First Amended Complaint Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

BRANDYN MCPHERSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

§

§

§

v.

§

§

§

Case No. 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ

Jury 

HATHWAY, INC., and BOUNTEOUS 

INC., 

 Defendants.

§

§

§ 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1

Plaintiff Brandyn McPherson (“McPherson”) brings this action against his former 

employers, Defendant Hathway, Inc. and Defendant Bounteous, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), 

for discharging him. In support, McPherson shows the following. 

This is an Employment Discrimination Case

1. On June 17, 2022, Defendants informed McPherson they were terminating his 

employment, and that McPherson’s last day of employment would be June 24, 2022, which it was.

2. Defendants’ discharge decision constitutes an unlawful employment practice that 

violates two statutes – the Civil Rights Act of 1866, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”), 

and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) (“ADEA”).

Parties

3. Plaintiff Brandyn McPherson is an individual. He resides in Collin County, Texas. 

He has resided in Collin County, Texas without interruption from July 2019 to the present day. 

1 Leave of court to file this amended pleading is not necessary because of FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1)(A)

(allowing a “party ... [to] amend [his] pleading once as a matter of course within ... 21 days after serving 

it”).

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 21
First Amended Complaint Page 2

4. Defendant Hathway, Inc. is a company, formed in Delaware, that does business in 

Texas.

A. According to the Texas Secretary of State on June 2, 2023, McPherson is 

the registered agent for this Defendant. See Ex. A at p. 1. Given this odd circumstance, McPherson 

is serving this Defendant via the method described in subpart “B” infra. 

B. According to FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e)(1), service may be accomplished by 

following Texas state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general 

jurisdiction of the State of Texas. 

(i) According to Texas state law, the Texas Secretary of State is “an 

agent for service of process or complaint on a nonresident who (1) is required by statute to

designate or maintain a resident agent or engages in business in this state, but has not designated

or maintained a resident agent for service of process[.]” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 

17.044(a). Also, according to Texas state law, the Texas Secretary of State is “an agent for service 

of process on a nonresident who engages in business in this state, but does not maintain a regular 

place of business in this state or a designated agent for service of process, in any proceeding that 

arises out of the business done in this state and to which the nonresident is a party.” Id. at (b).

(ii) Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.045(a), McPherson 

serves the Texas Secretary of State with duplicate copies of process. The full name and address of 

the home office of this Defendant is Hathway, Inc., 81 Higuera Street, Suite 220, San Luis Obispo, 

California 93401. See Ex. A at p. 1. Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.045(b), the

individual in charge of this Defendant’s business or, alternatively, a corporate officer of this 

Defendant, is Mr. Alexander A. Maherina. This individual is this Defendant’s Executive Vice 

President, Managing Director, Dining and C-Store.

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 22
First Amended Complaint Page 3

C. Defendant Hathway, Inc. issued, or caused to be issued, a “Form W-2 Wage 

and Tax Statement” for Year 2021 in which it identified McPherson’s “[e]mployer’s name” as

“Hathway, Inc.”

D. Defendant Hathway, Inc. issued, or caused to be issued, a “Form W-2 Wage 

and Tax Statement” for Year 2022 in which it identified McPherson’s “[e]mployer’s name” as

“Hathway, Inc.”

5. Defendant Bounteous, Inc. is a company, formed in Delaware, that does business 

in Texas. According to the Texas Secretary of State on June 2, 2023, this Defendant may be served 

with process by serving its registered agent, CT Corporation System, at 1999 Bryan Street, 

Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136, or wherever else it may be found.

6. Though superficially distinct, Defendant Hathway, Inc. and Defendant Bounteous, 

Inc. constitute a “single integrated enterprise” given their interrelation of operations, centralized 

control of labor relations, common management, and common ownership or financial control.

Pleading in the alternative, Defendant Hathway, Inc. and Defendant Bounteous, Inc. constitute 

“joint employers” for purposes of the “hybrid economic realities/common law control test.”

Accordingly, Defendant Hathway, Inc. and Defendant Bounteous, Inc. shall be collectively 

referred to as “Defendants.”

Jurisdiction

7. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action because

McPherson’s claims present federal questions. See 28 U.S.C. §1331; see also 28 U.S.C. §

1343(a)(4) (“civil rights”). 

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction, specific and general, over Defendant 

Hathway, Inc. because it does business in Texas, McPherson’s claims arose in Texas, and

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 23
First Amended Complaint Page 4

Defendant Hathway, Inc. is amenable to service by this Court. 

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction, specific and general, over Defendant 

Bounteous, Inc. because it does business in Texas, McPherson’s claims arose in Texas, and

Defendant Bounteous, Inc. is amenable to service by this Court. 

Venue

10. Venue is proper in this judicial district and division because a substantial part of 

the events or omissions giving rise to McPherson’s claims occurred here. See 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b)(2). 

Material Facts

11. On page two of correspondence, dated February 9, 2023, to the U.S. Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Defendant Hathway, Inc., by and through its 

counsel, wrote that it “was founded in 2009 and is a digital growth partner specializing in content, 

commerce, and loyalty solutions for restaurant, retail and convenience stores using data-driven 

strategies, disruptive digital experiences, and modern marketing devices.” 

12. Defendant Hathway, Inc. hired McPherson on July 13, 2015. McPherson’s job title

was “Controller.” McPherson resigned from Defendant Hathway, Inc. in January 2017. Defendant 

Hathway, Inc. rehired McPherson on November 1, 2018. McPherson’s job title was “Controller.”

13. In a document titled “2021 Annual Performance Review Cycle,” Defendant 

Hathway, Inc., by and through Ms. Maria Kahle, its “VP, Finance,” assigned to McPherson the 

following “overall 2021 Performance Rating that is inclusive of job function and Core Values” --

“[e]xceeds expectations.” 

14. According to Defendant Hathway, Inc.’s records, McPherson’s date of birth is in 

1973. 

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 24
First Amended Complaint Page 5

15. Based on McPherson’s date of birth as set forth in Defendant Hathway, Inc.’s 

records, McPherson was forty-eight years of age on November 11, 2021.

16. According to Defendant Hathway’s, Inc.’s records, McPherson’s race is white.

17. On November 11, 2021, Defendant Hathway, Inc. employed approximately 200 

employees. 

18. Defendant Hathway, Inc. was acquired by Defendant Bounteous, Inc. on November 

11, 2021.

19. On November 11, 2021, Defendant Bounteous, Inc. employed approximately 1,700 

employees.

A. One of those employees was Mr. Mark Perez. On page two of 

correspondence, dated March 10, 2023, to the EEOC, Defendant Bounteous, Inc., by and through 

its counsel, wrote – “At the time of Hathway’s acquisition by Bounteous (and throughout the 

duration of his [i.e., McPherson] remaining employment by Hathway), Mr. McPherson’s title of 

and primary duties as Controller were already held and performed by a Bounteous incumbent, 

Mark Perez ... (age 41)).” 

20. On page two of correspondence, dated March 10, 2023, to the EEOC, Defendant 

Bounteous, Inc., by and through its counsel, wrote – “Following the acquisition of Hathway by 

Bounteous, Mr. McPherson remained employed by Hathway. Hathway continued to issue Mr. 

McPherson’s paychecks, sponsor the benefit plans in which Mr. McPherson participated, and 

provide additional benefits such as paid time off (which Mr. McPherson earned and accrued 

according to Hathway rather than Bounteous policy).”

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 25
First Amended Complaint Page 6

21. Despite the acquisition referenced in Paragraph 18 supra, Defendant Hathway, Inc. 

and Defendant Bounteous, Inc. remained separate companies. Each had separate payrolls. Each 

had separate financials. 

22. Sometime in February 2022, Defendant Bounteous, Inc. held what it called a “town 

hall” meeting. 

A. This meeting was recorded. 

B. This meeting was held via Zoom®.

C. The CEO of Defendant Bounteous, Inc., Mr. Keith Schwartz, spoke during 

this meeting. 

(i) Among other things, Schwartz welcomed employees from 

Defendant Hathway, Inc. “to the family.” 

(ii) Among other things, Schwartz told attendees that Defendant 

Bounteous, Inc. had not laid off anyone from any of its acquisitions.

23. Kahle, an employee of Defendant Hathway, Inc., resigned in February 2022.

According to Defendant Hathway’s records, Kahle was forty-one years of age at the time.

24. Following Kahle’sresignation, the budgeting duties previously performed by Kahle

were assigned to a certain Mr. Mitch Bloomfield. 

A. According to Defendant Bounteous, Inc.’s records, Bloomfield was an 

employee of Defendant Bounteous, Inc.

B. According to Defendant Bounteous, Inc.’s records, Bloomfield was less 

than forty years old at that time. 

C. According to Defendant Bounteous, Inc.’s records, Bloomfield’s date of 

birth comes at least eight years after Kahle’s date of birth (as contained in Defendant Bounteous, 

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 26
First Amended Complaint Page 7

Inc.’s records).

25. At some point in early 2022, Defendants decided to integrate the accounting 

systems of Defendant Hathway, Inc. into the accounting systems of Defendant Bounteous, Inc.

A. At that time, Defendants had separate financials, separate payrolls, separate 

benefits, and different accounting practices for different streams of business. 

B. The people leading this project were Messrs. Michael Kushner, a New 

Mountain Capital Contractor, and Mr. Niko Soforo, an employee from Defendant Bounteous, Inc.

C. The original deadline for Defendant Hathway, Inc. staff and financials to be 

running on all Defendant Bounteous systems was April 1, 2022.

26. In March 2022, Mr. Haroon Shakoor became Chief Accounting Officer (“CAO”) 

of Defendants. In that capacity, Shakoor led the task referenced in Paragraph 25 supra. 

A. The previous CAO at Defendant Bounteous, Inc., Mr. Timothy Mihok, left 

in February 2022.

27. To do the task referenced in Paragraph 25 supra, people from Defendant Hathway, 

Inc., including McPherson, needed training to learn how the accounting systems of Defendant 

Bounteous, Inc. worked. 

28. Starting from Shakoor’s arrival in March 2022, and continuing through May 23, 

2022, McPherson asked Shakoor for training for himself and the people who reported to him.

A. McPherson did this more than once. 

B. McPherson did this more than twice. 

C. McPherson did this more than three times. 

29. Defendant Bounteous, Inc., by and through Shakoor, chose not to provide any 

training, both for McPherson and the people who reported to him, concerning the accounting 

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 27
First Amended Complaint Page 8

systems of Defendant Bounteous, Inc.

30. Defendants did not meet the deadline referenced in Paragraph 25.C.

31. On or about May 24, 2022, McPherson tendered an outline of his requests for 

training to Kushner.

32. On June 17, 2022, McPherson was over forty years of age. 

33. On June 17, 2022, McPherson suffered from no disability that rendered him unfit 

for the position of Controller.

34. On June 17, 2022, McPherson suffered from no loss of any necessary professional 

license that rendered him unfit for the position of Controller. 

35. On June 17, 2022, McPherson suffered from no occurrence that rendered him unfit 

for the position for the position of Controller. 

36. On June 17, 2022, Shakoor met with McPherson. 

37. On June 17, 2022, Shakoor met with McPherson, at which time Shakoor informed 

McPherson that his, i.e., McPherson’s, employment will terminate effective June 24, 2022. 

A. On page three of correspondence, dated March 10, 2023, to the EEOC,

Defendant Bounteous, Inc., by and through its counsel, wrote – “The decision to terminate Mr. 

McPherson’s employment was made by Mr. Shakoor (age 41) and Jeffrey Wink ... Chief Financial 

Officer of Bounteous and Hathway (age 40).” 

(i) Defendant Bounteous, Inc. employed more than one Chief Financial 

Officer (“CFO”) at this time. Its other CFO was Mr. Karthik Raghuram.

B. On page three of correspondence, dated March 10, 2023, to the EEOC,

Defendant Bounteous, Inc., by and through its counsel, wrote – “Messrs. Shakoor and Wink 

decided to terminate Mr. McPherson’s employment because Mr. McPherson’s duties were already 

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 28
First Amended Complaint Page 9

being performed by Bounteous incumbents.”

C. On page three of correspondence, dated March 10, 2023, to the EEOC,

Defendant Bounteous, Inc., by and through its counsel, wrote – “During this meeting, Mr. Shakoor 

told Mr. McPherson that his role was being eliminated due to the fact that Bounteous already 

employed its own Controller, making his position redundant.” 

38. As of June 24, 2022, Defendants still had not fully completed the task referenced 

in Paragraph 25 supra. 

39. After June 24, 2022, McPherson discovered that Defendant Bounteous, Inc., by and 

through Shakoor, was using offshore workers for the tasks he had previously been doing. These 

offshore workers were substantially younger in age than McPherson. These offshore workers 

were also a different ethnicity than McPherson as they were Indian or Pakistani.

40. Shortly after June 24, 2022, McPherson applied to the Texas Workforce 

Commission (“TWC”) for unemployment benefits. In processing this application, TWC identified 

Defendant Hathway, Inc. as McPherson’s employer. 

41. On December 7, 2022, McPherson signed and dated a Form 5 from EEOC, titled 

“Charge of Discrimination” (“Charge”), in which he named Defendant Hathway, Inc. as 

Respondent. McPherson then had the Charge transmitted to EEOC. Upon receipt, EEOC stamped 

the Charge as follows – “EEOC rec’d 12/08/2022.” Upon receipt, EEOC also assigned the 

following number to the Charge: 450-2023-01776. On April 18, 2023, EEOC issued a document, 

titled, in part, Notice of Right to Sue.” McPherson has filed this action against Defendant Hathway, 

Inc. fewer than ninety days from April 18, 2023.

42. On December 7, 2022, McPherson signed and dated a Charge from EEOC in which 

he named Defendant Bounteous, Inc. as Respondent. McPherson then had the Charge transmitted 

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 29
First Amended Complaint Page 10

to EEOC. Upon receipt, EEOC stamped the Charge as follows – “EEOC rec’d 12/08/2022.” Upon 

receipt, EEOC also assigned the following number to the Charge: 450-2023-01771. On April 26, 

2023, EEOC issued a document, titled, in part, Notice of Right to Sue.” McPherson has filed this 

action against Defendant Bounteous, Inc. fewer than ninety days from April 26, 2023.

43. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, including the foregoing, McPherson has 

sustained financial losses and mental anguish. He is continuing to sustain such losses.

COUNT ONE:

Violation of ADEA; Discrimination/Discharge

44. McPherson re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 11 through 43.

45. McPherson brings this claim against both Defendants. 

46. McPherson was an “employee” of Defendants, as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. 

§ 630(f), at all times from November 11, 2021 through the close of business on June 24, 2022. 

47. Defendants were McPherson’s “employer,” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. §

630(b), at all times from November 11, 2021 through the close of business on June 24, 2022. 

48. The ADEA states that “[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer ... to discharge any

individual ... because of such individual’s age[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Defendants violated this 

statute when they discharged McPherson. 

49. The Material Facts portion of this pleading establishes a prima facie violation of

the ADEA. First, McPherson was a member of a protected class. Second, McPherson was 

“qualified” for prima facie purposes. Third, McPherson suffered a cognizable adverse employment 

action. Fourth, Defendants replaced McPherson with someone younger, or alternatively, 

Defendants treated McPherson less favorably than other similarly situated younger workers. 

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 30
First Amended Complaint Page 11

50. All prerequisites to the filing of this ADEA claim have been fulfilled. 

51. McPherson seeks all relief available to him under the ADEA. Thus, McPherson is 

entitled to an award of back pay, interest on back pay, reinstatement or in the alternative front pay, 

the value of lost employment benefits, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief that is 

within the scope of 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). Also, and because Defendants’ violation of the ADEA was 

willful, McPherson is entitled to an award of liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). McPherson 

is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). 

COUNT TWO:

Violation of Section 1981; Discrimination/Discharge

52. McPherson re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 11 through 43. 

53. McPherson brings this claim against both Defendants. 

54. Section 1981 states, “All persons ... shall have the same right ... to make and 

enforce contracts[.]” Id. at (a) (bold font and underline added). Defendants violated this statute 

when they discharged McPherson. 

55. The Material Facts portion of this pleading establishes a prima facie violation of

Section 1981. First, McPherson was a member of a protected class. Second, McPherson was 

“qualified” for prima facie purposes. Third, McPherson suffered a cognizable adverse employment 

action. Fourth, Defendants replaced McPherson with someone of a different race or ethnicity, or 

alternatively, Defendants treated McPherson less favorably than other similarly situated workers 

of a different race or ethnicity.

56. McPherson seeks all relief available to him under Section 1981. This includes but 

is not limited to the following categories: (a) all wages and employment benefits, starting on the 

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 31
First Amended Complaint Page 12

effective date of McPherson’s discharge, and ending on the date when a jury renders a verdict 

(“back pay”); (ii) reinstatement, or, if that is found to be inappropriate, then a sum of money that 

is equal to all wages and benefits, starting from the date when a jury renders a verdict, and ending 

on the date when it is determined that McPherson will be made whole (“front pay”); (iii) 

compensatory damages, past and future, for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, 

inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses; (iv) 

punitive damages, given the fact that Defendants engaged in such discriminatory practices with 

malice or reckless indifference to McPherson’s federally-protected rights. This also includes all 

equitable relief, all interest allowed by law, e.g., pre-judgment and post-judgment, a reasonable 

attorney's fee to the undersigned counsel as part of the costs, reimbursement of expert fees as part 

of the undersigned counsel’s attorney's fee, and all other costs allowed by law.

Jury Demand

57. McPherson demands a jury on all issues so triable. See FED. R. CIV. P. 38(a).

Request for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Brandyn McPherson asks that Defendant Hathway, Inc. and 

Defendant Bounteous, Inc. appear and answer, and that on trial of this action McPherson have final 

judgment, joint and several, against Defendants as set forth hereinabove, and for all such other and 

further relief to which McPherson is justly entitled.

Dated: June 13, 2023.

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Wade A. Forsman

By: __________________________________

Wade A. Forsman

State Bar No. 07264257

P.O. Box 918

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 32
First Amended Complaint Page 13

Sulphur Springs, TX 75483-0918

903.689.4144 Telephone-East Texas

972.499.4004 Telephone–Dallas/Fort Worth

903.689.7001 Facsimile

wade@forsmanlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Brandyn McPherson

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 33
Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 34
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS INQUIRY - VIEW ENTITY

Filing Number: 804087726 Entity Type: Foreign For-Profit Corporation

Original Date of Filing: May 24, 2021 Entity Status: In existence

Formation Date: N/A

Tax ID: 32077430182 FEIN: 464483307

Name: HATHWAY, INC.

Address: 81 Higuera St. #220

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA

Fictitious Name: N/A

Jurisdiction: DE, USA

Foreign Formation 

Date:

December 30, 2013

REGISTERED 

AGENT

FILING 

HISTORY NAMES MANAGEMENT

ASSUMED 

NAMES

ASSOCIATED 

ENTITIES INITIAL ADDRESS

Name Address Inactive Date

Brandyn McPherson 17800 Krause Springs Dr.

Mckinney, TX 75071 USA

Order Return to Search

BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS INQUIRY - VIEW ENTITY

Filing Number: 804087726 Entity Type: Foreign For-Profit Corporation

Original Date of Filing: May 24, 2021 Entity Status: In existence

Formation Date: N/A

Tax ID: 32077430182 FEIN: 464483307

Name: HATHWAY, INC.

Address: 81 Higuera St. #220

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA

Fictitious Name: N/A

Jurisdiction: DE, USA

Foreign Formation 

Date:

December 30, 2013

REGISTERED 

AGENT

FILING 

HISTORY NAMES MANAGEMENT

ASSUMED 

NAMES

ASSOCIATED 

ENTITIES INITIAL ADDRESS

View 

Image

Document 

Number Filing Type Filing Date Effective Date

Eff. 

Cond

Page 

Count

1053722910002 Application for Registration May 24, 2021 May 24, 2021 No 4

1138408210001 Public Information Report (PIR) December 31, 2021 April 10, 2022 No 1

Order Return to Search

BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS INQUIRY - VIEW ENTITY

Filing Number: 804087726 Entity Type: Foreign For-Profit Corporation

Original Date of Filing: May 24, 2021 Entity Status: In existence

Formation Date: N/A

Tax ID: 32077430182 FEIN: 464483307

Name: HATHWAY, INC.

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 35
Address: 81 Higuera St. #220

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA

Fictitious Name: N/A

Jurisdiction: DE, USA

Foreign Formation 

Date:

December 30, 2013

REGISTERED 

AGENT

FILING 

HISTORY NAMES MANAGEMENT

ASSUMED 

NAMES

ASSOCIATED 

ENTITIES INITIAL ADDRESS

Last Update Name Title Address

April 10, 2022 JESSE M. DUNDON CEO 81 HIGUERA ST, SUITE #220

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 USA

April 10, 2022 JESSE M. DUNDON DIRECTOR 81 HIGUERA ST, SUITE #220

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 USA

April 10, 2022 KEVIN RICE CMO & PRESIDENT 81 HIGUERA ST, SUITE #220

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 USA

April 10, 2022 KEVIN RICE DIRECTOR 81 HIGUERA ST, SUITE #220

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 USA

Case 4:23-cv-00517-SDJ Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 36