COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND I. JURISDICTION … similar to the one in which she previously worked. 23. From 2009 to 2013 Mrs. Mathews worked 32 hours a week with no benefits such as

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. LIZZY MATHEWS, Plaintiff, v. DENVER HEALTH and HOSPITALS, a municipal organization; KELLY TORRES, Manager of Nursing, in her individual and official capacity; MARC FEDO, Director of Nursing Acute, in his individual and official capacity; Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Lizzy Mathews, by and through her attorneys, Francis K. Culkin and

Karen Virginia Larson, hereby complains and avers as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff invokes this Court's jurisdiction under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16; The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and

1343.

3. Jurisdiction supporting Mrs. Mathews’ claim for attorney fees is conferred by 42

U.S.C. § 1988.

4. Conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been satisfied in that:

Case 1:18-cv-00081-STV Document 1 Filed 01/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19

2

a. Charge 541-2017-00940 of employment discrimination was filed with the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the United States (“EEOC”) and the Colorado Civil Rights Division (“CCRD”) by Lizzy Mathews on or about August 25, 2017 within 300 days of the Defendant’s commission of unlawful employment practices starting on September 13, 2016. A Notice of Right to Sue was issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission May 2, 2017. .

b. A second charge of employment discrimination, Charge 541- 2018-00033 was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the United States (“EEOC”) and the Colorado Civil Rights Division (“CCRD”) by Lizzy Mathews on or about October 5, 2017 within 300 days of the Defendant’s commission of continuing unlawful employment practices. A Notice of Right to Sue was issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission October 13, 2017.

5. Denver Health and Hospitals is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 and 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. in that it engages in an industry affecting commerce and has twenty or more employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current or pending calendar year. Colorado Springs Utilities has 500 or more employees.

6. At all times relevant Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 and 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. as amended.


3

II. PARTIES

7. Paragraphs 1-6 are incorporated herein by reference.

8. Plaintiff, Lizzy Mathews (hereafter Mrs. Mathews), is a female of Asian/Indian race, is 65 years of age and was born in India on April 29, 1952. 9. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and resides in Lakewood, Colorado. . 10. Defendant, Kelly Torres, is a Manager of Nursing who engaged in the illegal acts complained of. 11. Defendant, Marc Fedo, is a Director of Nursing Acute Care who engaged in the illegal acts complained of. 12. Defendant, Denver Health and Hospitals, was Lizzy Mathews’ full-time employer from 1989 to 2008 and part-time employer from 2009 to 2016. 13. Venue is appropriate in the District of Colorado because Defendants reside in the City and County of Denver, Plaintiff worked in the City and County of Denver, and the acts committed and complained of occurred in the City and County of Denver.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

14. Paragraphs 1-13 are incorporated herein by reference.

A. Background

15. Mrs. Mathews is of Asian/Indian ethnicity and was born in India on

04/29/1952.

16. Mrs. Mathews has lived in the United States since 1983.

17. Mrs. Mathews earned a nursing degree from Hamidia Medical College

Hospital in Bhopal, M.P. India in 1977.

18. Mrs. Mathews attended Front Range Community College and Emily Griffith


4

Opportunity Schools in Denver, CO to advance her nursing education in psychiatric nursing and pharmacology in 1989. 19. Mrs. Mathews is a licensed R.N. in Colorado since 1991.

20. Mrs. Mathews started work as a nurse at Denver Health in September, 1989.

21. In 2008, Mrs. Mathews retired from Denver Health. 22. In 2009, Mrs. Mathews returned to Denver Health as a part-time R.N. in a position similar to the one in which she previously worked. 23. From 2009 to 2013 Mrs. Mathews worked 32 hours a week with no benefits such as sick pay, vacation pay or pension credit. 24. Mrs. Mathews began to draw social security retirement benefits in 2013 and reduced her hours to 36-48 hours per month in order to comply with social security earnings limits. 25. Mrs. Mathews then reduced her hours again to 3 shifts per month, 12 hours per shift because Denver Health increased her pay rate and she learned she had to limit further her earnings in order to retain her social security benefits. 26. Annette Callahan, Ms. Mathews’ Nurse Manager up to 2015, agreed with Mrs. Mathews she would not have to work over three twelve-hour shifts per month. 27. In approximately 2015, Kelly Torres became Ms. Mathews’ Nurse Manager. 28. Mrs. Mathews told Ms. Torres she would be able to and would work more hours than three shifts per month as soon as she turned 66. 29. Ms. Torres told Mrs. Mathews she did not have to work more than three twelve- hour shifts a month until she turned 66.


5

B. Part-/time employment 30. Mrs. Mathews worked 1 to 2 shifts per week, usually Saturdays, starting March 11, 2009. 31. Mrs. Mathews worked under Annette Callahan, Nurse Manager, until 2015 when she was assigned a new Nurse Manager, Kelly Torres, an Hispanic individual (hereinafter Ms. Torres). 32. Several times, including the last time in February, 2016, Ms. Torres asked Mrs. Mathews if she could work longer hours. 33. Mrs. Mathews told Mrs. Torres she could not work more hours at that time; however, in a few years when she turned 66 she would be able to work more hours. 34. Ms. Torres commented in that conversation that she supervised another nurse, whom Mrs. Hughes knew was Hispanic, who worked only a few shifts per month on weekends. 35. The other part-time nurse, an Hispanic, continued to work the same hours as Mrs. Mathews indefinitely. 36. Ms. Torres agreed with Mrs. Mathews that she did not have to work over three shifts until she turned 66. 37. Ms. Torres did not tell Mrs. Mathews she could lose her job if she did not work more hours. 38. Neither Ms.Torres nor anyone else told Mrs. Mathews she would receive discipline or negative consequences if she did not work more hours. 39. Mrs. Mathews received exceptional performance reviews in customer confidence and customer satisfaction and successful/exceptional reviews in performance in


6

all categories throughout her first and second employment periods at Denver Health and Hospitals. 40. Mrs. Mathews had no discipline at Denver Health and Hospitals. 41. Mrs. Mathews received an exceptional performance review in customer confidence and customer satisfaction and successful/exceptional reviews in all categories performance in 2016, shortly before her termination. 42. There were no comments or suggestions or goals stated in Mrs. Mathews’ performance review from 2016 or from prior years that stated Mrs. Mathews needed to work more hours to remain in good standing. 43. There were no policies stated at Denver Health against engaging in politically- based communications. 44. There were no comments or suggestions or goals stated in Mrs. Mathews’ performance review from 2016 or from prior years that stated Mrs. Mathews needed to refrain from politically-based communications with any person. 45. No other employee was disciplined for engaging in political discussion, although Ms. Mathews knew such discussions among employees and patients were commonplace. 46. Mrs. Mathews had no official duties or job duties related to political activities. 47. Mrs. Mathews had no official or unofficial job duties or responsibilities requiring political allegiance or political criticism. C. Termination 48. Mrs. Mathews worked in the 3B Med/Surg Department on Saturday, September 10, 2016.


7

49. Mrs. Mathews was tending to a patient on 3B whom Mrs. Mathews knew to be a former high ranking employee at Denver Health. 50. The patient was watching news about the upcoming presidential election on television and engaged Mrs. Mathews in conversation by commenting about the election and who might win. 51. Mrs. Mathews stated “ Donald Trump was going to win the election and that she was praying for him, also.” 52. The patient stated, “Oh, no, I don’t want him to be.” 53. Ms. Mathews did not have any job duties involving political speech. 54. On September 13, 2016 Mrs. Torres called Mrs. Mathews at home and stated, “it just came out that a patient complained” about the conversation regarding the election. 55. Mrs. Torres asked Mrs. Mathews, “did you say anything?” 56. Mrs. Mathews repeated the colloquy with the patient. 57. Mrs. Torres asked, “did you ask [the patient] to read the Bible?” 58. Mrs. Mathews stated, “No, I did not.” 59. Ms. Kelly Torres terminated Mrs. Mathews during the September 13, 2016 telephone conversation because of Mrs. Mathews’ comment about Donald Trump. 60. Ms. Torres told Ms. Mathews to call the office after she terminated her. 61. Mrs. Torres also stated that, secondly, Mrs. Mathews did not work enough hours. 62. Marc Fedo, Director of Nursing Acute Care approved Mrs. Mathews’ termination and ineligibility for rehire.


8

63. The only document addressing Mrs. Mathews termination stated she was terminated for an “other reason” and was not eligible for rehire. 64. Mrs. Mathews did not see the termination document until January 24, 2017. 65. Mrs. Mathews never learned she was assigned the status of “ineligible for rehire” until she met with an Employee Relations Specialist on January 24, 2017. D. Eligibility for rehire. 66. On January 24, 2017, Mrs. Mathews and her husband met with an Employee Relations Specialist, Dana Turner, to inquire about going back to work. 67. Mrs. Mathews stated she wanted to return to Denver Health to work as an R.N. when she turned 66 and she would be able to work more hours. 68. The human resources representative looked at Mrs. Mathews’ file and stated that the file listed Mrs. Mathews as “ineligible for rehire.” 69. After seeing for the first time a personnel document that stated she was not eligible for rehire, Mrs. Mathews’ husband told Dana Turner she was going to go to the EEOC if she could not resolve the problem of being ineligible for rehire. 70. Ms. Mathews told Ms. Turner the circumstances surrounding her termination. 71. Dana Turner then told Mrs. Mathews she was going to talk to Ms. Torres about the personnel action that deemed Mrs. Mathews ineligible for rehire. 72. Dana Turner spoke positively about Ms. Mathews getting her job back. 73. Dana Turner told Mrs. Mathews she was going to investigate the termination and the reasons for Mrs. Torres being deemed ineligible for rehire, 74. Dana Turner gave Mrs. Mathews a confidentiality statement that described the


9

procedures in the internal investigation she was going to conduct, including an investigation of discrimination. 75. If Ms. Mathews had been terminated because Denver Health and Hospitals needed her to work more hours, she would have been eligible for rehire under Denver Health and Hospitals’ policies. 76. Dana Turner told Mrs. Mathews she would try to change her status to “eligible for rehire.” 77. Dana Turner agreed to contact Mrs. Mathews with the results of her investigation; however, she never contacted Mrs. Mathews with any results of her investigation. 78. Mrs. Mathews went to the EEOC on March 1, 2017 to complain about Denver Health’s discriminatory termination and its deeming her status to be “failure to rehire.” 79. Mrs. Mathews subsequently called Dana Turner and left numerous messages asking about the status of the investigation. 80. As a result of Dana Turner’s assurances she would investigate and assist Mrs. Mathews in regaining her status of “eligible for rehire,” Mrs. Mathews believed Denver Health was opening an investigation of all matters related to the termination. 81. Based on Ms. Turner’s statements and assurances there would be an investigation, Mrs. Mathews understood she could file another complaint at the EEOC in the unlikely event the result of the investigation would be she could not change her status to “eligible for rehire.” 82. Mrs. Mathews refilled a timely EEOC complaint on October 13, 2017 after she


10

concluded Dana Turner was not going to investigate her complaints of discrimination and would not change her status to “ineligible for rehire.”

IV. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (§ 1983 First Amendment Violation – Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech)

42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Kelly Torres and Marc Fedo)

83. Mrs. Mathews incorporates paragraphs 1-82 of this Complaint by reference.

84. In commenting about the outcome of the election in 2016, Mrs. Mathews was

engaging in the constitutionally protected activity of free speech in prognosticating about

the outcome of the election and petitioning for success of the country in the outcome.

85. Mrs. Mathews’ speech was related to matters of public concern, the election and

its effect on the country and who is going to lead the country.

86. Ms. Mathews spoke as a private individual.

87. Defendants Kelly Torres and Marc Fedo terminated Ms. Mathews in retaliation for

her protected speech.

88. Defendants acted in their individual capacities and in their official capacities when

Denver Health and Hospitals approved of their actions in terminating Mrs. Mathews,

deeming her ineligible for rehire, refusing to investigate her termination and refusal

to change her status to “eligible for rehire.”

89. Political speech was a subject of heightened public attention and of

uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate in virtually all public facilities September,

2016.

90. In commenting about the election, Ms. Mathews was engaging in

constitutionally- protected speech.

91. Mrs. Mathews’ comment about a possible outcome in an election, especially


11

when the subject was introduced by the patient, is not a subject the avoidance of which is

necessary for the proper functioning of a public hospital.

92. The Defendants’ acts of terminating Mrs, Mathews from her employment were

motivated primarily and directly by Mrs. Mathews’s exercise of constitutionally

protected conduct.

93. Defendants’ actions caused Mrs. Mathews to suffer injuries that would chill a

person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected

activity.

94. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to Mrs.

Mathews of which reasonable persons in Defendants’ positions knew or should have

known.

95. Defendants’ acts were done under color of state and/or federal law.

96. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint intentionally,

knowingly, willfully, wantonly maliciously, and in reckless disregard of Mrs. Mathew’s

federally-protected constitutional rights.

97. Defendants’ conduct proximately caused significant injuries, damages and losses

to Mrs. Mathews.

V. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (§ 1983 First Amendment Violation – Retaliation for Exercise of Free Association)

42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Kelly Torres and Marc Fedo)

98. Mrs. Mathews incorporates paragraphs 1-97 of this Complaint by reference.

99. In making a prediction that Donald Trump would win the election in 2016 and

expressing hope for an agenda that leads to the flourishing of the rest of society, Mrs.

Mathews expressed what was construed by the patients and Defendants as an association


12

with the outcome of the election.

100. Mrs. Mathews was engaging constitutionally protected activity of free

association with a political candidate.

101. Mrs. Hughes’ speech was related to matters of public concern including

her association with a political party or candidate.

102. Ms. Mathews spoke as a private citizen about her association with a political party

or candidate.

103. The Defendants’ act of terminating Mrs, Mathews from her employment without

eligibility for rehire was motivated by Mrs. Mathews’ exercise of constitutionally

protected conduct of association with her political views.

104. Defendants’ actions caused Mrs. Mathews to suffer injuries that would chill a

person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected

activity.

105. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to Mrs.

Hughes of which reasonable persons in Defendants’ position knew or should have

known.

106. Defendants acted in their individual capacities and in their official capacities

when Denver Health and Hospitals approved of their actions in terminating Mrs.

Mathews, deeming her ineligible for rehire and refusing to investigate her termination

and change her status.

107. Defendants’ acts were done under color of state and/or federal law.

108. Defendants engaged in the conduct described in this Complaint intentionally,



13

federally protected constitutional rights.

109. Defendants’ conduct proximately caused significant injuries, damages and losses

to Mrs. Mathews.

VI. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Disparate Treatment Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment based on

Race and National Origin) 42 U.S.C. 1981

(Kelly Torres and Marc Fedo)

110. Paragraphs 1 through 109 are incorporated herein by reference. 111. At all relevant times, Defendants subjected Mrs. Hughes to discriminatory disparate treatment, a hostile work environment and termination without eligibility for rehire based on her race, color and national origin, Asian/ Indian. 112. Defendants treated non- Asian/ Indian employees more favorably including but not limited to discriminatory preferential scheduling that altered the terms and conditions of her employment based on race and national origin. 113. Defendants treated non-Asian/ Indian employees more favorably including but not limited to disparate discipline and with less scrutiny then that applied to Ms. Mathews that led to termination of her employment without eligibility for rehire based on race and national origin. 114. Defendants’ stated reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were pretextual.

115. Defendants acted in their individual capacities and in their official capacities

when Denver Health and Hospitals approved of their actions in terminating Mrs.

Mathews, deeming her ineligible for rehire and refusing to investigate her termination

and change her status.

116. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff sustained past and


14

future loss of income and benefits, other economic losses, past and future emotional pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, loss of enjoyment of life and other damages.




118. The Defendants’ acts have caused Plaintiff to incur costs, expenses, and

attorney’s fees.

VII. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Disparate Treatment Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment based on Age) Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, C.R.S. 24-34-301 et seq.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

(Denver Health and Hospitals)

119. Paragraphs 1 through 118 are incorporated herein by reference. 120. At all relevant times, Plaintiff, Lizzy Mathews, was treated less favorably than her younger counterparts in the terms and conditions of employment including but not limited to discipline, termination and ineligibility for rehire based on age. 121. Defendant, Denver Health and Hospital’s stated reasons for its adverse actions against Mrs. Mathews, including reasons for discipline and ineligibility for rehire, were pretextual. 122. As a result of Defendant, Denver Health and Hospital’s actions, Mrs. Mathews sustained past and future loss of income and benefits, other economic losses, past and future emotional pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life and other damages. 123. Defendant’s acts have caused Mrs. Mathews to incur costs, expenses, and

attorney’s fees.


15

124. Defendant, Denver Health and Hospital’s discriminatory acts were intentional and a penalty provided under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is demanded.

VIII. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Disparate Treatment Discrimination and based on Race and National Origin and

Color ) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 et seq. Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, C.R.S. 24-34-301 et seq.

Against Denver Health and Hospitals

125. Paragraphs 1 through 124 are incorporated herein by reference. 126. At all relevant times, Defendant subjected Mrs. Mathews to disparate treatment in scheduling, discipline, termination, and deeming her ineligible for rehire based on her based on her race, national origin and color, Asian/Indian. 127. Defendant, Denver Health and Hospital’s, disparate treatment in scheduling, discipline, termination and deeming her ineligible for rehire were motived by discrimination based on race. 128. Defendant gave preferential treatment to non-Asian/Indian employees

in terms and conditions of employment, scheduling, discipline an termination and deeming them eligible for rehire under comparable circumstances. 129. Defendant’s stated reasons for its adverse actions against Mrs. Mathews were pretextual. 130. The Defendant’s discriminatory acts were intentional. 131. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff sustained past and future loss of income and benefits, other economic losses, past and future emotional pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, loss of enjoyment of life and other damages.



16



133. The Defendant’s acts have caused Plaintiff to incur costs, expenses, pre and post- judgment interest and attorney’s fees.

IX. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Disparate Treatment Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment based on

Religion ) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 134. Paragraphs 1 through 133 are incorporated herein by reference. 135. At all relevant times, Defendant, Denver Health and Hospitals, subjected Plaintiff to discriminatory disparate treatment, termination and deemed her ineligible for rehire based on her religion. 136. The Defendant’s discriminatory acts were intentional. 137. Defendant treated employees who did not express religious beliefs more favorably including but not creation of and sustaining a hostile work environment that altered the terms and conditions of her employment based on religion, termination and deeming her ineligible for rehire. 138. Defendant’s reasons for its stated reasons for termination and deeming her ineligible for rehire were pretextual. 139. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff sustained past and future loss of income and benefits, other economic losses, past and future emotional pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, loss of enjoyment of life and other damages.




17


141. The Defendant’s acts have caused Plaintiff to incur costs, expenses, and

attorney’s fees. 142. The Defendant’s acts have caused Plaintiff to incur costs, expenses, and

attorney’s fees.

WHEREFORE, Mrs. Mathews respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in

her favor and against the Defendants, and grant:

A. Order the Defendants to make Plaintiff whole by providing her with

full back pay and front pay and back and front benefits in an amount to be shown at trial.

B. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to be shown at trial,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, for emotional pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity

and loss of enjoyment of life.

C. Reinstate Plaintiff to her job and deem her eligible for rehire.

D. Award Plaintiff punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §1981a and punitive

damages and penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. for intentional discrimination and

retaliation.

E. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with reasonable attorney's

fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

F. Award Plaintiff pre and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, as amended.

G. Award Plaintiff an income tax equalization award to defray taxation costs of

her damage award.


18

GH Enter an Order for such further and other relief as this Court may deem

necessary and proper including any affirmative relief that is necessary to make the

Plaintiff whole.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL IN THIS MATTER.

Dated: January 11, 2018. Respectfully submitted, s/ Francis K. Culkin Francis K. Culkin 1776 S. Jackson Street Suite 411 Denver, CO 80210

Telephone: 303-830-1110 FAX: 303-863-9221 email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff, Lizzy Mathews

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Karen Virginia Larson Karen Virginia Larson The Law Office of Karen Larson 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive Suite 575

Denver, CO 80209-3825 Telephone: 303-831-4404 FAX: 303-261-8109 email:[email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff, Lizzy Mathews

Plaintiff’s Address: 10378 W. Wesley Drive Lakewood, CO 80227


19


V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) District of Colorado Form CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

f

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

❒ 110 Insurance ❒ 120 Marine ❒ 130 Miller Act ❒ 140 Negotiable Instrument ❒ 150 Recovery of Overpayment

& Enforcement of Judgment ❒ 151 Medicare Act ❒ 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Student Loans (Excludes Veterans)

❒ 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits

❒ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ❒ 190 Other Contract ❒ 195 Contract Product Liability ❒ 196 Franchise

’ ’

’

’

’ ’

’ ’

’

’

PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product

Liability 320 Assault, Libel &

Slander 330 Federal Employers’

Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product

Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle

Product Liability 360 Other Personal

Injury 362 Personal Injury -

Medical Malpractice

PERSONAL INJURY ❒ 365 Personal Injury -

Product Liability ❒ 367 Health Care/

Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability

❒ 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability

PERSONAL PROPERTY ❒ 370 Other Fraud ❒ 371 Truth in Lending ❒ 380 Other Personal

Property Damage ❒ 385 Property Damage

Product Liability

❒ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881

❒ 690 Other

’ ’

422 Appeal 28 USC 158 423 Withdrawal

28 USC 157

❒ 375 False Claims Act ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC

3729(a)) ❒ 400 State Reapportionment ❒ 410 Antitrust ❒ 430 Banks and Banking ❒ 450 Commerce ❒ 460 Deportation ❒ 470 Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations ❒ 480 Consumer Credit ❒ 490 Cable/Sat TV ❒ 850 Securities/Commodities/

Exchange ❒ 890 Other Statutory Actions ❒ 891 Agricultural Acts ❒ 893 Environmental Matters ❒ 895 Freedom of Information

Act ❒ 896 Arbitration ❒ 899 Administrative Procedure

Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision

❒ 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

PROPERTY RIGHTS ❒ 820 Copyrights ❒ 830 Patent ❒ 835 Patent - Abbreviated

New Drug Application ❒ 840 Trademark

LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ❒ 710 Fair Labor Standards

Act ❒ 720 Labor/Management

Relations ❒ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 751 Family and Medical

Leave Act ❒ 790 Other Labor Litigation ❒ 791 Employee Retirement

Income Security Act

’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ❒ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ❒ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 865 RSI (405(g))

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS FEDERAL TAX SUITS ❒ 210 Land Condemnation ❒ 220 Foreclosure ❒ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ❒ 240 Torts to Land ❒ 245 Tort Product Liability ❒ 290 All Other Real Property

X 440 Other Civil Rights ❒ 441 Voting X 442 Employment ❒ 443 Housing/

Accommodations ❒ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -

Employment ❒ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -

Other ❒ 448 Education

Habeas Corpus: ❒ 463 Alien Detainee ❒ 510 Motions to Vacate

Sentence ❒ 530 General ❒ 535 Death Penalty

Other: ❒ 540 Mandamus & Other ❒ 550 Civil Rights ❒ 555 Prison Condition ❒ 560 Civil Detainee -

Conditions of Confinement

❒ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant)

❒ 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION ❒ 462 Naturalization Application ❒ 465 Other Immigration

Actions

x Original ❒ 2 Removed from ❒ 3 Remanded from ❒ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ❒ 6 Multidistrict ❒ 8 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -

42 USC 1983; 42 USC 1981; 42 USC. 2000 e-16; 29 USC 621 et seq. APDocketDiscriminationandretaliationbasedonspeech,race,religion,nationalorigin,age.

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

❒ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ 1,000,000 CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: X’ Yes ’ No

IF ANY (See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE 01/11/2018 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD s/ Francis K. Culkin s/ Karen Virginia Larson

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

(a) PLAINTIFF LIZZY MATHEWS

County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number FrancisK.Culkin, 1776S.JacksonStreet,Suite411,Denver,CO80210,303-863-9221;KarenVirginiaLarson,3773E.CherryCreekN.Drive,Suite575,Denver,CO80209-3825,303-831-4404

DEFENDANTS DENVER HEALTH AND HOSPITALS KELLY TORRES in her individual and official capacities MARC FEDO in his individual and official capacities

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 U.S. Government X 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintif(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

DEF Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4

of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5 of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country

Case 1:18-cv-00081-STV Document 1-1 Filed 01/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

Print Save As... Reset Case 1:18-cv-00081-STV Document 1-1 Filed 01/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use

only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"

in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this

section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional

statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket

numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.


UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFortheDistrictofColorado

LIZZYMATHEWS ) )Plaintiff, ) )v. ) ) DENVERHEALTHANDHOSPITALS, )CivilActionNo.KELLYTORRES,inherindividual )andofficialcapacity, )MARCFEDO,inhisindividual )andofficialcapacity, ) Defendants. )

SUMMONSINACIVILACTIONTO: DenverHealthandHospitals 777BannockStreet Denver,CO80204A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:

FrancisK.Culkin KarenVirginiaLarson 1776S.JacksonStreet 3773E.CherryCreekN.Drive Suite411 Suite575 Denver,CO80210 Denver,CO80209-3825If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk





SUMMONSINACIVILACTIONTO: KellyTorresDenverHealthandHospitals 777BannockStreet Denver,CO80204A lawsuit has been filed against you.



Date:

CLERK OF COURT






SUMMONSINACIVILACTIONTO: MarcFedoDenverHealthandHospitals 777BannockStreet Denver,CO80204A lawsuit has been filed against you.



Date:

CLERK OF COURT




COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND I. JURISDICTION … similar to the one in which she previously worked. 23. From 2009 to 2013 Mrs. Mathews worked 32 hours a week with no benefits such as

Documents