Page 1- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

Larry L. Linder, OSB #010724

llinder@salememploymentlawyer.com

Douglas J. Davis, OSB #140577

ddavis@salememploymentlawyer.com

The Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC

2245 Commercial St NE

Salem, OR 97303

Tel: (503)585-1804

Fax: (503)585-1834

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEA LUEBBERS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ST. CHARLES HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a 

Domestic Non-Profit Corporation, dba 

PIONEER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and

KENT TIMMONS, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:14-cv-01994- 

COMPLAINT – VIOLATION OF ORS 

659A.030 AND 42 U.S.C. 2000e (Sexual 

Harassment/Retaliation/Quid Pro Quo 

Discrimination); ASSAULT; BATTERY

(Jury Trial Demanded)

Plaintiff alleges:

JURISDICTION

1.

Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and brought pursuant to 

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.

2.

Jurisdiction is appropriate for this Court after Plaintiff co-filed a complaint with the 

Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (“BOLI”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC”) on or about December, 2013, and Plaintiff received a right to sue notice 

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 20
Page 2- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

from the EEOC on September 11, 2014. Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter. All 

conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

VENUE

3.

Venue is appropriate in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant St. Charles 

Health Systems, Inc (“St. Charles”) principal place of business is in Deschutes County, Oregon.

PARTIES

4.

Kelsea Luebbers (“Plaintiff”) is a female resident of Crook County, Oregon. Defendant 

St. Charles is a Domestic Non-Profit Corporation doing business as Pioneer Memorial Hospital

with its principal place of business in Deschutes County, Oregon. St. Charles is an “employer” as 

that term is defined in ORS chapter 659A.001. Defendant Kent Timmons (“Timmons”) was at 

all relevant times employed by St. Charles.

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

5.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff’s state law claims are so closely related to her federal law claims that 

they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States 

Constitution. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6.

In or about 2007, Plaintiff was hired by St. Charles as an Admitting/Patient Access

Representative. Plaintiff was transferred to a Phlebotomist position with St. Charles.

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 2 of 20
Page 3- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

7.

On or about April 4, 2013, Plaintiff’s second level supervisor, Timmons, rubbed her in an 

unwanted, sexual way by rubbing her neck, shoulders, down her back to her bra line. He then 

continued around Plaintiff’s sides following where her bra line continued. Timmons had touched 

Plaintiff in this manner on previous occasions. That same day Timmons brought some candy into 

the break room at work. Someone asked Timmons if he was trying to make the lab staff obese.

Timmons looked Plaintiff up and down for a very long time with a perverted look as if he were 

enjoying it and said to Plaintiff “too late.”

8.

On or about April 22, 2013, Plaintiff spoke to Timmons in his office about when she 

would do drug screen collection training for a couple employees. At one point Plaintiff said “I'm 

going to come in and do Stacey on Friday” and Timmons responded in a sexual way, “I didn’t 

think you did girls,” with a smirk on his face.

9.

On or about the week of May 6, 2013, Plaintiff approached Timmons in his office and 

told him that he was making her extremely uncomfortable with his comments and constant, 

unwanted, rubbing of her back. Plaintiff received no response from him other than him staring at 

her until she finally told him she would have to go back to the lab.

10.

On or about the week of May 13, 2013, Plaintiff went to discuss her schedule with 

Timmons. On a number of occasions, Plaintiff had tried to talk to him about the possibility of a 

schedule change. When she did, Timmons threatened to cut her hours, her pay, or he would give 

Plaintiff a less favorable schedule than she had previously. Plaintiff went to talk to Timmons 

about her schedule again and to tell him that she had tried everything to make her late night 

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 3 of 20
Page 4- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

schedule work, but that it was making her depression and insomnia worse. Timmons looked at

Plaintiff and said, “It's all in your head, Kelsea.” After this conversation, Timmons began 

scheduling Plaintiff until midnight, an hour later than Plaintiff had already been working.

11.

Timmons continued to touch Plaintiff inappropriately despite her opposition to his 

conduct.

12.

On or about May 16, 2013, while on lock down at Pioneer Memorial Hospital, Timmons 

called Plaintiff and staff into the lab office to talk about what was happening. While talking to 

the staff, Timmons began rubbing Plaintiff’s neck, shoulders, and back. This contact was 

unwelcome and opposed. Plaintiff was extremely uncomfortable and other employees witnessed 

the conduct and made remarks about how it was sexually inappropriate and awkward for 

everyone.

13.

On or about May 20, 2013, Plaintiff received acupuncture and told Timmons about it and 

that she thought it was really helping her back. Timmons told Plaintiff that he knows “a lot about 

acupuncture and pressure points; I could actually teach you a thing or two with them sexually, 

but I probably shouldn’t.” He had a smile on his face implying that he wanted to.

14.

After Plaintiff told Timmons that his unwanted, inappropriate contact made her 

uncomfortable, the conduct became more frequent. It became so frequent that other employees 

took notice and made statements and remarks to Plaintiff about how inappropriate, awkward, and 

uncomfortable it was. They inquired if it made her feel the same way. Plaintiff complained to 

her direct supervisor, Rose Witnauer (“Witnauer”) about Timmons’ conduct. In addition, 

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 4 of 20
Page 5- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

Witnauer witnessed some of the conduct of Timmons toward Plaintiff including him rubbing on 

her.

15.

On or about July 16, 2013, Plaintiff walked out of the lab and Timmons pushed Plaintiff

in the back with his forearm.

16.

Timmons regularly asked Plaintiff to go to his office to talk after most employees had left 

work, which made Plaintiff very uncomfortable. Timmons kept Plaintiff in his office for over an 

hour discussing at length matters having nothing to do with work.

17.

On or about August 8, 2013, Plaintiff emailed Timmons again asking for a change in 

hours, and he told Plaintiff they would talk about it the following Monday. That following week 

they met with Witnaeur to discuss Plaintiff’s depression and the hours she was working. The 

following week Plaintiff was transferred to the Redmond hospital with a regular day shift job.

18.

On or about August 22, 2013, Plaintiff went home after working for three days while ill. 

Timmons told Plaintiff that she had to work in spite of her illness and that if her coworkers got 

sick she would have to work their shift as well as hers because it was her fault they became ill.

19.

On or about August 27, 2013, against doctor’s advice, Plaintiff had to work with 

conjunctivitis, because Timmons demanded that she do so.

20.

On or about August 28, 2013, Plaintiff believed she had no option but to vacate her 

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 5 of 20
Page 6- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

position. The unwanted sexual contact and comments made towards Plaintiff had not stopped as 

well as the threats and retaliation. Plaintiff resigned her position with St. Charles.

FIRST CLAIM AGAINST ST. CHARLES –VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII

(Count I—Hostile Work Environment)

21.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-20. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment with St. 

Charles, Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on her sex. Incidents of sex discrimination 

committed by St. Charles resulted in Plaintiff being denied compensation, and adversely affected 

Plaintiff’s terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e-2(a).

22.

St. Charles’s actions created a hostile work environment toward females that Plaintiff 

was subjected to. 

23.

St. Charles’s hostile work environment, and the actions of its employees, as provided in 

the paragraphs above, affected Plaintiff’s ability to perform her job, caused Plaintiff to suffer 

emotional distress in the performance of her job

24.

St. Charles’s hostile work environment toward Plaintiff, because she is female, 

constitutes a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) for which Plaintiff is entitled to relief. As a 

result of St. Charles’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered physical symptoms due to the harassing 

conduct.

///

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 6 of 20
Page 7- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

25.

As a result of St. Charles’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues 

to suffer humiliation, anxiety, distress, and impairment of Plaintiffs personal dignity and right to 

be free from discrimination or interference with Plaintiffs statutory rights. Plaintiff has also 

suffered, and continues to suffer, economic damages, including, but not limited to, past and 

future wages, past and future benefits, and other expenses.

26.

Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other 

non-pecuniary losses. 

27.

Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief including, but not limited to, an award of back pay, 

lost benefits, and other compensatory damages for future pecuniary losses.

28.

Plaintiff requests a declaration by this Court that St. Charles violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a).

29.

Plaintiff has suffered economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial as a result of St. Charles’s hostile work environment directed against Plaintiff 

because she is female. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages 

provided by law, in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

///

///

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 7 of 20
Page 8- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

30.

(Count 2—Retaliation)

Plaintiff realleges paragraph 1-29. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e provides that it is an unlawful 

employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee because she has 

opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter.

31.

Plaintiff opposed conduct that she reasonably believed was discrimination based on her 

sex and was thereafter retaliated against for doing so.

32.

St. Charles’s retaliation toward Plaintiff, because she opposed practices she reasonably 

believed were discriminatory, constitutes a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) for which 

Plaintiff is entitled to relief. As a result of St. Charles’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered physical 

symptoms due to the harassing conduct and retaliation.

33.

As a result of St. Charles’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues 

to suffer humiliation, anxiety, distress, and impairment of Plaintiffs personal dignity and right to 

be free from discrimination or interference with Plaintiffs statutory rights. Plaintiff has also 

suffered economic damages, including, but not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and other 

expenses.

34.

Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other 

non-pecuniary losses.

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 8 of 20
Page 9- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

35.

Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief including, but not limited to, an award of back pay, 

lost benefits, future lost earnings and benefits, and other compensatory damages for future 

pecuniary losses.

36.

Plaintiff requests a declaration by this Court that St. Charles violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3(a).

37.

Plaintiff has suffered economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be 

determined at the time of trial as a result of St. Charles’s retaliation directed against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition 

to equitable relief and reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

38.

(Count 3—Quid Pro Quo Discrimination)

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-37. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment with St. 

Charles, Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on her sex. Incidents of sex discrimination 

committed by St. Charles resulted in Plaintiff being denied compensation, and adversely affected 

Plaintiff’s terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e-2(a).

38.

St. Charles’s actions created a hostile work environment toward females that Plaintiff 

was subjected to. 

///

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 9 of 20
Page 10- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

40.

St. Charles’s hostile work environment, and the actions of its employees, as provided in 

the paragraphs above, affected Plaintiff’s ability to perform her job, caused Plaintiff to suffer 

emotional distress in the performance of her job. Timmons’ conduct made being subjected to and 

enduring the sexual harassment a term and condition of Plaintiff’s employment.

41.

St. Charles’s conduct was quid pro quo discrimination for which Plaintiff is entitled to 

relief. 

42.

As a result of St. Charles’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues 

to suffer humiliation, anxiety, distress, and impairment of Plaintiff’s personal dignity and right to 

be free from discrimination or interference with Plaintiff’s statutory rights. Plaintiff has also 

suffered economic damages, including, but not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and other 

expenses.

43.

Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other 

non-pecuniary losses. 

44.

Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief including, but not limited to, an award of back pay, 

lost benefits, future lost earnings and benefits, and other compensatory damages for future 

pecuniary losses.

///

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 10 of 20
Page 11- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

45.

Plaintiff requests a declaration by this Court that St. Charles violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3(a).

46.

Plaintiff has suffered economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be 

determined at the time of trial as a result of St. Charles’s retaliation directed against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition 

to equitable relief and reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

SECOND CLAIM AGAINST ST. CHARLES –VIOLATIONS OF ORS 659A.030

(Count 1--Hostile Work Environment Sex Discrimination)

47.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-46. According to ORS 659A.030(1)(b), it is an unlawful 

employment practice, “for an employer, because of an individual’s race, religion, color, sex, 

national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older, . . . to 

discriminate against such an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of 

employment.” Discrimination committed by St. Charles affected Plaintiff’s employment 

opportunities and terms and conditions of employment and is a direct violation of the statute.

48.

Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on her sex. St. Charles’s actions, and the 

actions of its employees, created a hostile work environment toward females that Plaintiff was 

subjected to. St. Charles’s hostile work environment, and the actions of its employees, as 

provided in the paragraphs above, affected Plaintiff’s ability to perform her job and caused 

Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress in the performance of her job. St. Charles’s discrimination 

negatively affected Plaintiff’s employment in violation of ORS 659A.030(b). 

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 11 of 20
Page 12- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

49.

As a result of St. Charles’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues 

to suffer humiliation, anxiety, distress, and impairment of Plaintiffs personal dignity and right to 

be free from discrimination or interference with Plaintiffs statutory rights. Plaintiff has also 

suffered economic damages, including, but not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and other 

expenses.

50.

Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other 

non-pecuniary losses. 

51.

Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief including, but not limited to, an award of back pay, 

lost benefits, and other compensatory damages.

52.

Plaintiff requests a declaration by this Court that St. Charles violated ORS 659A.030(b).

53.

As a result of St. Charles’s hostile work environment sex discrimination, Plaintiff 

requests economic damages, including lost wages, in an amount to be determined at trial, noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and equitable relief. The actions of St. 

Charles and its employees, as described above, were knowing, intentional and malicious. 

Plaintiff requests punitive damages for St. Charles and its employees’ actions.

54.

Pursuant to ORS 20.107 and ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff requests and is entitled to her 

reasonable attorney fees in this action. 

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 12 of 20
Page 13- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

(Count 2–Retaliation)

55.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-54. According to ORS 659A.030(1)(f) it is an unlawful 

employment practice, “for any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any 

other person because that other person has opposed any unlawful practice, or because that other 

person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter or has 

attempted to do so.” Discrimination committed by St. Charles, as alleged above, affected 

Plaintiff’s employment opportunities, compensation, and terms and conditions of employment 

and is a direct violation of this statute.

56.

Plaintiff suffered from retaliation based on her opposition of sex discrimination as 

described in the paragraphs above. St. Charles’s employees’ retaliation toward Plaintiff 

negatively affected her compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment in 

violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(f).

57.

As a result of St. Charles’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues 

to suffer humiliation, anxiety, distress, and impairment of Plaintiffs personal dignity and right to 

be free from discrimination or interference with Plaintiffs statutory rights. Plaintiff has also 

suffered economic damages, including, but not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and other 

expenses.

58.

Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other 

non-pecuniary losses. 

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 13 of 20
Page 14- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

59.

Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief including, but not limited to, an award of back pay, 

lost benefits and other compensatory damages.

60.

Plaintiff requests a declaration by this Court that St. Charles violated ORS 659A.030(b).

61.

As a result of St. Charles’s retaliation, Plaintiff requests economic damages, including 

lost wages, in an amount to be determined at trial, non-economic damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial, and equitable relief. The actions of St. Charles and its employees, as 

described above, were knowing, intentional and malicious. Plaintiff requests punitive damages 

for St. Charles and its employees’ actions.

62.

Pursuant to ORS 20.107 and ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff requests and is entitled to her 

reasonable attorney fees in this action.

(Count 3-Quid Pro Quo Discrimination)

63.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-62. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment, 

Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on her sex. Incidents of sexual discrimination 

adversely affected Plaintiff’s terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment in violation of 

ORS 659A.030.

64.

Plaintiff was subjected to repeated sexual harassment by Timmons. Plaintiff resisted 

Timmons’ batteries and harassment, and asked him to stop. Timmons continued harassing 

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 14 of 20
Page 15- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

Plaintiff. Timmons’ conduct made being subjected to and enduring the sexual harassment a 

term and condition of Plaintiff’s employment.

65.

As a result of St. Charles’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered and 

continues to suffer humiliation, anxiety, distress, and impairment of Plaintiff’s personal dignity 

and right to be free from discrimination or interference with Plaintiff’s statutory rights. Plaintiff 

has also suffered economic damages, including, but not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and 

other expenses.

66.

Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other 

non-pecuniary losses. 

67.

Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an award of back 

pay, lost benefits, future lost earnings and benefits, and other compensatory damages for future 

pecuniary losses.

68.

Plaintiff requests an order by this Court declaring that St. Charles violated ORS 

659A.030.

69.

As a result of St. Charles’s retaliation, Plaintiff requests economic damages, including 

lost wages, in an amount to be determined at trial, non-economic damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial, and equitable relief. The actions of St. Charles and its employees, as 

/// 

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 15 of 20
Page 16- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

described above, were knowing, intentional and malicious. Plaintiff requests punitive damages 

for St. Charles and its employees’ actions.

70.

Pursuant to ORS 20.107 and ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff requests and is entitled to her 

reasonable attorney fees in this action.

THIRD CLAIM AGAINST ST. CHARLES—ASSAULT

71.

Plaintiff realleges paragraph 1-70. St. Charles acted intending to cause harmful or 

offensive contact with Plaintiff. Timmons, whose actions are actions of St. Charles given his 

position as Plaintiff’s supervisor, engaged in voluntary acts directed towards Plaintiff

intentionally attempting to cause harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff. Plaintiff reasonably 

believed a harmful or offensive contact would occur. 

72.

As a direct and proximate result of St. Charles’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages to be determined by a jury at the time of trial. The actions of St. Charles and 

its employees, as described above, were knowing, intentional and malicious. Plaintiff requests 

punitive damages for St. Charles and its employees’ actions.

FOURTH CLAIM AGAINST ST. CHARLES—BATTERY

73.

Plaintiff realleges paragraph 1-72. Timmons, whose actions are the actions of St. Charles

because of his position as Plaintiff’s supervisor, caused harmful or offensive contact with 

Plaintiff. 

///

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 16 of 20
Page 17- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

74.

As a direct and proximate result of Timmons’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages to be determined by a jury at the time of trial. The actions of St. Charles and 

its employees, as described above, were knowing, intentional and malicious. Plaintiff requests 

punitive damages for St. Charles and its employees’ actions.

FIFTH CLAIM AGAINST TIMMONS—VIOLATION OF ORS 659A.030(1)(g) 

75.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-74. Pursuant to ORS 659A.030(1)(g), it is an unlawful 

employment practice “for any person, whether an employer or an employee, to aid, abet, incite, 

compel or coerce the doing of any acts forbidden under this chapter or to attempt to do so.” As 

the sole member of St. Charles and Plaintiff’s supervisor, Timmons’ conduct is imputed to St. 

Charles by virtue of his position. 

76.

As alleged in the paragraphs above, Timmons’ actions and inactions aided, abetted, 

incited, compelled, and coerced St. Charles’s discriminatory acts alleged above, including but 

not limited to engaging in inappropriate conduct towards Plaintiff, making inappropriate sexual 

comments towards and about Plaintiff, and retaliating against her for opposing his inappropriate 

conduct.

77.

As a result of Timmons’ unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues 

to suffer humiliation, anxiety, distress, and impairment of Plaintiff’s personal dignity and right 

to be free from discrimination or interference with Plaintiff’s statutory rights. Plaintiff has also 

suffered economic damages, including, but not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and other 

expenses.

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 17 of 20
Page 18- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

78.

Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other 

nonpecuniary losses. 

79.

Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an award of back 

pay, lost benefits, and other compensatory damages for future pecuniary losses.

80.

Plaintiff requests an order by this Court declaring that Timmons violated ORS 

659A.030.

81.

As a result of Timmons’ violations of ORS 659A.030(1)(g), Plaintiff requests economic 

damages, including lost wages and front pay, in an amount to be determined at trial, noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and equitable relief. The actions of 

Timmons, as described above, were knowing, intentional and malicious. Plaintiff requests 

punitive damages for Timmons’ actions.

82.

Pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and ORS 20.107, Plaintiff is entitled to her reasonable 

attorney fees, costs, expert witness fees, and disbursements in this action. 

SIXTH CLAIM AGAINST TIMMONS—ASSAULT

83.

Plaintiff realleges paragraph 1-82. Timmons acted intending to cause harmful or 

offensive contact with Plaintiff. Timmons engaged in voluntary acts directed towards Plaintiff 

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 18 of 20
Page 19- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

intentionally attempting to cause harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff. Plaintiff reasonably 

believed a harmful or offensive contact would occur. 

84.

As a result of Timmons’ intentional conduct, Plaintiff has suffered non-economic 

damages in an amount to be determined by a jury at the time of trial. The actions of Timmons, as 

described above, were knowing, intentional and malicious. Plaintiff requests punitive damages 

for Timmons’ actions.

SEVENTH CLAIM AGAINST TIMMONS—BATTERY

85.

Plaintiff realleges paragraph 1-84. Timmons caused harmful or offensive contact with 

Plaintiff. 

86.

As a result of Timmons’ intentional conduct, Plaintiff has suffered non-economic 

damages in an amount to be determined by a jury at the time of trial. The actions of Timmons, as 

described above, were knowing, intentional and malicious. Plaintiff requests punitive damages 

for Timmons’ actions.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 19 of 20
Page 20- Complaint

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, OR 97303

(T)(503)585-1804 (f)(503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests equitable relief, punitive damages, economic 

damages to be determined by a jury at the time of trial, and compensatory damages to be 

determined by a jury at the time of trial. Plaintiff seeks all economic damages that accrue up to 

the time of trial, and future economic damages. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, ORS 659A.885 

and ORS 20.107, Plaintiff requests her reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action.

DATED this 12th day of December, 2014.

/s/ Larry L. Linder 

Larry L. Linder OSB #010724

Douglas J. Davis OSB #140577

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC

2245 Commercial St. NE

Salem, Oregon 97303

Telephone: (503)585-1804

Facsimile: (503)585-1834

info@salememploymentlawyer.com

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 20 of 20