Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JENNIFER FALCON, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ Case Number ____________________
WORD OF GOD FELLOWSHIP, §
INC., doing business as DAYSTAR §
TELEVISION NETWORK, §
§
Defendant. §
Jennifer Falcon, through counsel, hereby states the following claims against Word of
1. Under Sections 1331, 1343, and 1367 of Title 28, and Section 2000e-5 of Title
42, United States Code, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this civil action.
As explained in detail below, this action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
2. Under Section 1391 of Title 28, and Section 2000e-5 of Title 42, United States
Code, the venue of this civil action is proper. Plaintiff avers that unlawful employment
practices occurred in this judicial district, that the employment records relevant to such
have worked in this judicial district but for the unlawful employment practices.
The Parties
District of Texas.
under the laws of the State of Georgia. Daystar’s principal place of business is within the
5. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s rights to bring this civil action and to
recover the relief requested herein have been performed or have occurred.
and submitted her “Charge of Discrimination” to the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”). On December 28, 2010, the EEOC issued to
Plaintiff a formal “Notice of Right to Sue” which Plaintiff eventually received. This civil
action is timely filed within 90 days of Plaintiff’s receipt of the “Notice of Right to Sue.”
Respondeat Superior
fashion, then such allegation should be taken to mean (a) that Defendant itself took such
action or made such comunication; or, in the alternative, (b) that a duly authorized agent of
course and scope of the agency; or, in the alternative, (c) that such action or communication
was by one having apparent authority to do so on behalf of Defendant; or, in the alternative,
(d) that Defendant ratified and adopted such action or communication as his or its own and
9. Daystar was founded by Marcus D. Lamb and his wife, Joni Lamb. In 1984,
Dallas, Texas and began KMPX-TV 29. In 1997, the operation officially became The
10. At all relevant times, Marcus Lamb was the Chief Executive Officer of
Daystar, while Joni Lamb was a Vice President or the “First Vice President.”
11. Through aggressive and relentless appeals to its viewers for financial donations
12. Plaintiff began working for Daystar in March of 2001. She remained an
employee of Daystar until February 11, 2010, when her employment was unlawfully
1
This Complaint does not list every fact supporting Plaintiff’s claims. Rather, it is
intended only to be a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief,” as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
but not all, of her duties. Mr. Trammell was the “Administrative Manager of Special
14. Bill Trammell is the father of Joni Lamb. His wife, and Joni Lamb’s mother,
15. Mr. Trammell gradually became more possessive of Plaintiff’s time during the
work day. He aggressively discouraged Plaintiff from working with other departments or
even talking to people there. Eventually, Mr. Trammell arranged things so that Plaintiff
16. Mr. Trammell repeatedly told Plaintiff that he wanted her to view him as a
father figure. He knew that Plaintiff had spent her childhood in an orphanage in Korea, and
17. Once, when Mr. Trammell was investigating the claim of another female
employee of Daystar that she had been sexually harassed by a certain individual, Mr.
Trammell asked Plaintiff whether she had ever been sexually harassed by that individual.
Plaintiff reluctantly admitted that she had, and said that the harassment had included
18. Mr. Trammell then promised Plaintiff that if she allowed him to be a father
figure to her, he would never, ever touch her like that. Eventually Plaintiff began to treat
about sexual things during the work day. Plaintiff made it clear to Mr. Trammel that she did
not like this. Nevertheless, his inappropriate comments continued. Indeed, they became
20. By 2008, Mr. Trammell was telling Plaintiff that he wanted to be a husband to
her until she found one, saying that no one could love her the way he would love her if he
21. Plaintiff often told Mr. Trammell that these conversations about sexual things
were uncomfortable and that it was inappropriate for him to be talking to her about them.
Plaintiff even quoted Bible verses to try to convince him that he should not have these
22. In 2008, Mr. Trammell had a secret camera installed just outside his office so
that he could see if someone was approaching his office door from a television screen or
monitor inside his office. Michael Harris, a Daystar employee, installed the camera. Mr.
Trammell then began calling Plaintiff into his office for what he referred to as “Quiet Time.”
During “Quiet Time,” Mr. Trammell would make Plaintiff hug him tightly for long periods
of time. He would often put his hands very close to Plaintiff’s breasts or buttocks during
these extended touchings. On more than two occasions, Mr. Trammell told Plaintiff to sit
on his lap.
23. At least three times, Plaintiff asked Mr. Trammell to allow her to be moved to
an open or new position within Daystar so that Plaintiff could report to someone else. Mr.
grooming her to take over his job upon his retirement, and he promised her that Marcus
Lamb would give her Mr. Trammell’s title when he retired. He also promised her that she
24. Mr. Trammell’s conduct was not acceptable to Plaintiff, but she felt as though
she could not report it to Mr. Trammell’s direct “supervisors,” as they were his daughter and
son-in-law. Plaintiff was a single mother and could not afford to lose her job. She believed
that if she reported Mr. Trammell’s misbehavior to Joni Lamb, Plaintiff would be terminated.
25. On December 8, 2009, Plaintiff stayed home from work because she was sick.
Mr. Trammell brought soup to her house and insisted on seeing her, though she did not want
him to do so. While he was there, he received a call from his wife on his cell phone. In
Plaintiff’s presence, Mr. Trammell lied to his wife about where he was. Plaintiff asked him
why he lied, and asked him to leave. Later that day, Mr. Trammell was confronted by Joni
26. On December 9, 2009, the very next day, Joni Lamb demoted Plaintiff. Mr.
Trammell, Plaintiff’s direct supervisor, was not present when she was demoted. The reasons
27. On January 31, 2010, Plaintiff’s pay was cut, despite the fact that Plaintiff had
received an “outstanding” rating on her performance review just two weeks earlier.
in pay and was not disciplined in any way for his misconduct toward Plaintiff.
through 29. If any averments are inconsistent with this claim, they are pleaded in the
31. Mr. Trammell’s words and acts created a hostile work environment about
which Plaintiff complained to Daystar, but to no avail. The hostile work environment led to
pay, and ultimately termination of employment. Daystar violated Section 2000e-2, subpart
(a), of Title 42, United States Code, by discriminating against Plaintiff with respect to her
32. The discrimination against Plaintiff was intentional and it proximately caused
her to sustain compensatory damages, including but not limited to future pecuniary losses,
emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other
nonpecuniary losses, all of which damages are recoverable pursuant to Section 1981a of Title
33. Daystar’s discrimination against Plaintiff was carried out with malice or
reckless indifference to her federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff to recover
punitive damages pursuant to Section 1981a(b) of Title 42, United States Code.
2
The headings of claims are inserted only for ease of reference and should not be
construed to limit the nature or extent of any claim.
through 29. If any averments are inconsistent with this claim, they are pleaded in the
35. Without lawful excuse, Daystar treated similarly situated employees differently
based on their gender. Female employees who were involved with male employees in either
consensual or (as in Plaintiff’s case) coerced relationships were treated differently from male
employees. Such women were demoted, harassed, and/or fired, whereas such men were
subjected to lesser or no disciplinary action. Daystar’s practice in this regard was a violation
of Section 2000e-2, subpart (a), of Title 42, United States Code, and constituted
36. The disparate treatment of Plaintiff was intentional and it proximately caused
her to sustain compensatory damages, including but not limited to future pecuniary losses,
emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other
nonpecuniary losses, all of which damages are recoverable pursuant to Section 1981a of Title
37. This disparate treatment was carried out with malice or reckless indifference
to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff to recover punitive damages
through 37. If any averments are inconsistent with this claim, they are pleaded in the
39. On February 11, 2010, when Plaintiff was told she was being fired, she was
extremely upset by the betrayal, dishonesty, and injustice of this action by Defendant and its
management, which action was in direct contradiction of both Mr. Trammell’s promises to
her and Defendant’s published policies and standards of conduct that supposedly were
applicable to all employees. While she was in this condition and obviously unable to think
clearly, Arnold Torres, Daystar’s business administrator, told her that she needed to sign
some forms. Plaintiff began to read the documents, which included a complex and highly
detailed letter agreement and exhibit thereto, but she quickly realized that, due to her
condition, the coercive circumstances, and the terminology used in the documents, she did
not understand them – and she told Mr. Torres so. She asked him if there was anything in
the forms that would hurt her. He falsely represented to her that there was not, and he again
directed her to sign the forms. He also said that she would lose her benefits if she did not
sign the forms. In reliance on what Mr. Torres said, and because – as a single mother – she
was terribly afraid to lose her benefits, Plaintiff signed the documents. Later, she learned that
the forms, including a release and waiver of claims, are unconscionably unfair to her.
40. The letter agreement, and Exhibit A thereto, signed by Plaintiff on February
11, 2010, are unenforcable based on lack of capacity, duress, fraud, and/or unconscionability.
enforcability of the letter agreement, and Exhibit A thereto, signed by Plaintiff on February
11, 2010.
42. Pursant to Section 2201 of Title 28, United States Code, Plaintiff requests that
the Court render a declaratory judgment that the letter agreement, and Exhibit A thereto,
43. Pursuant to Section 2202 of Title 28, United States Code, Plaintiff requests that
the Court grant all further necessary or proper relief in connection with the declaratory
through 37. If any averments are inconsistent with this claim, they are pleaded in the
45. On November 18, 2010, the undersigned attorney met with a lawyer named
John Terrell Lynch IV, who has a longstanding professional relationship with Daystar, to
notify him of Plaintiff’s claims and to deliver a letter stating that he is representing her, as
46. On November 30, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. Daystar broadcast a new episode of
Celebration in which Marcus Lamb admitted that he had been unfaithful to his wife. Various
guests appeared on the program and praised Marcus Lamb for his “transparency” and the
manner in which he had conducted himself. The descriptions of the adultery and ensuing
described as lasting “a brief period of time.” It was falsely represented that the other
participant in the affair bore no responsibility for what happened, despite the fact that she had
been a senior officer of Daystar and fully aware that the company’s resources had been used
47. During the same broadcast of Celebration, multiple references were made to
three, unnamed persons. It was falsely stated that these three persons were not affected by
the illicit relationship but had informed Daystar that unless Daystar paid them $7,500,000,
they were going to take to the media the story of the affair. This was described as a work of
“the Devil.” Marcus Lamb falsely stated that these three persons “are trying to take our pain
and turn it into their gain,” stated that they were “not going to take God’s money and pay to
keep from being humiliated or exploited,” and urged viewers to “pray that the Enemy will
not be victorious.” All this apparently was based entirely on the November 18, 2010,
48. Many employees of Daystar knew that the three persons to whom these
references were made were the three former employees identified in the letter to Mr. Lynch
dated November 18, 2010, and specifically they knew that one of them was Jennifer Falcon,
representatives of Daystar to persons not currently employed there. Moreover, it was obvious
that, as soon as the three former employees filed their pleadings in courts of law, the
pleadings would become public records and the viewers of Celebration would readily
49. Members of the news media were invited to the studio to watch the production
statements apparently were made to them. It was clearly communicated to them that the three
persons were attempting to commit extortion. This was reported – with the specific use of
the word “extort” attributed to Marcus Lamb – in stories published on that same day, and
multiple times. It has been and still is available for downloading on Daystar’s website. On
one or more subsequent episodes of Celebration, Defendant has encouraged their viewers
51. On December 2, 2010, Marcus Lamb and Joni Lamb appeared on the television
program Good Morning America. In the introduction, journalist Robin Roberts referred to
Marcus Lamb and, in his hearing, stated that “he says he’s going public because blackmailers
are threatening to tell all unless he hands over millions of dollars.” Then, in her first
question, Ms. Roberts asked: “Let’s talk about the extortion first. Can you tell us when you
were first approached, and how you were approached? Did you get a phone call, was it an
email, a letter, how?” Marcus Lamb dodged the question – evidently he did not want the
viewers to learn that the supposed “extortion” took place in a meeting with two of Daystar’s
lawyers, in their office, and that the person communicating the supposed threat was not the
spotless record. Instead of answering the question, Marcus Lamb said: “Well, a couple of
weeks ago, the information came to us that these three people were demanding seven and a
half million dollars in order to keep from going to the media.” This statement was false and
defamatory. The segment concluded with Ms. Roberts asking: “And Marcus, a final
question about the extortion case – are you working with police in trying to find these three
people?” Obviously, he had led her to believe that the identities and location of the three
supposed extortionists were unknown and that a man-hunt was underway. Instead of
correcting this misconception and telling the truth – that the attorney for the three women had
named them in a letter delivered to Daystar’s lawyer on November 18, 2010, and that their
whereabouts were well known – Marcus Lamb lied: “Yes, both [sic] federal, state, and local
52. To be sure, Daystar had complained to the Bedford Police Department about
the supposed attempt by Plaintiff and two other former employees of Daystar to commit
or the undersigned attorney – the Bedford Police Department issued a statement that “after
review of the details provided by Day Star [sic], and after consulting with the Tarrant County
District Attorney’s Office, there does not appear to be any criminal conduct under Texas
November 30, 2010, episode of Celebration and the interview on Good Morning America.
which was first broadcast on December 9, 2010, later rebroadcast, and also made available
for viewing on the Internet. Therein it was reported that Marcus Lamb claimed to be “the
victim of a multi-million dollar extortion scheme” and that “three people wanted cash to keep
quiet about an affair that he had with a woman several years ago.” Marcus Lamb did not
disavow these descriptions of what he said. Indeed, he subsequently encouraged viewers and
financial supporters of Daystar to view that episode of the Dr. Phil show.
It falsely asserted that “three persons . . . sent a message to our attorneys that they had
information about Marcus Lamb that would be disclosed to the media if Daystar didn’t pay
them $7.5 million.” It went on to assert falsely that “[t]hey are trying to turn our pain into
their gain.” It falsely represented that “[n]one of the three people were involved in my
situation.” It again referred to the appearances by Marcus Lamb and Joni Lamb on Good
Morning America and the Dr. Phil show, in which the three persons were accused of
and because of their dissemination of false information within and beyond the organization
of Defendant Daystar, many persons who received the newsletter and virtually all who
participated in its creation knew that Plaintiff was one of the persons to which Defendant was
referring.
Falcon, who is a private figure and is neither a public figure nor a public official. During the
initial broadcast and numerous re-broadcasts of Celebration, first aired on November 30,
2010, Plaintiff was falsely described as, among other things, doing a work of the Devil,
trying to take others’ pain and turn it into her gain, threatening to go to the media with
humiliating information if money was not paid to her, and improperly trying to induce
Defendant to pay “God’s money” to her, even though she supposedly had not been affected
by the improper relationship between Marcus Lamb and Janice Smith. These statements, and
apparently additional statements made to reporters, were intentionally calculated to be, and
were in fact, taken by the listeners as, affirmative statements that Jennifer Falcon was
attempting to commit extortion. All of the statements are false and defamatory. As
originally uttered, they constitute slander. As broadcast in the form of Celebration re-runs
57. Defendant also committed the tort of defamation against Plaintiff Jennifer
Falcon on December 2, 2010, when Marcus Lamb, as the President and CEO of Daystar, told
Ryan Owens and Robin Roberts that the three unnamed persons – whom he knew would, in
attempted to commit “extortion,” and when he said that they “were demanding seven and a
half million dollars in order to keep from going to the media.” Marcus Lamb knew that
these statements were being broadcast nationwide and that they would be published and
available to the general public on the Good Morning America website for a long period of
58. Defendant again committed the tort of defamation against Plaintiff Jennifer
Falcon in connection with the appearance of Marcus Lamb and Joni Lamb on the Dr. Phil
show which was first broadcast on December 9, 2010, later rebroadcast, and also made
available for viewing on the Internet. Marcus Lamb falsely claimed to be “the victim of a
multi-million dollar extortion scheme” and that “three people wanted cash to keep quiet
about an affair that he had with a woman several years ago.” Subsequently Marcus Lamb
encouraged viewers and financial supporters of Daystar to view this episode of the Dr. Phil
show.
59. In January 2011, Daystar again committed the tort of defamation against
above.
60. The defamatory statements described in the four preceding paragraphs tended
to injure Plaintiff’s reputation and thereby expose Plaintiff to public hatred, contempt,
ridicule, or financial injury. In addition, the statements tended to impeach Plaintiff’s honesty,
integrity, virtue, or reputation. Consequently, the statements constitute libel per se under
Section 73.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and proof of the injurious
defamatory per se under the common law, because those statements falsely charged Plaintiff
62. As a direct and proximate result of the slander and libel committed by
Defendant, Plaintiff sustained damages which are compensable under Texas law.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to, and hereby requests, judgment against Defendant,
63. The wrongful conduct of Defendant, as described herein, was committed with
“malice” as defined in Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, or, in the
alternative, with “gross negligence” as defined in Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to, and hereby requests, judgment against
Wherefore, Jennifer Falcon prays that, upon due notice and trial, or upon motion for
entry of default judgment or summary judgment, judgment be entered in her favor, awarding
to her the following relief from and against Word of God Fellowship, Inc., doing business
(2) front pay calculated at the rate of pay Plaintiff would have received if she had
not been wrongfully demoted, subjected to a cut in pay, and fired;
(5) prejudgment interest, on all monetary relief for which prejudgment interest
may be awarded, at the highest rate and from the earliest date authorized by
law;
(6) attorneys’ fees (including fees of expert witnesses and other litigation
expenses) incurred by Plaintiff in the highest amount that is reasonable and
authorized by the applicable legal standard;
(8) postjudgment interest, accruing at the highest rate authorized by law, on all
monetary relief from the date of judgment until paid; and
If any items of relief requested herein are inconsistent with each other, then they are
requested in the alternative, as expressly authorized by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,