You are on page 1of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


DALLAS DIVISION

JENNIFER FALCON, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ Case Number ____________________
WORD OF GOD FELLOWSHIP, §
INC., doing business as DAYSTAR §
TELEVISION NETWORK, §
§
Defendant. §

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Jennifer Falcon, through counsel, hereby states the following claims against Word of

God Fellowship, Inc., doing business as Daystar Television Network.

Jurisdiction and Venue

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

1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended.

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

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 1


unlawful employment practices are maintained in this judicial district, and Plaintiff would

have worked in this judicial district but for the unlawful employment practices.

The Parties

3. Plaintiff is Jennifer Falcon, an individual who resides within the Northern

District of Texas.

4. Defendant is Word of God Fellowship, Inc., doing business as Daystar

Television Network (“Daystar”), is or purports to be a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Georgia. Daystar’s principal place of business is within the

Northern District of Texas.

Conditions Precedent and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

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.

6. On October 4, 2010, Plaintiff timely asserted her initial claim of discrimination

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

7. Whenever it is alleged herein that Defendant acted or communicated in any

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

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 2


Defendant took such action or made such communication on behalf of Defendant and in the

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

thereby became legally responsible for it.

Facts Applicable to All Claims1

8. At all relevant times, Daystar has publicly represented itself to be a Christian

television network, a Christian ministry, and even a Christian church.

9. Daystar was founded by Marcus D. Lamb and his wife, Joni Lamb. In 1984,

they founded WMCF-TV 45 in Montgomery, Alabama. In 1990, the Lambs relocated to

Dallas, Texas and began KMPX-TV 29. In 1997, the operation officially became The

Daystar Television Network.

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

and through sales of airtime, Daystar grew rapidly.

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

terminated under the circumstances described below.

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.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 3


13. In or around 2004, Plaintiff began reporting directly to Bill Trammell for some,

but not all, of her duties. Mr. Trammell was the “Administrative Manager of Special

Projects.” He reported solely to Marcus and Joni Lamb.

14. Bill Trammell is the father of Joni Lamb. His wife, and Joni Lamb’s mother,

is Sandra Trammell. She also worked for Daystar.

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

would report exclusively to him.

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

that she had been abused.

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

inappropriate touching of her body.

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

Mr. Trammell as a father figure.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 4


19. In or around the summer of 2007, Mr. Trammell began talking to Plaintiff

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

more and more explicit, and more and more personal.

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

were Plaintiff’s husband.

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

conversations with her.

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.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 5


Trammell refused to transfer her. Mr. Trammell would then tell Plaintiff that he was

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

would never lose her job at Daystar.

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.

Plaintiff did, however, report some of it to other management personnel at Daystar.

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

Lamb and Sandra Trammell about the visit to Plaintiff’s house.

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

given for the demotion were contrived and pretextual.

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.

28. On February 11, 2010, Plaintiff was fired.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 6


29. By contrast, after December 8, 2010, Mr. Trammell received a significant raise

in pay and was not disciplined in any way for his misconduct toward Plaintiff.

First Claim – Sexual Harassment2

30. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference the averments in Paragraphs 1

through 29. If any averments are inconsistent with this claim, they are pleaded in the

alternative, as expressly authorized by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

tangible employment actions by Daystar against Plaintiff, including demotion, reduction in

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

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of Plaintiff’s gender.

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

42, United States Code.

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.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 7


Second Claim – Disparate Treatment Based on Gender

34. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference the averments in Paragraphs 1

through 29. If any averments are inconsistent with this claim, they are pleaded in the

alternative, as expressly authorized by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

discrimination against Plaintiff with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or

privileges of Plaintiff’s employment because of her gender.

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

42, United States Code.

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

pursuant to Section 1981a(b) of Title 42, United States Code.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 8


Third Claim - Declaration That Release Unenforcable

38. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference the averments in Paragraphs 1

through 37. If any averments are inconsistent with this claim, they are pleaded in the

alternative, as expressly authorized by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 9


41. An actual controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant exists as to the

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,

signed by Plaintiff on February 11, 2010, are unenforcable.

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

judgment requested in the preceding paragraph.

Fourth Claims – Defamation

44. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference the averments in Paragraphs 1

through 37. If any averments are inconsistent with this claim, they are pleaded in the

alternative, as expressly authorized by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

well as two other, former employees of Daystar.

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

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 10


events were completely misleading. The “inappropriate” relationship was incorrectly

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

improperly, both to arrange secret meetings and to cover-up the affair.

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,

meeting of the attorneys.

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,

Plaintiff herein. This information apparently was disseminated by employees or other

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

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 11


conclude that the three plaintiffs were the three persons referenced during the broadcast on

November 30, 2010.

49. Members of the news media were invited to the studio to watch the production

of Celebration which was broadcast on November 30, 2010. In addition, off-the-air

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

thereafter, in Dallas County, Texas, and nationwide.

50. The above-described episode of Celebration has been re-broadcast by Daystar

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

to watch the November 30, 2010, episode on the Daystar website.

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

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 12


three supposed extortionists, but a licensed attorney with 29 years of experience and a

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

officials are in investigation right now.”

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

“extortion.” On December 8, 2010 – without even finding it necessary to interview Plaintiff

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

law.” The investigation was ended.

53. Nevertheless, Defendant continued to encourage its viewers to watch the

November 30, 2010, episode of Celebration and the interview on Good Morning America.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 13


54. Marcus Lamb and Joni Lamb also appeared on an episode of the Dr. Phil show,

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.

55. In January 2011, Defendant published a newsletter entitled “DAYSTARnews.”

On the first page appeared a “SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT!!” signed by Marcus Lamb.

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

extortion. Because of the media attention previously engendered deliberately by Defendant,

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.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 14


56. Defendant Daystar committed the tort of defamation against Plaintiff Jennifer

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

and through publication on the Daystar website, they constitute libel.

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

all probability, be understood to include Jennifer Falcon – were “blackmailers” who

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

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 15


time thereafter. Indeed, in a subsequent episode of Celebration and on the Daystar website,

Defendant encouraged the public to watch the interview.

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

Plaintiff Jennifer Falcon by publishing the newsletter entitled “DAYSTARnews,” including

the “SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT!!” signed by Marcus Lamb, as described more fully

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

character of the statements is required.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 16


61. Moreover, the statements described in Paragraphs 36-43 and 50-53 above were

defamatory per se under the common law, because those statements falsely charged Plaintiff

with a crime punishable by imprisonment. Therefore, no proof of the injurious character of

the statements is required.

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,

awarding actual damages in amounts to be determined in accordance with Texas law.

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

Defendant, awarding exemplary damages in amounts to be determined by the trier of fact in

accordance with Texas law.

Demand for Trial by Jury

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury.

Prayer for Relief

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

as Daystar Television Network:

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 17


(1) back pay calculated using the rate of pay which would have been received by
Plaintiff if she had not been wrongfully demoted, subjected to a cut in pay, and
fired;

(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;

(3) compensatory damages;

(4) punitive and exemplary damages;

(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;

(7) all costs incurred by Plaintiff;

(8) postjudgment interest, accruing at the highest rate authorized by law, on all
monetary relief from the date of judgment until paid; and

(9) all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.

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.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 18


DATED: February 16, 2011.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James Austin Fisher


James Austin Fisher
State Bar of Texas Number 07051650
e-mail: jfisher@fisherholmeswelch.com
Shannon L.K. Welch
State Bar of Texas Number 90001699
e-mail: swelch@fisherholmeswelch.com
FISHER HOLMES & WELCH
A Professional Corporation
2800 Lincoln Plaza
500 N. Akard Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: 214.661.9400
Telecopier: 214.661.9404

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


JENNIFER FALCON

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY – Page 19

You might also like