9th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF RAPIDES

STATE OF LOUISIANA

JOHN and ELAINE CURLEY

DIVISION" "

G

VERSUS

CLECO CORPORATION

PETITION FOR DAMAGES

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Plaintiffs JOHN and

ELAINE CURLEY, persons of majority domiciled in Rapides Parish, Louisiana and who

respectfully represent:

1.

Made Defendant herein is:

CLECO CORPORA nON (formerly Central Louisiana Electric Company,

2

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to La. Const. Art. 5 § 16.

3.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to La. Code Civ. Pro. Arts. 42 and 73.

4.

Plaintiff, John Curley, is a disabled person having been injured in 1981 at the age

of 18. Despite being mostly paralyzed from the neck down and restricted to a

whx~lphair, Curley successfully completed hisqpqergradl1ate degree ig college and also

bec~J~·.·.i~d~~·~~J·.·~~··.~····e~~ .•••• ~~···.~~~~~~~.~ ••• JMtl~~J~i ••• tK~ •• ··~.le~b.·.·iH··l~~.~.···I; •• ·~h· •• U~·:~ciate

Accountant. He worked diligently and earned steady promotions within the company.

Nine years later, in 1998, he was named Director of Energy Operations, a management

position. In 2001 he was promoted to Manager of Energy Operations and Scheduling, a

middle management position. As Manager of Energy Operations and Scheduling, Curley

carried out energy trades as instructed and authorized by his supervisors. On at least one

1

occasion Curley refused to execute a trade ordered by his supervisor because he believed

the proposed trade would be illegal.

5.

In August 2002, high ranking executives at Cleco were exposed in an anonymous

letter which charged that the company was guilty of unlawful trading practices. The letter

stated that the writer intended to 'blow the whistle' on executives at Cleco including the

Chief Executive Officer.

The information in the anonymous letter was revealed to federal regulators and to

the press.

7.

In response to that letter and to questions from agency representatives and

investigators, Cleco executives engaged in a series of acts to conceal the true facts

regarding the energy transactions at issue. Those facts are that the trades at issue were

part of an overall company strategy conceived by executives at the highest levels of the

that such transactions take place.

8.

Rather than admit to those facts, Cleco embarked on a campaign of

misinformation regarding the involvement of members of its Executive Team. In an

apparent attempt to protect high ranking executives, Cleco publicly blamed two officers

and a small group of middle managers, which included Curley, as being responsible for

any improprieties in the company's energy trading. From that time to the present, the

company has continued to publicly misrepresent pertinent facts and spread falsehoods all

of J~~bi •••• 1I~b •••• 2~i~~I·.~~~ef···~I~;~ ··ii •• ·ll~le~ ••• ;~8[ •••• t'··~fhu~ ••• @;'.~i~ •••• :~~'~{iltY .t~~ •• was

the only wheelchair bound person employed by CLECO), was the most highly

recognizable employee identified by the Company for improper trading. Thereafter, the

company engaged in a series of acts calculated to force Curley to resign and, when those

attempts failed, the company unlawfully terminated Curley.

2

9.

In an attempt to conceal their actions and deflect responsibility, in November

2002, Cleco executives publicly announced that Cleco was taking disciplinary action

against Curley and a few others as punishment for their participation in any improper

trades.

10.

Curley was told to leave the premises and wait for a company representative to

coJ~~~~1~; •••••

11.

Several days later, a Cleco representative from the personnel office contacted

Curley and advised him that he could maintain employment with Cleco only by applying

for the open positions within the company. A company representative identified those

positions as that of a utility pole climber or a custodian. All other employees eligible for

reassignment were immediately given new positions within the company.

12.

wrongdoing as to trade practices. He requested that he be assigned to a commensurate

position in the company. Ultimately he was forced to accept a position as a Senior

Accountant, a demotion of several levels. As a result of the demotion Curley's annual

compensation was reduced by almost 60% and his projected retirement benefits were

reduced by almost 65%. Curley's demands to be restored to his former position on the

trading floor or a commensurate position were ignored.

13.

Cleco then restricted Curley's access to the wheelchair ramp which provided the

Prili~§~~1~6~J~g~~~ fo~Ei~iJ~~6~t~bf tJ~~1~8~J~J8~ v~:d~ BC~i~l~~Jd~i~king

space. Then, allegedly for the purpose of banning Curley from the trading floor, Cleco's

management had a new ramp constructed less than five feet away from the original ramp.

The automatic door opening controls were moved from the original ramp entry way to

Curley's newly assigned access into the building, causing Curley to suffer severe

humiliation, embarrassment and emotional distress.

3

14.

Despite his personal dissatisfaction and humiliation at having been forced into a

non-management position Curley carried out his assigned duties as Senior Accountant.

During this period, in 2003 and 2004, public inquiries and litigation continued regarding

the suspect trading practices. Within the company, Cleco executives continued efforts to

conceal their activities with a public campaign of misinformation. Because Curley's

disability made him highly recognizable, he was singled out for the most severe punitive

acti~~ •••• ~¥ •• b.~l1j&:'·· •• g~~Bfiti J~~····a~b~~ ••• i6 ••• ~iifl ••• C~~1~ •••• fH •• ·di'~r~.l •••• t5·~···th~ •••• ~i~dll ... iiagers

who were wrongly identified as the sole 'masterminds' of the $23 million in improper

trades, none incurred a more significant financial penalty than Curley. Clearly, his very

visible presence at the workplace was a constant irritant to company executives who

wanted to escape the public embarrassment and attention resulting from exposure of the

trading scheme.

15.

Curley worked in a hostile environment created by executives looking for an

and 2004, when outside professional consultants to Cleco requested Curley's assistance

in evaluating internal controls regarding energy trading, those consultants were told by

executives they could not include Curley on their energy trading evaluation team because

he was 'banned' from the trading floor for inappropriate trading.

16.

In early summer of 2004, Curley applied for a position on the trading floor. A

Cleco executive from the personnel office informed him that due to his involvement in

pasttrades that he was not eligible to apply and was banned from the trading floor

thrJt~t· •• ~J.~~~~·b~.·~66~.~.·.··

17.

In the latter part of the summer of 2004, Curley was interrogated by a FERC

lawyer and a FERC accountant concerning interaffiliate trades. Curley answered all

questions honestly.

4

-,

18.

The hostile work environment created by the slanderous allegations of executives

and Curley's status as the most visible "scapegoat" due to his disability took its toll and

Curley suffered significant physical and emotional damage.

19.

Nevertheless Curley persevered in his new assignment at work and in his belief

that he would be fully exonerated and would be able to return to his position as a

maJ~ikf.; ••••• ' ••• ~~'jat.~ib5, .~~1~~ •• C~~ ••• ~~~6lni~: ID~~h .r···~'ciii •• M:ri~ •• :~dJ ••. aha···~ •• cash

bonus as a result of his volunteer participation on Clecos SOX 404 project team. This

was only one of the projects Curley volunteered to assist with during his tenure as a

Senior Accountant, Throughout 2005, Curley continued to acquire new responsibilities.

20.

Following an upper management change in May 2005, Curley was told by a Cleco

executive that "he had done his time in jail" and would be considered for a position in the

fuel cost management area which was commensurate with his extensive prior experience.

belief, was one of those involved in the cover-up of executive involvement. Because of

his wheelchair Curley remained the single most visible reminder of the corporate scandal,

and instead of being eligible for promotion, Curley was told that he was 'banned' from

the trading floor for at least another year and a half.

21.

Meanwhile, Curley was interviewed by counsel for Cleco allegedly because he

had been named as a witness in a lawsuit involving Cleco and a former employee, Sam

Sansing, That matter, "Clecov Energy Management Services, et al" Civil Action # 218-

428 ••••• ···~{~~ ••• ·~~~~~ , •••• i.~ •••• ~a~~lil y .i~~I~t~···· ~~ •••• ~hi~··· •• ~oJh .•••• • ••••• &I~itJ···.'dJt;gJ •• ··th~~ ••• ~~ •••• ~'Jil····;~stify

truthfully at the deposition.

22.

In early September 2005, Curley was advised that he was eligible to apply for a

position as Resource Coordinator. He did so. He was interviewed for the position by two

less experienced employees both of whom were actually trained by him prior to his

demotion. In mid October 2005, Curley requested from Human Resources the status of

5

the Resource Coordinator position. He was then told that he was denied the position.

Allowing him to apply and subjecting him to the humiliation of an interview with

employees whom he had once trained and denying him the position was just another

calculated attempt to force Curley to resign.

23.

On November 17,2005, counsel for Curley met with counsel for Cleco regarding

Curley's complaints of discriminatory treatment and his concerns the company was

reta~[:~~K~ •. #;tih~;.~19··fJf h~~~~Mf~~~¥ •• &~J~aIJ.:;·~H~'fhJf~.~ed •• ~~b~(:~e~j.J.tlJ;~~ing

and, by implication any future testimony regarding his knowledge of energy trading

practices at Cleco. Notice of the discriminatory actions of the company was given and

demand for reinstatement of Curley was made. On November 23, 2005, counsel for

Cleco advised that the company would "consider the various matters" brought to its

attention, and would respond promptly.

24.

On December 8, 2005, after being put on notice of discriminatory practices, a

deleted all of Curley's e-mail messages, including his messages regarding his efforts to

secure a return to a fuel cost management position and Cleco's responses.

25.

On December 9,2005, Cleco terminated Curley's employment, allegedly for poor

performance.

26.

On January 10, 2006, statutory notice was forwarded to Cleco in accordance with

La.

Cleco's stated reasons for any and all disciplinary action regarding Curley,

including demotion and refusal to promote, are part of a calculated effort by the

Company to conceal multiple acts of intentional or negligent wrongdoing by its executive

officers and its directors. Further, Curley has been singled out and made the scapegoat for

the company by being penalized economically and professionally, Such conduct is

unlawful and discriminatory toward Curley.

6

28.

Cleco's gross disregard for Curley's rights and Cleco's intentional and continuing

harassment, defamation, and discrimination caused Curley to suffer severe humiliation,

embarrassment, and emotional distress, and Cleco knew or should have known that its

misconduct would result in such severe emotional distress.

29 .

••••• ••••••• ••••••• ·li~i~;J •• '~~~ ••• &ts.eg~a·.jJt •• ti~j~~.~.~ ••• ~iJ~; •• ··~' •• tlid~"s ·i~ibitiJ':~··~JiI •• JI~·iiuing

harassment, defamation and discrimination caused Curley to suffer a serious loss of

reputation in addition to lost income and benefits.

JURY DEMAND

30.

Curley demands a trial by jury pursuant to La. Code Civ. Pro. Art. 1733.

COUNTS

3,~ .

Defendants, in willfully subjecting Curley to unlawful harassment and

discrimination based on his disability, violated the Louisiana Employment Discrimination

Act (La. RS. 23:323 et seq.) and La. R.S. 51 :2256 et seq.

32.

Defendants' repeated gross disregard for Curley's rights and Defendants'

intentional harassment, defamation and discrimination against Curley amounted to

intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of Louisiana law.

33 .

••••• ••••••• ••••••• i5~J~~t~~~~··· ••••••• ~J~trij~~····· •••• fh~:i{lt~~l .~;~g ••• ··f~t ••••• ···J~bre~~htoJ~~······.i1ii!if ••••• :~~ing

practices and subsequent false publication of misconduct on the part of John Curley

amounts to defamation and "false light publicity" in violation of Louisiana law.

34.

Defendants are liable unto Plaintiff for the damages and losses he suffered in the

following no-exclusive particulars:

(a) Past, present and future mental anguish and emotional distress;

7

(b) Back pay including benefits;

(c) Front pay including benefits;

(d) Loss of enjoyment oflife;

(e) Prejudgment interest;

(f) Court costs;

(g) Attorney's fees; and

Any other damages that may be proven at trial.

jS.

As a direct result of the extreme emotional distress and anxiety inflicted upon

John Curley by Defendants, Elaine Curley's quality of life has been significantly

diminished. Defendants are liable unto Plaintiff Elaine Curley for the damages she

suffered, including loss of consortium, services, earnings and society.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment for such damages as are reasonable

in the premises, including all general and equitable relief which may be allowed by law,

P CIA S. LeBLANC (L . Bar No. 1798 )

_,. MICliAEL L. FANTACI ( . Bar No. 25043) KELLY M. RABALAIS (La. Bar No. 26705) LEBLANC BUTLER, L.L.C.

3421 Causeway Boulevard, Suite 301 Metairie, Louisiana 70002

Telephone: (504) 828-1010 Facsimile: (504) 828-1079 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLtA.$.$.~E,ft¥~~fr? CLECO CORPORATION

Through its registered agent for service of process, MICHAEL H. MADISON

2030 DONAHUE FERRY RD.

PINEVILLE, LA 71360

8

9th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF RAPIDES

STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO. .» ~ OS ~

JOHN and ELAINE CURLEY

DIVISION" "

G-

VERSUS

CLECO CORPORATION

••••• }PEBlJl.fV .'EI,j1,~t PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT

Plaintiff, John Curley, hereby requests, pursuant to Rule 1461 of the Louisiana

Code of Civil Procedure, that Defendant, Cleco Corporation, produce the following

documents for inspection and copying at the offices of LeBlanc Butler, LLC, 3421 N.

Causeway Blvd., Ste. 301, Metairie, La. 70002 within the applicable time limits allowed

by law.

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

definitions should apply:

A. All documents are to be produced which are in the possession, custody or

control of Defendant, including documents in the possession, custody or control of each

individual who acts, or who has acted at relevant times, as Defendant's employee, officer,

attorney, investigator, agent, or other representative.

B. "You" or "your" means Defendant Cleco Corporation together with any

employees, officers, managers, supervisors, attorneys, consultants, accountants, experts,

inve.§l;gators, qr other agen.:t§ of Cleco Corporation and any subsidiary or affiliate of

cleJt~~~~~1~~2~[·······························

C. "Person" means, inclusively, any natural person, partnership, corporation,

company, association, instrumentality of government, or other entity or organization.

D. "Document" is defined as broadly as permitted under La. Code Civ. Pro

art. 1461 and includes all materials and things subject to production under that Rule,

specifically including minutes, notes, calendars and diaries, tape recordings, film,

videotape, electronic mail C'e-mail") and answering machine tape, and any other medium,

including electronic or computer storage, containing data from which information can be

obtained or translated and the means for such translation (including computer codes and

explanations of any abbreviations) .

..... ······· ••••... 1........ .~,'~ili¥h~ ••• io,\ •• ~;··.#~'i~~~J ••• ~b~;···ah~: ••• ~~~1 ... yi~~··.~esJJ!i •• ~0·· •• ~:d611Jh~···~eans

any document which sets forth, describes, reflects, constitutes, concerns, contains,

embodies, identifies, states, refers to, or is in any other way relevant to a given subject or

transaction.

F. "Defendant" means Cleco Corporation, its subsidiaries and corporate

affiliates, its former and present officers, directors, managers, supervisors, agents, and

employees, individually and collectively.

G. Responses should be modified or supplemented as required by Article

H. If any document called for by (or responsive to) these requests is withheld

under any claim of privilege or on some other basis, identify the document and state the

privilege or other basis for withholding the document; and if the attorney-client privilege

is asserted as the basis for withholding the document, identify the client and the attorney.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Request for Production No.1:

Please produce Plaintiffs entire personnel file (formal or informal), whether

main.tfl:ined in t.pe personneldepartment orby anindividualmanager orsupervisor,

ReJtJ~~ ••• fJ) •• ~~J;~~itJI •• ·N ~[···i: ••••••• • ••• •· •••••.....•••••

To the extent not included III Plaintiffs personnel file, please produce the

following:

(a) Plaintiffs applications for employment in any position with you;

(b) Job description for any position held, or applied for, by Plaintiff and any

other documents related in any way to the duties and responsibilities of all positions held,

or applied for, by Plaintiff;

2

( c) Plaintiff s resume;

(d) Any results of employment-related tests or questionnaires administered to

Plaintiff;

(e) Any documents related to requests for accommodation made by Plaintiff,

your consideration of Plaintiffs request(s), and your decision to grant or deny any

requested accommodation;

(f) All documents evidencing or pertaining to any reprimand, warning,

deJ~~d~i.· .~:~~I'~te •••• ilav~·····~·~ •• iij~i~~~· .~~b~~~~i~H~ ••••• ~J~~er; •••••• ~~~ •• •· o,; ••••• ~¥. ••• StIJ} ••• kJterse

action taken, or recommended to be taken, against Plaintiff;

(g) All documents evidencing or pertaining to any restrictions imposed on

Plaintiff with respect to access to certain employment positions or physical locations at

your facilities;

(h) Any performance evaluations or job reviews of Plaintiff, whether formal

or informal;

(i) Any awards, commendation letters, and the like given to Plaintiff;

workers, subordinates, customers, or any other person (even if anonymous) regarding

Plaintiffs job performance or employment-related conduct of any sort;

(k) Any documents related to Plaintiffs applications for other employment

positions with you, your consideration of Plaintiff for such positions, and your decision to

grant or deny Plaintiffs applications.

Request for Production No.3:

Please produce all medical records in your possession with respect to Plaintiff

including any documentsevidencing or pertaining to Plaintiffs medical condition,

meJ[·~~t •••• ~~~~&~~~.· .. ~jfl··&~tri~~Idh~, ••••• ~ea~t~~· •••• biJ~6~.J~1.···;b~~.bst~ ••••• f.b~.·· aJ~.~~gd~j~ibJl. and

the results of any physical or other medical examinations or other medical inquiries

undergone by Plaintiff.

Request for Production No.4:

Please produce Plaintiff s complete salary and wage records, payroll records, W-2

forms, and any other documents evidencing stock options, long term incentive plan

3

payments, severance payments, and resignation payments for the entire period of

Plaintiff's employment.

Request for Production No.5:

Please produce all pension, deferred compensation or other benefit plans and

descriptive documents of any kind describing any and all employment benefits available

to Plaintiff.

Request for Production No.6:

••••• ••••••• ••••••• ·.'i~i~~ ••• ~~J~lf~ •••••• lny ••• ·i~~i~JhJb· •••• ~b~~2ieJ ••••• ~~J~··.·~gl····~~y ···'IJt J~~6h ••••• Ma~ ••• G~~vide

coverage against liability for the claims asserted by Plaintiff.

Request for Production No.7:

Please produce any "reservation of rights" letter from your insurers regarding the

above-entitled proceeding, including any documents related thereto.

Request for Production No.8:

Please provide your employee handbook and any other employment and

workplace guidelines, policies, and procedures in effect during Plaintiff's employment,

inc~J4~1f.&~P~~p!~gl~~l1frt~irt1u$. t,p:

(a) hiring of new employees;

(b) transfer and promotion of employees;

(c) discipline, demotion and termination of employees;

(d) performance evaluations of employees;

(e) wages and fringe benefits provided to employees;

(f) prohibition on discrimination;

(g) filing, investigating, and responding to employee complaints;

employee u~x ... of corpput~fs a~ge;mail,ymploye,7: pr~xacy rights with

••• ~·~g~J~f··.~g·· c~~Jh~.~~····· U~ ••• •· ~rlai~ •• ·.··~s~,· •••• ru~· ••• 9bu; •••• lg~i~~ri~~ ••••• b~···.~lJ~.oyee

computer and e-mail use.

Request for Production No.9:

Please produce any documents pertaining to, and transcripts or recordings (video

or audio) of, any conversations (in person or via telephone) between Plaintiff and your

employees, managers, supervisors, agents, or attorneys, including any interviews of

4

Plaintiff concerning litigation you are named as a party in, any job interviews with

Plaintiff, and any exit interview of Plaintiff.

Request for Production No. 10:

Please provide the complete personnel records (as described in Request Nos. 1

through 4) for any employees similarly situated to Plaintiff in terms of level of authority,

pay and/or responsibility whom you contend were terminated for substantially similar

reasons as Plaintiff.

ReJ~·~~.~ ••• tJ~ ••• ~~~dtl~t:~ ••• ·N ~:····ii.; ••••..

With respect to Sam Sansing, Calvin Johnson, Lisa Neely, David Eppler, Darrell

Dubroc, Mark Segura, Cathy Powell, Bill Fontenot, Kristyl Antony, Eric Moran, George

Bausewine, Brian Harper, Shane Hilton, Cindy Ducote, Tim Freeman, and Patrick Lacour

please produce the following documents:

(a) Each person's entire personnel file (formal or informal), whether

maintained in the personnel department or by an individual manager or supervisor;

(b) Each person's applications for employment in any position with you;

any other documents related in any way to the duties and responsibilities of all positions

held, or applied for, by each person;

(d) Each person's resume;

(e) All documents evidencing or pertaining to any reprimand, warnmg,

demotion, involuntary leave of absence, termination, transfer, layoff, or other adverse

action taken, or recommended to be taken, against each person;

(f) All documents evidencing or pertaining to any restrictions imposed on

eacqp~rson wf,~h \rspect to.~8.~ess to .. .cert~in en.m!qymentposition~orBPysicallocations

at y~~~ t~~i~~~Uk~ .•••••••••••••••.•••••••••••...

(g) Any performance evaluations or job reviews of each person, whether

formal or informal;

(h) Any awards, commendation letters, and the like given to each person;

(i) Any documents that reflect comments made by managers, supervisors, co-

workers, subordinates, customers, or any other person (even if anonymous) regarding

each person's job performance or employment-related conduct of any sort;

5

CD Any salary and wage records, payroll records, W -2 forms, and any other

documents evidencing stock options, long term incentive plan payments, severance

payments, and resignation payments for the entire period of each person's employment;

and

(k) All pension, deferred compensation or other benefit plans and descriptive

documents of any kind describing any and all employment benefits available to each

person.

Re&.~·~~~ •• 'J'- •• ~~&J~.~~i~! •• ·N ~:···i·i; •••••.

Please produce a copy of the August 2002 anonymous letter alleging that you

were guilty of unlawful trading practices.

Request for Production No. 13:

Please produce any documents submitted by you within the last ten years to any

federal or state agency, regulatory body, or investigators concerning unlawful trading

practices, including but not limited to those alleged in the August 2002 anonymous letter.

Request for Production No. 14:

investigation conducted by you within the last ten years into alleged unlawful trading

practices, including but not limited to those alleged in the August 2002 anonymous letter.

Request for Production No. 15:

Please produce any minutes of formal or informal corporate meetings of your

Board of Directors, risk management meetings, and inter-affiliate meetings relating to

your consideration of and approval of the results of any investigation any alleged

unlawful trading practices, including but not limited to those contained in the August

200+ anonymous letter.

ReJ~·~~~···iJ~··~J~J~~IJi···N~:····ig·~·.·.·.

Please produce the job descriptions for, and any other documents related in any

way to the duties and responsibilities of, the positions of: (a) General Manager with

supervisory authority over the Director of Energy Operations, (b) Vice President of

Transmission, and (c) Chief Executive Officer.

6

Request for Production No. 17:

Please produce documents demonstrating your corporate structure, including any

corporate "family tree" illustrating your chain of command and the respective location of

any positions held by, or applied for, by Plaintiff.

Request for Production No. 18:

Please produce all documents related to your internal controls for separating your

regulated and unregulated affiliates, including Cleco Power, LLC and Cleco Marketing &

Traii~J;lJ.~ .••••••••••••••••••••• {(

Request for Production No. 19:

Please produce all documents related to any internal controls suggested by

internal or external auditors or reviewers for separating your regulated and unregulated

affiliates, including Cleco Power, LLC and Cleco Marketing & Trading, LLC.

Request for Production No. 20:

Please produce all documents concerning Plaintiff, Plaintiffs performance, and/or

any employment actions or restrictions taken by you against Plaintiff which you sent to or

rec~~¥~9ft;pW ~~. (~r,4,!ffal~p"~~f~~~~a:~or¥~qmm~~~Bn ~l\~~Rq;') gr~p¥Mfsons

engaged in energy trading with you.

Request for Production No. 21:

Please produce all documents, e-mails, press releases, quotes, messages, inter or

intra-company communications, reports, or other disseminations of information made by

you to your Board of Directors, shareholders or members, the media, affiliates, third

persons, or the public which relate in any way to Plaintiff, Plaintiffs performance, any

employment actions or restrictions taken by you against Plaintiff, any investigation into

Plaintiff's actions or the practices alleged in the August 2002 anonymous letter.

ReJL~Ji •• iJ.~ •• ~~I~~fit~~.··N ~:···ii.~.· · .

Please produce all of your annual reports to shareholders or members for the years

2002 through 2005.

Request for Production No. 23:

Please produce any guidelines, policies, and/or procedures which explain or

support in any way any adverse employment actions taken by you against Plaintiff.

7

Request for Production No. 24:

Please produce any documents related to the construction of a new wheelchair

ramp and the installation of new handicap door controls at the facility where Plaintiff was

employed, including any correspondence, diagrams, blueprints, andlor invoices related to

the construction project and any correspondence or other documents related to the

reasons for the project, the cost of the project, and authorization or approval to commence

the proj ect.

ReJ~·I~~ ••• iJ~ ••• ~.~g~tb~M~ •• ·N ~[ •••• ~§; •••••.

Please produce any guidelines, policies, procedures or other documents relating to

employee access to trading areas or trading-related employment positions.

Request for Production No. 26:

Please produce all documents concerning Plaintiff, Plaintiffs performance, and/or

any employment actions or restrictions taken by you against Plaintiff which you sent to or

received from KPMG.

Request for Production No. 27:

••••••••••••••••••. ~iNr~s~ itPlll¥~~~~ P9U.¢}~ Pe,~~~~f\i tqt~~~ff:~i~~r,CRdtPf €8nguft,apq~ERC

Compliance.

Request for Production No. 28:

IA S. LeBLA C ( a. Bar No. 1798 ) AEL L. FANTACI (La. Bar No. 25043) KEL Y M. RABALAIS (La. Bar No. 26705) LEBLANC BUTLER, L.L.C. }421Caus~»,a.:y Boulevard, Suite

············~llt~t~J~~tJj~8a~1~f2~'·.················

Facsimile: (504) 828-1079 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to P~ or counse ~dayof

L

8

CIVIL SUIT NUMBER ~d'tl '1'14 a NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF RAPIDES

STATE OF LOUISIANA

JAMES A. ROSS

VERSUS

CLECO CORPORATION

FILED! Dy.CLK.

The petition of JAMES A. ROSS, a resident and domiciliary of Rapides Parish, Louisiana,

with respect represents:

1.

The petitioner, JAMES A. ROSS, a major with capacity brings this suit in Rapidcs Parish,

where the damages occurred, against his employer for personal injuries and employment-related

retaliation placing unlawful conditions on his employment.

2 .

. Made defendants herein.are:

a .• •••••·••••••••••••••• •• m~··~~88 cb3~Dl~M~· (f~~li~··8i:~~···H~i! ~~~~!~~l~~··]]·~omeslic

corporation domiciled in Rapides Parish, Louisiana, at 2080 DONAHUE FERRY ROAD, PINEVILLE, which may be served through its registered agent for service of process and president and chief executive officer, Michael H. Madison, at its domicile address.

3.

JAMES A. ROSS (hereinafter "Petitioner") suffered damages, in the Parish of Rapides-

including emotional distress and material job alterations resulting from actions of the company to

discriminate and place conditions on employment as a result of Petitioner disclose workplace actions

he believed, in good faith, to violate state anti-discrimination law.

Petitioner further makes his claims pursuant to the theory of respondeat .mpcnorwith regard

to CIcco Corporation.

5.

Defendant is indebted unto Petitioner in an amount to be determined by the Court, together

with legal interest from date of judicial demand until paid, and for all costs of these proceeding'S for the

reasons enumerated herein; however, all remedies sought herein are averred pursuant to Louisiana

statutory, codal, and constitutional principles; 110 federal remedy is sought or utilized and a Louisiana

STAMP ropy lWIlKEO

analogue is presumed with respect to all allegations. There are no claims made by this demand

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e or any other federal retaliation actions. Any references to

"employment discrimination" matters CIcco has historically faced which may be related to this suit,

including any federal and state bodies are are for the purpose of background information regarding the

self-limited causes of action pleaded herein, and no substantive or procedural remedy is sought

pursuant to any right or remedy federal law may have created for private litigants.

6 .

• ~~~f. •••• ~;d~~h~~~ ••• J~i1E~·····~l ••••• ~b~S~ •••• J~~. rgC~~~6~1 •••• ·i,i'~t ·~: ••• ·f~l~h~~ •••• lf· ••• ~d ••• ··;;.Luisiana

Interference With Individual Rights Law;" found at La.R.S. 23:967, which prohibits an employer from

retaliating against an employee on the basis of that employee's disclosure of information that an

employment practice was believed in good faith to be violative of state law or reprisal taken because an

employee informs a superior of potential wrongdoing by the employer.

7.

Petitioner makes a claim pursuant to La.R.S. 23:967 inasmuch as Petitioner claims he suffered

numerous reprisals detailed in this petition at ~ 9 for questioning his supervisors about the

meLlloqmpgyqfnl~p'giB~m~ t~~~t!qr§i~}'9.a.p'n~fwJ,~igh W~~Fml,§iHgbr~4)'4.wqf14q(:ause an

adverse·····;!~i~·· •• ~~~~~;~ •••• ······~:~·~o~~;····l;~ii~v~~·····i:i~ j~ b·····~~~·~·~·····:~q~~;~d·····~~~Si~~;~~~~· ··~i~·· ~li~··· issue of

disparate impact and that Louisiana law, specifically at 1.a.R.S. 23:301 et seq. ("The Louisiana

Employment Discrimination Law"), and more specifically at La.R.S. 23:332A(2), in that he reasonably

and in good faith believed the system at his employment to violate state law.

8.

Defendants breached the duty of good faith required in all contractual relationships, in this

case by acting in bad faith in employment, which involves an implied contract or letting out of services,

when on or about july 15, 2005, Petitioner was told by Ed Taylor Petitioner's position was being

elimina~~I} •• II •• ~il¥'.iha~lbu~ •• fg~6IJ~··I~ •• ~~ln~~: •• ~ •• ~f,1S.d •• ~l;.tii'J •• ·iJ~Ii~;;:I~ ••• I/;~ •.. ~(f,bj1 •• until the

present day, which numerous acts synergistically and cumulatively damaged Petitioner on each

separate occasion, and despite the fact that Petitioner was at all times willing to perform the duties of

his job under normal work circumstances.

9.

Because of the commissions of or omissions regarding certain acts or failures to act listed

herein, and relative to duties owed specifically to Petitioner by the defendants, individually and

collectively, and relative to the breach of or failure to conform to those duties by defendant, Petitioner

was injured accordingly:

a) Failure of the employer, CIcco Corporation, to refrain from reprisal in the form of improperly dernotivc, altering, or demeaning job modifications and threats arising from Petitioner's lawful reporting of potentially unlawful conduct regarding the minority job placement program within the company regarding job postings.

b) Failure of the employer to maintain or ensure application of a proper method for the reporting of activity by employees to supervisors or human resource persons for certain employees including Petitioner (who was em HR employee), when the employer knew or should have known of the inappropriateness of disallowing Petitioner an avenue for reporting reprisal activity regarding Ed Taylor, Petitioner's supervisor, and including failures to follow establish policy regarding confidentiality to

••••••••••••••••••. }\ll!i!h~d.t!¥.t.hM.as~~9r~e.hmp~~w.s ~1U¥.~ .. b9$~.wI19W:9Ul9.fib,!:~HaW9.!~q9 in SUCll

·····i~HhViorandwoma rel)ortsucH prohihite(FBeiutvibr.r ••••• . .

10.

More specifically, on or about.luly 15,2005, your Petitioner's supervisor, Ed Taylor, manager

of Human Resources (HR) for Cleco Corporation entered Petitioner's office to tell Petitioner him that

Taylor was planning a reorganization in HR that would allect only two positions, the Petitioner's

(which he said was going away) and another unspecified position. Petitioner shows this was an act of

retaliation by Taylor in response Petitioner's repeated attempts to get a position description from

'Taylor, and because Petitioner informed Taylor and others in the months leading up to this retaliatory

act aboH~~'Q9r#~t'A9~h~PM~(! ~yql~q9i~~H~Jip'g l~8siq9P§'WI,MPh wa,§~~avipgap~4Y£r~~~npact on

111inori~~·~··~!~··t~·~·~;···~~::~~~·~~·~es:···········

A.

OnIuly 15, 2005, Petitioner wrote and delivered to Taylor a memorandum outlining reasons

why Petitioner had been retaliated against. Petitioner asked in the memo to explain why he was

handled differently than other employees,

B.

Petitioner also questioned why his job duties were changed and some of his work given to a

younger employee at the start of the year.

Petitioner copied Taylor's immediate supervisor, George Bausewine, Sr. Vice President -

Corporate Services, and requested a meeting with Bauscwinc at the earliest opportunity, invoking the

company's Open Door Policy.

D.

On.luly 19, 2005, Petitioner met with Bausewine in his office and reviewed the memorandum

stating Petitioner felt he was being retaliated against lor, among other things, insistence on a position

description. Petitioner also re-iterated concerns to Bausewine that there were inconsistencies in the

tilling of recent positions at CIcco, which might have an adverse impact on minorities and older

employees.

Petitioner complained to the company CEO as well. Petitioner was notified via computer

Taylor had scheduled a performance review for Petitioner December 21, 2005.

F.

In that review, Petitioner was given the lowest scores he has ever received on any CIcco

perIonl~9~l ••• f~~~i; ••••• i,~~~;18; •• tisc~i··~t··aU·r]~~~&~;i ••• dJ'~I~~bH •• ~: •• li •• ~)a§~: •• t~·raf~ •• ~~.l~ ... )J~1(~~~~~ on lour

accountabilities. Since this position description was still in draft form, Petitioner asked Taylor in a

subsequent memo how Petitioner could be held accountable on unofficial items. No response ever

occurred in a meaningful fashion.

G.

Subsequent to a meeting with George Bauscwinc, Taylor's supervisor, Petitioner learned he

was going to be assigned work on a project involving mapping the processes in Human Resources

without proper training or resources. In March of 2006, Petitioner was informed that his computer

access t~nnq~1,~q.>hA~~:~m~1,l.eiii!qBP.~P~t~M~~~§titi.pRe~~~t:9H~1~~~T~yl9~I)q~hfi~:9M~ 4.l~I;~~lis access

allowed~~·~~~~:;:~;~~~:;~(r~~l l~~~~~!;~~~l~: n::~~~~~~~~~~e:~~: in~~;::~:~ ~:~t~c~ess from

home would not be restored. Also in March 2006, Petitioner discovered Taylor had Petitioner's

access to CIcco's Human Resources Management System software (HRMS) reduced. This reduced

access makes it much more difficult to look at certain information so that the Petitioner can better

target his training efforts.

11.

CIcco Corporation, domiciled in Louisiana, is a corporation employing well in excess of 100

people on a daily basis. All of these acts render the employer liable under the theory of rC.~lJOJ1rJC;11

supel1()jf~ .. i~la~~8i ' •• ~~ •• t~~i~liJ.[g;.~a •• r&~~l~J,~ ()f.~:;l~i~dB~··.knjOl~~igJ •• b~:~~Jt'; •• iii; •• ~lnI)I()yer

was made aware of the issues, including Madison, the company CEO, and refused to take appropriate

action.

12.

At all times pertinent herein, Ed Taylor and George Bausewine, company employees, acted in

the course and scope of their employment, and intended to serve the interests of the employer by

making the work environment of Petitioner more difficult in an effort to "run oll" James Ross. The

acts occurred at work and during work hours,

ia

Petitioner asserts that Cicco Corporation is vicariously liable lor the tortious acts of its

employees while they act under the actual and apparent authority of their positions and within the

course and scope of their jobs.

As a result of the unlawful acts of CIcco Corporation, due solely to the fault and/or strict

liability of the defendant, Petitioner has suffered and continues to suffer both in body and mind as

a. Mental and physical pain and suffering: Past, present and future;

b. Embarrassment: Past, present and future;

c. Aggravation: Past, present and future;

d. Injury to reputation: Past, present and future;

e. Emotional distress: Past, present and future;

f. Lost opportunity;

go. Loss of enjoyment oflife; and

h. Loss of emoluments of position.

15.

THE CLERK 0 F COURT BE DIRECTED THAT Petitioner requests written notice of the

date of trial as well as notice of hearings (whether on the merits or otherwise), orders, judgments, and

illterlocitl~.'~~~t~~ •• !i! •• ~~ J~(··~Ji •• ibf~l~~ ••• l~~~ J:~ .~lJ.illl··~~hie~.~~6~~ij~ ••• ~~Y.i~~t!tJI16 •• br by ally

member of Court, as provided in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Articles 1572, 1913

and 1911.

WHEREFORE, PETITIONER, JAMES A. ROSS, PRAYS that a certified copy of this

petition together with citation to appear and answer same in the form and manner prescribed by law,

be duly served upon the defendant, in accordance with law, and after all legal delays and due

proceedings had, there be judgment herein in favor of petitioner against defendant, (or all damages

proved, together with legal interest thereon, at the legal rate, from the date of judicial demand, until

paid, aI!gt.'pr..ijij.~rnt~ .. QClh~~ pdj¢.t.gqip.d,.~ idl a.$ThQ~jm~#§J~tu.l.#riJ.Y aU6w<;d~~ttqm¢Y. fees.

·~i~i~·~~·i:···~~i~J~~···~~~~···~~~:l:·tlli:··~·~·~:;~i)l~···~o~;~··~~·~ tI~~··~:~··~~:;··~;l~ll··~~n(1 every

expert witness that he may be required to call or use to establish a cause, nature and extent of their

losses and damages and to tax the same as costs herein as well as to tax attorney ices allowed by statute

and awarded in the case as costs herein.

PETITIO NER FURTHERMO RE PRAYS I(Jf all orders and decrees necessary or proper in

the premises which law, equity, or the nature of the case may permit.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

r .o&r.Hi~tTJft.e~~f·i(

Post Office B 1592 exandria, Louisiana 71809-1592

Telephone: (a18) 1.87-9587 Facsimile: (818) 187-1853

A TIORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

SERVICE INSTRUCfIONS:

PLEASE HOLD SERVICE

~, r I

I -:

""

CIVIL SUIT NUMBER d~:£5 L1 ~ G--

NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF RAPIDES

STATE OF LOUISIANA

JAMES A. ROSS

VERSUS

CLECO CORPORATION

FILED: ~DY.CLK.

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes the plaintifT,JAMES A. ROSS

(hereinafter "Petitioner"), who request" that the defendant, CLECO CORPORATION, admit the

truth of the following' facts within the time allotted by law:

DEFINITIONS

A. "Defendanus)," "You:' and "Your" where used in these Interrog-atories refers to any

defendant, any subsidiary of the foregoing, and any owner of the foregoing, whether a corporation or other juridical entity or natural person, and all counsel, consultants, experts, accountant'>, and investigators, agents, or other parties acting in their behalf and also including Board Members and officers; this definition pertains to all named defendants and specifically to Ed Taylor or George Bausewine, and any of the foregoing pertaining thereto.

~j;:J#J~~61(~j;~S.tlel~~~'d~i.~~~tA(f~:~~~~g~~~ •••• ~J~jh(Igf~(~tn~{~~g~l~'j .. t~~;~~:)rations,

partnerships, a~~ociations,joint ventures, government agencies (Federal, State or Local), or any other organization cognizable at law as well as when an employee performs some task about which an inquiry is made regarding these Admissions as part of their employment. "Personts)" includes both the employer and the employed personts).

C. "Documents" shall mean all originals or copies thereof of writings, photographs, or

recordings of every kind or nature in your possession, custody or control including, but not limited to letters, c-mails, records, logs, diaries, correspondence, memoranda, contracts, telegrams, telexes, reports, notes, maps, recordings, transcript", cover sheets, transmittal sheet", invoices, list", internal or interoffice communications, directives, records of meetings, telephone or other communications, pleadings, vouchers, accounting records, tallies, calculations, diagrams, charts, advertising brochures, computer printouts, pictures, newspaper clipping'S, books, magazines, texts, pamphlets, video or audio tapes, computer tapes (compact discs, floppies, or other digital medium of recording), drawings and sketches, whether prepared by you, your agents, representatives, or independent contractors or consultants obtained by you, and dralis of any of the foregoing, in the possession of, subject to the c()ntrolQf.j9rW.#hip.th¢Jq.IQw.legg~ ••• 9'Al,whl~ri.l.iO· (~de,fip'qc.l.iri.~;A""."",,,,,,,,,,,,,,>,,

D. ··?;;~ili~~~i;i~;~~er~~~~;~:'l~~~~<~l~· fO~:~~(~~~~~~~I)l~~;llent reprisal against an employee

who in good faith advises the employer of a workplace violation of law, discloses or threatens to disclose a workplace act or practice that is in violation of state law, provides information to or testifies before any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into any violation of law, or objects to or refuses to participate in an employment act or practice that is in violation of law.

E. "Reprisal" includes firing, layoff, loss of benefits or any discriminatory action taken

as a result of an action by the employee that is protected under ('0" of this Section, such as demotion, change in job position, threats of violence, disparaging the employee outside of lawful process or discipline at work (violating privacy rules), changes in shift. that result in dcmotivc scheduling, actions to seek "payback," revenge, or retaliation for an employee's actions described in ((0" of this section.

F. The male gender includes the female, and the singular pronoun includes the plural.

--- --- -- ._ .. _ .. - . -' _._- _. ..

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Each udmission is to be answered scpsrstcly, under oath, by each dclcndent as ildireclcd to tluu delendent and it alone (unless inspplicnbk: which should be so stated) and to the best olyour Knowledge, iieny, and II you have J10 Knowledge, so stele; if authentication is requested, this means that you admit the authenticity of the document as one promulgated, possessed, or produced by you in your business or otherwise that the document is a copy of an original or original and not fraudulent or a forgery.

2. These admissions shall be deemed continuing, so as to require prompt further supplemental responses in accordance with the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure if defendant obtains additional or different information, oral or written, between the time or the original response and the entry of the judgment in this action.

a. ..~~;·~j~ ... tI1~~~~8~ •• ·tliled •• ~~;··~~~··[ .ld[~{i[~~()n •• ~~ •• ~~l~i~t~G .~h •• tli~ •• ~;]]lis ··~.~~:'.~··~~~~l~l·.t~:;~~Vilege or

privacy, the nature of the claimed privilege and a statement of the grounds on which the claim is based should be set forth in sufficient detail to enable evaluation of the claim of privilege or privacy.

ADMISSIONS

1. You admit on july 14, 2005, you entered Petitioner's office to inform Petitioner of a reorganization which was to affect Petitioner's and one other unspecified position.

2. You admit thc Iuly 14,2005 action came subsequent to Petitioner's insistence lor a position description.

a. You admit thc Iuly 11" 2005 action came subsequent to Petitioner's claim that CIcco hiring practices were having an adverse impact on minorities and/or older persons.

1. You admit you have no information the Petitioner acted with intentional dishonesty by: (i) not

~~~~~t~:~f!r'lf'1116l~~~;ftr~'0Dtl~~~:I~i~\91~X··'~~~~ff' ~t~Wttti1rl~1(t~~gC~:~~~

standards of honesty in dealing with others, all of which regarding the claim of Petitioner that CIcco hiring practices were having an adverse impact on minorities and older persons.

5. You admit you received a memorandum from the Petitioner on July 15, 2005, which specifically noted a retaliatory act.

6, You admit Petitioner questioned you regarding why certain job responsibilities were given to a younger employee in the department and taken from Petitioner.

7. You admit you informed department employees that they were not to discuss a charge levied by the Petitioner which covered essentially the same issues mentioned in these requests Ior admission.

8. You admit being counseled such an isolation action was impermissible.

9. You admit that the Petitioner met on july 1 2005, with Mr. CcorgcBausewinc (invoking

~J.~Sg;f~RfP~f\Wqfu?li~¥)j ••••••••••••••. •••••..•.••••••• . .....

10. You admit in this July 19, 2005 meeting Mr. Bausewine was informed of the claimed retaliation of Petitioner.

11. You admit Bausewine was informed of Petitioner's insistence for a position description and calling attention to certain hiring practices which might have an adverse impact on some protected groups.

12. You admit no action was taken to investigate these chums.

lao You admit Petitioner met with CIcco President and CEO, Mike Madison, on August 2,2005, and called his attention to the claim Petitioner had been retaliated against for insisting on a position description and pointing out that the procedures for filling positions in CIcco were inconsistent and had an adverse impact on protected classes.

..

14. You admit no action was taken to follow up or investigate the claims.

15. You admit Mr. Madison promised action would be forthcoming through Mr. Bauscwinc.

16. You admit you conducted a performance appraisal of the Petitioner which was based on a position description that had been officially active for only ten (10) days.

17. You admit you rated Petitioner low on two accountabilities.

18. You admit you circumvented normal performance reviews by using the position description rather than the performance plan.

19. You admit the performance plan is typically used to detail specific tasks and progress on those msks. •........

20.~~~~~~:~t~ou assigned work to the Petitioner that he advised you repeatedly was beyond his current capacity without extensive training,

21. You admit that you eliminated the Petitioner's access to the CIcco LAN from home.

22. You admit Petitioner has enjoyed that access lor years.

28. You admit that you reduced the Petitioner's PeopleSofl. access rights (CIcco's Human Resources Management System software).

21. You admit the previous mentioned action limited the Petitioner's access to certain information.

25. You admit that information would allow Petitioner to bcucr target training efforts.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

~

. ROY (25227 M.L. King Dri Post Ofiice Box ;')92 Alexandria, Louisia a 71309-1592

Telephone: WI8) "',87-9537

Facsimile: (318) 1.87-135.3

"

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

PLEAS~ •• ~;~~w.il~x.~!~y~.·~~;h •• ~I!I&.~t.lI··i.wt~!~~~ ••••••••••.•••••.....•••••••••••....

.,

, "

~ f,", .

DOCKET NO~· 224,996 "G" NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES

JAMES A. ROSS VERSUS

CLECD CORPORATION

FILED: DEPUTY CLERK: ---------.:;.;;'-I\::;i~

JOINT MOTION TO mSMlss

COME NOW, Plaintiff, James A Ross and Defendant, Cleco Corporation, and

1.!P9:Q~u.gg~!'I;~i:g.g ~9Jhe,:P91£1 !ha.t fue:parti9.~A~y~,eff!'l9.~ed a c0w.prgw.jse.of all

·················~iU~···~J··g~mGa~ cgh~:~h~J·J .;~. ,:~lti~~;·jJ~~i~.tg~~ tjtJ.d6Jf··t~···a~~hI·g~

All costs are paid ~. I UAM~.JON_

~L ,

this action with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.

Respectfully submitted, this ~ day of A pt-: I

,2007.

ROBERT L. BECK, JR (#02886) Rivers, Beck, Dalrymple & Ledet 5208 Jackson Street Ext. Alexandria, Louisiana 71315 Telephone: (318) 445p6581 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF,

J~S 4·l{.f,>SS

S H. IS (#06961)

e Kullman Firm

1100 Poydras Street

1600 Energy Centre

New Orleans. Louisiana 70163 Telephone: (504) 524p4162 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT §L~¢,Q§~PR/llr,IfN {i

o ~:;-O :")-0'/ i) ()·1 ::i 6 ReV D

DOCKET NO. 224,996 "Gil NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES

JAMES A. ROSS VERSUS

CLECO CORPORATION

FILED: DEPUTYCLERK: _

ORDER

Considering the foregoing Joint Motion to Dismiss;

............................................. ru •• ~$.iQ.$D.~;~~.~m~.~~t~~.~~ •• 4.<t it.~ •• ~~t,4~il~~e~.~'pi~;~,~.~~i

party to bear its own costs.

~

\.D

..

N N

JUDGE