Page 1 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

Christina Stephenson, OSB #102287

Stephenson Law, LLC

1355 NW Everett Street, Suite 100

Portland, OR 97209

Voice: (503) 220-1790

Fax: (503) 512-5022

christina@stephensonlawpdx.com

Elizabeth Inayoshi, OSB #133929

Law Office of Elizabeth J. Inayoshi LLC

330 NE Lincoln Street, Suite 300

Hillsboro, OR 97124

Voice: (971) 232-1230

Fax: (503) 512-5022

ejinayoshi@gmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

ROSWITHA SWENSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC., a foreign 

business corporation; and MARK 

SCHWARTZ, an individual,

 Defendants.

Case No. ___________

COMPLAINT

(Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 

U.S.C. §201 et seq.) and Oregon law.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff alleges: 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 15
Page 2 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

Jurisdictional Allegations

1.

This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid wages and retaliation 

pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. §201, et seq., hereinafter called 

the “FLSA”), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

state claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1367 as the state claims arise from the same nucleus of 

operative facts as the federal claims.

2.

Venue is proper within the District of Oregon, Portland Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b) because all or substantially all of Plaintiff’s claims arose in this judicial district.

Parties

3.

Plaintiff Roswitha Swensen (“Ms. Swensen”) is an individual at all material times 

residing in the State of Oregon.

4.

Defendant Galena Biopharma Inc. (“Galena”) is a foreign business corporation, 

organized in the State of Delaware, registered to do business in Oregon, with its principal place 

of business in Portland, Oregon, and at all times material doing business in Oregon. Defendant, 

Mark Schwartz (“Schwartz), is an individual at all material times residing in the state of Oregon. 

5.

At all material times, Defendant Galena was an “employer” within the meaning of FLSA 

§3(d), 29 U.S.C. §203(d). At all material times herein, Defendant Galena was and continues to 

be “an enterprise engaged in commerce” under the FLSA. At all material times herein, on 

information and belief, Defendant’s annual gross revenue was over $500,000 per year. 

6.

On information and belief, Defendant Schwartz is the President of Defendant Galena, 

runs the company, hires and fires employees, determines their pay, and is responsible for 

maintaining employee records. 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 15
Page 3 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

7.

At all material times, Defendant Schwartz was an “employer” within the meaning of 

FLSA §3(d), 29 U.S.C. §203(d) in that he was a person acting directly or indirectly in the interest 

of Defendant Galena in relation to its employees and had economic and operational control over 

Defendant Galena in its business in the State of Oregon. At all material times, Defendant 

Schwartz was an “employer” within the meaning of ORS 659A.001(4)(a) as he, directly or 

through an agent, engaged or used the personal service of one or more employees in Oregon, 

reserving the right to control the means by which such services is or will be performed. 

8.

At all material times herein, Plaintiff was covered by the FLSA. 

9.

At all times material, Defendant Galena was Plaintiff’s employer and Plaintiff was 

Defendant Galena’s employee. At all material times, Plaintiff was supervised by Defendant 

Galena’s employees or agents and Plaintiff relied on the actual or apparent authority of 

Defendant Galena’s employees, supervisors and management.

10.

Before filing this action, Ms. Swensen’s attorney sent a written Attorney’s Notice of 

Wage Claim to Defendants and Defendants made no payment in response to such notice. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

11.

Galena made a formal job offer to Ms. Swensen on May 17, 2013 to act as executive 

assistant to then-president and CEO of Galena, Mark Ahn, for $75,000 per year or $36.06 per 

hour as her regular rate of pay. Ms. Swensen also received 10,000 stock options. The offer did 

not specify that Ms. Swensen would be exempt. Ms. Swensen began her employment with 

Galena on May 20, 2013. 

12.

(a) During Mr. Ahn’s tenure, Ms. Swensen’s duties encompassed primarily standard,

non-exempt, secretarial duties for Mr. Ahn, including answering email; scheduling meetings; 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 3 of 15
Page 4 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

making travel arrangements; organizing internal office parties; researching new office 

equipment; and sending forms to new employees.

(b) Upon Dr. Mark Schwartz’s assumption of the presidency of Galena, on or around 

August 20, 2014, he added some additional duties to Ms. Swensen’s job, including document 

organization. 

(c) However, in spite of adding duties to Ms. Swensen’s job, he pointedly told her 

that she was not a member of the Executive Board and she was not a manager.

13.

During her employment, Ms. Swensen was paid as though she was an exempt 

administrative employee. Ms. Swensen was not paid one and one-half times her regular hourly 

rate for all hours she worked in excess of 40 in one week. At no time was Ms. Swensen’s 

“primary duty” the performance of responsible office or non-manual work directly related to the 

management or general business operations of Galena or Galena’s customers. Ms. Swensen did 

not spend the major part, or over 50 percent, of her time on these type of duties. In addition, Ms. 

Swensen did not regularly exercise independent judgment and discretionary power; the 

customary skill she exercised was in the application of prescribed procedures. 

14.

(a) On January 1, 2014, Galena raised Ms. Swensen’s pay to $77,250 per year or 

$37.14 per hour and awarded her 10,000 stock options and a $5,000 bonus for 6 months of 

employment in 2013.

(b) On May 1, 2014, Galena again raised Ms. Swensen’s pay. At that time, and 

continuing until Ms. Swensen’s employment ended, Ms. Swensen’s regular rate of pay was 

$85,000 per year or $40.87 per hour. 

(c) On or around December of 2013, Galena promised Ms. Swensen a bonus of 

$15,000 to be paid on or around January 1, 2015. 

15.

From the first day Ms. Swensen worked for Galena, she regularly worked in excess of 

forty hours per week. Ms. Swensen regularly worked evenings and weekends. As examples, her 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 4 of 15
Page 5 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

first workweek, she worked 67.72 hours from Monday May 20, 2013 through Saturday May 25,

2013; her second workweek, she worked 96.78 from Sunday May 26, 2013 through Saturday 

June 1, 2013. She worked overtime 86 out of the 87 weeks for which she worked for Galena. In 

total, Ms. Swensen accrued approximately 2152.1 hours of overtime. At no time did Galena pay 

Ms. Swensen overtime. From June 8, 2013 to her termination, Ms. Swensen was not paid 

$121,606.02 in earned overtime. 

16.

On or about September 2014, Ms. Swensen had to complete a survey to account for the 

number of exempt and non-exempt employees at Galena. Ms. Swensen questioned John Burns 

about one employee’s classification, Dane Johnson. Mr. Burns told Ms. Swensen to “leave it 

alone.” Concerned that Mr. Johnson might have been misclassified as an exempt employee, in 

October or November of 2104, Ms. Swensen spoke to Galena’s then-General Counsel, Margaret 

Kiviniski about the issue. At that time, Ms. Swensen reported to Ms. Kivinski that not only was

Mr. Johnson probably non-exempt, but that also that Ms. Swensen herself should have been 

classified as non-exempt. Ms. Kaviniski confirmed that Ms. Swensen was mis-classified. In 

January 2014, Ms. Swensen reported to Galena’s new Human Resources Director, Richard 

Stellner, that she believed she had been mis-classified as exempt. Ms. Kavinski was also present 

for some of this conversation. Galena never re-classified Ms. Swensen.

17.

On an ongoing basis, Mr. Schwartz commented on Ms. Swensen’s nationality, stating 

that she was “too German” and “too dogmatic” and making slurs about her nationality. Mr. 

Schwartz made these comments in front of many employees at Galena. On several occasions 

Ms. Swensen reported Mr. Schwartz’s comments to Ms. Kavinski.

18.

On an ongoing basis, Mr. Schwartz made sexual comments to Ms. Swensen and other 

female co-workers. He made comments such as “hey, you look sexy today.” At the same time, 

he lambasted Ms. Swensen as “too pushy”, “too powerful”, and “too straightforward”, terms he 

never used about any male employee. Mr. Schwartz made these comments in front of many 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 5 of 15
Page 6 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

employees at Galena and he treated Ms. Swensen differently because of her sex. On several 

occasions Ms. Swensen reported Mr. Schwartz’s comments to Ms. Kavinski.

19.

On January 28, 2015, Galena terminated Ms. Swensen’s employment. At that time, 

Galena paid only $2,500 of the $15,000 bonus she had been promised for 2014. At no time has 

Galena paid the overtime that it owes Ms. Swensen, nor has it paid the $12,500 balance of the 

bonus that it owes her.

First Claim For Relief

FLSA – Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

(Against all Defendants)

20.

Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-19, inclusive, as though fully 

set forth herein.

21.

From beginning of her employment until her termination, Plaintiff worked in excess of 

forty (40) hours per week.

22.

Plaintiff was not exempt from overtime pursuant to Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA, or any 

other provision of law, so she was entitled to be paid at the statutory rate of one and one-half 

times her regular rate of pay for those hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.

23.

Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff one and one half-times her regular rate of pay for hours 

she worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Plaintiff is entitled to $121,606.02 in unpaid 

overtime. 

24.

Defendants’ actions were willful and/or showed a reckless disregard for the provisions of 

the FLSA, as evidenced by the failure to compensate Plaintiff at the statutory rate of one and 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 6 of 15
Page 7 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

one-half times Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay for the hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours 

per week when Defendants knew, or should have known, such was, and is due.

25.

Defendant failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff of her rights under the FLSA.

26.

Due to the willful and unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 

suffer damages and lost compensation for hours worked over forty (40) hours per week, plus 

liquidated damages, in an amount to be proven at trial.

27.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover her costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

Second Claim For Relief

ORS 653.055, 653.261, 652.140, & 652.150 – Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

(Against Defendant Galena)

28.

Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-27, inclusive, as though fully 

set forth herein.

29.

From beginning of her employment until her termination, Plaintiff worked in excess of 

forty (40) hours per week.

30.

Plaintiff was not exempt from overtime pursuant to ORS 653.020, OAR 839-020-

0005, or any other provision of law, so Defendant was required under Oregon law to pay 

Plaintiff one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours 

per week, which it failed to do. Plaintiff is entitled to $121,606.02 in unpaid overtime. 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 7 of 15
Page 8 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

31.

Pursuant to ORS 653.055, an employer who pays an employee less than the wages to 

which the employee is entitled is liable to the employee for the full amount of the wages and for 

civil penalties provided in ORS 652.150. Defendant paid Plaintiff less than the wages to which 

she was entitled by failing to pay her for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 

32.

Pursuant to ORS 652.140, when an employer discharges an employee, all wages earned 

an unpaid at the time of the termination become due and payable not later than the end of the 

first business day after the termination. When Plaintiff was discharged she was not paid all 

wages earned and unpaid. 

33.

Pursuant to ORS 652.150, if an employer willfully fails to pay any wages or 

compensation of any employee whose employment ceases, then as a penalty for non-payment the 

wages or compensation shall continue from the due date thereof at the same hourly rate for eight 

hours per day until paid, for up to 30 days. Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff’s wages or 

compensation upon her termination and is therefore entitled to this penalty.

34.

Pursuant to ORS 652.200, Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs, disbursements, and 

reasonable attorney fees. 

Third Claim For Relief

Whistleblower Retaliation – ORS 659A.199

(Against All Defendants)

35.

Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-34, inclusive, as though fully 

set forth herein.

36.

Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her employment 

and terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff opposing and reporting in good faith 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 8 of 15
Page 9 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

information about the misclassification of employees for the purposes of the wage and hours 

laws that Plaintiff believed to be illegal conduct as well as evidence of violations of federal 

and/or state laws, rules, or regulations.

37.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will 

continue to suffer mental stress, emotional distress, humiliation, inconvenience and loss of 

enjoyment of life all to her non-pecuniary loss in an amount to be determined at trial, but not to 

exceed $300,000.

38.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered economic loss 

in a sum to be proven at trial, but not to exceed $400,000. 

39.

Defendant’s conduct was wanton and willful. Defendant should therefore be assessed 

punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

40.

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

reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, costs and disbursements.

41.

Plaintiff also seeks equitable relief, including an injunction - enjoining Defendants from 

engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis as alleged in this 

Complaint.

/ / / 

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 9 of 15
Page 10 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

Fourth Claim For Relief

Wage Discrimination and Retaliation – ORS 652.355/ORS 653.060

(Against Defendant Galena)

42.

Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-41, inclusive, as though fully 

set forth herein.

43.

Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff for making wage claims and/or 

discussing or inquiring about Plaintiff’s wages by taking adverse actions against Plaintiff 

including terminating her employment. Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff 

for reporting/complaining that she had not been paid overtime wages by taking adverse actions 

against Plaintiff including terminating her employment.

44.

Defendant’s discrimination and retaliation constitutes an unlawful employment practice 

in violation of ORS 652.355 and/or ORS 653.060.

45.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will 

continue to suffer mental stress, emotional distress, humiliation, inconvenience and loss of 

enjoyment of life all to her non-pecuniary loss in an amount to be determined at trial, but not to 

exceed $300,000.

46.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered economic loss 

in a sum to be proven at trial, but not to exceed $400,000. 

47.

Defendant’s conduct was wanton and willful. Defendant should therefore be assessed 

punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

48.

Pursuant to ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her reasonable attorneys’ fees, 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 10 of 15
Page 11 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

expert fees, costs and disbursements.

Fifth Claim For Relief

National Origin Discrimination/Harassment - ORS 659A.030(a) and (b)

(Against all Defendants)

49.

Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-48, inclusive, as though fully 

set forth herein.

50.

Defendants treated Plaintiff adversely with respect to compensation or other terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment and by discharging Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s national origin 

was a substantial factor in the adverse treatment.

51.

In perpetrating the actions described in the above paragraphs, Defendants violated ORS 

659A.030(a) and (b) by subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment on the basis of 

Plaintiff’s national origin, causing Plaintiff to suffer damages. 

52.

Plaintiff requests an award of damages, equitable relief, costs, and attorney’s fees as 

alleged in paragraphs 37-41, supra.

Sixth Claim for Relief

Retaliation ORS 659A.030(f)

(Against All Defendants)

53.

Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1--52 inclusive, as though 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 11 of 15
Page 12 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

fully set forth herein.

54.

Defendants treated Plaintiff adversely with respect to compensation or other terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment and by discharging Plaintiff. Defendants and their 

agents/employees subjected Plaintiff to retaliation based on her opposing unlawful practices 

including, but not limited to sexual harassment/discrimination, national origin 

harassment/discrimination, and wage violations. Plaintiff’s opposition of unlawful practices

was a substantial factor in the adverse treatment.

55.

In perpetrating the actions described in the above paragraphs, Defendants violated ORS 

659A.030(f) by subjecting Plaintiff to retaliation, causing Plaintiff to suffer damages. 

56.

Plaintiff requests an award of damages, equitable relief, costs, and attorney’s fees as 

alleged in paragraphs 37-41, supra.

Seventh Claim For Relief

Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

(Against Defendant Galena)

57.

Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-56 inclusive, as though fully 

set forth herein.

58.

At all materials times, the public policy of Oregon prohibited an employer from 

retaliating against an employee for making complaints of discrimination and/or for reporting 

information the employee believed was evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 12 of 15
Page 13 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

regulation.

59.

This public policy is embodied in the common law, statutes, and regulations of the State 

of Oregon and the United States including, but not limited to ORS 659A.030, ORS 659A.199, 

ORS 659A.233, OAR 839-005-0000 et seq., and OAR 839-010-0000 et seq. 

60.

Defendant, acting through its agents and/or employees, violated the above public policies 

by discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff for opposing and/or making good faith 

complaints about unlawful conduct.

61.

Defendant’s discharge of Plaintiff was taken in retaliation for Plaintiff’s pursuit and 

exercise of Plaintiff’s rights, which are of important public interest. 

62.

Plaintiff requests an award of damages, equitable relief, costs, and attorney’s fees as 

alleged in paragraphs 37-41 supra.

Eighth Claim For Relief

Aiding and Abetting Discrimination/Retaliation ORS 659A.030

(Against Defendant Schwartz)

63.

Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-62, inclusive, as though fully 

set forth herein.

64.

Defendant Schwartz violated ORS 659A.030(1)(g) by aiding, abetting, inciting, 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 13 of 15
Page 14 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

compelling and/or coercing discrimination and retaliation of Plaintiff, as set forth above.

65.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered 

damages. 

66.

Plaintiff requests an award of damages, equitable relief, costs, and attorney’s fees as 

alleged in paragraphs 37-41, supra.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all claims and issues to the extent allowed under the law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following judgments and relief according to proof:

1. Economic damages; 

2. Non-economic damages;

3. Compensation in the amount due for Plaintiff’s overtime hours worked;

4. Liquidated damages in an amount equal to twice Plaintiff’s unpaid wages;

5. Penalty wages pursuant to Oregon law;

6. Declaring pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, that the acts and practices complained 

of herein are in violation of the wage provisions of the FLSA.

7. Reasonable costs and attorney’s fees per statute;

8. Equitable relief including a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from engaging in 

any employment practice which discriminates on the bases as alleged in this Complaint;

9. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest as appropriate and allowed by law; 

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 14 of 15
Page 15 - COMPLAINT

[ORCP 69A]

10. On all claims, as applicable, amounts necessary to offset the income tax consequences of 

receiving a lump sum payment, rather than receiving payment of wages over the 

applicable time frame; 

11. Punitive damages; and 

12. All such other relief as this Court may deem proper.

/ / /

Respectfully Submitted,

DATED this 13th day of July, 2015.

/s/Christina Stephenson

Christina Stephenson, OSB #102287

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 3:15-cv-01290-BR Document 1 Filed 07/13/15 Page 15 of 15