Dec. of Jon M. Egan in Support of cross-MSJ Briefing Page 1 

Jon M. Egan, OSB 002467 

Jegan@eganlegalteam.com 

Jon M. Egan, PC 

547 Fifth Street 

Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 

Telephone: (503) 697-3427 

Fax: (866) 311-5629 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, 

NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA TETRAULT, 

and CHRISTINA MAULDIN, both on 

behalf of themselves individually and, in 

addition, on behalf of the other similarly 

situated employees, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

JACK IN THE BOX INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:14-cv-01092-BR 

Declaration of Jon M. Egan in support 

of plaintiffs’ motions for summary 

judgment and in opposition to 

defendant’s motions for summary 

judgment 

I, Jon M. Egan, hereby declare and say: 

1. I am the attorney for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case. All statements herein 

are made of my own personal knowledge, and I am competent to testify thereto. 

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from Jack in the Box’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission. 

Case 3:14-cv-01092-BR Document 182 Filed 05/24/19 Page 1 of 7
Dec. of Jon M. Egan in Support of cross-MSJ Briefing Page 2 

Workers’ Benefit Fund 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 14, 2012 deposition of Paul Barnard, former Senior Payroll 

Analyst for Jack in the Box. 

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 9, 2012 deposition of Sylvia DeChandt, former Director of 

Payroll Services for Jack in the Box. 

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 10, 2012 and February 16, 2012 deposition sessions of Barbara 

Klusek, then-current Payroll Manager at Jack in the Box and 30(b)(6) designee. 

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 8, 2012 and February 16, 2012 deposition sessions of Wendy 

Sanderlin, then-current Director of Payroll and Accounting Systems at Jack in 

the Box and 30(b)(6) designee. 

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Bates page JITB 104123, 

a letter dated February 8, 2012 and received by me from the Oregon Department 

of Consumer and Business Services in response to inquiries regarding Jack in the 

Box’s Workers’ Benefit Fund payment history and the notice process that DCBS 

undergoes to inform the public and employment tax payers of each year’s new 

rates. 

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of Bates pages JITB 

104124–JITB 104125, a sample annual notice that DCBS sends out containing the 

following year’s Workers’ Benefit Fund assessment rate. This document was 

obtained from Jack in the Box in discovery. 

Case 3:14-cv-01092-BR Document 182 Filed 05/24/19 Page 2 of 7
Dec. of Jon M. Egan in Support of cross-MSJ Briefing Page 3 

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of an authenticating 

subpoena from BSI’s custodian of records, as well as excerpts from the 

documents produced by BSI, showing the notices that were sent to Jack in the 

Box of the new Workers’ Benefit Fund rates. 

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of Bates page JITB 

127004, a sample from the redacted spreadsheets produced by Jack in the Box 

covering Oregon employees. Exhibit 9 has two pay periods highlighted, each with 

a box drawn around it. In the first box, we see both a shoe deduction (“SFC”) and 

a wrongful Workers’ Benefit Fund overdeduction (“WC-OR”) in a week in which 

the employee worked overtime. In the second box, we see both a shoe deduction 

and a wrongful Workers’ Benefit Fund overdeduction in a week in which (even 

using Jack in the Box’s own hours worked total, without accounting for any 

unpaid breaks) the employee made less than minimum wage due to the 

deductions. 

Shoes 

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the January 30, 2012 deposition of Donna Basham, a then-current District 

Manager with Northwest Group (a Jack in the Box franchisee that owns multiple 

restaurants in Oregon), who was previously a corporate employee of Jack in the 

Box at various times in the positions of Assistant Manager, Restaurant Manager, 

Associate Area Coach and Area Coach. 

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 6, 2012 deposition of Gene James, then-current Director of 

Case 3:14-cv-01092-BR Document 182 Filed 05/24/19 Page 3 of 7
Dec. of Jon M. Egan in Support of cross-MSJ Briefing Page 4 

Asset Protection for Jack in the Box and 30(b)(6) designee. 

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 8, 2012 deposition of Shelly Mosteller, then-current 

Merchandising Manager for Jack in the Box and 30(b)(6) designee. 

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 7, 2012 deposition of Susan Pettijohn, then-current HR 

Project Manager for Jack in the Box and 30(b)(6) designee. 

15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 10, 2012 deposition of Leanne Tellez, then-current Payroll 

Representative 2 at Jack in the Box and 30(b)(6) designee. 

16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the January 31, 2012 deposition of Jeffrey Tennant, then-current Area 

Coach for Jack in the Box and 30(b)(6) designee. 

17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of Bates page JITB 

100218, the shoe policy that preceded Jack in the Box’s 2002 Safety Symposium. 

18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of Bates page JITB 

100257, Jack in the Box’s HACCP food safety inspection form that incorporates 

the Uniform, Appearance and Grooming standards. 

19. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of Bates pages JITB 

101789 and JITB 103402, which deal with the incorporation of the slip-resistant 

shoe requirement into the restaurant’s QFC food safety inspection. The difficultto-read line reads “SLIP-RESISTANT FOOTWEAR WORN (6 points)”. 

20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of Bates pages JITB 

101811 and 101815, the Managing Safety course for Managers describing a 

Case 3:14-cv-01092-BR Document 182 Filed 05/24/19 Page 4 of 7
Dec. of Jon M. Egan in Support of cross-MSJ Briefing Page 5 

fictional accident by an employee and asking the management trainee whether he 

was wearing Shoes for Crews. 

21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of the Restaurant 

Manager’s Incident Report of Employee Injury, Bates page JITB 101924, the 

standard injury report for managers to fill out after any injury, which specifically 

asks whether the injured person was wearing Shoes for Crews. 

22. Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of Bates pages JITB 

102668 and JITB 102672, excerpts from the Food Safety Computer-Based 

Training module, which instructs employees to check their uniforms in the 

mirror as part of food safety. 

23. Attached hereto as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of Bates pages JITB 

102731, JITB 102733 and JITB 102743, JITB 102745, Safety and Security video 

scripts from 2005 and 2009, wherein the voiceover says “approved shoes” and 

the picture on the screen is of Shoes for Crews. 

24. Attached hereto as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of Bates pages JITB 

102837, JITB 102937 and JITB 102989, the sections of Jack in the Box’s Crew 

On-Boarding CBT scripts from 2004, 2005 and 2011. Each of these scripts tells 

the employee, “You’re responsible for providing your own shoes. You must wear 

company-approved, slip-resistant footwear.” It does NOT tell them that they have 

the option of wearing company-provided slip-on shoe guards instead of buying 

their own shoes. 

25. Attached hereto as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of Bates pages JITB 

103413–JITB 103414, excerpts from the 2002 Safety Program presentation. They 

show the advantages and disadvantages of Shoes for Crews and the main 

Case 3:14-cv-01092-BR Document 182 Filed 05/24/19 Page 5 of 7
Dec. of Jon M. Egan in Support of cross-MSJ Briefing Page 6 

competitor they were considering as an alternative shoe provider. A disadvantage 

of the competitor was that it does not provide a $2 “rebate,” and listed directly 

under that disadvantage was the fact that its shoes are on average $2 per pair 

cheaper than Shoes for Crews. The advantages of Shoes for Crews were that it 

offers the medical payment indemnity program and the $2 rebate. 

26. Attached hereto as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of the authenticating 

Declaration from Shoes for Crews’s records custodian (stating that there is no 

written contract or agreement containing the $2-per-pair “rebate” terms), as well 

as the accompanying documents laying out the terms of the indemnity agreement 

(only shoes purchased through payroll deduction qualify; the slip-on shoe guards 

are excluded) and breaking down the over $1,000,000 in “rebates” paid to Jack 

in the Box since 2003. 

27. Attached hereto as Exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 7, 2012 deposition of Susan Burtchett, then-current Manager 

of Restaurant Systems for Jack in the Box and 30(b)(6) designee. 

28. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 13, 2012 deposition of Dianne Evans, then-current Senior 

Business Systems Analyst and 30(b)(6) designee. 

29. Attached hereto as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts 

from the February 6, 2012 deposition of Shelly Rohlfs, then-current People and 

Organizational Effectiveness Manager for Jack in the Box and 30(b)(6) designee. 

Franchise Transfer 

30. Attached hereto as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of the December 6, 2013 

Declaration of then-Jack in the Box in-house counsel James Stubblefield, Dkt. 

Case 3:14-cv-01092-BR Document 182 Filed 05/24/19 Page 6 of 7
Dec. of Jon M. Egan in Support of cross-MSJ Briefing Page 7 

243 in the Gessele I case, 3:10-cv-0961-BR, laying out the dates that the various 

groups of Oregon stores were transferred to franchisee operation. 

31. Attached hereto as Exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from Jack in 

the Box’s payroll department manual produced in discovery, identifying 

“Franchised” as one of the reasons for termination of an employee. 

32. Attached hereto as Exhibit 31 is the report of Jack in the Box’s expert, Emil 

Czechowski, submitted by Jack in the Box on the issue of damage calculations. 

On page 2 of his Report, Mr. Czechowski acknowledges that he was “retained by 

counsel for Defendant Jack in the Box (‘JITB’) in the matter of Gessele v. Jack in 

the Box Inc., District Court of Oregon Case No. 3:14-cv-01092-BR, to review biweekly payroll data for JITB’s Oregon employees in order to provide an estimate 

of potential damages and statutory penalties related to Plaintiffs’ claims,” “asked 

to assess any potential statutory penalties related to an additional claim that 

employees were not timely paid their final wages upon the transfer of JITBowned locations to franchisees,” and “asked to estimate prejudgment interest on 

Plaintiffs’ unpaid wage and penalty claims.” 

DATED this 24th day of May, 2019 

I hereby declare that the above statement is true to the best of my 

knowledge and belief, and that I understand it is made for use as evidence 

in court and is subject to penalty for perjury. 

JON M. EGAN, P.C. 

/s/ Jon M. Egan 

 

Jon M. Egan, OSB #002467 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Case 3:14-cv-01092-BR Document 182 Filed 05/24/19 Page 7 of 7