Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Case Style: Robert Lewis v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
Case Number: CJ-2015-1985
Judge: Linda G. Morrissey
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joe Norwood
Description: Tulsa, OK - Robert Lewis sued Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC on a wrongful termination theory claiming:
1. This is an action against Plaintiffís employer for retaliatory employment discharge due to Plaintiff engaging in protected investigation and reporting per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Title 40 O.S. ß 199 and breach of contract.
2. Plaintiff was a manager of a debt collection team for Defendant Cavalry Portfolio:
Services for over ten years at the time the employment discharge retaliation occurred.
3. The employment retaliation in question was due to Plaintiff Robert Lewis reporting his manager, Patrick Lopez, for retaliating against another Calvary employee, Kevin Hanlin.
H. PARTiES AND JURISDICTION
4. Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
5. Cavalry Portfolio Services is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of
6, Tulsa County District Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit.
III. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
7. Plaintiff timely filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) alleging retaliation by the Defendant Cavalry Portfolio Services
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
8, Plaintiff has flulfilled all conditions precedent to the filing of this action, and this
action is timely filed.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
9. Plaintiff was a leading producer for debt collection for Defendant Cavalryís business of collecting debt.
10. In or around April of 2012 Kevin Hanlin participated as a witness and a complainant in two internal investigations by Defendant Cavalry involving Hanlinís and Plaintiff Robert Lewisí manager, Patrick Lopez.
11. One investigation was due to a wage claim by Cavalry employee Wes Spenser and the other was a sexual harassment claim made by Kevin Hanlin toward his supervisor Patrick Lopez.
12. When Mr. Lopez found out about Kevin Hanliní s roll in these investigations he confided in other managers, including Plaintiff Robert Lewis, at Calvary that were of the same management level as Mr. Hanlin, that Mr. Lopez was going to retaliate against
Hanlin. Lopez told Plaintiff and the other managers that he was going to raise Hanlinís hopes of pay advancement and then take Hanlinís productive team away from him therefore depriving Hanlin of bonuses and making Hanlinís employment at Cavalry unbearable.
13. Hanlin did not become aware of Mr. Lopezís plan of retaliation until Plaintiff Robert Lewis, who Mr. Lopez made the statements of retaliation to, came forward in approximately June of 2013 to report Mr. Lopezís pian of retaliation.
14. Around October and November of 2012 Hanlin had his debt collection team taken from him and the employees were assigned to other managers. Hanlin was then given a new team comprised of new employees that needed significant training and employees with a track record of lesser productivity. These changes were at the direction of supervisor Lopez.
15. Once it became apparent the Lopez had made good on his statements of retaliation against Hanlin, Plaintiff Robert Lewis reported Lopezís statements about retaliation against Hanlin to higher up management at Calvary in about June of 2013.
16, Defendant Calvary very soon thereafter terminated the employment of Lopez.
17. On or about September 17th, 2014 Plaintiff Robert Lewis was terminated from Calvary due to an alleged Calvary policy violation. The policy violation Calvary alleges Plaintiff violated was his failure to report a manager/subordinate relationship.
18. Plaintiff alleges that the reason for his termination is pretextual and the true reason for his termination was his reporting and participation is a protected investigation regarding Patrick Lopez.
19. As a result of the Defendantsí actions alleged herein, Plaintiff has sustained substantial lost monies. Plaintiff has also experienced significant mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of the Defendantís conduct.
Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.