COMPLAINT - 1

HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP

308 SW First Ave., Suite 325

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 389-1130

D. Kalish, OSBA No. 111529

HKM Employment Attorneys LLP

308 SW First Ave., Suite 325

Portland, OR 97204

PHONE: (503) 389-1130

EMAIL: dkalish@hkm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Everdith Wilburn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EVERDITH WILBURN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TUALITY HEALTHCARE, an Oregon 

Corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.

COMPLAINT

Unlawful Employment Practices under 

Oregon Law (ORS 659A.030 and ORS 

659A.199), Federal Law (29 U.S.C. § 623 

and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), and Wrongful 

Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, EVERDITH WILBURN (“Wilburn” or the “Plaintiff”), hereby files her 

Complaint against Defendant, TUALITY HEALTHCARE (“Tuality” or the “Defendant”

or “the Company”), and alleges as follows:

II. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Washington County, Oregon. 

2. Defendant is an Oregon corporation that transacts business in Washington 

County and throughout Oregon, and has its principal place of business in Oregon.

Case 3:16-cv-00377-SB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 8
COMPLAINT - 2

HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP

308 SW First Ave., Suite 325

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 389-1130

3. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff during her employment on the 

basis of her age and sex, retaliated against Plaintiff for whistleblowing, and ultimately 

wrongfully terminated her employment. Defendant’s illegal actions caused Plaintiff 

severe emotional distress.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to subject matter 

federal court jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has jurisdiction over the state law 

claims pursuant to supplemental/pendent jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of 

the events or omissions giving rise to this class action occurred in Oregon.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. At all material times, Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer. Defendant’s

employees and/or agents supervised Plaintiff, and she relied on the actual and/or apparent 

authority of Tuality’s employees, supervisors, and management.

7. Plaintiff, currently fifty-five years old, was hired by Tuality on October 20, 

2000. Prior to joining the Company, she had a successful career at Eastman Kodak, 

Strong Memorial Hospital, Hillsboro Medical Clinic, and Oregon Health Sciences 

University. 

8. Apparently recognizing her skills, Tuality recruited her, and ultimately 

hired her, from the Oregon Health and Science University, with the goal that Plaintiff

would open an OB/GYN clinic. Her title was Medical Office Services Coordinator – RN 

Administrator. 

Case 3:16-cv-00377-SB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 8
COMPLAINT - 3

HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP

308 SW First Ave., Suite 325

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 389-1130

9. Plaintiff’s performance at Tuality was superlative. For the past decade, 

Plaintiff continued to grow Tuality, helping it expand from a small clinic to a company 

with over seventy-five employees and nine locations. Plaintiff assisted in opening and 

managing several clinics in multiple different fields, including OB/GYN, Family Practice, 

Urgent Care Clinic, Internal Medicine in three locations, Bariatrics, General Surgery, 

Endocrinology, Orthopedics/ Sports Medicine, Pediatrics, Pulmonology, Physiatry, 

Neurosurgery, and Psychology. 

10. Plaintiff was available to work twenty-four hours a day, seven days a 

week, and she assisted doctors in making the transition to private practice and 

implementing new electronic health records programs. She continued to assist on various 

treatment models (e.g., “Lean” programs for the treatment of headaches) and was the lead 

in the acquisition of a three-practice merger. She managed a team of assistants and saw 

that all the clinics ran smoothly and successfully. 

11. Despite her incredible success, her employment, starting in 2013, was 

marred by age and sex discrimination against her. In 2013, Tuality hired Ms. Jane 

Gratteri (“Gratteri”), a much younger and less-qualified woman, to replace and take over 

Plaintiff’s role and position at Tuality. 

12. When Gratteri arrived at Tuality, she had two to three years of experience, 

whereas Plaintiff had thirty-five. In 2013, Gratteri had roughly two years of experience in 

running clinics; Plaintiff had over thirty years’ experience. While Gratteri wore stilettoes, 

bold makeup, short tight skirts, and tight tops, Plaintiff dressed more conservatively. 

Case 3:16-cv-00377-SB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 8
COMPLAINT - 4

HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP

308 SW First Ave., Suite 325

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 389-1130

13. Despite the marked differences in skills and experience (and appropriate 

attire), Gratteri continued to receive promotions and additional duties that once belonged 

to Plaintiff. Gratteri was also allowed certain privileges — such as hiring new staff and 

transferring other staff —that were never granted to Plaintiff. 

14. Not surprisingly, given her lack of experience, Gratteri had problems with 

her job duties. The clinics that she oversaw had difficulty complying with regulatory 

requirements, and the staff at these clinics complained that Gratteri provided little 

feedback, direction, or leadership. These clinics also consistently ran afoul of HIPPA 

policies by allowing Gratteri and others to access personal information for family and 

other individuals. 

15. Plaintiff voiced her concerns about how Tuality was being run. It wasn’t 

long before Tuality fired Plaintiff, in early April 2015.

16. Plaintiff worked hard for Tuality, accomplished many good things on the 

Company’s behalf, and often helped doctors pass hospital and clinical inspections. She 

managed hundreds of doctors and even more staff members during her career at Tuality, 

and she had an exemplary employee file and reviews. She was the most knowledgeable 

person in her position and the only manager with a clinical degree in the network of 

clinics. Despite this sterling record, she was terminated while employees such as 

Gratteri, Shari Murrell, and Perla Andrade — whose credentials and track records were 

far less impressive — kept their jobs. 

17. It is clear that Tuality’s decision was motivated by something other than 

competence and diligence, namely discrimination and retaliation. This is further

Case 3:16-cv-00377-SB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 8
COMPLAINT - 5

HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP

308 SW First Ave., Suite 325

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 389-1130

evidenced by the inappropriate comments by personnel at Tuality. At one meeting, when 

Plaintiff mentioned her age Dr. Stuart Currie responded, “Well, that’s unfortunate for 

you.” On another occasion, Dr. Currie sent an email to Plaintiff regarding a provider and 

said, “She’s older, you need to keep your eye on her.” Further, on information and belief, 

other older employees also have been pushed out of Tuality, apparently for their age or 

their refusal to wear short skirts and heels.

18. Plaintiff was terminated as result of her age and her gender. By the 

time Plaintiff was dismissed, she had been under tremendous stress and felt humiliated, 

disrespected, and discriminated against. Her wrongful termination from employment has 

since caused signficant harm to Plaintiff’s physical and emotional health.

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(ORS 659A.885, ORS 659A.030, and 29 USC § 623)

(Age Discrimination)

19. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges the allegations set forth in the above 

paragraphs.

20. Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s age.

21. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s discriminatory 

conduct, Plaintiff has suffered economic loss in the form of back pay, front pay, lost 

benefits, and out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus statutory 

interest.

22. As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory conduct of 

Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and 

Case 3:16-cv-00377-SB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 8
COMPLAINT - 6

HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP

308 SW First Ave., Suite 325

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 389-1130

mental distress, degradation, embarrassment, and humiliation.

23. Defendant’s conduct was malicious and/or wanton and/or willful and/or 

intentional and/or reckless, and Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

24. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(ORS 659A.885, ORS 659A.030, and 42 USC § 2000e-2)

(Sex Discrimination)

25. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges the allegations set forth in the above 

paragraphs.

26. Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s sex.

27. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s discriminatory 

conduct, Plaintiff has suffered economic loss in the form of back pay, front pay, lost 

benefits, and out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus statutory 

interest.

28. Defendant’s conduct was malicious and/or wanton and/or willful and/or 

intentional and/or reckless, and Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

29. As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory conduct of 

Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and 

mental distress, degradation, embarrassment, and humiliation, for which Plaintiff seeks 

compensation.

30. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Case 3:16-cv-00377-SB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 6 of 8
COMPLAINT - 7

HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP

308 SW First Ave., Suite 325

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 389-1130

D. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)

31. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges the allegations set forth in the above 

paragraphs.

32. Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff was substantially motivated by 

the fact that Plaintiff complained about Defendant’s failure to comply with applicable 

laws, rules, and regulations.

33. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred, and 

continues to incur, lost income and non-economic damages in an amount to be proven at 

trial. 

34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

and continues to suffer economic damages and humiliation, and other emotional distress 

in an amount to be proven at trial.

35. Defendant’s conduct was malicious and/or wanton and/or willful and/or 

intentional and/or reckless, and Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant and prays for: 

A. Compensatory and emotional distress damages;

B. Statutory penalties as permitted by law;

C. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs of this action as permitted by law;

D. Statutory prejudgment interest; 

E. Punitive damages; and

Case 3:16-cv-00377-SB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 7 of 8
COMPLAINT - 8

HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP

308 SW First Ave., Suite 325

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 389-1130

F. Such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

Dated this 29th day of February, 2016.

HKM Employment Attorneys LLP

/s/ Dan Kalish

D. Kalish, OSBA No. 111529

308 SW First Ave., Suite 325

Portland, OR 97204

PHONE: (503) 389-1130

EMAIL: dkalish@hkm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Everdith Wilburn

Case 3:16-cv-00377-SB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 8 of 8