Page 1 of 10 - COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Joel Christiansen, OSB #080561

VOGELE & CHRISTIANSEN

812 NW 17th Avenue

Portland, OR 97209

T: (503) 841-6722

E: joel@oremploymentlawyer.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

MAX ZWEIZIG,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY C. ROTE, a citizen of the 

state of Oregon, NORTHWEST DIRECT 

TELESERVICES, INC., an Oregon forprofit corporation, NORTHWEST 

DIRECT MARKETING OF OREGON, 

INC., an Oregon for-profit corporation,

NORTHWEST DIRECT MARKETING, 

INC., an Oregon for-profit corporation,

NORTHWEST DIRECT OF IOWA, 

INC., an Iowa for-profit corporation, 

ROTE ENTERPRISES, LLC, an Oregon 

limited liability company, NORTHWEST 

DIRECT MARKETING, INC., aka 

Northwest Direct Marketing (Delaware), 

Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 

through 5,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-2401

COMPLAINT

Whistleblower Retaliation (ORS 659A.230, 

ORS 659A.199); Retaliation for Opposing 

Unlawful Employment Practices (ORS 

659A.030(1)(f)); Aiding and Abetting

(ORS 659A.030(1)(g))

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JURY DEMAND

1. Plaintiff Max Zweizig ("Plaintiff") demands a trial by jury of all issues 

properly subject to a jury trial.

Case 3:15-cv-02401-HZ Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10 - COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2. This is an action under Oregon’s state unlawful employment practices statutes, 

ORS 659A.230, ORS 659A.199, ORS 659A.030(1)(f), and ORS 659A.030(1)(g).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the 

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, 

and is between citizens of different states.

4. The unlawful employment actions alleged herein were committed in the 

District of Oregon and venue is proper in this district.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Max Zweizig is an individual resident of the State of New Jersey.

6. Defendant Timothy C. Rote ("Rote") is an individual resident of the state of 

Oregon.

7. Defendant Northwest Direct Teleservices, Inc. ("NDT") is a for-profit 

corporation existing under the laws of the State of Oregon with its principal place of business 

in Oregon.

8. Defendant Northwest Direct Marketing of Oregon, Inc. ("NDMO") is a forprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon with its 

principal place of business in Oregon.

9. Defendant Northwest Direct Marketing, Inc. ("NDM") is a for-profit 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon with its principal 

place of business in Oregon. Northwest Direct of Eugene, Inc. ("NDE") is a for-profit 

corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon with its principal place of 

business in Oregon. On or about June 30, 2010, NDE changed its name to and began 

operating as NDM.

10. Defendant Northwest Direct of Iowa, Inc. ("NDI") is a for-profit corporation 

organized under the laws of the State of Iowa with its principal place of business in Oregon.

11. Defendant Rote Enterprises, LLC ("Rote Enterprises") is a limited liability 

Case 3:15-cv-02401-HZ Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10 - COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

company organized under the laws of the State of Oregon with its principal place of business 

in Oregon. In July 1995, Rote filed Articles of Organization with the Oregon Secretary of 

State for Rote Enterprises that describes the company as a holding company. Its members 

include Rote and Rote & Company, P.C.

12. Defendant Northwest Direct Marketing, Inc., aka Northwest Direct Marketing 

(Delaware), Inc. ("NDM Delaware"), is a for-profit corporation organized under the laws of 

the state of Delaware.

13. Upon information and belief, each DOE defendant is an entity with a principal 

place of business in a state other than New Jersey and/or is a citizen of a state other than New 

Jersey.

SUCCESSOR LIABILITY ALLEGATIONS

14. At all times relevant to this complaint, Rote has directly or indirectly owned 

and operated telemarketing businesses including call centers providing inbound and outbound 

telemarketing services to a variety of clients nationwide. During this time, Rote has operated 

two call centers at a time - one in Oregon and one in Iowa. Yet, Rote has created a complex, 

confusing, and ever-changing web of corporate entities to own and operate these call centers. 

Rote is and has at all relevant times been the chief executive, president, and primary owner of 

each of the named corporate entities. 

15. As set forth herein, NDT was Plaintiff's employer. However, NDMO, NDM, 

NDI, Rote Enterprises, and NDM Delaware are liable to Plaintiff as NDT's successors. 

Specifically: (1) the successors knew or reasonably should have known of Plaintiff's 

employment-related claims resulting from Defendants' concerted activities; (2) NDT was and 

may remain unable to provide relief to Plaintiff; (3) there has been a substantial continuity of 

business operations between NDT and its successors; (4) the successors have used the same 

facilities, equipment, and methods of service provision as NDT to conduct their business; (5) 

the successors have used the same work force and have maintained substantially similar 

working conditions as NDT in carrying out their business; and (6) the successors have 

produced the same work product as NDT.

Case 3:15-cv-02401-HZ Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10 - COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMMON FACTS

16. NDT, under one ultimate owner corporation, employed Plaintiff as Director of 

Information Technology. Pursuant to the parties' employment agreement, Plaintiff and NDT 

agreed that Oregon substantive law would apply to all disputes related to Plaintiff's 

employment.

17. During Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff reported to the Oregon Department of 

Justice and the Lane County District Attorney information that Plaintiff reasonably believed 

to be evidence that NDT had engaged in criminal activity (mail and wire fraud with respect to 

client billings).

18. As a direct result of Plaintiff's protected reports, Rote and NDT took adverse 

employment actions against Plaintiff, including terminating Plaintiff's employment, because 

of Plaintiff's protected reports of criminal activity. Rote and NDT also took adverse actions 

against Plaintiff after Plaintiff's employment ended because of Plaintiff's protected reports, 

including publishing statements to third parties and the general public accusing Plaintiff of

destroying data and engaging in other criminal and civil misconduct during his employment 

with Defendants.

19. Plaintiff opposed Rote and NDT's unlawful employment practices by filing a 

complaint and pursuing legal claims for whistleblower retaliation against Rote and NDT. 

After a series procedural motions, the matter was transferred to arbitration in Oregon. Plaintiff 

pursued claims against NDT for: (1) whistleblower retaliation under ORS 659A.230; and (2) 

wrongful termination. NDT pursued claims against Plaintiff for: (1) breach of contract; (2) 

conversion; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) attorneys' fees associated with pre-arbitration 

litigation; and (5) court reporting fees associated with the arbitration proceedings.

20. As part of the parties' litigation, NDT and Plaintiff became subject to 

stipulations and protective orders that restricted the dissemination and publication of certain 

materials associated with the parties dispute. One such order restricted the parties from using 

electronic media produced in the arbitration outside of those proceedings.

21. After several years of protracted litigation, an arbitrator found in Plaintiff's 

Case 3:15-cv-02401-HZ Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 4 of 10
Page 5 of 10 - COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

favor on his whistleblower claims, ruling that "[Plaintiff] was terminated at the time he was 

because of retaliation" and awarded damages to Plaintiff. The arbitrator denied NDT's claims 

against Plaintiff with the exception of ordering Plaintiff to pay his pro rata share of court 

reporting fees associated with the arbitration proceedings.

22. Plaintiff's arbitration award was later reduced to a judgment in the United 

States District Court for the District of Oregon. NDT has failed to satisfy that judgment.

23. In a continuing effort to oppose Defendant's unlawful employment practices

and enforce his employment-related rights, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on March 11, 2014 in the 

United States District Court against NDT, Rote, and related corporate entities. Plaintiff's

operative complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

and engaged in other fraudulent activity to defeat Plaintiff's ability to enforce his 

whistleblower retaliation judgment.

24. In direct response to Plaintiff's protected conduct, on or about February 27, 

2015, Defendants created a website titled Sitting Duck Portland1 ("Sitting Duck Portland 

Website"). Upon information and belief, Defendant Rote is the author of the Sitting Duck 

Portland Website. The Sitting Duck Portland Website is fully accessible to the general public.

25. According to the Sitting Duck Portland Website, the website tells a "story [...] 

about an arbitration involving one of [Rote's] companies and a former IT manager by the 

name of Max Zweizig." The Sitting Duck Portland Website purports to monetize the 

experience of its employment-related arbitration with Plaintiff on behalf of Defendants' 

family of corporate entities, which includes all corporate entities named in this lawsuit.

26. Defendants have used the Sitting Duck Portland Website as tool to 

discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected conduct. 

Specifically, the Sitting Duck Portland Website:

(a) Prominently identifies Plaintiff, Plaintiff's fiancé, and Plaintiff's counsel by 

name;

 1 https://sittingduckportland.wordpress.com

Case 3:15-cv-02401-HZ Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 5 of 10
Page 6 of 10 - COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

(b) Disparages Plaintiff in his profession in a personally identifiable manner;

(c) Asserts that Plaintiff's arbitration victory was the result of “bias, of cronyism, 

perhaps of bribery, of corruption, of fraud.”

(d) Accuses Plaintiff, Plaintiff's fiancé, and Plaintiff's counsel of engaging in 

widespread criminal conduct and other unlawful conduct;

(e) Publishes photographs suggesting that Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's fiancé, and 

Plaintiff's counsel are criminals;

(f) Publishes and threatens to continue publishing sensitive and disparaging 

documents subject to protective stipulations and orders;

(g) Accuses Plaintiff of viewing homosexual pornography, specifically drawing

Plaintiff's (heterosexual) fiancé's attention to such allegations;

27. As a result of Defendants' efforts to optimize their discriminatory and 

retaliatory publications for internet search engines, content from the Sitting Duck Portland 

Website, including images Defendants have intentionally associated with Plaintiff's name, 

now appear prominently in search results for Plaintiff, Plaintiff's fiancé, and Plaintiff's 

counsel's names. The content from the Sitting Duck Portland Website that appears in search 

engine results prominently suggests that Plaintiff is a criminal, a frivolous litigant, and unfit 

to work as an information technology professional.

28. The content of the Sitting Duck Portland Website outlined in paragraph 27 

constitutes a series of ongoing adverse employment actions against Plaintiff targeted at 

Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff's participation in protected conduct as set forth herein. 

Defendants' conduct would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge 

of discrimination.

29. As a result of Defendants' publications outlined in paragraph 27, Plaintiff has 

suffered damages in the form of damage to reputation, loss of enjoyment of life, 

inconvenience, frustration, fear, dread, stress, helplessness, hopelessness, humiliation, and 

anxiety.

30. Plaintiff seeks an assessment of punitive damages against Defendants because 

Case 3:15-cv-02401-HZ Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 6 of 10
Page 7 of 10 - COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants have acted with malice and have shown a reckless and outrageous indifference to 

a highly unreasonable risk of harm and have acted with a conscious indifference to the health 

and welfare of others.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Whistleblower Discrimination and Retaliation) 

Against NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware

Count 1 - ORS 659A.230

31. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-30 by reference.

32. Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct by reporting in good faith NDT's

information and by, in good faith: (1) filing a complaint against NDT; (2) cooperating with 

law enforcement agencies responsible for conducting a criminal investigation; (3) bringing a 

civil proceeding against an employer; and (4) testifying in good faith at a civil proceeding.

33. NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware

discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting Plaintiff to adverse employment 

actions because of Plaintiff's protected conduct set forth in the preceding paragraph.

34. Plaintiff suffered damages as set forth in paragraph 29 as a direct and 

proximate result of the unlawful employment practices of NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote 

Enterprises and NDM Delaware.

35. Plaintiff seeks an assessment of punitive damages against NDT, NDMO, 

NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware as set forth in paragraph 30.

36. Plaintiff seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief and any other 

equitable relief that may be appropriate, including but not limited to an order restraining 

NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware from further discrimination 

and retaliation against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected conduct.

37. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and expert witness fees pursuant to 

ORS 659A.885 and ORS 20.107. Plaintiff also seeks an award of statutory interest and 

reasonable costs incurred in pursuing this matter.

Case 3:15-cv-02401-HZ Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 7 of 10
Page 8 of 10 - COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Count 2 - ORS 659A.199

38. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-30 by reference.

39. Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct by reporting in good faith information 

that Plaintiff believed was evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.

40. NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware

discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting Plaintiff to adverse employment 

actions because of Plaintiff's protected reports set forth in the preceding paragraph.

41. Plaintiff suffered damages as set forth in paragraph 29 as a direct and 

proximate result of the unlawful employment practices of NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote 

Enterprises and NDM Delaware.

42. Plaintiff seeks an assessment of punitive damages against NDT, NDMO, 

NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware as set forth in paragraph 30.

43. Plaintiff seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief and any other 

equitable relief that may be appropriate, including but not limited to an order restraining 

NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware from further discrimination 

and retaliation against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected conduct.

44. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and expert witness fees pursuant to 

ORS 659A.885 and ORS 20.107. Plaintiff also seeks an award of statutory interest and 

reasonable costs incurred in pursuing this matter.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Retaliation for Opposing Unlawful Conduct - ORS 659A.030(1)(f))

Against All Defendants

45. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-30 by reference.

46. Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct by reporting in good faith NDT's

information and by, in good faith: (1) opposing Defendants' unlawful practices; (2) filing a 

complaint against Defendants; (3) testifying and assisting in a proceeding under ORS Chapter 

659A; and (4) attempting to testify and assist in a proceeding under ORS Chapter 659A.

47. NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware

Case 3:15-cv-02401-HZ Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 8 of 10
Page 9 of 10 - COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting Plaintiff to adverse employment 

actions because of Plaintiff's protected conduct set forth in the preceding paragraph.

48. Plaintiff suffered damages as set forth in paragraph 29 as a direct and 

proximate result of the unlawful employment practices of NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote 

Enterprises and NDM Delaware.

49. Plaintiff seeks an assessment of punitive damages against Defendants NDT, 

NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware as set forth in paragraph 30.

50. Plaintiff seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief and any other 

equitable relief that may be appropriate, including but not limited to an order restraining 

NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware from further discrimination 

and retaliation against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected conduct.

51. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and expert witness fees pursuant to 

ORS 659A.885 and ORS 20.107. Plaintiff also seeks an award of statutory interest and 

reasonable costs incurred in pursuing this matter.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Aiding & Abetting - ORS 659A.030(1)(g))

Against Rote

52. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-30 by reference.

53. Rote has aided, abetted, incited, compelled and coerced by directly subjecting 

and causing NDT, NDMO, NDM, NDI, Rote Enterprises and NDM Delaware to subject 

Plaintiff to harm and adverse employment actions because of Plaintiff's protected 

employment activities.

54. Plaintiff suffered damages as set forth in paragraph 29 as a direct and 

proximate result of Rote's conduct.

55. Plaintiff seeks an assessment of punitive damages against Rote as set forth in 

paragraph 30.

56. Plaintiff seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief and any other 

equitable relief that may be appropriate, including but not limited to an order restraining Rote 

Case 3:15-cv-02401-HZ Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10 - COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

from further discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected 

conduct.

57. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and expert witness fees pursuant to 

ORS 659A.885 and ORS 20.107. Plaintiff also seeks an award of statutory interest and 

reasonable costs incurred in pursuing this matter.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

a. Compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000.00;

b. Punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00;

c. Temporary and permanent injunctive relief and any other equitable relief that 

may be appropriate, including but not limited to an order restraining 

Defendants from further discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff 

because of Plaintiff's protected conduct;

d. Attorneys' fees and expert witness fees pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and ORS 

20.107;

e. Statutory interest and reasonable costs incurred in pursuing this matter;

f. Any other relief appropriate under the circumstances.

Dated: December 24, 2015

/s/ Joel Christiansen

Joel Christiansen, OSB #080561

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 3:15-cv-02401-HZ Document 1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 10 of 10