News & Publications
Woman Files Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Tot Time Child Care Centers
Posted on July 07, 2010MEDIA ADVISORY
(Chester County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania; Civil Action No. 10-08125) The Paoli-based law firm of Rubin, Fortunato & Harbison P.C. has filed a whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of Michele F. Clayton of King of Prussia, P.A. against Tot-Time Child Development Centers, Inc. (“Tot-Time”) and The Amoore Group, Inc. (“TAG”). Tot-Time offers child care services at 28 locations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and is headquartered in Plymouth Meeting, PA; The Amoore Group (“TAG”) provided human resources and management consulting services to Tot-Time. In her lawsuit, Ms. Clayton alleges that her employment with the company was wrongfully terminated after she refused to falsify company records to feign compliance with state law regarding background clearances for employees who had direct contact with children.
About the Case
The Plaintiff, Michele Clayton, started her employment at Tot-Time in November 2003 as a pre-K teacher in Plymouth Meeting, and progressed through promotions to her last position as Director of “A Child’s Place,” Tot-Time’s child care center in Devon, Chester County. Ms. Clayton received positive feedback about the performance of her duties. She was well-liked by management, her staff and the parents of the children enrolled at the centers where she worked over the years.
This happy and productive working relationship began to erode in the Spring of 2009, when, during a state inspection preparation meeting with her supervisor, Ms. Clayton and her supervisor discovered that required background clearances for some new employees had not been received within 30 days, which by state law would mean that the employees should have been (but were not) reassigned to positions without direct child contact or suspended pending receipt of the clearances. Upon this discovery, the supervisor instructed Ms. Clayton (orally and in writing) to falsify personnel records so that the violation would not be identified by the state agent, and to ask the subject employees to sign documents supporting the deception. Such unsworn falsifications to authorities are misdemeanors under state criminal law.
Distressed at the request, Ms. Clayton conferred with a Regional Manager, who encouraged her to report the incident to the company’s owner, Donna Fluehr, as well as a fellow director. When Ms. Clayton did so, Fluehr expressed outrage, but not at the illegal request of the supervisor, rather that Ms. Clayton shared it with other leaders in the company. When the state audit was completed and the violations were discovered, the supervisor herself challenged Ms. Clayton as to why she had not falsified the personnel records as instructed.
The following month, at a regularly-held company meeting for directors, TAG President and CEO, Renee Amoore, gave a speech on integrity and ethics. The nature of the topic led Ms. Clayton to believe it arose from the recent incident with her supervisor and she approached Ms. Amoore after the speech to discuss the issue. However, Ms. Amoore, clearly not aware of what had happened, relayed her surprise and opinion that the supervisor be terminated. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Clayton learned that her supervisor would not be terminated from employment. Instead, Ms. Clayton was informed that the supervisor would be “stripped of her Regional Director” title and no longer serve as her supervisor.
Prior to the state audit, Ms. Clayton had been encouraged to apply for promotions that would be available following a company restructuring. However, when the restructuring was implemented a few months after the “falsifying records request” incident, Tot-Time rejected Ms. Clayton for a number of promotional opportunities within the company. She was told she “did not have enough experience at multiple centers” (after six years with the company at two different centers), though someone with just a couple of months’ tenure at one center received one of the promotions.
During the organizational restructuring, TAG representatives had assumed supervisory and Human Resources roles at Tot-Time, including the role of Ms. Clayton’sdirect supervisor. Shortly after assuming their roles as agents for Tot-Time, TAG representatives also asked center directors to have employees review and sign a newly adopted “Employee Protection (Whistleblower) Policy” for human resource purposes.
By December 2009, the two individuals Ms. Clayton had shared the “falsifying records request” incident with had been fired. Also, Ms. Clayton’s assistant director was promoted to fill the position of one of those two individuals (though she was not qualified to hold that position in accordance with Department of Public Welfare regulations) and Ms. Clayton was not given any advance notice, nor was she given staff to replace the assistant.
In early January of 2010, Ms. Clayton’s former assistant approached one of her staff members to discuss Ms. Clayton. In that conversation, the former assistant from A Child’s Place told Ms. Clayton’s staff member that it did not matter if she “sided with” her, since Ms. Clayton “would be fired anyway.” Shortly thereafter, a representative from TAG visited the center and asked for theemployee “Whistleblower” forms, most of which Plaintiff had collected, but, being short-staffed, had not yet had time to file in the personnel files. As a result, she was only able to produce four signed forms.
They agreed that representative would return the following Tuesday to follow up, but the representative instead arrived Monday, January 18, 2010, with another individual from TAG. Ironically, after Ms. Clayton herself made a whistleblower complaint, the TAG representatives terminated Ms. Clayton’s employment for allegedly “refusing to comply” with the instructions related to the Whistleblower Policy.
Shortly after the Ms. Clayton’s termination, the initial supervisor who approached her to falsify the records returned from maternity leave, and was reinstated to a supervisory role in the company. Tot-Time alsoreplaced Ms. Clayton with a new director who was given not one but two assistants. Even though Ms. Clayton was supposedly fired for failures relating to the Whistleblower Policy, the new director still had not obtained signatures on the policy from all staff members as of March 10, 2010.
Legal Claims:
Plaintiff asserts two claims against Tot-Time and TAG. First, Plaintiff claims that Tot-Time and TAG terminated her employment in retaliation for her good faith complaint of wrongdoing in violation of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law. The law is applicable to public employers and private entities, such as Tot-Time and TAG, which receive funding from the Commonwealth.
Plaintiff also asserts that Tot-Time and TAG terminated her employment in retaliation for complaining about her supervisor’s intent to falsify records of child care employees and for refusing to engage in such illegal conduct in violation of clear mandates of public policy in violation of common law. The public policy interests implicated by Plaintiff’s termination include the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting the safety and security of children at child care centers, and in prohibiting retaliation against employees who refuse to commit crimes at the requests of their employers.
Damages:
As a result of Tot-Time and TAG’s unlawful employment practices, Ms. Clayton lost her job, and her young son had to be withdrawn from A Child’s Place without prior notice. Ms. Clayton has and continues to suffer lost income, benefits, and earning potential, not to mention a great deal of anxiety, emotional distress and humiliation.
In her lawsuit, Ms. Clayton asks the court to:
- Require the Defendants to reinstate her to a position equivalent to the one from which she was terminated and award her full wages and benefits commensurate with that position;
- Award her compensation for her monetary losses, and award front pay if reinstatement is not possible;
- Award her compensation for all non-monetary losses, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, and humiliation
- Award her punitive damages for Defendant’s malicious and reckless conduct
- Grant her reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees
About the Defendants
Tot-Time Child Development Centers, Inc. operates 28 locations throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey offering child care, kindergarten and before/after school programs: http://www.tottimekids.com/.
The Amoore Group, Inc. is an economic development, health care, and management consulting and training firm with 7 office locations in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.: http://www.amooregroup.org/
Plaintiff’s Counsel
Julie A. Uebler, Esquire of Rubin, Fortunato & Harbison P.C. is lead counsel for the plaintiff. Ms. Uebler has focused her work exclusively on employment law for over 16 years, now representing employees in a variety of employment-related disputes, including whistleblower, wrongful termination, discrimination, and retaliation matters. Andrew M. DeLucia, Esquire will work with Ms. Uebler on this matter.
Rubin Fortunato has built a nationally-respected employment law practice based in suburban Philadelphia, PA, representing both corporations and individuals in virtually all areas related to employment law: http://www.rubinfortunato.com/.
Defendants’ Counsel
Lawren Briscoe, Esquire of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhill & Furman P.C. (http://www.cohenseglias.com/) is representing Defendant Tot-Time. Plaintiff is not aware of counsel representing The Amoore Group.
# # #