STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Case No. 70-CV-11-186

Plaintiff, Reply To Motion To Dismiss

vs. OBJECTION TO
EXHIBITS A & B & C
PIERSON PIZZA Inc.,
Defendant. Judge, ___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS A & B & C, OF DEFENDANT

Pursuant to the 21 day “Safe Harbor” provision of Rule 11, of the Minnesota Rules of Civil

Procedure (MRCP), requiring Plaintiff to give Notice of an offending paper, writing, or

contention that is unwarranted by existing law, unwarranted on the evidence, or for being a

matter that First District Judge, Rex Stacey, has declared to be an incompetent matter, in Case

No. 70-CV-10-25301. Plaintiff hereby serves and files his Objection to Defendant’s Exhibit A &

B & C that are again re-introduced in its Motion To Dismiss for judgment thereupon. Therefore,

to provide Counsel of Defendant with opportunity to withdraw, remove, or correct matters

unwarranted by existing law, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. On the 23rd day of February, 2011, Plaintiff received a Motion To Dismiss, together with a

Memorandum Of Law, and an Appendix of Exhibits in support of said Motion.

2. As verification for the Appendix of Exhibits, the AFFIDAVIT of Attorney, Patrick J.

Rooney, did declare that the Exhibits are a true and accurate copy of the Charge of

Discrimination, a true and accurate copy of Defendant’s Response to the Minnesota

1
 Department of Human Rights (MDHR) Discrimination Charge, and a true and accurate copy

of a MDHR letter to dismiss said Charge.

3. However, in its Memorandum, the Defendant falsely asserts that (Exhibit C) is proof of a

finding of No Probable Cause, and Defendant additionally has introduced an unsigned and

unverified Memorandum from the MDHR that is without representation by the person who

prepared it. In addition, this Memorandum does contradict the letter of MDHR

Commissioner, who clearly states that, “the Commissioner may dismiss a charge if further

use of the Departments resources is not warranted,” and, that this charge has been dismissed

pursuant to the authority of Minn. Stat. 363A.28(6)(h).

4. Therefore, no final adjudication on the merits of this Charge has been made, and Plaintiff has

Not been given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the Charge issues; and, District

Court Judge, Rex Stacey, did Not render any final adjudication on the merits of this Charge,

in Case No. 70-CV-10-25301, and Judge Stacey additionally declared that the District Court

is Not Bound by “anything” that occurred in the MDHR.

5. As a result, the Defendant has knowingly re-introduced evidentiary matters to prejudice the

mind of the Court against Plaintiff, and to bring prejudice to the administration of justice in

this action, in violation of the following Professional Conduct Rule:

Rule 3.1, Meritorious Claims and Contentions. A lawyer shall not bring or
defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a
basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good
faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. ***

6. To be specific, (Exhibit C, Memorandum) is an unsigned and unverified statement that is

without representation by the person who prepared it, therefore, (Exhibit C, Memorandum) is

inadmissible hearsay evidence that cannot be considered by any Court of Law. In addition,

Judge Stacey has declared, in Case 70-CV-10-25301, that the District Court is Not Bound by

2
 anything that occurred in the MDHR; therefore, the re-introduction of process and procedure

in the MDHR is hereby unwarranted by existing law, and by judicial decree, and the

Defendant has knowingly violated Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by falsely

contending that a finding of No Probable Cause has been made by the MDHR Commissioner

In Re Discipline of Dedefo, (MN S. Ct. 2008) 752 N.W.2d 523, 528-532.

7. When reviewing Defendant’s (Exhibit B), this generalized statement has introduced many

unsworn conclusory allegations and many unverified statements that are unsupported by

sworn Affidavit from the person asserting it, or from the personal knowledge of the witness;

therefore, (Exhibit B) is an after-the-fact generalized statement containing the beliefs and

opinions and contentions of legal counsel, and the Pierson Defendant has only applied his

signature to agree with the contentions, the opinions, the conclusory allegations, and the

general statement of legal counsel.

8. As a result, (Exhibit B) is an unsworn after-the-fact generalized statement of a past

occurrence that is completely void of evidentiary support, that is prepared by an attorney who

was not part of the res gestoe, and the statements made are not from personal knowledge of

said attorney; therefore, (Exhibit B) is incompetent hearsay evidence that is inadmissible in a

Court of law, and (Exhibit B) cannot be considered for the truth of anything asserted therein

Radloff v. First American Natl. Bank, (MN App. 1991) 470 N.W.2d 154, 156-157.

9. Wherefore, since the District Court cannot be bound by anything that occurred in the MDHR,

Defendant’s (Exhibit A & B & C) is also irrelevant, immaterial, collateral matters outside the

scope of the pleadings in this civil action; (Exhibit B) is an inadmissible after-the-fact

hearsay statement that cannot be introduced or considered by a Court of Law, and the

(Exhibit C, Memorandum) is an unsworn and unverified hearsay statement that is without

3
 representation by the person who prepared it, which cannot be considered for the truth of

anything asserted therein. Furthermore, the letter from MDHR Commissioner in (Exhibit C)

does Not make a finding of No Probable Cause, and the attorney who has made such

contention has knowingly violated MRPC Rule 3.1, and has knowingly and willfully engaged

in actions prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC Rule 8.4.

10. Therefore, Counsel for the Defendant is now afforded the 21 day “safe harbor” provision of

Rule 11, to withdraw, remove, or correct the Motion to Dismiss and Evidentiary Exhibits A

& B & C, and Defendant has 21 days before the hearing, on 3/23/11, to withdraw the

Exhibits that are irrelevant and immaterial and unwarranted by existing law.

By: _________________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-se
x. x. xxx xxx
Sxxxxxx xx xxxxx

PROOF OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, certifies that a true copy of his 1st Amended Complaint, his Notice
of Motion and Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint, and his Objection to Exhibits of
Defendant has been placed in an envelope, addressed to Defendant’s Counsel, and that said
documents were serviced to Defendant, by first class mail through the U. S. Postal Service, on
the 1st day of March, 2011, at the following address:

Shannon M. McDonough Hand Delivery To Clerk of Court

Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A. Scott County District Court
Flagship Corporate Center 200 Fourth Avenue West JC 115
775 Prairie Center Drive Shakopee, MN 55379
Suite #400
Eden Prairie, MN 55344

By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se

4
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Case No. 70-CV-11-186

Plaintiff, Reply To Motion To Dismiss

vs. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND THE COMPLAINT
PIERSON PIZZA Inc.,
Defendant. Judge, ___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

To: the Defendant, PIERSON PIZZA, and Clerk of Court of First Judicial District.

NOTICE OF MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on March 23, 2011, at 9:00 A.M., the Defendant has

scheduled a hearing for its Motion To Dismiss; therefore, in Reply to said motion, the Plaintiff,

Joshua J. Israel, must be present at said hearing, and the opportunity to be heard and to defend, of

Plaintiff, must include a Motion For Leave of Court to Amend the original Complaint.

Pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15.01, this Motion For Leave of Court

to Amend the original complaint is to fulfill the fact-finding and issue-forming functions of

Notice, and to clarify pleadings and allegations to facilitate an Answer to the Complaint. In

addition, the Court Calendar will not be disturbed, neither party will be prejudiced by delay, and

this Reply is served and filed in accordance with Minn. Gen. Prac. Rule 115.03.

By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se

5
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Case No. 70-CV-11-186

Plaintiff, Reply To Motion To Dismiss

vs. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND THE COMPLAINT
PIERSON PIZZA Inc.,
Defendant. Judge, ___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT
TO AMEND COMPLAINT

To satisfy the specifics that Defendant is unsure of, and pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 15.01, the Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, moves the Court for Leave to Amend the

Original complaint, filed herewith, so as to fulfill the fact-finding and issue-forming function of

Notice, so as to set forth that the statute of limitations is current and active; and additionally, so

as to demonstrate that the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is still valid; therefore, to

specifically allege and clarify the pleadings so that Defendant can Answer the Complaint, the

Plaintiff states as follows:

11. On the 23rd day of February, 2011, the Plaintiff did receive a Motion To Dismiss of the

Defendant, together with a Memorandum of Law and Evidentiary Exhibits.

12. When reviewing the Memorandum in support of motion to dismiss, Plaintiff did take notice

that Defendant made general statements regarding the non-specific nature of pleadings;

therefore, Plaintiff moves the Court for Leave to Amend the complaint so as to make a more

definite statement, and more specific pleadings, so that Defendant can file its Answer.

6
13. In addition, Plaintiff did take notice that Defendant did set forth a subject matter jurisdiction

issue, and also raised a statute of limitation issue, and has asserted a contention that this case

matter is time-barred, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33; however, as an Appendix to the

Original complaint, Exhibits (PA. 1-2) did set forth that this case arises out of the Minnesota

Department of Labor, under Minn. Stat. 181.171, where the statute of limitation is two years,

where Plaintiff was denied delivery travel expense reimbursement, and where Defendant is in

violation of the Federal Minimum Wage. Therefore, Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to

Amend the complaint to specify and clarify this subject matter jurisdiction.

14. Moreover, the Defendant asserted that the issue in this case is identical to the issue in the

Charge of Discrimination, that the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) is exclusive, and

that therefore the doctrine of collateral estoppel and res judicata does preclude this issue from

a 2nd final judgment; however, the character of this matter has changed and the issues in this

case are different; and most important, there has been No final adjudication on merits of this

issue, these issues have Not been adjudicated by the MDHR, nor by this Court, in Case No

70-Cv-10-25301, rendered a final judgment of the merits herewith; and additionally, Plaintiff

has been deprived of a full and fair opportunity to be heard on any matter herewith.

Therefore, Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to Amend the complaint to clarify the different

issues and demonstrate that res judicata and collateral estoppel cannot apply, herewith.

15. Furthermore, the Defendant has asserted that constructive discharge, as a stand alone cause

of action, cannot withstand a motion to dismiss, and Defendant has introduced the most

recent case authority to support its contention. However, the original complaint has set forth

a constructive discharge that is in violation of the 363A.08, that is in violation of 363.15, that

is in violation of 181.932, that is in violation of 177.24, that is in violation of 268.044, and

7
 that is in violation of 541.07. As a result, Plaintiff moves the Court to Amend the complaint

so as to isolate and specifically clarify the underlying illegality in constructive discharge that

did end in an Involuntary Quit judgment.

16. Wherefore, since no final adjudication on the merits of this issue has been made, since

Plaintiff is deprived of a full and fair opportunity to be heard on any issue, since the character

of the MDHR issues have changed dramatically, and since this case arises out of the

Minnesota Department of Labor on issues pertaining to unreimbursed travel expenses and a

violation of the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage, Plaintiff does move the Court for Leave

to Amend the Complaint so as to clarify and to cure the discrepancies brought forth.

By: _____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se
x. x. xxx xxxxx
Sxxxxxxxx, xx xxxxxx

PROOF OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, certifies that a true copy of his 1st Amended Complaint, his Notice of
Motion and Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint, and his Objection to Exhibits of Defendant has been
placed in an envelope, addressed to Defendant’s Counsel, and that said documents were serviced to
Defendant, by first class mail through the U. S. Postal Service, on the 1st day of March, 2011, at the
following address:

Shannon M. McDonough Hand Delivery To Clerk of Court

Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A. Scott County District Court
Flagship Corporate Center 200 Fourth Avenue West JC 115
775 Prairie Center Drive Shakopee, MN 55379
Suite #400
Eden Prairie, MN 55344

By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se

8
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Case No. 70-CV-11-186

Plaintiff, Reply To Motion To Dismiss

vs. ORDER For Leave To

Amend The COMPLAINT
PIERSON PIZZA Inc.,
Defendant. Judge, ___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

The above entitled matter having come forward for hearing before the undersigned Judge

of the First Judicial District Court, of Scott County, for a Motion of Plaintiff to Amend the

original complaint.

The PLAINTIFF, Joshua J. Israel, appeared pro-se. Shannon M. McDonough, Patrick J.

Rooney, and Alyson M. Palmer from Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A. appeared on behalf of

Defendant, PIERSON PIZZA INC.,

The Court having read and taking notice of the Amended pleadings and have heard

arguments of Plaintiff, and the arguments of the Defendant’s Counsel, and being duly advised in

the merits of this action, hereby Finds and ORDERS:

1. The Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend his original complaint is hereby GRANTED for the

following reasons:

2. Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Statute of Limitations is the two years and three

years afforded under the Minn. Stat. 541.07(1)(5), that the issue in this civil action is not

identical to the MDHR issue, and that res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply herewith.

3. Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is No final adjudication on the merits of this

issue, and that Plaintiff has Not had a full and fair opportunity to be heard on any issue herewith.

9
 4. That the Plaintiff has stated a claim for Constructive Discharge, where pleadings do

allege that an underlying illegal discrimination did create intolerable conditions in employment,

and that Plaintiff has stated a claim for Wrongful Discharge, where the employer-Defendant

initiated an involuntary quit legal argument, to an Unemployment Law Judge, so as to make sure

that continued employment is not an option.

5. That Plaintiff has complied with the fact-finding and issue-forming functions of an

Amended Complaint, where neither party is prejudiced by delay.

WHEREFORE, the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff is sufficient for the Defendant to file

its Answer thereto within (14) days from this hearing date, from the 23rd day of March, 2011.

JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: __________________________, 2011 BY THE COURT

____________________________________________

The Honorable

________________________________

Judge of First District Court

10
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Case No. 70-CV-11-186

Plaintiff, Reply To Motion To Dismiss
1st AMENDED COMPLAINT
vs. to allege Minimum Wage Violation
and Wrongful Discharge, ending in
PIERSON PIZZA Inc., a Constructive Discharge.
Defendant. Judge, ___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

1st AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, did bring a Minimum Wage Claim (PA-1), and an Expense

Reimbursement Claim (PA-2) against the Defendant, PIERSON PIZZA Inc., and Plaintiff did

allege that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for opposing unlawful discrimination and

seniority discrimination, and that Defendant did retaliate against Plaintiff for disclosure of a

violation of law to the Defendant and to State agencies. Therefore, this civil action has

commenced to recover damages resulting from a constructive discharge in violation of public

policy, and to recover damages for a minimum wage violation and unreimbursed expenses, and

to demonstrate intolerable conditions of employment, Plaintiff states as follows:

The Parties

17. Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, is a Minnesota Resident who resides at the address of X. X. xxx

XXX, XXX XXX XXXXX XXX, Sxxxxx, xx xxxx, Ph. xxx-xxx-xxxx.

18. Defendant, Pierson Pizza, is a fast food restaurant, where its principle place of business is at

the address of 224 First Ave. East, Shakopee, MN 55379, Phone (952) 445-9200; 2nd Phone

(952) 250-5552.

11
 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, pursuant to Minn. Stat.177.27(8),

181.932, and 181.171(2) which sets forth the following jurisdiction:

Minn. Stat. 177.27(8) Court Actions; Suit By Private Parties. (8) An

employee may bring a civil action seeking redress for violations of sections ***
177.21 to 177.44 directly to the district court. An employer who pays an
employee less than the wages *** to which the employee is entitled under
sections 177.21 to 177.44 is liable to the employee for the full amount of wages,
gratuities, *** less than any amount the employer is able to establish was
actually paid *** and for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.
Minn. Stat. 181.171(2) District Court Jurisdiction. Any action brought under
subdivision 1 may be filed in the district court wherein the violation is alleged to
have been committed, where the respondent resides or has a principle place of
business, or any other court of competent jurisdiction.
Minn. Stat. 181.935(a) Individual Remedies; Penalty. (a) In addition to any
remedies otherwise provided by law, an employee injured by a violation of
section 181.932 may bring a civil action to recover any and all damages
recoverable at law, together with costs and disbursements, ***.

20. This action arose in Scott County, Minnesota, at the Defendant’s Shakopee, Minnesota,

address; therefore, venue is proper pursuant to 177.27(8), 181.935, and 181.171(2).

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

21. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action for damages, and the Statute

of Limitation in this action is NOT Time-barred pursuant to the following statute:

Minn. Stat. 541.07(1)(5) Limitation of Time, Commencing Actions. Except

where the Uniform Commercial Code, this section, *** otherwise prescribes, the
following actions shall be commenced within two years: (1) *** assault, battery
***, or other tort resulting in personal injury, (5) for recovery of wages *** or
damages, fees, or penalties except, *** that if the nonpayment is willful and not
the result of mistake or inadvertence, the limitation is three years. ***

22. As a result, this civil action, under the Labor Standards and Wages division of the Minnesota

Dept. of Labor, did occur on the 9th day of December, 2010 (Plaintiff Exhibit, PA-1), and the

Statute of Limitation expires on 12/9/2013. In addition, the last act of a continuing violation,

under Minn. Stat. 181.932, did occur on the 21st day of December, 2010, and the Statute of

Limitation expires on 12/21/2012.

12
 STATEMENT OF RECORD AND EXHIBITS

23. The three exhibits attached to the Original Complaint, as Plaintiff’s Appendix (PA) one, two

and three, does establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, and does

establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this issue, as follows:

a. (PA-1) is Wage Claim 11361 against the Pierson Pizza Defendant as determined
by Labor Investigator, John Stiffin, on date 12/9/2010.
b. (PA-2) is an official demand to pay unreimbursed travel expenses to Plaintiff, by
authority of 181.13, and this finding is made by Labor Investigator, John Stiffin,
on 11/23/2010.
c. (PA-3) is statutorily protected activity disclosed to the Defendant, on 8/2/2010,
which contributed to the continuing violations herewith.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

24. The character of pleadings and allegations have changed since a dismissal from the

Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), and the doctrine of res judicata and

collateral estoppel do not apply herewith; because, there was no adjudication on the merits of

MDHR Charge, and because the Plaintiff was denied a full and fair opportunity to be heard

on all issues herewith Haavisto v. Perpich, (MN S. Ct. 1994) 520 N.W.2d 727, 732.

25. Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, completed an application for employment with the Defendant on

the 4th day of December, 2007, Plaintiff was later hired, the employment of Plaintiff was at-

will, and Plaintiff did perform the functions of a pizza delivery driver, for the Defendant

from 7th day of December, 2007 to the 7th Day of August 2010.

26. That to this current day, the Defendant has not widely distributed an Employee Handbook,

nor did Defendant present to Plaintiff employer expectations detailing Work Rules or Job

Descriptions or a workplace Seniority System setting forth a bona fide employee Seniority

Practice, during the entire tenure of employment with the Pierson Pizza Defendant.

13
27. At all times during employment, the Plaintiff was required to use his own personal vehicle in

the course of employment; and even though the delivery charge was $1.50, the Defendant

only paid Plaintiff $1.00 for each delivery completed.

28. Moreover, at all times during employment, Plaintiff was required to pay his own costs for the

annual Minnesota State vehicular license and registration, Plaintiff paid his own costs for

auto insurance, Plaintiff paid his own costs for gasoline, and Plaintiff was never reimbursed

for any vehicular repair or vehicle maintenance.

29. In addition, at all times during employment, Plaintiff was paid the Federal Minimum Wage,

and Plaintiff did receive gratuities and tips for his customer pizza delivery service as

governed by the following Minnesota Fair Labor standards:

Minn. Stat. 177.24.(4)(2) Gratuities Not Applied. No employer may directly

or indirectly credit, apply, or utilize gratuities towards the payment of the
minimum wage set by this section or federal law.

30. After the year 2007 seasonal Christmas Holiday business increase did come to an end,

Plaintiff did have a meeting with Defendant, Jeff Pierson, on 1/11/2008, and Plaintiff did

seek Defendant’s corrective opportunity when Plaintiff did disclose a violation of law to Jeff

Pierson, so as to disclose the race discrimination practice of Keith West.

31. On 1/11/2008, Plaintiff did disclose a violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.08 to Defendant, Jeff

Pierson, and Plaintiff did disclose that senior-employee, Keith West, was cheating and

stealing pizza deliveries from Plaintiff; that Keith West did not cheat or steal from any other

white employee; and that said theft was intentional wage and gratuity discrimination, based

on race, so as to deprive Plaintiff of wage earning opportunity, and the privileges of

employment, that all the white employees enjoyed.

14
32. Moreover, on 1/11/2008, Plaintiff did inform Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that Plaintiff was

compelled to obtain other full-time employment because of the unlawful discrimination of

Keith West, and that Plaintiff would continue to work for Defendant on a part-time basis.

33. Thereafter, from 1/11/2008 to 2/22/2008, the weekly hours of Plaintiff was reduced from

(11) hours per week to (6) hours per week.

34. On the 19th day of March, 2008, Plaintiff did inform Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that Mike

Krepela did cheat and steal driver gratuity tip-money from Plaintiff; in addition, Plaintiff

additionally informed Defendant that said money theft appears to be retaliation and

constructive discharge for opposing the unlawful race discrimination of Keith West.

35. On the 2nd day of August, 2008, the Pierson Defendant did discuss a wage dispute complaint,

with the Plaintiff, that was investigated by the Minnesota Department of Labor (PA-3).

36. After making a wage compensation adjustment for said wage dispute, on the 8/8/2008 pay

period, and during the next following work week, the Defendant did reduce the weekly hours

of Plaintiff to (2) or (3) hours per week, from date 8/9/2008 to the date of 11/28/2008.

37. On the 18th day of August, 2008, Plaintiff sent an email complaint to Domino’s Corporate

Headquarters , and Plaintiff did disclose a violation of law regarding the theft of gratuity tip-

money taken from the driver gratuity money lock-box of Plaintiff.

38. During the months of September and October, 2008, the Defendant began to hire additional

delivery drivers, who were of the Caucasian race, and these newly hired employees

immediately began to work (20) to (30) hours per week.

39. In January, 2009, the Defendant hired an assistant manager, named Jennifer Lang, who is of

the Caucasian race.

15
40. On 2/21/2009 and 2/27/2009, Asst. Mgr., Jennifer Lang, and senior employee, Keith West,

did falsely blame Plaintiff for a customer order delivery failure, and after Plaintiff did advise

Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that said delivery failure was a set-up, Plaintiff did send an email

disclosure of unlawful discrimination to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, on 2/28/2009.

41. On 3/6/2009, Plaintiff did disclose to Carla Thompson, of Domino’s Corporate

Headquarters, that Plaintiff has suffered unlawful race discrimination, a repeated pattern of

harassment from the white employees and assistant managers; that Plaintiff suffered a theft

of his gratuity tip-money, Plaintiff suffered retaliation for opposing unlawful race

discrimination, and that Defendant did reduce the hours and wages of Plaintiff after each

attempt to seek corrective opportunity from the Pierson Defendant.

42. Thereafter, the Pierson Defendant refused to schedule Plaintiff for any work hours or for any

wage earnings during the week of 3/22/2009 to 3/28/2009.

43. In addition, the Defendant additionally did reduce the hours and wages of Plaintiff to 1.5 to

2.5 hours per week, at an average wage of $11.50 per week, for the time period of (9)

months, which began on date 3/15/2009 and did end on date 11/27/2009.

44. During the time period from 4/19/2009 to the date of 9/14/2009, and from the time of

9/28/2009 to the date of 8/7/2010, the employment of Plaintiff was exclusively with the

Defendant, for all purpose of a wage claims and expense reimbursement.

45. On 11/27/2009, Plaintiff again sent an email disclosure of information to Domino’s

Corporate Headquarters to disclose a violation of law that caused criminal damage to the

automobile of Plaintiff, which also caused a second-degree burn to the finger of Plaintiff, and

which did create an unsafe driving condition.

16
46. On 12/11/2009, Plaintiff did disclose a violation of law to Defendant, Jeff Pierson, Plaintiff

did advise Defendant that Police Report No. 09-17128 was filed for criminal damage to the

automobile of Plaintiff; and, Plaintiff again did discuss workplace bullying and the

harassment and the unlawful discrimination that has escalated into criminal activity.

47. On 1/22/2010, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant allows all of the white Caucasian

employees, of Pierson Pizza, to take home a Domino’s illuminated car-topper that delivery

drivers must use, in the course of employment; therefore, the Pierson Defendant gave special

privileges to the white employees, and did afford off-duty opportunities to said employees so

that they could reconfigure the volt-watt capacity in the car topper that Plaintiff used.

48. On 2/16/2010, after sending another email complaint to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters,

Plaintiff did disclose to “Loren,” at Domino’s Headquarters, that Jennifer Lang, Anthony

Bruce, Justin Murphy, and Chris Dresen were all engaged in actions of collusion, retaliation,

reprisal, harassment, workplace bullying, and intimidation against Plaintiff.

49. During this telephone call with Loren, on 2/16/2010, Plaintiff specifically informed Loren

that reprisals taken against Plaintiff was unlawful discrimination and retaliation for seeking

corrective opportunity from Carla Thompson, on 3/6/2009, and that Jeff Pierson did retaliate

against Plaintiff by reducing the hours and wages of Plaintiff for (9) months after Plaintiff

sought corrective opportunity from Carla Thompson; and, that Plaintiff suffered unsafe

driving conditions created by an electrical volt-watt overload that caused heat and smoke,

which caused plastic accessory equipment to melt and burn the finger of Plaintiff, and which

caused electric fuses to burn-out making the cigarette-lighter-DC-outlet inoperable.

50. From the month of March 2010, to August 2010, Plaintiff did report the adverse employment

action of the Defendant as a “BARRIER TO EMPLOYMENT,” on the Minnesota

17
 Unemployment website, because the workplace bullying, the unlawful reprisals, the

deprivation of available wage earnings, and the practice of Defendant to evade the “rightful-

place” of Plaintiff in “seniority;” is a “BARRIER” to employment.

51. On 4/1/2010, Plaintiff was compelled to appeal tax changes, made by the Minnesota

Department of Revenue (MDR), which held Plaintiff responsible for the tax evasion of

Defendant; and, Plaintiff disclosed a violation of law, to MDR, demonstrating that the

Pierson Defendant is responsible for the collection of taxes at the source of income, but that

Defendant failed to report taxes collected on the 2009 W2 Form.

52. On Friday, 4/9/2010, and for the [very first time], the Pierson Defendant did discuss the prior

complaints made by Plaintiff to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, and Defendant did

acknowledge that he did receive the (3) complaint summaries drafted by Loren and Carla

Thompson. In addition, during this discussion, Plaintiff did discuss all issues of unlawful

discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and the pattern and practice of harassment.

53. At this first discussion, on 4/9/2010, Plaintiff did disclose the violations of law committed by

every white employee at the Pierson Pizza place of employment, and Plaintiff did oppose the

practice of discrimination and retaliation made unlawful by the Minnesota Human Rights Act

(MHRA); Plaintiff did oppose the discrimination against his “rightful-place” in “seniority;”

and, Plaintiff did disclose his report made to Minnesota Unemployment because the unlawful

reprisals are a “BARRIER” to employment; and additionally, Plaintiff did refuse to accept

involuntary servitude as a condition of employment.

54. Thereafter, Defendant again reduced the hours and wages of Plaintiff to (3) hours per week,

for (2) weeks, from 4/2/2010 to the date of 4/16/2010.

18
55. On 4/12/2010 Plaintiff filed a Charge of race discrimination with the Minnesota Department

of Human Rights (MDHR), and Plaintiff disclosed a constellation of unlawful discriminatory

actions, in retaliation for seeking the employer’s corrective opportunity.

56. On 7/6/2010 Plaintiff did received the RESPONSE of Defendant to the Charge of

Discrimination, drafted by the MDHR, and Plaintiff did file his REBUTTAL to said

RESPONSE, on the 20th day of July, 2010.

57. On date 7/9/2010, during another discussion with the Pierson Defendant, the Defendant did

admit to creating the electric volt-watt overload in the automobile of Plaintiff; and,

Defendant did admit that Defendant decided to use a higher volt-watt capacity light bulb

system inside the Domino’s car-topper, used by Plaintiff, and Defendant did express his

dislike for paying legal fees to defend against Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination.

58. On the 7th day of August, 2010, at 5:25 P.M., Plaintiff suffered a vehicular breakdown, while

making a pizza delivery, in the course of employment, and Plaintiff was compelled to pay for

his own $70.00 vehicle towing cost, because the Pierson Defendant offered no assistance or

reimbursement to Plaintiff.

59. On the 9th day of August, 2010, Plaintiff did inform Defendant of his prior $140.00 and the

prior $168.00 auto repair, and the Plaintiff did inform Defendant that the 8/7/2010 auto

breakdown repair, was $1,108.00.

60. On 7/9/2010, Defendant, Jeff Pierson, did inform Plaintiff that he would remove Plaintiff

from the weekly work schedule, and Defendant informed Plaintiff to advise Defendant when

Plaintiff either obtained another working vehicle, or did repair his broken down vehicle.

19
61. On 10/15/2010, Plaintiff did appeal the Quit Determination, of Minnesota Unemployment,

because the Pierson Defendant did claim that Plaintiff voluntarily quit employment; however,

Plaintiff denied the voluntary quit, and Plaintiff testified that he did not quit employment. In

addition, the Pierson Defendant did testify, and Jeff Pierson did admit that Plaintiff never

informed Defendant that Plaintiff quit employment; and, Jeff Pierson testified that he did not

discharge or terminate Plaintiff.

62. During this 10/15/2010 Unemployment Appeal Hearing, Plaintiff was compelled to disclose

a violation of Fair Labors Standards to the Minnesota Unemployment Law Judge, and

Plaintiff did disclose that Defendant refused to reimburse Plaintiff for pizza delivery travel

expenses; that Plaintiff was paid $1.00 out of the $1.50 delivery charge, and that since

Defendant is required to pay Plaintiff the Federal Minimum Wage “free and clear” of

obligations to Defendant, the refusal to reimburse delivery travel expenses did cause the

automobile of Plaintiff to deteriorate until the vehicular did breakdown; and, that when

deducting the unreimbursed delivery travel expenses from the wages paid, the delivery travel

expenses did cause the wages of Plaintiff to fall below the Federal Minimum Wage.

63. After the Unemployment Law Judge did reverse the Ineligible-Determination and did grant

Unemployment Benefits to Plaintiff, and after the Unemployment Law Judge ruled that an

Involuntary Quit did separate Plaintiff from employment, Plaintiff received notice by

certified mail, on 11/18/2010, that his broken down vehicle was unlawfully determined to be

an abandoned vehicle, in violation of Minn. Stat. 168B.011(2)(2)(d), that the vehicle of

Plaintiff was unlawfully towed away from the repair facility, in violation of Minn. Stat.

168B.055, and that Plaintiff’s broken down vehicle, was impounded for a fee assessment

against Plaintiff.

20
64. Thereafter, on date 12/14/2010, when Plaintiff refused to accept an unreasonable offer to

settle all possible claims and damages incurred in Case No. 70-CV-10-25301, Plaintiff

received notice, on 12/21/2010, that the impounded vehicle of Plaintiff would be demolished

and dismantled, and unlawfully sold for parts, and for its scrap metal price, in violation of

Minn. Stat. 168B.07(3)(2)(c).

Count 1.
(Minimum Wage Violation)

65. When alleging a violation of the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage, Plaintiff must set forth

the statutory protections afforded under Minnesota Fair Labor Standards (MFLSA), for

unreimbursed delivery travel expenses, as set forth by the following employee protections:

Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4)(5) Unreimbursed Expenses Deducted. No

deductions, direct or indirect may be made for the items listed below which when
subtracted from the wages would reduce the wages below the minimum wage.
(4) Travel expenses in the course of employment.
Minn. Stat. 177.24(5) Expense Reimbursement. An employer, at the
termination of employment, must reimburse the full amount deducted, directly or
indirectly, for any of the items listed in subdivision (4).
(Subdivision 4)(4) Travel expenses in the course of employment.

66. As a result, since it is the policy of Defendant to refuse all reimbursement for any delivery

travel expense incurred during the course of employment, the Defendant in effect did make

unlawful deductions from the minimum wages paid to Plaintiff; and, by placing the burden of

delivery travel expenses solely upon Plaintiff, the Pierson Defendant was not paying Plaintiff

the minimum wage “free and clear” of the obligations to the employer Luiken v. Domino’s

Pizza, (U. S. Dist. Minn. 2009) LLC., 654 F.Supp.2d 973, 980; Supplement Memorandum,

June 21, 2010, Discussion.

67. In addition, the Pierson Defendant also denied Plaintiff the $1.50 delivery charge for each

delivery for the past (2) years and (8) months. During said time period, the Defendant

initially paid Plaintiff $1.25 per delivery; however, in November, 2008, the Defendant

21
 reduced the delivery payment to $1.00, which continued for (1) year and (9) months until

August 7, 2010, and said deprivation is in violation of the mandatory Federal Minimum

Wage requirement Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, (U. S. Dist. Minn. 2009) LLC., 654 F.Supp.2d

973, 980; Supplement Memorandum, June 21, 2010, Discussion.

68. Prior to a termination of employment, the total wages of Plaintiff, for the year 2009, was

only $670.00; however, the auto maintenance and repairs of Plaintiff totaled $646.00;

therefore, the wages of Plaintiff for (92) hours for the year 2009 was only $24.00 which is far

below the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage.

69. At the time of termination of employment, the total wages of Plaintiff, for the year 2010, was

$1,283.34; however, the auto maintenance and repairs of Plaintiff totaled $1,108.00;

therefore, the wages of Plaintiff, for (183) hours, for the year 2010, is $175.00, which is far

below the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage.

70. After filing a complaint with Labor Investigator, John Stiffin, of the Minnesota Department

of Labor, it was calculated that Plaintiff was denied a total of $4, 955.00 in unpaid wages,

gratuities, and unreimbursed delivery travel expenses, and Defendant was given an

opportunity to provide proof in rebuttal; however, Defendant only presented a bare denial of

said wage claim, and John Stiffin refused any further investigation herewith.

71. As a result, since it is a mandate for the Pierson Defendant is to pay Plaintiff the mandatory

Federal Minimum Wage “free and clear” of obligations to the Defendant, the delivery travel

expenses incurred, during the course of employment, did reduce the wages paid to that

which is far below the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage, and Defendant is in willful

violation of Minn. Stat. 177.23(9) and Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4)(5), and said unreimbursed

delivery travel expenses is past due and owing Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, (U.S. Dist. MN

22
 2009) LLC., 654 F.Supp.2d 973, 977-979; Supplement Memorandum, June 21, 2010,

Discussion.

Count 2.
(Wrongful Discharge, ending in Constructive Discharge)

72. To establish a prima facie tort of wrongful discharge, it must be established that (1)

Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff; that (2) Defendant

intended to harm Plaintiff; that, (3) the unlawful act did cause injury to Plaintiff; and (4) that

there was no justification for Defendant’s unlawful action; in addition, to establish wrongful

discharge based upon statutorily protected conduct, Plaintiff must establish that (1) he

engaged in statutorily protected conduct, that (2) the employer is aware of the protected

conduct and took adverse employment action against Plaintiff soon thereafter, and that there

(3) is a casual connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action Bersch v.

Rgnonti & Associates Inc., (MN App.1998) 584 N.W.2d 783, 786; Nelson v. Productive

Alternatives Inc., (MN S. Ct. 2006) 715 N.W.2d 452, 455-456.

73. To establish that Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff, the

Defendant only paid Plaintiff $1.00 out of the $1.50 delivery charge, then Defendant reduced

the hours and wages of Plaintiff to 1.5 to 2.5 hours per week for (9) months, and thereafter,

the Defendant willfully refused to reimbursed Plaintiff for driver delivery travel expenses

which caused the automobile of Plaintiff to deteriorate and break down, during the course of

employment, in violation of Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4)(5).

74. In addition, the Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff when the

Defendant admitted that he placed a higher volt capacity light-bulb system in the electric car

topper that Plaintiff used, which did cause heat and smoke and plastic to melt under the

23
 dashboard of the automobile, which created unsafe driving conditions, and did cause damage

to the electric wiring in the vehicle of Plaintiff, in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.595(3).

75. Thereafter, the Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff, when

Defendant refused to calculate the taxes collected on Plaintiff’s annual W2 Form which

caused Minnesota Revenue to charge Plaintiff with a $37.00 tax evasion adjustment; and

then, the Defendant gave a false report to Minnesota Unemployment to claim that Plaintiff

voluntarily quit employment, in violation of Minn. Stat. 268.184(1)(b).

76. Moreover, the Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff when the

Defendant did establish a pattern and practice of a reducing the hours and wages of Plaintiff

after every attempt to seek the employers corrective opportunity, in violation of Minn. Stat.

181.932(1); and when the Defendant did disregard the “rightful-place” of Plaintiff in

“seniority,” in violation of Minn. Stat. 363A(20)(5).

77. To establish that Defendant intended to harm Plaintiff, employment rules demand that

Plaintiff must first seek corrective opportunity from the employer; however, when seeking

corrective opportunity, the Defendant only escalated and perpetuated its adverse action to

include workplace malice and intentional damage to the automobile of Plaintiff, thus creating

unsafe driving conditions, and a burn injury to the finger of Plaintiff. In addition, the

intentional and deliberate policy to refuse reimbursement for delivery expenses did cause the

automobile of Plaintiff to deteriorate and breakdown, in violation of Minn. Stat. 181.932(1).

78. That to establish unlawful discrimination and retaliation did cause injury to Plaintiff, the

disregard of the “rightful-place” of Plaintiff in “seniority” did cause Plaintiff a loss of wage

earnings that total $42,000.00; plus, the refusal of Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff for

delivery travel expenses did cause the motor vehicle of Plaintiff to deteriorate and break-

24
 down; in addition, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the mandatory Federal Minimum

Wage for (2) years and (8) months; and then, the Defendant’s willful tax evasion has

generated a false tax claim against Plaintiff.

79. That there was no justification for the Defendant’s actions is brought forth by the fact that

Defendant has no record of disciplinary action taken against Plaintiff, for any misconduct or

indifference; and additionally, by the fact that a Minnesota Unemployment Law Judge did

render judgment to bring to an end the employment relationship herewith, and said

Unemployment Judge did find that Plaintiff was without fault for the employment separation.

80. To establish that wrongful discharge is based upon statutorily protected conduct, Plaintiff has

brought forth that he engaged in statutorily protected conduct when Plaintiff disclosed a

violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.08, Minn. Stat. 181.09, Minn. Stat. 363A.15, Minn. Stat.

609.595(3), and Minn. Stat. 177.24 to the Pierson-Defendant, in a face-to-face discussion,

which is statutorily protected conduct under Minn. Stat. 181.932(1).

81. To establish that Defendant is aware of statutorily protected conduct, the Pierson Defendant

did obtain imputed knowledge of all aforesaid violations of law, directly from a face-to-face

discussion with the Plaintiff, and officially from Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, and

legally from the MDHR Charge of Discrimination, in which Defendant did respond so as to

deny the Discrimination Charge.

82. To establish that Defendant took adverse employment action against Plaintiff, the aforesaid

allegations demonstrate a pattern and practice of dramatically reducing the hours and wages

of Plaintiff immediately after every attempt was made to seek corrective opportunity from

the Defendant; adverse action is demonstrated when Defendant did disregard the “rightful-

place” of Plaintiff in “seniority,” which deprived Plaintiff of wages and privileges that the

25
 white employees enjoyed; adverse action is demonstrated when Defendant refused to

reimburse Plaintiff for delivery travel expenses which caused the automobile of Plaintiff to

deteriorate and break down; and adverse action is demonstrated by the Pierson Defendant

making an admission that he did place a higher volt-watt capacity light bulb system in the

Domino’s illuminated car topper that Plaintiff used, which caused repeated electric fuse

blowouts, and the heat and smoke and melted plastic that burned the finger of Plaintiff.

83. That the casual connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action is the

consistent pattern of (one) work week following Defendant’s imputed knowledge of

statutorily protected conduct, initiated by Plaintiff, where the work hours and wages of

Plaintiff were repeatedly and dramatically reduced.

Count 3.
(Constructive Discharge, in violation of Public Policy)

84. Since constructive discharge is a companion tort, to establish constructive discharge based

upon violations of law, Plaintiff must set forth facts demonstrating that (1) Plaintiff resigned

or quit employment; that (2) Plaintiff resigned or quit employment because of intolerable

working conditions; that (3) the intolerable working conditions resulted from illegal

discrimination; that (4) a reasonable person would have found the conditions intolerable; and

that (5) the Pierson Defendant intended to force Plaintiff to quit, or the employee resignation

was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employers actions Waag v. Thomas

Pontiac, Buick, GMC., (U. S. Dist. MN. 1996) 930 F. Supp. 393, 406-407.

85. To establish that Plaintiff resigned or quit employment, the aforesaid allegations demonstrate

that Plaintiff did not inform the Defendant of any quit from employment; that Defendant did

not inform Plaintiff of any discharge from employment; and that the Pierson Defendant made

26
 out an involuntary-quit legal argument to a Minnesota Unemployment Law Judge so as to

justify its assertion that Plaintiff voluntary quit employment.

86. To establish that Plaintiff resigned or quit employment because of intolerable work

conditions, an Involuntary Quit determination was made by Unemployment Law Judge,

Richard Croft, in Case Issue ID No. 26247477-2, which means that the Pierson Defendant

initiated the employment separation to make clear that continued employment will not be an

option, and this final adjudication is now binding upon the Defendant, and his attorney

Fiskewold v. HM Smyth Co. Inc., (MN App. 1989) 440 NW2d 164, 165-167.

87. To establish intolerable working conditions, the foundation of constructive discharge began

when Plaintiff disclosed a violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.08 to the Pierson Defendant, on

1/11/08, alleging a practice of race discrimination by Keith West. Thereafter, Plaintiff did

oppose a practice of reprisal, resulting from the prior disclosure of a 363A.08 violation, when

Plaintiff did discuss the retaliatory reprisals with the Pierson Defendant, on 3/19/08, and said

disclosure of a violation of law is statutorily protected conduct, under 181.932(1).

88. To establish an escalation of intolerable working conditions, Plaintiff was compelled to seek

further corrective opportunity from Domino’s Corporate Headquarters because the Pierson

Defendant refused corrective opportunity to Plaintiff. Thereafter, an escalation of

harassment, intimidation, workplace bullying, and interferences with Plaintiff did create a

hostile job environment, in violation of Minn. Stat. 181.932(1)

89. To establish a perpetuation of intolerable conditions, after Plaintiff sought corrective

opportunity from Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, the work hours of Plaintiff were

reduced to 1.5 or 2.5 hours per week and the wages were reduced to $11.50 per week, for (9)

27
 months. Then, Plaintiff suffered malicious damage to his automobile, unreimbursed travel

expenses, and the theft of earned gratuities, in violation of Minn. Stat. 181.932(1).

90. To establish an escalation and perpetuation of intolerable conditions, after the Pierson

Defendant did prepare and service his Defense against Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination;

and after Plaintiff filed his Rebuttal, the Defendant refused to reimburse Plaintiff for delivery

travel expenses, which caused the wages of Plaintiff to fall below the mandatory Federal

Minimum Wage; thereafter, Defendant then made a false report that Plaintiff quit

employment, in violation of Minnesota Fair Labor Standards 177.24(4)(4)(5).

91. To establish that intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal

discrimination, the aforesaid allegations demonstrate that MHRA 363A.08 and MHRA

363A.20(5) forbids race discrimination against the “rightful-place” of Plaintiff in “seniority;”

as set forth by the following bona fide seniority provision of the MHRA:

Minn. Stat. 363A.20(5) Seniority System. The provisions of 363A.08 do not

apply to the operation of a bona fide seniority system which mandates
differences in such things as wages, hiring priorities, layoff priorities, vacation
credit, and job assignments based on seniority, so long as the operation of the
system is not a subterfuge to evade the provisions of this chapter.

92. That to establish intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal

discrimination, sections 363A.08 and 363A.15, of the MHRA, does forbid all forms of

discrimination, including race discrimination in employment, and the MHRA does forbid any

and all reprisal that an employer could initiate for opposing a practice of race discrimination,

as set forth by the following statutory prohibition in employment:

Minn. Stat. 363A.08(2)(3) Unfair Discriminatory Practices Relating To

Employment or Unfair Employment Practice. (2) Except when based upon a bona
fide occupational qualification, it is an unfair employment practice for an employer,
because of race, *** to: (3) discriminate against a person with respect to **
compensation, terms, conditions, ** or privileges of employment.
Minn. Stat, 363A.15(1) Reprisals. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for any
individual who participated in an alleged discrimination as an ** employer *** or

28
 employee or agent thereof to intentionally engage in any reprisal against any person
because that person: (1) opposed a practice forbidden under this chapter *** .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A reprisal includes, but is not limited to, any form of intimidation, retaliation, or
harassment. It is a reprisal for an employer to do any of the following with respect to
an individual because that individual has engaged in the activities listed in clause (1)
or (2): *** depart from any customary employment practice; transfer or assign the
individual to a lesser position in terms of wages, hours, job classification, job
security, or other employment status; or inform another employer that the individual
has engaged in the activities listed in clause (1) or (2).

93. To establish intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal discrimination,

the Disclosure Of Information By Employee Act does forbid any penalty or discrimination

for any good faith report concerning a violation of law, or race discrimination, to an

employer, or a good faith report to any government agency concerning a violation of law by

an employer, or to a public body, as set forth by the following statute of prohibition:

Minn. Stat. 181.932(1)(2) Disclosure of information by employees. (1)

Prohibited action. An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, or
otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee regarding the
employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of
employment because: (1) the employee *** in good faith, reports a violation ***
of any federal or state law *** to an employer or to any governmental body or
law enforcement official. (2) the employee is requested by a public body or
office to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry.
Minn. Stat. 181.935(b) Individual Remedies, Penalty. An employer who
failed to notify, as required under section 181.933 or 181.934, an employee
injured by a violation of section 181.932 is subject to a civil penalty of $25 per
day per injured employee not to exceed $750 per injured employee.

94. To establish intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal discrimination,

the Fair Labor Standards Act, of the Minnesota Department of Labor, does establish fair

labor standards in employment, for the payment of minimum wages, and additionally for

travel expense reimbursement, in the course of employment, and expense reimbursement is a

mandatory policy, as set forth by the following fair labor mandate:

Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4)(5) Unreimbursed Expenses Deducted. No

deductions, direct or indirect may be made for the items listed below which when
subtracted from the wages would reduce the wages below the minimum wage.
(4) Travel expenses in the course of employment.
Minn. Stat. 177.24(5) Expense Reimbursement. An employer, at the
termination of employment, must reimburse the full amount deducted, directly or
indirectly, for any of the items listed in subdivision (4).
(Subdivision 4)(4) Travel expenses in the course of employment.

29
95. To establish intolerable work conditions are the result of underlying illegal discrimination,

the Tax Code of Minnesota does mandate a duty upon every employer to collect payroll taxes

at the source, and to file a quarterly report, as set forth by the following revenue statute:

Minn. Stat. 268.044(1)(a) Wage Detail Report. Each employer must submit,
*** a quarterly wage detail report, by electronic transmission, in a format
prescribed by the commissioner. The report must include for each employee in
covered employment during the calendar quarter, the employee’s name, social
security number, the total wages paid to the employee, and the total number of
paid hours worked.
26 USCA 3403 – Liability for tax. The employer shall be liable for the
payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, ***

96. To demonstrate that a reasonable person would find the aforesaid employment condition as

intolerable, the Defendant did escalate and did perpetuate its adverse action against Plaintiff

after imputed knowledge of protected activity was obtained; therefore, the Defendant

intended to dissuade any reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination, the

Defendant intended to dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in statutorily protected

activity, and the aforesaid conditions of employment were imposed to deter a reasonable

employee away from engaging in statutorily protected conduct.

97. To demonstrate that the Defendant intended to force Plaintiff to quit employment, the

aforesaid allegations demonstrate that Defendant gave a false statement to Minnesota

Unemployment so as to initiate an Involuntary Quit from employment, against the will of

Plaintiff, and Defendant compelled an Unemployment Law Judge to render judgment to

make clear that continued employment will not be an option Fiskewold v. HN Smyth Co. Inc.

(MN App. 1989) 440 NW2d 164, 165-167.

98. Thereafter, to facilitate legal counsel to take advantage of Plaintiff’s circumstance so as to

exact an unreasonable or unconscionable case settlement, the automobile of Plaintiff was

determined to be an abandoned vehicle, in violation of Minn. Stat. 168B.011(2)(2), then a

30
 breach in agreement did cause the automobile of Plaintiff to be towed and impounded, in

violation of Minn. Stat. 168B.055, and then, to destroy evidence of Defendant’s damage to

said automobile, Plaintiff’s automobile was dismantled and destroyed, by Southwest Towing,

in violation of Minn. Stat. 168B.07(3)(2)(c), so that Plaintiff cannot claim a travel expense

reimbursement, and such coercion and undue influence is in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(d)(h) of

the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct In Re Discipline of Dedefo, (MN S. Ct. 2008)

752 N.W.2d 523, 528-532. Holt v. Swenson, (MN S. Ct. 1958) 252 Minn. 510, 514; 90

N.W.2d 724.

RELIEF AND DAMAGES

99. Wherefore, Plaintiff pleads with the Court to award $42,000 in unpaid wages that result from

a malicious constructive discharge, which result from a pattern and practice of reprisal for

reporting a violation of law to the Defendant, and to Minnesota State Agencies, which denied

Plaintiff $1,958.00 in delivery travel expense reimbursements, and which did reduce the

wages paid to Plaintiff below the mandatory Federal Minimum Wage. In addition, since the

personal property loss to Plaintiff is $2,846.00, and since the actions of Defendant are

particularly egregious, a treble damage assessment of actual damages becomes $134, 538.00.

Moreover, a $25,000 assessment of Punitive damages should be assessed against the

Defendant, and this court is entitled to $50,000 and $750 in civil penalties.

By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff
X. X. XXx XXX
SXXXXX, XX XXXXX
(XXX) XXX-XXXX

31
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL,
Plaintiff, Case No. 70-CV-11-186

vs. 1st Amended COMPLAINT

Minimum Wage and Wrongful Discharge
PIERSON PIZZA, ending in a Constructive Discharge
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA J. ISRAEL

STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )

Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, have read this document. To the best of my knowledge, information,
and belief, the information contained in this document is well grounded in fact and is warranted
by existing law, and there is no issue of military service as to any of the parties.

I have not been determined by any court in Minnesota, or in any other state to be a frivolous
litigant, and I am not a subject of an Order precluding me from serving or filing this document.

I am not serving this document for any improper purpose, such as to harass the other party, or to
cause delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, or to commit fraud on the Court.

I understand that if I am not telling the truth, or if I am misleading or deceiving the Court, or if I
am serving this default or filing this summary judgment for an improper purpose, the Court can
order me to pay money to the other party, including the reasonable expenses incurred by the
other party because of the serving or the filing of this application for default and summary
judgment, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.

Dated: _______________________ __________________________________

Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff
Subscribed and sworn to before me
on this 1st day of March, 2011

______________________________
Notary Public
207-39-0/347097

32
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Case No. 70-CV-11-186

Plaintiff, Reply To Motion To Dismiss
1st AMENDED COMPLAINT
vs. to allege Minimum Wage Violation
and Wrongful Discharge, ending in
PIERSON PIZZA Inc., a Constructive Discharge.
Defendant. Judge, ___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

PROOF OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, certifies that a true copy of his 1st Amended Complaint, his Notice
of Motion and Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint, and his Objection to Exhibits of
Defendant has been placed in an envelope, addressed to Defendant’s Counsel, and that said
documents were serviced to Defendant, by first class mail through the U. S. Postal Service, on
the 1st day of March, 2011, at the following address:

Shannon M. McDonough Hand Delivery To Clerk of Court

Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A. Scott County District Court
Flagship Corporate Center 200 Fourth Avenue West JC 115
775 Prairie Center Drive Shakopee, MN 55379
Suite #400
Eden Prairie, MN 55344

By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff-Pro-Se

33