Attorney for Plaintiff

MARY MCINTIRE,

Plaintiff,

V.

SAGE SOFTWARE, INC., a foreignbusiness corporation, and MATRIXABSENCE MANAGEMENT, NC.,a foreign business corporation,

Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action against her former employer Sage Software, Inc., (hereinafrer

referred to as "Sage") to correct unlawful employment practices for discrimination based upon Plaintiff

No. 3:15-cv-00769-JE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA);

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA);

Wrongful Discharge; and Tortious

Interference with Contract

Page I - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

BENJAMIN

ROSENTHAL

IO23 SW YAMHILLSTREET, SI.JITE2OO

PORTLAND, ORECON 97205

503-226-øW
opposition to Defendants

 unlawful practice of resisting her need for medical leave. Finally, against

Matrix Absence Management, Inc., Plaintiff brings a claim of tortious interference of her economic

relationship with Sage and violations of OFLAÆMLA. This Court has jurisdiction of this action

because of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 USC $ 1331. This Court also has pendent

jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Defendant Sage interfered with Plaintiff's rights under the FMLA, and OFLA and fired her in

substantial part for invoking the processes. Defendant Matrix wrongfully interfered with Plaintiff's

economic relationship with Sage by violating FMLA and OFLA policies causing Plaintiff to be

terminated from her job.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 USC $ 1331, federal question jurisdiction.3. This Court also has pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims. Defendant's actions

occurred in the District of Oregon and, at all relevant times, the parties did business in the State ofOregon.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff was employed full time by Defendant Sage as a Senior Customer Support Analyst

from March I,2006 though October 14,2013. At all relevant times, Plaintiff is and was a residentand citizen of the State of Oregon and worked in Oregon in Washington County.

Page2 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

BENJAMIN

ROSENTHAL

W YAMHILL STREET. SUITE 2OO

PORTLAND, ORECON 97205

503-2264409
times was authorized to do business in the State of Oregon and by contract with Sage was Sage

s third

party leave administrator.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

7. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Sage with the State of Oregon Bureau of Labor and

Industries ("BOLI") on or around July 23,2014. All procedures necessary to comply with applicable

federal and state law were followed, and this action has been filed within the requisite 90-day limitset out in the notice of right to sue.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Defendant Sage is a business management software solutions company which provides

software and services to small and medium sized businesses in the State of Oregon.

9. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Sage as a Senior Customer Support Analyst. At all relevant

times she worked in Defendant Sage's Portland location.

10. Plaintiff, at all relevant times was on approved OFLA and FMLA intermittent leave for her

serious health condition of Initable Bowel Syndrome. Her2012 submitted completed Medical

Certification for the OFLAÆMLA leave indicated that her condition commenced in 2002 withduration as lifelong and requiring Plaintiff to take intermittent time loss from work with a frequency

of four episodes per month and two days per episode.

11. Plaintiff from time to time was off work due to her medical condition from November 2012

through her termination which she remained on through her termination on October 14,2013.Page 3 - FIRST AMENDED .'MPLATNT 

,02,swyAMH,LLS*,åiî"iff#ìå

PORTLAND. OREGON 97205

503-226-6409
medical condition.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Oregon Family Leave Act Discrimination)

Against Defendant Sage Only

14. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 13, above.

15. Plaintiff, at all material times, was an eligible employee under ORS 6594.156.

16. Defendant Sage at all material times, was an employer covered under ORS 659A.153.17. Plaintiff took time off due to her medical condition as alleged in paragraphs l1 and 12, above.

At all times relevant herein Defendant Sage through its employees knew or should have known that

Plaintiff was taking such time off due to her medical condition and for her need to be onOFLAÆMLA medical leave.

18. Plaintiff's medical condition was one to which she was entitled under OFLAÆMLA to

take time off without employer reproach.

19. Defendant through its employees and, or agents retaliated and discriminated against Plaintiff

for taking medical leave in one or more of the following ways:

a. By failing to properly apply its absentee occurrence policy to Plaintiff;

b. By charging Plaintiff with absences on May 13 and May 14,2013 when Defendants knew

that Plaintiff was absent on those days due to her medical condition.

c. By terminating plaintiff on October 14,2013 for excessive absences.

Page 4 - FIRST AMENDED C'MPLAINT 

å"i*ülì'

W YAMHILL STRESI', SUITE 2OO

PORTLAND. ORECON 97205

503-226-ó/.09
22. Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest from the time when she began incurring her

economic losses to the present.

23. Plaintiff is further entitled under ORS 6594.885(l) to recover her reasonable attorney fees and

litigation costs.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Family and Medical Leave Act)

Against Defendant Sage Only

24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 5, 8 through 13, I7 through 19,21

and22 above.

25. Plaintiff 

, 

at all material times, was an eligible employee under 29 USC $ 261 1.

26. Defendant Sage, at all material times, was an employer covered under 29 USC $261 1(4XAXÐ.27. Defendant retaliated and discriminated against Plaintiff while and/or, for taking medical leave

as described in paragraph 19, above

28. Defendant's actions violated Plaintiff's rights under FMLA.

29. Plaintiff is entitled under 29 USC $ 2617(aXlXAXÐ(I) to recover her economic losses as

described in paragraph 21, above.

30. Plaintiff is entitled to an additional amount equal to her economic losses under 29 USC $

2617 (a)(l)(AxiiÐ in liquidated damages.

Page 5 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

BENJAMIN

ROSENTHAL

IO23 SW YAMHILL STREET, SUITE 2OO

PORTLAND. ORECON 97205

503:226{/09
32. Plaintiffre-alleges paragraphs 1 through 5, 8 through 13, 15 through 20,22,25,26 27 and

28, above.

33. Defendant Sage's conduct as alleged in paragraph 19 and 28, above, constitutes a wrongful

discharge for each and every one of the following reasons:

a. Plaintiffwas discharged in substantialpart in retaliation for pursuing employee related rights

which are ofimportant public interest andlor are recognized by statute under 29 USC $ 2ó15 and ORS

6594.183 in that Plaintiffhad a right to request medical leave under the forgoing statutory provisions.

34. Plaintiffis entitled to the recovery ofher lost income, benefits and perquisites from October

14,2013 through on or about February 23,2014 in the approximate amount of $57,020.00 to be

amended before the time of trial.

35. As a result of her termination, Plaintiff suffered depression, stress, financial worry, anxiety,

loss of enjoyment of life, diminished appetite, sleeplessness, lost weight and lost self esteem, all to

her non-economic damage in an amount to be determined before trial.

36. Defendant Sage's conduct as alleged was wilful and wanton and/or in reckless disregard

of Plaintiff's rights or general welfare. Plaintiff will be amending the Complaint before trial to allege

exemplary damages.

37. Plaintiff is further entitled under ORS 20.107 to recover her reasonable attorney fees, expert

witness fees and litigation costs.Page 6 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

BENJAMIN

'",'-"#üiî'siffåiüîn

503-226-6409
35, above.

39. At all relevant times Defendant Matrix knew that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant

Sage.

40. Defendant Matrixwlfully, intentionallyandmaliciouslyinterferedwithplaintiffs emploSrment

agteement or acted knowing that the interference was substantially certain to occur from its actions and

were a necessary consequence thereof by engaging in conduct in an improper manner as specified inparagraphs 19,20,27 and 28, above.

41. As a result ofthe conduct alleged above, plaintiffwas terminated and suffered economic losses

as alleged in paragraph 21, above.

42. As a further result ofthe termination, Plaintiffsuffered non-economic damages as alleged

in paragraph 35, above.

43. Defendant Matrix' conduct as alleged was wilful and wanton and/or in reckless disregard

of Plaintiff's rights or general welfare. Plaintiff will be amending the Complaint before trial to allege

exemplary damages.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all questions of fact or combined questions of law and fact raised

by this complaint.

ilt

ilt

Page 7 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

BENJAMIN

ro23 sw YAMHTLL s*råt:ìilHlå

PORTLAND, ORECON 97205

503-226-UÙt)
Benjamin Rosenthal, OSB# 830828Attorney for Plaintiff

Page 8 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

BENJAMIN

ROSENTIIAL

IO23 SW YAMHILL STREE'T, SUITE 2OO

PORTLAND, OREGON 97205

503¿26.6/.09