STATE OF MINNESOTA

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT _____________________________________________________________________________ Case type: Civil JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 70-CV-11-186 Reply To Motion To Dismiss OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS A & B & C

PIERSON PIZZA Inc., Defendant. Judge, ___________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS A & B & C, OF DEFENDANT Pursuant to the 21 day “Safe Harbor” provision of Rule 11, of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure (MRCP), requiring Plaintiff to give Notice of an offending paper, writing, or 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, to provide Counsel of Defendant with opportunity to withdraw, remove, or correct matters unwarranted by existing law, Plaintiff states as follows: 1. On the 23rd day of February, 2011, Plaintiff received a Motion To Dismiss, together with a Memorandum Of Law, and an Appendix of Exhibits in support of said Motion. 2. As verification for the Appendix of Exhibits, the AFFIDAVIT of Attorney, Patrick J. Rooney, did declare that the Exhibits are a true and accurate copy of the Charge of Discrimination, a true and accurate copy of Defendant’s Response to the Minnesota

1

Department of Human Rights (MDHR) Discrimination Charge, and a true and accurate copy of a MDHR letter to dismiss said Charge. 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 pursuant to the authority of Minn. Stat. 363A.28(6)(h). 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 is Not Bound by “anything” that occurred in the MDHR. 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 this action, in violation of the following Professional Conduct Rule:
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. ***

6.

To be specific, (Exhibit C, Memorandum) is an unsigned and unverified statement that is 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 In Re Discipline of Dedefo, (MN S. Ct. 2008) 752 N.W.2d 523, 528-532. 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; therefore, (Exhibit B) is an after-the-fact generalized statement containing the beliefs and 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 general statement of legal counsel. 8. As a result, (Exhibit B) is an unsworn after-the-fact generalized statement of a past 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 said attorney; therefore, (Exhibit B) is incompetent hearsay evidence that is inadmissible in a 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 scope of the pleadings in this civil action; (Exhibit B) is an inadmissible after-the-fact hearsay statement that cannot be introduced or considered by a Court of Law, and the (Exhibit C, Memorandum) is an unsworn and unverified hearsay statement that is without
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 in actions prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC Rule 8.4. 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:
Shannon M. McDonough Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A. Flagship Corporate Center 775 Prairie Center Drive Suite #400 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Hand Delivery To Clerk of Court Scott County District Court 200 Fourth Avenue West JC 115 Shakopee, MN 55379

By: ____________________________________ Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se

4

STATE OF MINNESOTA

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT _____________________________________________________________________________ Case type: Civil JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 70-CV-11-186 Reply To Motion To Dismiss MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

PIERSON PIZZA Inc., Defendant. Judge, ___________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
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

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT _____________________________________________________________________________ Case type: Civil JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 70-CV-11-186 Reply To Motion To Dismiss MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

PIERSON PIZZA Inc., Defendant. Judge, ___________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND COMPLAINT 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 Plaintiff states as follows: 11. On the 23rd day of February, 2011, the Plaintiff did receive a Motion To Dismiss of the Defendant, together with a Memorandum of Law and Evidentiary Exhibits. 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 matter is time-barred, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33; however, as an Appendix to the 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 is in violation of 181.932, that is in violation of 177.24, that is in violation of 268.044, and
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 did end in an Involuntary Quit judgment. 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 Minnesota Department of Labor on issues pertaining to unreimbursed travel expenses and a 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:

Shannon M. McDonough Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A. Flagship Corporate Center 775 Prairie Center Drive Suite #400 Eden Prairie, MN 55344

Hand Delivery To Clerk of Court Scott County District Court 200 Fourth Avenue West JC 115 Shakopee, MN 55379

By: ____________________________________ Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se

8

STATE OF MINNESOTA

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT _____________________________________________________________________________ Case type: Civil JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 70-CV-11-186 Reply To Motion To Dismiss ORDER For Leave To Amend The COMPLAINT

PIERSON PIZZA Inc., Defendant. Judge, ___________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 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. The PLAINTIFF, Joshua J. Israel, appeared pro-se. Shannon M. McDonough, Patrick J. Rooney, and Alyson M. Palmer from Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A. appeared on behalf of Defendant, PIERSON PIZZA INC., 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 the merits of this action, hereby Finds and ORDERS: 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 that continued employment is not an option. 5. That Plaintiff has complied with the fact-finding and issue-forming functions of an Amended Complaint, where neither party is prejudiced by delay. 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.

JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: __________________________, 2011 BY THE COURT

____________________________________________ The Honorable ________________________________ Judge of First District Court

10

STATE OF MINNESOTA

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT _____________________________________________________________________________ Case type: Civil JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Plaintiff, Case No. 70-CV-11-186 Reply To Motion To Dismiss 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT vs. to allege Minimum Wage Violation and Wrongful Discharge, ending in PIERSON PIZZA Inc., a Constructive Discharge. Defendant. Judge, ___________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 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

commenced to recover damages resulting from a constructive discharge in violation of public policy, and to recover damages for a minimum wage violation and unreimbursed expenses, and to demonstrate intolerable conditions of employment, Plaintiff states as follows: The Parties 17. Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, is a Minnesota Resident who resides at the address of X. X. xxx XXX, XXX XXX XXXXX XXX, Sxxxxx, xx xxxx, Ph. xxx-xxx-xxxx. 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), 181.932, and 181.171(2) which sets forth the following jurisdiction:
Minn. Stat. 177.27(8) Court Actions; Suit By Private Parties. (8) An employee may bring a civil action seeking redress for violations of sections *** 177.21 to 177.44 directly to the district court. An employer who pays an employee less than the wages *** to which the employee is entitled under sections 177.21 to 177.44 is liable to the employee for the full amount of wages, gratuities, *** less than any amount the employer is able to establish was actually paid *** and for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Minn. Stat. 181.171(2) District Court Jurisdiction. Any action brought under subdivision 1 may be filed in the district court wherein the violation is alleged to have been committed, where the respondent resides or has a principle place of business, or any other court of competent jurisdiction. Minn. Stat. 181.935(a) Individual Remedies; Penalty. (a) In addition to any remedies otherwise provided by law, an employee injured by a violation of section 181.932 may bring a civil action to recover any and all damages recoverable at law, together with costs and disbursements, ***.

20. This action arose in Scott County, Minnesota, at the Defendant’s Shakopee, Minnesota, address; therefore, venue is proper pursuant to 177.27(8), 181.935, and 181.171(2). SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 21. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action for damages, and the Statute of Limitation in this action is NOT Time-barred pursuant to the following statute:
Minn. Stat. 541.07(1)(5) Limitation of Time, Commencing Actions. Except where the Uniform Commercial Code, this section, *** otherwise prescribes, the following actions shall be commenced within two years: (1) *** assault, battery ***, or other tort resulting in personal injury, (5) for recovery of wages *** or damages, fees, or penalties except, *** that if the nonpayment is willful and not the result of mistake or inadvertence, the limitation is three years. ***

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 Limitation expires on 12/21/2012.
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 atwill, 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 only paid Plaintiff $1.00 for each delivery completed. 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 for any vehicular repair or vehicle maintenance. 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 governed by the following Minnesota Fair Labor standards:
Minn. Stat. 177.24.(4)(2) Gratuities Not Applied. No employer may directly or indirectly credit, apply, or utilize gratuities towards the payment of the minimum wage set by this section or federal law.

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 Pierson, so as to disclose the race discrimination practice of Keith West. 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 on race, so as to deprive Plaintiff of wage earning opportunity, and the privileges of employment, that all the white employees enjoyed.

14

32. Moreover, on 1/11/2008, Plaintiff did inform Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that Plaintiff was compelled to obtain other full-time employment because of the unlawful discrimination of 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 (11) hours per week to (6) hours per week. 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 tipmoney taken from the driver gratuity money lock-box of Plaintiff. 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 immediately began to work (20) to (30) hours per week. 39. In January, 2009, the Defendant hired an assistant manager, named Jennifer Lang, who is of the Caucasian race.
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 disclosure of unlawful discrimination to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, on 2/28/2009. 41. On 3/6/2009, Plaintiff did disclose to Carla Thompson, of Domino’s Corporate 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 attempt to seek corrective opportunity from the Pierson Defendant. 42. Thereafter, the Pierson Defendant refused to schedule Plaintiff for any work hours or for any wage earnings during the week of 3/22/2009 to 3/28/2009. 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 Defendant, for all purpose of a wage claims and expense reimbursement. 45. On 11/27/2009, Plaintiff again sent an email disclosure of information to Domino’s 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 which did create an unsafe driving condition.

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, reprisal, harassment, workplace bullying, and intimidation against Plaintiff. 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 caused electric fuses to burn-out making the cigarette-lighter-DC-outlet inoperable. 50. From the month of March 2010, to August 2010, Plaintiff did report the adverse employment action of the Defendant as a “BARRIER TO EMPLOYMENT,” on the Minnesota
17

Unemployment website, because the workplace bullying, the unlawful reprisals, the deprivation of available wage earnings, and the practice of Defendant to evade the “rightfulplace” of Plaintiff in “seniority;” is a “BARRIER” to employment. 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 Defendant failed to report taxes collected on the 2009 W2 Form. 52. On Friday, 4/9/2010, and for the [very first time], the Pierson Defendant did discuss the prior complaints made by Plaintiff to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, and Defendant did 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 discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and the pattern and practice of harassment. 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 involuntary servitude as a condition of employment. 54. Thereafter, Defendant again reduced the hours and wages of Plaintiff to (3) hours per week, for (2) weeks, from 4/2/2010 to the date of 4/16/2010.

18

55. On 4/12/2010 Plaintiff filed a Charge of race discrimination with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), and Plaintiff disclosed a constellation of unlawful discriminatory actions, in retaliation for seeking the employer’s corrective opportunity. 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 RESPONSE, on the 20th day of July, 2010. 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 breakdown repair, was $1,108.00. 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 discharge or terminate Plaintiff. 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 an abandoned vehicle, in violation of Minn. Stat. 168B.011(2)(2)(d), that the vehicle of 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 Minn. Stat. 168B.07(3)(2)(c). 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:
Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4)(5) Unreimbursed Expenses Deducted. No deductions, direct or indirect may be made for the items listed below which when subtracted from the wages would reduce the wages below the minimum wage. (4) Travel expenses in the course of employment. Minn. Stat. 177.24(5) Expense Reimbursement. An employer, at the termination of employment, must reimburse the full amount deducted, directly or indirectly, for any of the items listed in subdivision (4). (Subdivision 4)(4) Travel expenses in the course of employment.

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, June 21, 2010, Discussion. 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 973, 980; Supplement Memorandum, June 21, 2010, Discussion. 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 below the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage. 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 below the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage. 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 Alternatives Inc., (MN S. Ct. 2006) 715 N.W.2d 452, 455-456. 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 employment, in violation of Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4)(5). 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 voluntarily quit employment, in violation of Minn. Stat. 268.184(1)(b). 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 “seniority,” in violation of Minn. Stat. 363A(20)(5). 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 automobile of Plaintiff to deteriorate and breakdown, in violation of Minn. Stat. 181.932(1). 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 break24

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 generated a false tax claim against Plaintiff. 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. 609.595(3), and Minn. Stat. 177.24 to the Pierson-Defendant, in a face-to-face discussion, which is statutorily protected conduct under Minn. Stat. 181.932(1). 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 deny the Discrimination Charge. 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 “rightfulplace” 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 consistent pattern of (one) work week following Defendant’s imputed knowledge of statutorily protected conduct, initiated by Plaintiff, where the work hours and wages of Plaintiff were repeatedly and dramatically reduced. 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 was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employers actions Waag v. Thomas 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 justify its assertion that Plaintiff voluntary quit employment. 86. To establish that Plaintiff resigned or quit employment because of intolerable work conditions, an Involuntary Quit determination was made by Unemployment Law Judge, 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 disclosure of a violation of law is statutorily protected conduct, under 181.932(1). 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 Defendant refused corrective opportunity to Plaintiff. Thereafter, an escalation of

harassment, intimidation, workplace bullying, and interferences with Plaintiff did create a hostile job environment, in violation of Minn. Stat. 181.932(1) 89. To establish a perpetuation of intolerable conditions, after Plaintiff sought corrective 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 employment, in violation of Minnesota Fair Labor Standards 177.24(4)(4)(5). 91. To establish that intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal discrimination, the aforesaid allegations demonstrate that MHRA 363A.08 and MHRA 363A.20(5) forbids race discrimination against the “rightful-place” of Plaintiff in “seniority;” as set forth by the following bona fide seniority provision of the MHRA:
Minn. Stat. 363A.20(5) Seniority System. The provisions of 363A.08 do not apply to the operation of a bona fide seniority system which mandates differences in such things as wages, hiring priorities, layoff priorities, vacation credit, and job assignments based on seniority, so long as the operation of the system is not a subterfuge to evade the provisions of this chapter.

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, as set forth by the following statutory prohibition in employment:
Minn. Stat. 363A.08(2)(3) Unfair Discriminatory Practices Relating To Employment or Unfair Employment Practice. (2) Except when based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, it is an unfair employment practice for an employer, because of race, *** to: (3) discriminate against a person with respect to ** compensation, terms, conditions, ** or privileges of employment. Minn. Stat, 363A.15(1) Reprisals. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for any individual who participated in an alleged discrimination as an ** employer *** or

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 an employer, or to a public body, as set forth by the following statute of prohibition:
Minn. Stat. 181.932(1)(2) Disclosure of information by employees. (1) Prohibited action. An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because: (1) the employee *** in good faith, reports a violation *** of any federal or state law *** to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official. (2) the employee is requested by a public body or office to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry. Minn. Stat. 181.935(b) Individual Remedies, Penalty. An employer who failed to notify, as required under section 181.933 or 181.934, an employee injured by a violation of section 181.932 is subject to a civil penalty of $25 per day per injured employee not to exceed $750 per injured employee.

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 travel expense reimbursement, in the course of employment, and expense reimbursement is a mandatory policy, as set forth by the following fair labor mandate:
Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4)(5) Unreimbursed Expenses Deducted. No deductions, direct or indirect may be made for the items listed below which when subtracted from the wages would reduce the wages below the minimum wage. (4) Travel expenses in the course of employment. Minn. Stat. 177.24(5) Expense Reimbursement. An employer, at the termination of employment, must reimburse the full amount deducted, directly or indirectly, for any of the items listed in subdivision (4). (Subdivision 4)(4) Travel expenses in the course of employment.

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 Defendant intended to dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in statutorily protected activity, and the aforesaid conditions of employment were imposed to deter a reasonable employee away from engaging in statutorily protected conduct. 97. To demonstrate that the Defendant intended to force Plaintiff to quit employment, the aforesaid allegations demonstrate that Defendant gave a false statement to Minnesota Unemployment so as to initiate an Involuntary Quit from employment, against the will of Plaintiff, and Defendant compelled an Unemployment Law Judge to render judgment to make clear that continued employment will not be an option Fiskewold v. HN Smyth Co. Inc. (MN App. 1989) 440 NW2d 164, 165-167. 98. Thereafter, to facilitate legal counsel to take advantage of Plaintiff’s circumstance so as to exact an unreasonable or unconscionable case settlement, the automobile of Plaintiff was determined to be an abandoned vehicle, in violation of Minn. Stat. 168B.011(2)(2), then a
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. RELIEF AND DAMAGES 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. Moreover, a $25,000 assessment of Punitive damages should be assessed against the 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

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT _____________________________________________________________________________ Case type: Civil JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Plaintiff, vs.

Case No. 70-CV-11-186 1st Amended COMPLAINT Minimum Wage and Wrongful Discharge ending in a Constructive Discharge

PIERSON PIZZA, Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA J. ISRAEL STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) SS )

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.

Dated: _______________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 1st day of March, 2011

__________________________________ Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff

______________________________ Notary Public
207-39-0/347097

32

STATE OF MINNESOTA

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT _____________________________________________________________________________ Case type: Civil JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Plaintiff, Case No. 70-CV-11-186 Reply To Motion To Dismiss 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT vs. to allege Minimum Wage Violation and Wrongful Discharge, ending in PIERSON PIZZA Inc., a Constructive Discharge. Defendant. Judge, ___________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 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:

Shannon M. McDonough Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A. Flagship Corporate Center 775 Prairie Center Drive Suite #400 Eden Prairie, MN 55344

Hand Delivery To Clerk of Court Scott County District Court 200 Fourth Avenue West JC 115 Shakopee, MN 55379

By: ____________________________________ Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se

33

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful