1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION 

AISHA PUTNAM, )

Plaintiff, )

 ) Case No.

v. )

 ) Judge:

CARAMELCRISP, LLC d/b/a )

GARRETT POPCORN SHOPS, ) JURY DEMANDED

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

Preliminary Statement

1. This is a civil action against Defendant CaramelCrisp, LLC d/b/a Garrett Popcorn Shops 

(“Defendant”) for relief for injuries Plaintiff, Aisha Putnam (“Plaintiff”), has sustained as 

a result of Defendant’s retaliation against her in violation of the Food Safety Modernization 

Act, 21 U.S.C. § 399d and for retaliatory discharge in violation of the public policy of the 

state of Illinois. 

2. Plaintiff was Defendant’s former Assistant Director of Research from March of 2014 until 

February of 2015 and Director of Research and Development from approximately February 

of 2015 until March of 2019. 

3. Beginning in 2014 and continuing throughout the course of her employment, until March 

2019, Plaintiff was marginalized and eventually terminated after she began raising and 

escalating concerns about serious health and food safety issues related to defects in the 

manufacture, distribution, and sale of Defendant’s various popcorn and chocolate products, 

as well as a culture and organizational structure that increasingly prioritized profits over 

safety and compliance.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 1 of 29 PageID #:1
2

NATURE OF THE CASE

4. Defendant has violated Food Safety Modernization Act (“the FSMA”), 29 C.F.R. § 

1987.100(a) et seq. and the public policy of the state of Illinois by terminating Putnam’s 

employment with Defendant in retaliation for her complaints of violations of the FSMA.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. This Court has 

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

6. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Food Safety and Modernization Act (“FSMA”) 

claim pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 399d(b)(4)(A), which permits the Plaintiff to remove her 

claim from the Department of Labor to an appropriate United States District Court if the 

Secretary of Labor has not issued a final decision within 210 days after Plaintiff filed her 

complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). Plaintiff 

filed her FSMA complaint with OSHA more than 210 days ago, on August 13, 2019.Venue 

is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s 

claims for relief occurred in Cook County, Illinois.

7. All conditions precedent have been fulfilled by Plaintiff including filing a complaint with 

the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”).

(Complaint No. 5-1260-19-195)

PARTIES

8. That Plaintiff is a citizen and a resident of Cook County, Illinois. At most relevant times to 

this matter, she was an employee of Defendant CaramelCrisp.

9. That Defendant CaramelCrisp, LLC has its principal office located at 401 N. Michigan 

Ave. 24th Floor, Chicago, Illinois, 60611. At all times relevant to this matter, Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 2 of 29 PageID #:2
3

was an employer subject to Illinois law and the anti-retaliation provisions of the Food 

Safety Modernization Act.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs herein.

11. That at all relevant times, Defendant was engaged in the production of various food 

products.

12. That at all relevant times, Defendant’s CEO, Lance Chody (“Chody”) had the power to 

hire employees, discipline employees, recommend discipline for employees, terminate 

employees, and recommend termination of an employee in the interests of Defendant.

13. That at all relevant times, Defendant’s Vice President of Culinary, David Funaro 

(“Funaro”) had the power to hire employees, discipline employees, recommend discipline 

for employees, terminate employees, and recommend termination of an employee in the 

interests of Defendant.

14. That at all relevant times, Defendant’s Senior Vice President of Operations - Domestic 

Maneesha Khandelwal had the power to hire employees, discipline employees, recommend 

discipline for employees, terminate employees, and recommend termination of an 

employee in the interests of Defendant.

15. That at all relevant times, Defendant’s Vice President of Human Resources Kara Nickels 

had the power to hire employees, discipline employees, recommend discipline for 

employees, terminated employees, and recommend termination of an employee in the 

interests of Defendant.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 3 of 29 PageID #:3
4

16. That at all relevant times, Defendant’s Senior Director of Operations of the Manufacturing 

Plant Austin Lilley had the power to recommend discipline and termination of an employee 

in the interests of Defendant.

17. That at all relevant times, Defendant’s Quality Assurances Manager Kelly Evola had the 

power to recommend discipline and termination of an employee in the interests of 

Defendant.

18. That at all relevant times, Chody, Funaro, Khandelwal, Nickels, Lilley, and Evola acted 

directly or indirectly in the interests of Defendant in relation to Plaintiff’s employment.

19. That Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in approximately March 2014 as the Assistant 

Director of Research and Development. 

20. That in February 2015, Plaintiff was promoted to Director of Research and Development

(“R&D”) and she worked into that capacity until her employment with Defendant was 

terminated in March 2019.

21. That in Plaintiff’s role as Assistant Director and Director of Research and Development, 

Plaintiff regularly ensured that Defendant was in compliance with its obligations pursuant 

to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”).

22. That whenever Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendant was not in compliance with 

FSMA, she immediately took steps to correct any possible violations and to notify her 

supervisors to ensure that any errors that contributed to the possible FSMA violations 

would not happen again.

23. That towards the end of her employment with Defendant, when Plaintiff raised complaints 

with her supervisors about FSMA violations, her supervisors would fail to address the 

violations and would even seem irritated by her complaints.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 4 of 29 PageID #:4
5

Cheese Paste Incident

24. In March of 2019, Defendant’s Associate Director of Supply Chain and Procurement sent 

a message instructing Plaintiff to mix two separate vendors’ respective cheese pastes 

together for a new cheese popcorn flavor and deliver the samples to Defendant’s CEO, 

Lance Chody (“Chody”), immediately. The Associate Director also instructed Plaintiff to 

provide the new formula to Chody immediately.

25. Plaintiff informed the Associate Director of Supply Chain that she could mix the two

cheese pastes, but warned him that Defendant could not use the new formula in popcorn 

sold for public consumption because she had not performed necessary organoleptic shelf 

life testing on the formula or completed the necessary nutritional or ingredient labels.

26. The Associate Direct of Supply Chain assured Plaintiff that Chody only wanted to taste the 

combination. 

27. After Plaintiff received the Associate Director’s assurances, Plaintiff proceeded to make 

the combined cheese paste samples.

28. That same day Plaintiff spoke with Defendant’s Vice President of Culinary, David Funaro 

(“Funaro”), about Chody’s instructions. Plaintiff explained to Funaro that the Associate 

Director asked her to mix two separate cheese pastes together, per Chody’s order, so that 

Chody could taste the combination. Plaintiff asked Funaro, “What is this all about?”

29. Funaro responded that Defendant’s upper management only wanted to do a tasting. 

Plaintiff reiterated that Defendant could not use this formula for sale since she did not have 

the updated nutritional information, ingredient deck or any other organoleptic shelf life 

tasting. Plaintiff delivered the requested samples to the manufacturing plant later that day.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 5 of 29 PageID #:5
6

30. Upon delivering the cheese samples, Plaintiff informed Austin Lilley (“Lilley”), 

Defendant’s Senior Director of Operation of the Manufacturing Plant, that Defendant could 

not mass produce the formula since Plaintiff did not have the nutritionals, ingredient deck 

or any organoleptic shelf life testing ready. Plaintiff informed Lilley that she also gave this 

warning to the Associate Director of Supply Chain and Funaro, and she wanted Lilley to 

know in case he received instructions to mass produce the cheese mixture for customers. 

Lilley thanked Plaintiff for letting him know.

31. Despite Plaintiff’s warnings, she learned from an employee that Defendant began mixing 

and selling popcorn coated with the two-cheese paste mixture the week following her 

termination, in March of 2019. Defendant did not update the nutritional information on

their tin pad, E-commerce, or ingredient labels to reflect this new cheese paste. Upon all 

information and belief, Defendant is currently selling popcorn coated with this new cheese 

mixture to customers.

No Quality Assurance Manager

32. Beginning in August 2017 and continuing throughout September 2018, Plaintiff made 

several requests that Defendant hire a Quality Assurances (“QA”) manager for the 

manufacturing plant and retail popcorn shops, after the previous QA manager quit.

33. Funaro requested Plaintiff’s assistance with QA issue support until Defendant chose to hire 

a new one. Plaintiff informed Funaro that she did not want to be involved in QA issues any 

longer because there was an abundance of QA issues, and nobody listened to her 

complaints or showed interest in fixing the issues. Furthermore, Plaintiff expressed concern 

to Funaro that she did not want to go to jail for failure to remedy any issues.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 6 of 29 PageID #:6
7

34. In response, Funaro reminded Plaintiff that her role was to support the company, and her 

rebuttal was, “Then, we need to get a QA person.”

Failure to Follow Proper Good Manufacturing Practices

35. In September of 2018 Funaro and Lilley hired a new QA manager, Kelly Evola (“Evola”),

and assured Plaintiff that QA would no longer be her concern.

36. Plaintiff warned Funaro and Lilley that if Defendant was audited, Evola did not have the 

requisite certifications under Preventative Quality Individual (“PCQI") and Hazard 

Analysis and Critical Control Points (“HACCP”). Plaintiff noted that she was extremely 

concerned because she did not believe the manufacturing plant was in compliance.

37. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff observed the following:

a. Employees talking on phones in the plant, failing to wash their hands, eating food

products while working on the production line, touching garbage and then packing 

and producing finished goods, using the restroom without removing their smocks, 

and not buttoning smocks upon entering the production area.

b. Cross contact with food allergens in the packing line and the use of the same 

equipment for food allergens and non-allergens and failure to follow the colorcoding allergen poster for designated allergen areas.

c. Employees left the chemical cage open and unlocked. Employees also left 

chemicals and tools unattended throughout the plant; employees wore hazardous 

accessories, such as fake nails, eyelashes, and jewelry; employees left various side 

entrance doors open, which exposed the plant to pest entry; employees tossed their 

used gloves onto food contact equipment in the production, packing, and warehouse 

areas.

d. Wet tote containers were stacked and nested on top of each other following a wash 

and the dishwasher was not cleaning dishes properly.

e. No metal detection was used on finished products before and after packaging.

f. Defendant does not provide any pest-control monitoring program at its off-site 

storage for its product tins, product packaging, and equipment.

g. The sink by the shipping and receiving area does not get hot water, and no one in 

shipping and receiving washed their hands.

h. Water was leaking from the ceiling in the maintenance area, production line, 

chocolate room, compressor room and by masipack areas. There was condensation 

leakage from the pipes of the new air unit onto food in the kitchens where food is 

cooked.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 7 of 29 PageID #:7
8

i. A sinking floor in the chocolate room, a cracked ceiling in the tin storage area, and 

a sinking floor next to the exit door. Lastly, Plaintiff observed significant water 

spots and mold growth in several ceiling and wall areas of the plant.

38. Even after Evola began working as QA manager in October 2018, food safety violations 

were not corrected, and Defendant failed to follow Good Management Practices.

39. After Plaintiff approached Lilley and Funaro several times over the next few months about 

Defendant’s failure to follow the law, they informed her that the QA manager, Evola, was 

responsible for this, not her.

40. Plaintiff reiterated that she was the one with the PCQI and HACCP certifications and that 

it was still her duty to ensure that problems were addressed until she was removed from 

HACCP documents and Evola received her PCQI and HACCP certifications.

41. That Defendant’s failure to follow Good Manufacturing Practices occurred until Plaintiff’s 

termination.

Failure to Wear Smocks on the Production Floor

42. Between February 2019 until her termination on March 7, 2019, Plaintiff complained 

several times to Lilley that he needed to wear his smock on the production floor until and 

after food production was completed. Lilley disagreed that he needed to follow these rules.

43. Plaintiff reiterated the law and Good Manufacturing Practices clearly state that Lilley must 

wear protective coverage in a food manufacturing setting at all times. 

44. Despite Plaintiff’s warnings, Lilley insisted that going forward, there was no need for 

employees to wear the smocks once food production was complete.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 8 of 29 PageID #:8
9

Broken Side Exit Door

45. In approximately January or February 2019, Plaintiff complained to Lilley that a side 

entrance for employees, which had been broken by the local fire department after 

responding to a dryer fire, remained broken and needed repair because it was a fire hazard. 

46. Plaintiff told Lilley that the broken door was also a food safety hazard because it was a pest 

entry point, and that the door needed to be fixed immediately.

47. Lilley told Plaintiff that since Evola did not raise the issue, that the broken door was neither 

a concern nor a violation of the law. 

48. Plaintiff reiterated that simply because Evola did not address this issue with Lilley does 

not mean it was not a concern or violation of the law. 

Lack of OSHA Training/Documentation

49. In November of 2018, Plaintiff complained to Lilley and Evola, as well as Lilley, Evola, 

and Funaro in January and February 2019, that Defendant had not provided any OSHA 

safety training for new and current employees. 

50. These trainings were: fork lift and pallet jack training, HazCom training for employees 

using chemicals, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) training, lockout tag-out training 

for any employees working with equipment, training on the eye wash stations and locations 

(there was a broken eyewash station).

51. Defendant failed to require updated medical exams and CLP/CDL licenses for delivery 

drivers.

52. Lilley and Funaro told Plaintiff that Evola was responsible for training and it was not 

Plaintiff’s concern whether the company is in compliance. Plaintiff reiterated that there 

were many new hires who needed to receive training.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 9 of 29 PageID #:9
10

53. When Evola told Plaintiff that she was new to the company and this was not Evola’s job, 

Plaintiff explained to Evola and Lilley that it is their job to ensure Defendant’s employees 

are safe and trained properly.

Lack of Safety Training for Fire Drills

54. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, she told Lilley and Nickels that she was concerned 

that Defendant was not providing safety training and documentation for fire drills to 

temporary and full-time employees during the busy season (November and December).

55. At some time between December 2018 and March 2019, Plaintiff received an email from 

Evola that Nickels decided they no longer needed to hold safety drills.

56. Plaintiff asked why safety drills were cancelled, and Nickels told Plaintiff that she had no 

right to schedule safety drills. Plaintiff explained that she did have a right because she is 

PQCI and HACCP certified, and these drills were something she scheduled with

Defendant’s Previous VP of Operations.

57. Nickels told Plaintiff to stop following the laws so strictly, and Plaintiff explained that 

complying with the law was part of her job. Nickels claimed that Defendant was in 

compliance since there was a fire drill scheduled for February 2019. Plaintiff reiterated that 

Defendant still needed to teach all temporary and full-time employees how to find the exits 

and where to find fire drill and safety information in the plant. 

58. Nickels told Plaintiff that Lilley would handle the training and that Plaintiff should not 

worry about it, but Lilley never handled the training.

59. Plaintiff reported her concerns regarding a lack of safety drill planning to Funaro, who 

replied that Plaintiff need not worry about it because it “was not in [her] wheelhouse.”

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 10 of 29 PageID #:10
11

60. When a man entered the plant with a gun a couple days later, nobody in the back of the 

plant knew how to find the safety exit. Following the incident, Lilley addressed everybody 

in Customer Experience and stated that “No one should tell corporate about the incident 

since [I] [am] already in the doghouse,” while laughing.

Ceiling Leaks, Spots and Mold

61. During July 2018, September 2018, and February 2019, Plaintiff complained several times 

about ceiling leakage, waters spots, and mold from the roof and ceiling throughout the 

manufacturing plant walls and test kitchen every time there was heavy rain or snow. 

62. There was heavy leakage in the maintenance area, packaging area, chocolate room, and 

compressor room on the walls throughout the plant and test kitchen.

63. The Third-Party Food Auditor and Plaintiff complained to Lilley on multiple occasions 

about several leaks and mold spots within the manufacturing plant and explained the 

potential risks these could have on Defendant’s food.

64. Lilley assured the Third-Party Food Auditor and Plaintiff that he would fix the problem;

however, he did not.

65. Each time there was another storm, Plaintiff complained to Lilley and on several occasions, 

she led Lilley through the plant to point out the leaks areas above the food product, in the 

maintenance area, in the chocolate room, near the packing line, in the test kitchen, and in 

the storage closet. 

66. On at least one occasion, the Third-Party Food Auditor helped Plaintiff show the problem 

areas to Lilley.

67. After Lilley continued to lie about fixing the leaks, Plaintiff reported the leaks, water spots, 

and mold growth to Funaro, and explained that they posed potential food safety hazards. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 11 of 29 PageID #:11
12

68. Each time Plaintiff reported these issues to Funaro, he responded, “Let’s just focus on our 

area. Not anyone else’s areas.”

Lack of Heat in the Manufacturing Plant

69. Between October 2018 and January 2019, Plaintiff complained several times to Lilley and 

Funaro that there was no heat throughout the manufacturing plant, the upstairs test kitchen, 

and the offices.

70. That Plaintiff specifically explained to them that the lack of heat made it unsafe for

employees because they were getting sick, and that employees could not work around the 

food products with cold symptoms. 

71. Funaro laughed at Plaintiff and told her to “bundle up” in the plant.

72. Lilley attempted to fix the issue, but Chody did not approve his request to fix the boiler.

Inaccurate Tin Pad Labels

73. During July and September 2018 and February 2019, Plaintiff complained multiple times 

that the wrong nutritional information was on the tin pads for packaging. Therefore, 

Defendant was not disclosing the correct information to their e-commerce consumers.

74. In July 2018, Defendant received a complaint from the FDA that the nutritional information 

on the tin pads did not match the nutritional information listed on Defendant’s website. 

Since Defendant did not have a QA manager at that time, Plaintiff responded to the FDA 

on Defendant’s behalf to let the FDA know that the information on the website was correct. 

Plaintiff forwarded documents to the FDA to support her statement and assured the FDA 

that the new tin pad nutritional labels would be printed soon.

75. Prior to emailing the FDA, Plaintiff notified several supervisors, including Senior Vice 

President of Operations – Domestic Maneesha Khandelwal (“Khandelwal”) and Lilley that 

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 12 of 29 PageID #:12
13

Defendant was not in compliance. Plaintiff also asked a couple supervisors, including

Khandelwal, when the new nutritional information would be completed.

76. The Associate Director of Supply Chain responded that the new tin pad nutritional labels 

would be ready within a month or two. 

77. Two months later, Plaintiff emailed the Associate Director of Supply Chain and copied 

Khandelwal, Lilley, and another supervisor, asking for a status on the tin pad nutritional 

labels. 

78. Plaintiff followed her email with a phone call to the Associate Director of Supply Chain,

who informed Plaintiff that Defendant decided not to print new tin pad labels after all.

79. Currently, Defendant continues to use the incorrect nutritional information on the tin pads.

80. Plaintiff tried addressing this issue with Funaro, who told Plaintiff that she needed to “let 

it go and let corporate handle the situation.”

Unapproved Vendor

81. In the fall of 2018, Plaintiff complained to several supervisors, including Funaro, and 

Khandelwal that Defendant’s third party chocolate vendor was not Global Food Safety 

Initiative (“GFSI”) compliant, did not pass Defendant’s supplier audit, and did not have 

any quality standards in place for its food production processes.

82. After the supplier audit, Plaintiff told Khandelwal and Funaro that Defendant’s third party 

chocolate vendor was not fit to manufacture any of Defendant’s chocolate truffles or other 

desserts because they did not have any GFSI standards in place to verify safe development 

of food for Defendant’s customers.

83. Plaintiff specified that Defendant’s third party chocolate vendor was not fit to manufacture 

Defendant’s chocolates due to her concerns about improper cleaning, outdated equipment, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 13 of 29 PageID #:13
14

failure to properly wash equipment, poor hand washing by employees, inadequate storage 

of ingredients, lack of a traceability program, employees eating on the production floor, 

and lack of Good Manufacturing Practices.

84. Khandelwal and Funaro told Plaintiff during a phone conference that Defendant would 

continue to use the same third party chocolate vendor because it is a Chicago brand and 

Chody liked it.

Selling Expired Chocolates

85. On October 2, 2018, a Distribution Supervisor reported to Plaintiff that he received 

instructions to repackage chocolate and place new expiration dates on the packages. The 

Distribution Supervisor also forwarded an email instructing the same to Plaintiff.

86. Plaintiff contacted the Production Superintendent and the Distribution Supervisor 

immediately after she received the Distribution Supervisor’s email.

87. The Production Superintendent and the Distribution Supervisor informed Plaintiff that 

repackaging chocolate was Khandelwal’s instruction.

88. Plaintiff contacted another Third-Party Food Auditor who informed Plaintiff that 

Defendant could not assign new expiration dates for chocolates since Defendant was not 

the vendor who produced the product. The Auditor also told Plaintiff that the unwrapped 

chocolates could not be repacked due to potential exposure to bacteria such as listeria, 

salmonella, and E. coli.

89. The Third-Party Auditor further explained to Plaintiff that the vendor who produced the 

chocolate would need to test the chocolates and approve a shelf life extension and provide 

documentation before Defendant could assign new expiration dates. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 14 of 29 PageID #:14
15

90. Plaintiff scheduled a phone meeting with several supervisors, including Lilley, Khandelwal 

and the Auditor. Each of these individuals attended the phone meeting except for

Khandelwal. Per Plaintiff’s request, the Auditor explained why Defendant could not 

repackage the chocolates or have it repacked at the third-party chocolate vendor’s facilities.

91. Following the meeting, Plaintiff spoke with Funaro and repeated the points that the Auditor 

made during the phone meeting. Funaro agreed that Defendant could not proceed with 

corporate’s repacking plan. Plaintiff drafted an email to several supervisors, including 

Khandelwal and Lilley explaining that Defendant could not repackage the chocolates.

92. Plaintiff read a draft of this email to Funaro, who asked Putnam to add a sentence to the 

email stating that he agreed with her.

93. Khandelwal responded to the email stating she received approval from Funaro for this plan 

in December. Funaro never replied to rebut Khandelwal.

94. A couple days later, when Plaintiff asked Funaro why he did not correct Khandelwal, 

Funaro responded, “There are some battles you don’t fight and if my boss tells me to do 

something, then I just do it. This is something I learned long ago in my career.”

Selling Returned Popcorn

95. In August 2018, Lilley and the Director of Customer Experience informed Plaintiff that 

UPS planned to return several containers of popcorn that had been shipped to a fraudulent 

address. Lilley and the Director of Customer Experience asked Plaintiff what to do with 

the popcorn when it returned to the plant. Plaintiff explained that the popcorn must be 

discarded because it is unlawful to resell or use any popcorn for customers once it has left 

the plant, pursuant to the HAACP plan and FSMA law.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 15 of 29 PageID #:15
16

96. Plaintiff also explained that there was no way of knowing how long the returned popcorn 

had been sitting in UPS’s non-temperature controlled vehicles, what type of temperature 

abuse the popcorn experienced, the overall quality of the popcorn, and if there was any 

bacteria currently present inside of the popcorn tins.

97. Plaintiff advised Lilley and the Director of Customer Experience to notify Defendant’s 

corporate team about the restrictions on reuse and resale of the popcorn. Lilley instructed 

the Director of Customer Experience to send an email to the team containing Plaintiff’s 

explanation. 

98. The same day, Chody reprimanded the Director of Customer Experience over the phone 

for his email. The Director of Customer Experience told Plaintiff that during this phone 

call, Chody screamed, “It doesn’t matter what [Plaintiff] said. I am not losing money.”

99. Although the Director of Customer Experience and Lilley did not want to reuse or resell 

the returned popcorn tins, Chody ordered the tins to be shipped to Defendant’s 

manufacturing plant, where the tins were reshipped to specific popcorn shops to be 

repackaged and resold to customers.

100. Plaintiff approached Funaro to explain why the returned popcorn could not be sold. Funaro 

ignored her concerns and stated, “We don’t argue with the boss.”

101. After the returned popcorn was reshipped to stores, a Customer Experience Manger, 

remarked to Plaintiff that the customer experience team had received complaints from 

customers about receiving stale popcorn and boxes of popcorn that were marked with 

another customer’s name.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 16 of 29 PageID #:16
17

Dripping Air Conditioner

102. In August 2018, Plaintiff noticed that the new air conditioning unit that had been installed 

in the manufacturing plant was dripping water on Caramel Crisp popcorn on the cooling 

tables in the cooking area. 

103. Immediately after observing the dripping water, and continuing on a weekly basis until 

February 22, 2019, Plaintiff complained to Lilley about the hazard. Plaintiff explained to 

Lilley that he needed to contact the installer to fix the unit.

104. From August 2018 to February 22, 2019, on a weekly basis, Plaintiff also warned Lilley 

and Funaro that there was a serious risk that the popcorn could become contaminated with 

salmonella or listeria. Plaintiff further explained that such contamination could lead to a 

recall.

105. Each time Plaintiff complained about the potential contamination issues, Lilley and Funaro 

told her that Defendant’s management refused to purchase a higher quality air conditioning 

unit that did not leak.

106. Each time she received that explanation, Plaintiff reiterated that the condensation dripping 

was a food safety hazard and that it needed to be fixed as soon as possible.

107. Based upon information and belief, Defendant has not replaced the leaking air conditioning 

unit.

Unrefrigerated Butter

108. In July 2018, Plaintiff complained to her supervisors that Defendant’s manufacturing plant 

was transporting butter in an unrefrigerated truck to outlying Garrett’s shops (e.g. O’Hare 

Airport). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 17 of 29 PageID #:17
18

109. In July 2018, Lilley asked Plaintiff to use the refrigerator in her test kitchen because one 

of the retailer’s shops refrigerators was broken and that the off-site kitchen (OSK Plant) 

needed to provide them with a new refrigerator and needed to deliver butter to them daily.

110. Plaintiff declined to let Lilley use her refrigerator since that was the only unit she had and 

told Lilley that they could not deliver butter in unrefrigerated trucks. Lilley acknowledged 

that Plaintiff was right.

111. A couple days later, Plaintiff noticed a spare refrigerator in the plant and asked a 

Maintenance Worker, about the refrigerator. The Maintenance Worker told Plaintiff that 

he was repairing the refrigerator by putting wheels on it for the O’Hare Airport shop 

because it was still without a refrigerator.

112. Plaintiff asked a supervisor at the plant, how Defendant was storing butter at the O’Hare 

Airport shop if it did not have a refrigerator. The supervisor told Plaintiff that Defendant 

was delivering butter to the shop on a daily basis, per Lilley’s orders. The supervisor also 

told Plaintiff that she addressed her concerns to Lilley regarding non-refrigerated butter 

delivery during their daily meetings.

113. When Plaintiff confronted Lilley about his order to deliver non-refrigerated butter to the 

O’Hare Airport shop in 80-90-degree weather, Lilley admitted that the situation was out of 

his control because Khandelwal instructed him to move forward with the deliveries.

114. Plaintiff reiterated that they could not legally deliver perishable foods in a non-refrigerated 

truck and Lilley, again, stated that the situation was out of his control and there was nothing 

they could do.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 18 of 29 PageID #:18
19

Misplaced Safety Data Sheet Books

115. In November 2018, December 2018, and February 2019, Plaintiff complained to Lilley and 

Funaro that there were no Safety Data Sheet (“SDS”) books available for employees to 

review in case of a chemical incident. These SDS books were available to employees in 

approximately September 2019.

116. After Plaintiff voiced her concerns, Lilley told her that it was not her concern and that 

Evola would handle the SDS books. In response, Plaintiff reminded Lilley that food safety 

law required that the SDS books be visible at all times. 

117. In November and December 2018, during the peak busy season, there was no quality 

control employee for the second and third shifts.

118. Instead, Defendant’s QA manager, Evola, was working the second and third shifts as 

procurement which involved counting supplies and Defendant’s QA tech was working as 

a packer on the line.

119. As a result of Evola and the QA tech working procurement and packing popcorn, during 

the two months of busy season, neither the food products nor the equipment were micro 

swabbed for listeria, salmonella, E.coli, or Enterobacteriaeceae/Aerobic Plate Count 

(“EB/APC”) testing. Instead of Evola and the QA tech performing their duties on the first 

shift, a temporary employee was asked to perform various QA duties during the first shift.

120. During that time, the temporary employee approached Plaintiff and asked for help finding 

the SDS books, in case there was an emergency. Plaintiff attempted to show the temporary 

employee where the SDS books were normally located, however, they were not there. 

Plaintiff directed the temporary employee to follow up with Evola for more information on 

where the books were located.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 19 of 29 PageID #:19
20

121. Plaintiff also emailed Evola, Funaro, and Lilley notifying them about the missing SDS 

books. She received no response.

122. Upon belief and all knowledge, to date, the SDS books are still not available for employees.

Laundry Room Dryer – Fire Hazard

123. In August 2018, the dryer in the laundry room caught fire while manufacturing plant 

employees were using it to dry their freshly washed gloves.

124. After the fire department arrived to extinguish the fire, the firefighters informed Lilley that 

the employees could not use the dryer for gloves anymore because the ventilation system 

was not correctly installed, which created a serious fire hazard.

125. Throughout the period of August 2018 until Plaintiff’s termination in March 2019, Plaintiff 

observed Defendant’s employees continuing to use the dryer to dry gloves. Each time she 

noticed this Plaintiff told Lilley that this practice needed to stop.

126. After the fire department’s warning, Plaintiff noticed that Lilley instructed a manufacturing 

plant employee to sit and watch the gloves as they tumbled in the dryer to make sure they 

did not catch on fire.

127. Each time Plaintiff noticed the manufacturing plant employee sitting by the dryer, she told 

Lilley that not only was he not allowed to use the dryer to dry gloves, but also that it was 

extremely unsafe for the manufacturing plant employee to sit by the dryer while it was 

operating.

128. Each time Plaintiff complained to Lilley he told her that the dryer was not her business and 

that she need not worry about it because he had it under control.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 20 of 29 PageID #:20
21

Termination Based on FSMA Whistleblowing

129. Beginning in 2017, after Funaro became Plaintiff’s supervisor, aside from one review, her 

performance evaluations became increasingly negative.

130. Prior to this time, Plaintiff’s performance evaluations were always positive.

131. In her performance reviews, Funaro stated that Plaintiff always responded negatively about 

issues that arose at the plant. Funaro’s statements referred to her complaints about food 

safety, OSHA and FSMA violations.

132. Each time Plaintiff received a negative performance review from Funaro she complained 

to Nickels. Plaintiff had discussions with Nickels to understand why her performance 

evaluations became increasingly negative, especially because Funaro never once brought 

any concerns to Plaintiff’s attention. Instead, Funaro always told Plaintiff that she was 

doing an excellent job.

133. Plaintiff told Nickels that she was concerned because each time she identified a food safety 

issue, OSHA, or FSMA violation to Funaro, he would treat her differently by, for example, 

doing the following:

a. Removing and excluding Plaintiff from any company meetings, which she had 

previously always been invited and encouraged to attend,

b. Taking away Plaintiff’s formula work and refusing to give her assignments because 

Funaro assigned them to others (internationally and domestically) who do not have 

expertise in Plaintiff’s field,

c. Making Plaintiff teach others how to make formulas, writing ingredient decks, how 

to run nutritional analysis, how to calculate formulas, and transferring Plaintiff’s 

responsibilities to other employees (line workers and QA Manager) who did not 

possess an R&D background,

d. Removing Plaintiff’s international work duties and assigning them to others, like 

the QA Manager,

e. Speaking negatively about Plaintiff to other coworkers such as the QA Manager, 

Plant Director, Corporate Team and vendor,

f. Funaro would not interact or communicate with Plaintiff when he was at the 

manufacturing plant. He would only communicate with the QA Manager, Director 

of Manufacturing, Customer Experience team, and line workers,

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 21 of 29 PageID #:21
22

g. Funaro would give Plaintiff a negative performance evaluation if she did not agree 

to his rules.

134. Each time Plaintiff raised concerns to Nickels, she downplayed Plaintiff’s concerns and 

told her that she “needed to get on [Funaro]’s good side.”

135. Plaintiff was terminated on March 7, 2019 in retaliation for the numerous complaints she 

made to her supervisors regarding food safety issues, OSHA and FSMA violations, and not 

refusing to be a part of a QA team that did not follow standards and guidelines.

136. Based upon all information and belief, Lance Chody, David Funaro, Maneesha 

Khandelwal, and Kara Nickels jointly made the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s 

employment with input and coordination from Kelly Evola and Austin Lilley. This was 

because of Plaintiff’s complaints about food safety issues, OSHA and FSMA violations, 

and consistent resistance to corporate management’s violations of food safety laws.

COUNT I – RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 

THE FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT, 21 U.S.C. § 399d

137. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference herein.

138. Under the Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”), 21 U.S.C. § 399d, it is unlawful for 

an employer engaged in the manufacture, processing, or distribution of food to discharge 

or otherwise discriminate against an employee because she provided to her employer 

information relating to conduct that she reasonably believed to be a violation of the Food, 

Drug & Cosmetics Act, or because she objected to, or refused to participate in, such 

conduct.

139. Defendant is subject to the anti-retaliation provisions of the FSMA because it is engaged 

in the manufacture, processing, and distribution of food, including popcorn and chocolates.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 22 of 29 PageID #:22
23

140. That at all relevant times, Defendant’s CEO, Lance Chody (“Chody”) had the power to 

hire employees, discipline employees, recommend discipline for employees, terminate 

employees, and recommend termination of an employee in the interests of Defendant.

141. That at all relevant times, Defendant’s Vice President of Culinary, David Funaro 

(“Funaro”) had the power to hire employees, discipline employees, recommend discipline 

for employees, terminate employees, and recommend termination of an employee in the 

interests of Defendant.

142. That at all relevant times, Khandelwal had the power to hire employees, discipline 

employees, recommend discipline for employees, terminate employees, and recommend 

termination of an employee in the interests of Defendant.

143. That at all relevant times, Nickels had the power to hire employees, discipline employees, 

recommend discipline for employees, terminated employees, and recommend termination 

of an employee in the interests of Defendant.

144. That at all relevant times, Lilley had the power to recommend discipline and termination 

of an employee in the interests of Defendant.

145. That at all relevant times, Evola had the power to recommend discipline and termination 

of an employee in the interests of Defendant.

146. That at all relevant times, Chody and Funaro acted directly or indirectly in the interests of 

Defendant in relation to Plaintiff’s employment.

147. That Plaintiff engaged in protected activity within the meaning of the FSMA on numerous 

occasions throughout August 2017 until Defendant terminated her employment in March 

2019 by reporting her concerns to numerous managers and supervisors, including: Lance 

Chody, David Funaro, Maneesha Khandelwal, Austin Lilley and Kara Nickels.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 23 of 29 PageID #:23
24

148. That Defendant was aware that Plaintiff engaged in protected activity because she 

complained directly to her supervisors, managers, and coworkers.

149. That beginning in 2016, after David Funaro (“Funaro”) became Plaintiff’s supervisor, 

Plaintiff’s performance evaluations became increasingly negative.

150. That prior to Funaro becoming Plaintiff’s supervisor, her performance evaluations were 

always positive.

151. That in Funaro’s performance evaluations of Plaintiff, he always stated that Plaintiff 

responded negatively about issues that arose in Defendant’s food production plant.

152. That by Funaro’s statements in Plaintiff’s evaluations, Funaro was referring to Plaintiff’s 

complaints about food safety, OSHA, and FSMA violations.

153. That each time Plaintiff received a negative performance evaluation from Funaro, Plaintiff

complained to Kara Nickels (“Nickels”), VP of Human Resources.

154. That following Plaintiff’s complaints to Nickels, the two would meet to discuss why 

Plaintiff received negative performance evaluations, especially because Funaro never once 

brought any performance concerns to Plaintiff’s attention. Instead, Funaro always told 

Plaintiff she was doing an excellent job.

155. That during these meetings, Plaintiff told Nickels that she was concerned that each time 

she tried to identify a food safety issue, OSHA, or FSMA violation to Funaro, he would 

treat Plaintiff differently.

156. That each time Plaintiff raised concerns to Nickels about Funaro’s treatment of her, Nickels

downplayed the concerns and told Plaintiff that she “needed to get on David’s good side.”

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 24 of 29 PageID #:24
25

157. That Plaintiff was terminated on March 7, 2019 in retaliation for the complaints she made 

to her supervisors about food safety issues, OSHA and FSMA violations, and her refusal 

to be a part of a team that did not follow federal standards and guidelines.

158. That based upon all information and belief, Lance Chody, David Funaro, Maneesha 

Khandelwal, and Kara Nickels jointly made the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s 

employment with input and coordination from Kelly Evola and Austin Lilley.

159. That this joint decision was made because of Plaintiff’s complaint about food safety issues, 

OSHA and FSMA violations, and consistent resistance to corporate management violating 

food safety laws.

160. That Defendant’s actions have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff substantial 

economic loss, including lost salary, bonuses, benefits, damage to her professional 

reputation, defamation of character, libel, and slander, and emotional distress.

161. That Defendant’s actions have continued to damage Plaintiff’s ability to obtain gainful 

employment, earn a live and provide financial support to her family.

162. That Defendant’s actions have continued to damage Plaintiff’s reputation.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Aisha Putnam, hereby requests this Honorable Court provide the 

following equitable and legal remedies for relief:

a. Advance this case on the docket, order a speedy hearing at the earliest practicable date, and 

cause this case to be expedited in every possible way.

b. Order a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from further acts of retaliation.

c. Award Plaintiff all costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees 

and expenses.

d. Award Plaintiff a judgment against Defendant for lost employment benefits, damages for 

Plaintiff’s inability to secure comparable employment as a result of her termination,

emotional distress, mental anguish, punitive damages, and other compensatory damages.

e. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for the inability to obtain gainful employment to 

support her family and the severe emotional distress she has experienced.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 25 of 29 PageID #:25
26

f. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for all out-of-pocket expenses she incurred as a 

result of her termination.

g. Enter an order requiring Defendant to implement effective steps to eliminate retaliation 

from Defendant’s organization.

h. Award Plaintiff a judgment against Defendant for all available damages under the Act.

i. Award Plaintiff a judgment against Defendant for all available damages permitted by law.

j. Enter a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for retaliation of 21 U.S.C. § 

399d.

k. Grant such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II - RETALIATORY DISCHARGE IN 

VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

163. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference herein.

164. Count II is being brought for retaliatory discharge in violation of Illinois public policy.

165. During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff performed her assigned tasks in a 

satisfactory and conscientious manner in accordance with Defendant’s standards.

166. At all relevant times during Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Putnam was 

supervised by Chody, Khandelwal, Nickels, and Funaro.

167. During her employment, Plaintiff observed and reported several violations of FSMA and 

the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., to individuals employed by 

Defendant responsible for addressing and correcting such issues.

168. In retaliation for reporting violations of law, Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant in 

retaliation form making complaints about illegal or improper conduct.

169. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment because Plaintiff continued to identify and 

report safety violations to her supervisors and other employees responsible for addressing 

these violations.

170. The aforesaid conduct by Defendant against Plaintiff amounts to retaliation in violating of 

the law.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 26 of 29 PageID #:26
27

171. An inference of retaliatory motive is raised due to the fact that Plaintiff’s reports of safety 

violations and the termination of employment took place in such a short period of time.

172. The issues that Plaintiff raised are each clear mandates of public policy found in federal 

and Illinois statutes, rules, and regulations.

173. Defendant’s retaliation against Plaintiff was motivated by evil motive and intent, and was 

recklessly and callously indifferent to Plaintiff’s legally protected rights.

174. Defendant’s actions have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff substantial economic 

loss, including lost salary, bonuses, benefits, and other compensation; damage to her 

professional reputation, defamation of character, libel and slander; and emotional distress.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Aisha Putnam, hereby requests this Honorable Court provide the 

following equitable and legal remedies for relief:

a. Advance this case on the docket, order a speedy hearing at the earliest practicable date, and 

cause this case to be expedited in every possible way.

b. Order a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from further acts of retaliation.

c. Award Plaintiff all costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees 

and expenses.

d. Award Plaintiff a judgment against Defendant for lost employment benefits, damages for 

Plaintiff’s inability to secure comparable employment as a result of her termination, 

emotional distress, mental anguish, punitive damages, and other compensatory damages.

e. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for the inability to obtain gainful employment to 

support her family and the severe emotional distress she has experienced.

f. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for all out-of-pocket expenses she incurred as a 

result of her termination.

g. Enter an order requiring Defendant to implement effective steps to eliminate retaliation 

from Defendant’s organization.

h. Award Plaintiff a judgment against Defendant for all available damages permitted by law.

i. Grant such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 27 of 29 PageID #:27
28

Respectfully submitted, 

AISHA PUTNAM

/s/ Renee C. Fell

One of Her Attorneys

Uche O. Asonye – 6209522 

Renee C. Fell - 6312785 

Asonye & Associates 

100 North LaSalle, Suite 2115 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 795-9110 

uasonye@aa-law.com

rfell@aa-law.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 28 of 29 PageID #:28
29

JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Aisha Putnam, by and through her attorneys, and hereby 

demands a trial by jury in the above entitled cause of action.

Respectfully submitted, 

AISHA PUTNAM

/s/ Renee C. Fell

One of Her Attorneys

Uche O. Asonye – 6209522 

Renee C. Fell - 6312785 

Asonye & Associates 

100 North LaSalle, Suite 2115 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 795-9110 

uasonye@aa-law.com

rfell@aa-law.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02074 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/31/20 Page 29 of 29 PageID #:29