Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Colonial Savings, F.A.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

March 21, 2017

JOANN BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
COLONIAL SAVINGS F.A., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN McBRYDE United States District Judge.

         Came on for consideration the motion of defendant, Colonial Savings F.A., to partially dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint ("complaint") for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff, Joann Brown, filed a response to which defendant replied. Having considered the motion, the response, the reply, the amended complaint, and applicable legal authorities, the court concludes that defendant's motion should be granted.

         I.

         Plaintiff's Claims

         Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, alleged that defendant retaliated against her in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 5567 and 18 U.S.C. § 1514A after she alerted her supervisor and other personnel of defendant to what she believed to be defendant's untimely and backdated mailing of certain notice letters to mortgage borrowers. Plaintiff described defendant's alleged retaliation against her in the following allegations:

         COLONIAL'S RETALIATION AGAINST BROWN

70. Tim Neer and John Roden began mistreating Ms. Brown after she complained about what she perceived to be a fraudulent letter.
71. During regular meetings with Tim Neer, Mr. Neer verbally abused Ms. Brown; he berated Ms. Brown and told her she was a failure.
72. Despite being designated as an attendee to a leadership training event, Colonial excluded Ms. Brown as punishment for persisting to sound the alarm regarding Colonial's practices.
73. Ms. Brown complained to Colonial about how Tim Neer mistreated her. Colonial did not intervene.
74. On multiple occasions, Ms. Brown complained to Human Resources about Tim Neer's behavior and actually labeled it retaliation for her complaints.
75. Despite John Roden being Ms. Brown's immediate supervisor, Tim Neer, John Roden's superior, singled Ms. Brown out and drafted her performance review.
76. Tim Neer's performance review of Ms. Brown was critical of Ms. Brown's performance despite evidence to the contrary that Ms. Brown satisfactorily performed her job.
77. Tim Neer withheld this critical performance review from Ms. Brown for several months.
78. Tim Neer would later backdate the performance review as a means to falsify evidence to support Colonial's legal defense.
79. Tim Neer ostracized Ms. Brown and at times would act as if she did not exist.
80. Ms. Brown was presented with the negative performance review in March 26, 2015 despite the performance review purporting to be drafted Sunday, January [sic] 8, 2015.
81. Unlike prior years, Ms. Brown was not afforded the opportunity to counter-sign or rebut the negative performance review.
82. Contemporaneous with her annual performance review, Tim Neer presented Ms. Brown with a performance improvement plan on March 26, 2015.
83. The design of this improvement plan was such that it was vague and impossible for Ms. Brown to complete the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.