1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JOHN HERRMANN §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO: _5:20-cv-266_ 

§

§

THE BOEING COMPANY §

 

PLAINTIFF JOHN HERRMANN’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES John Herrmann, complaining of and about Defendant The Boeing 

Company (“Boeing”). John Herrmann alleges that he was discriminated against because of his 

disability and that he was retaliated against for bringing complains of race and sex discrimination, 

and for cause of action shows unto the Court the following:

PARTIES AND SERVICE

1. Plaintiff John Herrmann is a resident of New Braunfels, Texas within the Western 

District of Texas, San Antonio Division.

2. Defendant The Boeing Company is an Illinois Corporation doing business within 

the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. It may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent for service of process, Corporation Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620 

Austin, TX 78701. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Plaintiff’s claims as they are 

brought under Federal Law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The 

Americans with Disabilities Act as Amended.

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 15
2

4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under 

Texas statutory law under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

5. At the time of filing, damages are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

6. All the acts alleged herein occurred within the jurisdiction of the Western District 

of Texas, San Antonio Division.

7. Venue in this district and division is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

MISNOMER/MISIDENTIFICATION

8. In the event that any parties are misnamed or are not included herein, it is Plaintiff’s 

contention that such was a “misidentification,” “misnomer,” and/or that such parties are/were 

“alter egos” of parties named herein. Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that such “corporate veils” 

should be pierced to hold such parties properly included in the interest of justice.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

9. Plaintiff asserts that all conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit have been 

met.

FACTS

10. Plaintiff John Herrmann is a 12 year employee of Defendant Boeing. 

11. He is employed as a Customer Training Specialist. 

12. Defendant classifies Customer Training Specialists on a level system from level 1

to level 5. As an employee’s level increases, so do their responsibilities and compensation.

13. Mr. Herrmann worked for Defendant in Washington State prior to working for 

Defendant in the San Antonio/Universal City area in early 2018. During his time in Washington 

State, Herrmann was a Level 4 for 8 years. 

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 2 of 15
3

14. Although Mr. Herrmann incurred $23,000.00 in out of pocket expenses and took a 

$45,000.00 a year pay cut as part of the move, he did so because he was told that he would be 

promoted from level 3 to level 4 within 6 months. However, when he arrived he never got the 

promotion. 

15. When Mr. Herrmann arrived at the Universal City location Thomas Gurno was his 

team lead. Additionally, Curtis Frost became Mr. Herrmann’s manager.

16. After Mr. Herrmann started working under Gurno and Frost he learned that Gurno 

and Frost would regularly ask employees monitor their co-workers and create documentation to

help them construct a basis for terminating other workers.

17. For example, Curtis Frost asked Herrmann to note when certain co-workers were

late and to note their job performance, even though these were not part of Herrmann’s job duties.

18. Mr. Herrmann had witnessed Gurno using profane and vulgar language towards 

two women co-workers Alexandra Hunter and Melisa Dickens. Gurno told them “I’m tired of 

getting these all fucked up. I don’t want to see another one of these until you un-fuck them. This 

is fucking shit, and you are constantly fucking them up.” 

19. Following the incident Ms. Hunter was in tears and even told Frost that she was 

quitting her job.

20. Following the incident, Frost spoke with Gurno. After they were done speaking 

Gurno called all the male employees to a private office area. He told them “We have met the 

enemy, and they are the women. The women are upon us. This used to be a good place to work. 

If you think the women are your friends, they are not. Be careful what you say to them or you are 

fucked. I took one for the team, don’t be like me.”

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 3 of 15
4

21. Herrmann reported this statement to Curtis Frost. Frost then had the male 

employees come to his office and told them that “Tom’s heart was in the right place.”

22. After this meeting Herrmann wrote emails to Frost telling him that Frost’s 

characterization of Tom was not correct and that he was tired of Tom’s inappropriate behavior.

23. Gurno and Frost met on March 25th related to another incident, wherein Gurno 

referred to an assignment Herrmann was working on. Gurno called Anthony Abbott Mark 

Sardelich and Herrmann to his office. Christopher Vaughn and Trey Brock were also present. He 

stated the work being performed by Abbott and Sardelich was critical to be accomplished by a 

specific date or Boeing would lose millions. He then stated to Herrmann, pointing his finger, “And 

you, I don’t know what you are still doing fucking around with the triple 7 modules, but I told you 

to fucking suspend them, and prioritize the fucking 737. Read the fucking email.” Herrmann 

replied, “I read the email, and I know what you told me do. I will have the 37 modules done by the 

delivery date.” He then said, “Okay, well I am going to take you to Curtis about this.” During the 

March 25th meeting, Frost and Gurno discussed Herrmann’s project. 

24. Frost spoke to Herrmann about the incident the next day March 26, 2019, and told 

Herrmann that he needed to have a one-on-one meeting with Gurno.

25. However, at the beginning of the one-on-one meeting instead of discussing the 

work incident, Gurno began the meeting by telling Herrmann that he had read the emails Herrmann

had sent to Frost and that he “Now knew things.”

26. Herrmann understood this to mean that Gurno had read the emails that Herrmann

had sent Frost in confidence regarding Gurno’s behavior regarding the statements Gurno had made 

to the women employees and the statements about women being the “enemies” of men. 

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 4 of 15
5

27. On March 29th, Herrmann and Frost had a quarterly performance assessment 

meeting. Frost told Herrmann that he had concerns about Herrmann’s job performance and that 

his performance had been poor.

28. When Herrmann asked Frost to give him some examples of what performance was 

poor, Frost was unable to give any specifics and simply told Herrmann that Gurno had told him 

that Herrmann’s performance was poor and that he had a “bad attitude.” 

29. Herrmann knew he was being retaliated against for the complaints that he made and 

filed an ethics complaint.

30. On or about March 30, 2019 Herrmann filed a complaint with Ellen Martin, the VP 

of Ethics & Business Conduct regarding the incident, his complaints to Frost, and Gurno’s 

retaliation. 

31. Additionally Mr. Herrmann complained about other actions by his supervisors 

including Gurno’s use of racist language including making statements about the “dark side of 

town,” stating that things were “nigger-rigged” and using the slur “Spics” to describe Hispanics. 

32. Gurno also made sexual comments such as Chris would punch a hole in a petite 

woman during intercourse, and that John tried to punch holes in his wife every night. On numerous 

occasions, when Herrmann would attempt to discuss task related issues with Gurno, Gurno would 

say to Herrmann and telling Herrmann “Let me guess, Trey (another male employee) is pregnant 

and you are the father.” Gurno also make statements to Herrmann that he was using “anal lube.”

33. Herrmann further complained that employees who made complaints about Gurno 

and Frost were retaliated against. Herrmann also reported charging violations related to charging 

time against programs he wasn’t working. This was reported because Gurno had demanded 

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 5 of 15
6

Herrmann record his time that way. When Frost discovered the violation, Gurno told Frost that 

Herrmann had been doing such, and became upset with Herrmann.

34. Following the investigation into the complaint, Mr. Herrmann was informed by his 

employer that his statements were substantiated. Herrmann was informed that as a result Gurno 

was given some time off without pay, Brian Keck received a warning and that Frost received some 

undisclosed form of corrective action. 

35. However, this only made things worse for Herrmann. Frost told the entire staff that 

he had been through an ethics investigation and that his boss supported his use of coworkers to 

spy on one another. 

36. Mr. Herrmann has the disability of high blood pressure. This condition can limit 

the major life activity of circulatory function during periods of high stress. As a result of the stress 

he experienced at work, Mr. Herrmann began to take additional medication. 

37. Mr. Herrmann informed his supervisors that as a result of the medication he would 

sometimes experience drowsiness as a side effect.

38. Mr. Herrmann also required surgery due to a longstanding rectal fistula condition. 

However, even after the surgery he had an open wound that would require regular cleaning. 

39. Mr. Herrmann noticed that either Chris Vaughn or Thomas Gurno would regularly 

follow him to the rest room when he went to clean his wound that remained from the surgery. Mr. 

Herrmann was subject to increased scrutiny whenever he would get up from his desk.

40. Other non-disabled employees were not treated similarly.

41. Following the completion of the first investigation, and Gurno being restored to 

work, Frost called Gurno, Vaughn, Brock and Herrmann to his office, and he stated that everything 

was returning to normal, and Gurno was going to resume his leadership over Herrmann. A few 

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 6 of 15
7

weeks later, Gurno asked Herrmann to meet with him, Chris Vaughn and Frost in Frost’s office. 

Gurno told Frost that he had a case against Herrmann for “massive quality control issues.” When 

Herrmann tried to refute what Gurno was saying, Frost refused to listen and told Herrmann he had 

two weeks to improve or Frost would get involved, indicating to Herrmann that he was being set 

up to be terminated. Herrmann understood this to be retaliation for the complaints he made about 

Gurno’s comments about the women and minority employees as well as the comments to himself, 

and Frost’s lack of response to them.

42. Frost and Gurno have continued to take retaliatory acts against Herrmann.

43. Frost has said that people are “scared” of Herrmann, which Herrmann understood 

was related to the ethics complaint he brought against Gurno. 

44. Boeing issued a statement to Herrmann and his co-workers that they could be 

terminated if they discussed the issues raised by Herrmann. This intimidated and humiliated 

Herrmann and as a result many other employees do not engage with Herrmann and he is isolated. 

45. When Frost emails Herrmann he also carbon copies the department that was 

involved in the ethics investigation. He had not done this prior to Herrmann’s complaints. 

46. Frost has privately and publicly derided Herrmann’s work. 

47. Following the ethics investigation Frost asked Herrmann what his “next move” is. 

Herrmann understood this to be a reference to the complaints he made about Gurno and Frost 

regarding racial language, sexual language towards himself, and the incident with the women 

employees.

48. Frost also told Herrmann that he “got you” coming to work late and leaving early. 

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 7 of 15
8

49. For the prior 10 years that Herrmann worked at Boeing, he was allowed to work 

through his lunch period, put in his 8 hour day and go home. Herrmann does this because of his 

wife’s work schedule. 

50. Frost was aware of this and initially approved the request. 

51. However, following the ethics complaint, Frost implemented a policy requiring 

Herrmann to take a lunch within the first 5 hours that he was on the job and to inform Frost of any 

changes. 

52. Herrmann has attempted to apply for other positions within Defendant that he is 

qualified for in an effort to move to a different location under different management. However, 

Herrmann was rejected from selection for those positions, and has not received any justification 

as to why he was rejected. 

53. Herrmann is also aware that Gurno and Frost have asked other employees to report 

on errors by him, similarly to how they have tried to build cases to have others terminated.

54. Defendant has taken steps that have fundamentally altered Mr. Herrmann’s job and 

work environment in retaliation for his complaints about gender discrimination and support of 

women employees and his complaints about management’s response to those incidents.

55. The terms and conditions of Herrmann’s employment have been fundamentally 

altered to the point that they are an adverse employment action. Defendant’s acts are geared 

towards making conditions so intolerable that Mr. Herrmann will quit or until a pretext reason for 

his termination can be created. 

56. There have been two separate and distinct retaliation campaigns involving Vaughn, 

Gurno, Sardelich, and Stohlman. Herrmann’s work has been falsely characterized, projects have 

been manipulated, and inaccurately reported. Work instructions have been withheld, modified 

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 8 of 15
9

after the fact, and expanded to include tasks not normally performed. Project content has been 

concealed. Communication between Herrmann and his leads and manager have been suspended 

when Herrmann required clarification on task instructions. Herrmann’s performance has been 

falsely reported to HR, and Herrmann’s co-workers have been told Herrmann is a non-team player, 

a poor performer, and he has been characterized as the source of tension at the site. Herrmann is 

the cause of tension in the site, that Herrmann is inappropriately characterized as a poor performer 

and non-team player. Boeing has failed to address that Herrmann took a stand against sexism and

racism. Herrmann believes the retaliation has been related to his ethics complaint of sexism, 

racism and fraudulent charging, and was designed to force Herrmann out of the company, with an 

end goal of accommodating Gurno being promoted to site manager. 

57. The stress associated with Herrmann’s work environment and has resulted in 

Herrmann requiring professional counseling and a regimen of anti-anxiety medication. The stress 

has negatively affected his emotional, physical and relational health. On one particular occasion 

Herrmann woke in the middle of the night with an anxiety attack to the extent that he vomited with 

such force that he dislocated a rib, requiring him to go to an emergency clinic and receive morphine 

for pain and medication to lower his stress. Herrmann has been required to take a regimen of blood 

pressure lowering medications and sleep medications, in an attempt to offset the negative effects 

of the stress and anxiety related to his work. 

58. On December 20, 2019 Herrmann received his end of the year performance review. 

His manager uncharacteristically required HR be present for the review. During the review his 

manager stated, “You should have seen the rating I originally had.” This was a comment related 

to a particular portion of the review, and Herrmann took the statement to mean that Frost had a 

much lower rating, but was required by HR to increase the value. In the review Frost indicated 

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 9 of 15
10

Herrmann was unwilling to receive feedback, unwilling to collaborate in project accomplishment, 

continually pushback on project completion and poorly performed throughout the year. However, 

during the first three months of 2019, prior to Herrmann filing his first ethics complaint related to 

sexism, racism, Herrmann’s accomplishments earned props from Frost, to Frost’s leadership. 

59. Further, throughout 2019, Herrmann was assigned, developed and completed 13 

courseware modules, representing months of work, and requiring he collaborate with Trey Brock,

Pete Robles, Steve Posey, Chris Vaughn, Bryan Atkinson, Brian Keck, and four subject matter

experts in Seattle. Herrmann received high praise from Brock, Posey, Robles, and the subject

matter experts in Seattle, in total contrast to Frost’s characterization of Herrmann’s 2019

performance. 

60. This has continued as Herrmann has been given the lowest performance ratings of

any of the staff at his worksite. He was given poor ratings based on subjective criteria including

the “first pass quality” of his work and claims that he is not inclusive. 

61. Herrmann believes Frost’s characterization of his 2019 performance is in keeping

with a narrative that Frost has tried to show Herrmann as a poor performer and non-team player,

in retaliation for his ethics complaints related to sexism and racism rather than any actual

performance deficiencies.

62. As a result of these poor evaluations, Herrmann’s bonuses and raises are lower than

they would otherwise be, therefore affecting his income.

RETALIATION FOR OPPOSING SEX DISCRIMIANTION IN VIOLATION OF

CHAPTER 21 OF THE TEXAS LABOR CODE AND TITILE VII OF THE CIVIL 

RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

63. The evidence will show that:

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 10 of 15
11

(1) Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct when he opposed and brought 

complaints about sexually discriminatory behavior.

(2) Plaintiff is qualified for his position;

(3) Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action in that he has suffered changes 

to the terms and conditions of his employment designed to make his 

employment intolerable. 

(4) The circumstances raise an inference of retaliation for his protected conduct.

64. The evidence will also show that Defendant’s reasons for taking adverse 

employment actions against Plaintiff are pretextural.

RETALIATION FOR OPPOSING RACE DISCRIMIANTION IN VIOLATION OF

CHAPTER 21 OF THE TEXAS LABOR CODE AND TITILE VII OF THE CIVIL 

RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

65. The evidence will show that:

(1) Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct when he opposed and brought 

complaints about racially discriminatory behavior.

(2) Plaintiff is qualified for his position;

(3) Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action in that he has suffered changes 

to the terms and conditions of his employment designed to make his 

employment intolerable. 

(4) The circumstances raise an inference of retaliation for his protected conduct.

66. The evidence will also show that Defendant’s reasons for taking adverse 

employment actions against Plaintiff are pretextural.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH 

DISABILITIES ACT AND THE TEXAS LABOR CODE

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 11 of 15
12

67. The evidence will show that:

(1) Plaintiff had a disability and/or was perceived as disabled due to his high blood 

pressure and bowel conditions.

(2) Plaintiff is qualified for his position;

(3) Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action in that he has suffered changes 

to the terms and conditions of his employment designed to make his 

employment intolerable. 

(4) The circumstances raise an inference of retaliation for his protected conduct.

68. The evidence will also show that Defendant’s reasons for taking adverse 

employment actions against Plaintiff are pretextural.

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL/DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE

69. The evidence will show that:

(1) Defendant made a promise to Plaintiff that he would receive a promotion to the 

Level 4 position when he moved to Texas.

(2) It was foreseeable to Defendant that Plaintiff would rely on that promise.

(3) Plaintiff did in fact rely on that promise and sustained damages as a result.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

70. Employees involved in the discrimination described herein were at all times 

employees, agents, or representatives of the Defendant and were at all times acting in the course 

and scope of that employment. Accordingly, Defendant is liable for such conduct under the 

doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

DAMAGES

71. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the conduct and/or 

omissions on the part of the Defendant, he is entitled to recover at least the following legal 

damages:

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 12 of 15
13

a. Lost wages, past and future; 

b. Compensatory Damages, including Mental Anguish, emotional pain, suffering, 

inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life suffered in the past, 

and which, in all reasonable probability, which will be suffered in the future;

c. Pecuniary losses; and punitive damages

d. Reasonable attorney fees, expert fees and costs.

e. Based upon the above enumerated damages, the Plaintiff pleads for actual damages 

for the above damage elements in an amount the jury deems reasonable.

ADMINISTRATIVE FILINGS

72. Plaintiff filed his Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission and the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division dually 

alleging that the Defendant had committed and unlawful employment action against Plaintiff.

73. Thereafter, Plaintiff received a ANotice of Suit@ from the EEOC on both charges, 

giving Plaintiff notice of his right to sue Defendant within 90 days of its receipt, attached hereto 

as Exhibit “A”. Plaintiff has timely filed this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint. 

ATTORNEY FEES

74. Defendant=s conduct as described in this petition and the resulting damage and loss 

to Plaintiff has necessitated Plaintiff=s retaining counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks all reasonable 

and necessary attorney fees in this case which would include at least the following:

a. Preparation and trial of the claim, in an amount the jury deems reasonable;

b. Post-trial, pre-appeal legal services, in an amount the jury deems reasonable;

c. An appeal to the Court of Appeals, in an amount the jury deems reasonable;

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 13 of 15
14

d. Making or responding to an Application for Writ of Error to the Supreme Court, 

and attorneys' fees in the event that application for Writ of Error is granted, in an 

amount the jury deems reasonable; and

e. Post-judgment discovery and collection in the event execution on the judgment is 

necessary, in an amount the jury deems reasonable.

JURY DEMAND

75. Plaintiff further demands a trial by jury. A jury fee has been tendered.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, John Herrmann requests Defendant The Boeing Company, be cited to appear 

and answer, and that on final trial, Herrmann have judgment against Boeing as follows:

Judgment against Boeing for Herrmann’s actual damages, including lost wages and 

benefits (both front and back pay) due to a failure to promote;

Judgment against Boeing for compensatory damages in the maximum amount allowed by 

law and for punitive damages;

An order that Boeing take such other and further actions as may be necessary to redress 

Boeing’s violation of the Civil Rights Act, and the TCHRA;

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum allowed by law;

Costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees; and 

A trial by jury and such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which 

Herrmann may be justly entitled. 

Respectfully Submitted

_/s/ __Alan Braun________________

ADAM PONCIO 

State Bar No. 16109800

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 14 of 15
15

salaw@msn.com

ALAN BRAUN 

State Bar No. 24054488

abraun@ponciolaw.com

LORNA GRIFFIN

State Bar No. 24109947

lgriffin@ponciolaw.com

PONCIO LAW OFFICES

5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 109

San Antonio, Texas 78229-3550

(210) 212-7979 Telephone

(210) 212-5880 Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 5:20-cv-00266 Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 15 of 15