out of the
violation of the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage, Plaintiff does move the Court for Leave
to Amend the Complaint so as to clarify and to cure the discrepancies brought forth.
By: _____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se
x. x. xxx xxxxx
Sxxxxxxxx, xx xxxxxx
PROOF OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, certifies that a true copy of his 1st Amended Complaint, his Notice of
Motion and Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint, and his Objection to Exhibits of Defendant has been
placed in an envelope, addressed to Defendant’s Counsel, and that said documents were serviced to
Defendant, by first class mail through the U. S. Postal Service, on the 1st day of March, 2011, at the
following address:
By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se
8
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
The above entitled matter having come forward for hearing before the undersigned Judge
of the First Judicial District Court, of Scott County, for a Motion of Plaintiff to Amend the
original complaint.
Rooney, and Alyson M. Palmer from Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A. appeared on behalf of
The Court having read and taking notice of the Amended pleadings and have heard
arguments of Plaintiff, and the arguments of the Defendant’s Counsel, and being duly advised in
1. The Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend his original complaint is hereby GRANTED for the
following reasons:
2. Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Statute of Limitations is the two years and three
years afforded under the Minn. Stat. 541.07(1)(5), that the issue in this civil action is not
identical to the MDHR issue, and that res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply herewith.
3. Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is No final adjudication on the merits of this
issue, and that Plaintiff has Not had a full and fair opportunity to be heard on any issue herewith.
9
4. That the Plaintiff has stated a claim for Constructive Discharge, where pleadings do
allege that an underlying illegal discrimination did create intolerable conditions in employment,
and that Plaintiff has stated a claim for Wrongful Discharge, where the employer-Defendant
initiated an involuntary quit legal argument, to an Unemployment Law Judge, so as to make sure
5. That Plaintiff has complied with the fact-finding and issue-forming functions of an
WHEREFORE, the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff is sufficient for the Defendant to file
its Answer thereto within (14) days from this hearing date, from the 23rd day of March, 2011.
____________________________________________
The Honorable
________________________________
10
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
The Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, did bring a Minimum Wage Claim (PA-1), and an Expense
Reimbursement Claim (PA-2) against the Defendant, PIERSON PIZZA Inc., and Plaintiff did
allege that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for opposing unlawful discrimination and
seniority discrimination, and that Defendant did retaliate against Plaintiff for disclosure of a
violation of law to the Defendant and to State agencies. Therefore, this civil action has
policy, and to recover damages for a minimum wage violation and unreimbursed expenses, and
The Parties
17. Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, is a Minnesota Resident who resides at the address of X. X. xxx
18. Defendant, Pierson Pizza, is a fast food restaurant, where its principle place of business is at
the address of 224 First Ave. East, Shakopee, MN 55379, Phone (952) 445-9200; 2nd Phone
(952) 250-5552.
11
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, pursuant to Minn. Stat.177.27(8),
20. This action arose in Scott County, Minnesota, at the Defendant’s Shakopee, Minnesota,
21. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action for damages, and the Statute
22. As a result, this civil action, under the Labor Standards and Wages division of the Minnesota
Dept. of Labor, did occur on the 9th day of December, 2010 (Plaintiff Exhibit, PA-1), and the
Statute of Limitation expires on 12/9/2013. In addition, the last act of a continuing violation,
under Minn. Stat. 181.932, did occur on the 21st day of December, 2010, and the Statute of
12
STATEMENT OF RECORD AND EXHIBITS
23. The three exhibits attached to the Original Complaint, as Plaintiff’s Appendix (PA) one, two
and three, does establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, and does
establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this issue, as follows:
a. (PA-1) is Wage Claim 11361 against the Pierson Pizza Defendant as determined
by Labor Investigator, John Stiffin, on date 12/9/2010.
b. (PA-2) is an official demand to pay unreimbursed travel expenses to Plaintiff, by
authority of 181.13, and this finding is made by Labor Investigator, John Stiffin,
on 11/23/2010.
c. (PA-3) is statutorily protected activity disclosed to the Defendant, on 8/2/2010,
which contributed to the continuing violations herewith.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
24. The character of pleadings and allegations have changed since a dismissal from the
Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), and the doctrine of res judicata and
collateral estoppel do not apply herewith; because, there was no adjudication on the merits of
MDHR Charge, and because the Plaintiff was denied a full and fair opportunity to be heard
on all issues herewith Haavisto v. Perpich, (MN S. Ct. 1994) 520 N.W.2d 727, 732.
25. Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, completed an application for employment with the Defendant on
the 4th day of December, 2007, Plaintiff was later hired, the employment of Plaintiff was at-
will, and Plaintiff did perform the functions of a pizza delivery driver, for the Defendant
from 7th day of December, 2007 to the 7th Day of August 2010.
26. That to this current day, the Defendant has not widely distributed an Employee Handbook,
nor did Defendant present to Plaintiff employer expectations detailing Work Rules or Job
Descriptions or a workplace Seniority System setting forth a bona fide employee Seniority
Practice, during the entire tenure of employment with the Pierson Pizza Defendant.
13
27. At all times during employment, the Plaintiff was required to use his own personal vehicle in
the course of employment; and even though the delivery charge was $1.50, the Defendant
28. Moreover, at all times during employment, Plaintiff was required to pay his own costs for the
annual Minnesota State vehicular license and registration, Plaintiff paid his own costs for
auto insurance, Plaintiff paid his own costs for gasoline, and Plaintiff was never reimbursed
29. In addition, at all times during employment, Plaintiff was paid the Federal Minimum Wage,
and Plaintiff did receive gratuities and tips for his customer pizza delivery service as
30. After the year 2007 seasonal Christmas Holiday business increase did come to an end,
Plaintiff did have a meeting with Defendant, Jeff Pierson, on 1/11/2008, and Plaintiff did
seek Defendant’s corrective opportunity when Plaintiff did disclose a violation of law to Jeff
31. On 1/11/2008, Plaintiff did disclose a violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.08 to Defendant, Jeff
Pierson, and Plaintiff did disclose that senior-employee, Keith West, was cheating and
stealing pizza deliveries from Plaintiff; that Keith West did not cheat or steal from any other
white employee; and that said theft was intentional wage and gratuity discrimination, based
14
32. Moreover, on 1/11/2008, Plaintiff did inform Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that Plaintiff was
Keith West, and that Plaintiff would continue to work for Defendant on a part-time basis.
33. Thereafter, from 1/11/2008 to 2/22/2008, the weekly hours of Plaintiff was reduced from
34. On the 19th day of March, 2008, Plaintiff did inform Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that Mike
Krepela did cheat and steal driver gratuity tip-money from Plaintiff; in addition, Plaintiff
additionally informed Defendant that said money theft appears to be retaliation and
constructive discharge for opposing the unlawful race discrimination of Keith West.
35. On the 2nd day of August, 2008, the Pierson Defendant did discuss a wage dispute complaint,
with the Plaintiff, that was investigated by the Minnesota Department of Labor (PA-3).
36. After making a wage compensation adjustment for said wage dispute, on the 8/8/2008 pay
period, and during the next following work week, the Defendant did reduce the weekly hours
of Plaintiff to (2) or (3) hours per week, from date 8/9/2008 to the date of 11/28/2008.
37. On the 18th day of August, 2008, Plaintiff sent an email complaint to Domino’s Corporate
Headquarters , and Plaintiff did disclose a violation of law regarding the theft of gratuity tip-
38. During the months of September and October, 2008, the Defendant began to hire additional
delivery drivers, who were of the Caucasian race, and these newly hired employees
39. In January, 2009, the Defendant hired an assistant manager, named Jennifer Lang, who is of
15
40. On 2/21/2009 and 2/27/2009, Asst. Mgr., Jennifer Lang, and senior employee, Keith West,
did falsely blame Plaintiff for a customer order delivery failure, and after Plaintiff did advise
Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that said delivery failure was a set-up, Plaintiff did send an email
Headquarters, that Plaintiff has suffered unlawful race discrimination, a repeated pattern of
harassment from the white employees and assistant managers; that Plaintiff suffered a theft
of his gratuity tip-money, Plaintiff suffered retaliation for opposing unlawful race
discrimination, and that Defendant did reduce the hours and wages of Plaintiff after each
42. Thereafter, the Pierson Defendant refused to schedule Plaintiff for any work hours or for any
43. In addition, the Defendant additionally did reduce the hours and wages of Plaintiff to 1.5 to
2.5 hours per week, at an average wage of $11.50 per week, for the time period of (9)
months, which began on date 3/15/2009 and did end on date 11/27/2009.
44. During the time period from 4/19/2009 to the date of 9/14/2009, and from the time of
9/28/2009 to the date of 8/7/2010, the employment of Plaintiff was exclusively with the
Corporate Headquarters to disclose a violation of law that caused criminal damage to the
automobile of Plaintiff, which also caused a second-degree burn to the finger of Plaintiff, and
16
46. On 12/11/2009, Plaintiff did disclose a violation of law to Defendant, Jeff Pierson, Plaintiff
did advise Defendant that Police Report No. 09-17128 was filed for criminal damage to the
automobile of Plaintiff; and, Plaintiff again did discuss workplace bullying and the
harassment and the unlawful discrimination that has escalated into criminal activity.
47. On 1/22/2010, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant allows all of the white Caucasian
employees, of Pierson Pizza, to take home a Domino’s illuminated car-topper that delivery
drivers must use, in the course of employment; therefore, the Pierson Defendant gave special
privileges to the white employees, and did afford off-duty opportunities to said employees so
that they could reconfigure the volt-watt capacity in the car topper that Plaintiff used.
48. On 2/16/2010, after sending another email complaint to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters,
Plaintiff did disclose to “Loren,” at Domino’s Headquarters, that Jennifer Lang, Anthony
Bruce, Justin Murphy, and Chris Dresen were all engaged in actions of collusion, retaliation,
49. During this telephone call with Loren, on 2/16/2010, Plaintiff specifically informed Loren
that reprisals taken against Plaintiff was unlawful discrimination and retaliation for seeking
corrective opportunity from Carla Thompson, on 3/6/2009, and that Jeff Pierson did retaliate
against Plaintiff by reducing the hours and wages of Plaintiff for (9) months after Plaintiff
sought corrective opportunity from Carla Thompson; and, that Plaintiff suffered unsafe
driving conditions created by an electrical volt-watt overload that caused heat and smoke,
which caused plastic accessory equipment to melt and burn the finger of Plaintiff, and which
50. From the month of March 2010, to August 2010, Plaintiff did report the adverse employment
17
Unemployment website, because the workplace bullying, the unlawful reprisals, the
deprivation of available wage earnings, and the practice of Defendant to evade the “rightful-
51. On 4/1/2010, Plaintiff was compelled to appeal tax changes, made by the Minnesota
Department of Revenue (MDR), which held Plaintiff responsible for the tax evasion of
Defendant; and, Plaintiff disclosed a violation of law, to MDR, demonstrating that the
Pierson Defendant is responsible for the collection of taxes at the source of income, but that
52. On Friday, 4/9/2010, and for the [very first time], the Pierson Defendant did discuss the prior
acknowledge that he did receive the (3) complaint summaries drafted by Loren and Carla
Thompson. In addition, during this discussion, Plaintiff did discuss all issues of unlawful
53. At this first discussion, on 4/9/2010, Plaintiff did disclose the violations of law committed by
every white employee at the Pierson Pizza place of employment, and Plaintiff did oppose the
practice of discrimination and retaliation made unlawful by the Minnesota Human Rights Act
(MHRA); Plaintiff did oppose the discrimination against his “rightful-place” in “seniority;”
and, Plaintiff did disclose his report made to Minnesota Unemployment because the unlawful
reprisals are a “BARRIER” to employment; and additionally, Plaintiff did refuse to accept
54. Thereafter, Defendant again reduced the hours and wages of Plaintiff to (3) hours per week,
18
55. On 4/12/2010 Plaintiff filed a Charge of race discrimination with the Minnesota Department
56. On 7/6/2010 Plaintiff did received the RESPONSE of Defendant to the Charge of
Discrimination, drafted by the MDHR, and Plaintiff did file his REBUTTAL to said
57. On date 7/9/2010, during another discussion with the Pierson Defendant, the Defendant did
admit to creating the electric volt-watt overload in the automobile of Plaintiff; and,
Defendant did admit that Defendant decided to use a higher volt-watt capacity light bulb
system inside the Domino’s car-topper, used by Plaintiff, and Defendant did express his
dislike for paying legal fees to defend against Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination.
58. On the 7th day of August, 2010, at 5:25 P.M., Plaintiff suffered a vehicular breakdown, while
making a pizza delivery, in the course of employment, and Plaintiff was compelled to pay for
his own $70.00 vehicle towing cost, because the Pierson Defendant offered no assistance or
reimbursement to Plaintiff.
59. On the 9th day of August, 2010, Plaintiff did inform Defendant of his prior $140.00 and the
prior $168.00 auto repair, and the Plaintiff did inform Defendant that the 8/7/2010 auto
60. On 7/9/2010, Defendant, Jeff Pierson, did inform Plaintiff that he would remove Plaintiff
from the weekly work schedule, and Defendant informed Plaintiff to advise Defendant when
Plaintiff either obtained another working vehicle, or did repair his broken down vehicle.
19
61. On 10/15/2010, Plaintiff did appeal the Quit Determination, of Minnesota Unemployment,
because the Pierson Defendant did claim that Plaintiff voluntarily quit employment; however,
Plaintiff denied the voluntary quit, and Plaintiff testified that he did not quit employment. In
addition, the Pierson Defendant did testify, and Jeff Pierson did admit that Plaintiff never
informed Defendant that Plaintiff quit employment; and, Jeff Pierson testified that he did not
62. During this 10/15/2010 Unemployment Appeal Hearing, Plaintiff was compelled to disclose
a violation of Fair Labors Standards to the Minnesota Unemployment Law Judge, and
Plaintiff did disclose that Defendant refused to reimburse Plaintiff for pizza delivery travel
expenses; that Plaintiff was paid $1.00 out of the $1.50 delivery charge, and that since
Defendant is required to pay Plaintiff the Federal Minimum Wage “free and clear” of
obligations to Defendant, the refusal to reimburse delivery travel expenses did cause the
automobile of Plaintiff to deteriorate until the vehicular did breakdown; and, that when
deducting the unreimbursed delivery travel expenses from the wages paid, the delivery travel
expenses did cause the wages of Plaintiff to fall below the Federal Minimum Wage.
63. After the Unemployment Law Judge did reverse the Ineligible-Determination and did grant
Unemployment Benefits to Plaintiff, and after the Unemployment Law Judge ruled that an
Involuntary Quit did separate Plaintiff from employment, Plaintiff received notice by
certified mail, on 11/18/2010, that his broken down vehicle was unlawfully determined to be
Plaintiff was unlawfully towed away from the repair facility, in violation of Minn. Stat.
168B.055, and that Plaintiff’s broken down vehicle, was impounded for a fee assessment
against Plaintiff.
20
64. Thereafter, on date 12/14/2010, when Plaintiff refused to accept an unreasonable offer to
settle all possible claims and damages incurred in Case No. 70-CV-10-25301, Plaintiff
received notice, on 12/21/2010, that the impounded vehicle of Plaintiff would be demolished
and dismantled, and unlawfully sold for parts, and for its scrap metal price, in violation of
Count 1.
(Minimum Wage Violation)
65. When alleging a violation of the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage, Plaintiff must set forth
the statutory protections afforded under Minnesota Fair Labor Standards (MFLSA), for
unreimbursed delivery travel expenses, as set forth by the following employee protections:
66. As a result, since it is the policy of Defendant to refuse all reimbursement for any delivery
travel expense incurred during the course of employment, the Defendant in effect did make
unlawful deductions from the minimum wages paid to Plaintiff; and, by placing the burden of
delivery travel expenses solely upon Plaintiff, the Pierson Defendant was not paying Plaintiff
the minimum wage “free and clear” of the obligations to the employer Luiken v. Domino’s
Pizza, (U. S. Dist. Minn. 2009) LLC., 654 F.Supp.2d 973, 980; Supplement Memorandum,
67. In addition, the Pierson Defendant also denied Plaintiff the $1.50 delivery charge for each
delivery for the past (2) years and (8) months. During said time period, the Defendant
initially paid Plaintiff $1.25 per delivery; however, in November, 2008, the Defendant
21
reduced the delivery payment to $1.00, which continued for (1) year and (9) months until
August 7, 2010, and said deprivation is in violation of the mandatory Federal Minimum
Wage requirement Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, (U. S. Dist. Minn. 2009) LLC., 654 F.Supp.2d
68. Prior to a termination of employment, the total wages of Plaintiff, for the year 2009, was
only $670.00; however, the auto maintenance and repairs of Plaintiff totaled $646.00;
therefore, the wages of Plaintiff for (92) hours for the year 2009 was only $24.00 which is far
69. At the time of termination of employment, the total wages of Plaintiff, for the year 2010, was
$1,283.34; however, the auto maintenance and repairs of Plaintiff totaled $1,108.00;
therefore, the wages of Plaintiff, for (183) hours, for the year 2010, is $175.00, which is far
70. After filing a complaint with Labor Investigator, John Stiffin, of the Minnesota Department
of Labor, it was calculated that Plaintiff was denied a total of $4, 955.00 in unpaid wages,
gratuities, and unreimbursed delivery travel expenses, and Defendant was given an
opportunity to provide proof in rebuttal; however, Defendant only presented a bare denial of
said wage claim, and John Stiffin refused any further investigation herewith.
71. As a result, since it is a mandate for the Pierson Defendant is to pay Plaintiff the mandatory
Federal Minimum Wage “free and clear” of obligations to the Defendant, the delivery travel
expenses incurred, during the course of employment, did reduce the wages paid to that
which is far below the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage, and Defendant is in willful
violation of Minn. Stat. 177.23(9) and Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4)(5), and said unreimbursed
delivery travel expenses is past due and owing Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, (U.S. Dist. MN
22
2009) LLC., 654 F.Supp.2d 973, 977-979; Supplement Memorandum, June 21, 2010,
Discussion.
Count 2.
(Wrongful Discharge, ending in Constructive Discharge)
72. To establish a prima facie tort of wrongful discharge, it must be established that (1)
Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff; that (2) Defendant
intended to harm Plaintiff; that, (3) the unlawful act did cause injury to Plaintiff; and (4) that
there was no justification for Defendant’s unlawful action; in addition, to establish wrongful
discharge based upon statutorily protected conduct, Plaintiff must establish that (1) he
engaged in statutorily protected conduct, that (2) the employer is aware of the protected
conduct and took adverse employment action against Plaintiff soon thereafter, and that there
(3) is a casual connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action Bersch v.
Rgnonti & Associates Inc., (MN App.1998) 584 N.W.2d 783, 786; Nelson v. Productive
73. To establish that Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff, the
Defendant only paid Plaintiff $1.00 out of the $1.50 delivery charge, then Defendant reduced
the hours and wages of Plaintiff to 1.5 to 2.5 hours per week for (9) months, and thereafter,
the Defendant willfully refused to reimbursed Plaintiff for driver delivery travel expenses
which caused the automobile of Plaintiff to deteriorate and break down, during the course of
74. In addition, the Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff when the
Defendant admitted that he placed a higher volt capacity light-bulb system in the electric car
topper that Plaintiff used, which did cause heat and smoke and plastic to melt under the
23
dashboard of the automobile, which created unsafe driving conditions, and did cause damage
to the electric wiring in the vehicle of Plaintiff, in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.595(3).
75. Thereafter, the Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff, when
Defendant refused to calculate the taxes collected on Plaintiff’s annual W2 Form which
caused Minnesota Revenue to charge Plaintiff with a $37.00 tax evasion adjustment; and
then, the Defendant gave a false report to Minnesota Unemployment to claim that Plaintiff
76. Moreover, the Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff when the
Defendant did establish a pattern and practice of a reducing the hours and wages of Plaintiff
after every attempt to seek the employers corrective opportunity, in violation of Minn. Stat.
181.932(1); and when the Defendant did disregard the “rightful-place” of Plaintiff in
77. To establish that Defendant intended to harm Plaintiff, employment rules demand that
Plaintiff must first seek corrective opportunity from the employer; however, when seeking
corrective opportunity, the Defendant only escalated and perpetuated its adverse action to
include workplace malice and intentional damage to the automobile of Plaintiff, thus creating
unsafe driving conditions, and a burn injury to the finger of Plaintiff. In addition, the
intentional and deliberate policy to refuse reimbursement for delivery expenses did cause the
78. That to establish unlawful discrimination and retaliation did cause injury to Plaintiff, the
disregard of the “rightful-place” of Plaintiff in “seniority” did cause Plaintiff a loss of wage
earnings that total $42,000.00; plus, the refusal of Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff for
delivery travel expenses did cause the motor vehicle of Plaintiff to deteriorate and break-
24
down; in addition, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the mandatory Federal Minimum
Wage for (2) years and (8) months; and then, the Defendant’s willful tax evasion has
79. That there was no justification for the Defendant’s actions is brought forth by the fact that
Defendant has no record of disciplinary action taken against Plaintiff, for any misconduct or
indifference; and additionally, by the fact that a Minnesota Unemployment Law Judge did
render judgment to bring to an end the employment relationship herewith, and said
Unemployment Judge did find that Plaintiff was without fault for the employment separation.
80. To establish that wrongful discharge is based upon statutorily protected conduct, Plaintiff has
brought forth that he engaged in statutorily protected conduct when Plaintiff disclosed a
violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.08, Minn. Stat. 181.09, Minn. Stat. 363A.15, Minn. Stat.
81. To establish that Defendant is aware of statutorily protected conduct, the Pierson Defendant
did obtain imputed knowledge of all aforesaid violations of law, directly from a face-to-face
discussion with the Plaintiff, and officially from Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, and
legally from the MDHR Charge of Discrimination, in which Defendant did respond so as to
82. To establish that Defendant took adverse employment action against Plaintiff, the aforesaid
allegations demonstrate a pattern and practice of dramatically reducing the hours and wages
of Plaintiff immediately after every attempt was made to seek corrective opportunity from
the Defendant; adverse action is demonstrated when Defendant did disregard the “rightful-
place” of Plaintiff in “seniority,” which deprived Plaintiff of wages and privileges that the
25
white employees enjoyed; adverse action is demonstrated when Defendant refused to
reimburse Plaintiff for delivery travel expenses which caused the automobile of Plaintiff to
deteriorate and break down; and adverse action is demonstrated by the Pierson Defendant
making an admission that he did place a higher volt-watt capacity light bulb system in the
Domino’s illuminated car topper that Plaintiff used, which caused repeated electric fuse
blowouts, and the heat and smoke and melted plastic that burned the finger of Plaintiff.
83. That the casual connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action is the
statutorily protected conduct, initiated by Plaintiff, where the work hours and wages of
Count 3.
(Constructive Discharge, in violation of Public Policy)
84. Since constructive discharge is a companion tort, to establish constructive discharge based
upon violations of law, Plaintiff must set forth facts demonstrating that (1) Plaintiff resigned
or quit employment; that (2) Plaintiff resigned or quit employment because of intolerable
working conditions; that (3) the intolerable working conditions resulted from illegal
discrimination; that (4) a reasonable person would have found the conditions intolerable; and
that (5) the Pierson Defendant intended to force Plaintiff to quit, or the employee resignation
Pontiac, Buick, GMC., (U. S. Dist. MN. 1996) 930 F. Supp. 393, 406-407.
85. To establish that Plaintiff resigned or quit employment, the aforesaid allegations demonstrate
that Plaintiff did not inform the Defendant of any quit from employment; that Defendant did
not inform Plaintiff of any discharge from employment; and that the Pierson Defendant made
26
out an involuntary-quit legal argument to a Minnesota Unemployment Law Judge so as to
86. To establish that Plaintiff resigned or quit employment because of intolerable work
Richard Croft, in Case Issue ID No. 26247477-2, which means that the Pierson Defendant
initiated the employment separation to make clear that continued employment will not be an
option, and this final adjudication is now binding upon the Defendant, and his attorney
Fiskewold v. HM Smyth Co. Inc., (MN App. 1989) 440 NW2d 164, 165-167.
87. To establish intolerable working conditions, the foundation of constructive discharge began
when Plaintiff disclosed a violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.08 to the Pierson Defendant, on
1/11/08, alleging a practice of race discrimination by Keith West. Thereafter, Plaintiff did
oppose a practice of reprisal, resulting from the prior disclosure of a 363A.08 violation, when
Plaintiff did discuss the retaliatory reprisals with the Pierson Defendant, on 3/19/08, and said
88. To establish an escalation of intolerable working conditions, Plaintiff was compelled to seek
further corrective opportunity from Domino’s Corporate Headquarters because the Pierson
harassment, intimidation, workplace bullying, and interferences with Plaintiff did create a
opportunity from Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, the work hours of Plaintiff were
reduced to 1.5 or 2.5 hours per week and the wages were reduced to $11.50 per week, for (9)
27
months. Then, Plaintiff suffered malicious damage to his automobile, unreimbursed travel
expenses, and the theft of earned gratuities, in violation of Minn. Stat. 181.932(1).
90. To establish an escalation and perpetuation of intolerable conditions, after the Pierson
Defendant did prepare and service his Defense against Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination;
and after Plaintiff filed his Rebuttal, the Defendant refused to reimburse Plaintiff for delivery
travel expenses, which caused the wages of Plaintiff to fall below the mandatory Federal
Minimum Wage; thereafter, Defendant then made a false report that Plaintiff quit
91. To establish that intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal
discrimination, the aforesaid allegations demonstrate that MHRA 363A.08 and MHRA
as set forth by the following bona fide seniority provision of the MHRA:
92. That to establish intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal
discrimination, sections 363A.08 and 363A.15, of the MHRA, does forbid all forms of
discrimination, including race discrimination in employment, and the MHRA does forbid any
and all reprisal that an employer could initiate for opposing a practice of race discrimination,
28
employee or agent thereof to intentionally engage in any reprisal against any person
because that person: (1) opposed a practice forbidden under this chapter *** .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A reprisal includes, but is not limited to, any form of intimidation, retaliation, or
harassment. It is a reprisal for an employer to do any of the following with respect to
an individual because that individual has engaged in the activities listed in clause (1)
or (2): *** depart from any customary employment practice; transfer or assign the
individual to a lesser position in terms of wages, hours, job classification, job
security, or other employment status; or inform another employer that the individual
has engaged in the activities listed in clause (1) or (2).
93. To establish intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal discrimination,
the Disclosure Of Information By Employee Act does forbid any penalty or discrimination
for any good faith report concerning a violation of law, or race discrimination, to an
employer, or a good faith report to any government agency concerning a violation of law by
94. To establish intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal discrimination,
the Fair Labor Standards Act, of the Minnesota Department of Labor, does establish fair
labor standards in employment, for the payment of minimum wages, and additionally for
29
95. To establish intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal discrimination,
the Tax Code of Minnesota does mandate a duty upon every employer to collect payroll taxes
at the source, and to file a quarterly report, as set forth by the following revenue statute:
Minn. Stat. 268.044(1)(a) Wage Detail Report. Each employer must submit,
*** a quarterly wage detail report, by electronic transmission, in a format
prescribed by the commissioner. The report must include for each employee in
covered employment during the calendar quarter, the employee’s name, social
security number, the total wages paid to the employee, and the total number of
paid hours worked.
26 USCA 3403 – Liability for tax. The employer shall be liable for the
payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, ***
96. To demonstrate that a reasonable person would find the aforesaid employment condition as
intolerable, the Defendant did escalate and did perpetuate its adverse action against Plaintiff
after imputed knowledge of protected activity was obtained; therefore, the Defendant
intended to dissuade any reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination, the
activity, and the aforesaid conditions of employment were imposed to deter a reasonable
97. To demonstrate that the Defendant intended to force Plaintiff to quit employment, the
make clear that continued employment will not be an option Fiskewold v. HN Smyth Co. Inc.
30
breach in agreement did cause the automobile of Plaintiff to be towed and impounded, in
violation of Minn. Stat. 168B.055, and then, to destroy evidence of Defendant’s damage to
said automobile, Plaintiff’s automobile was dismantled and destroyed, by Southwest Towing,
in violation of Minn. Stat. 168B.07(3)(2)(c), so that Plaintiff cannot claim a travel expense
reimbursement, and such coercion and undue influence is in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(d)(h) of
the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct In Re Discipline of Dedefo, (MN S. Ct. 2008)
752 N.W.2d 523, 528-532. Holt v. Swenson, (MN S. Ct. 1958) 252 Minn. 510, 514; 90
N.W.2d 724.
99. Wherefore, Plaintiff pleads with the Court to award $42,000 in unpaid wages that result from
a malicious constructive discharge, which result from a pattern and practice of reprisal for
reporting a violation of law to the Defendant, and to Minnesota State Agencies, which denied
Plaintiff $1,958.00 in delivery travel expense reimbursements, and which did reduce the
wages paid to Plaintiff below the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage. In addition, since the
personal property loss to Plaintiff is $2,846.00, and since the actions of Defendant are
particularly egregious, a treble damage assessment of actual damages becomes $134, 538.00.
Defendant, and this court is entitled to $50,000 and $750 in civil penalties.
By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff
X. X. XXx XXX
SXXXXX, XX XXXXX
(XXX) XXX-XXXX
31
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JOSHUA J. ISRAEL,
Plaintiff, Case No. 70-CV-11-186
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, have read this document. To the best of my knowledge, information,
and belief, the information contained in this document is well grounded in fact and is warranted
by existing law, and there is no issue of military service as to any of the parties.
I have not been determined by any court in Minnesota, or in any other state to be a frivolous
litigant, and I am not a subject of an Order precluding me from serving or filing this document.
I am not serving this document for any improper purpose, such as to harass the other party, or to
cause delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, or to commit fraud on the Court.
I understand that if I am not telling the truth, or if I am misleading or deceiving the Court, or if I
am serving this default or filing this summary judgment for an improper purpose, the Court can
order me to pay money to the other party, including the reasonable expenses incurred by the
other party because of the serving or the filing of this application for default and summary
judgment, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
______________________________
Notary Public
207-39-0/347097
32
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PROOF OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, certifies that a true copy of his 1st Amended Complaint, his Notice
of Motion and Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint, and his Objection to Exhibits of
Defendant has been placed in an envelope, addressed to Defendant’s Counsel, and that said
documents were serviced to Defendant, by first class mail through the U. S. Postal Service, on
the 1st day of March, 2011, at the following address:
By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se
33