Text of lawsuit by former Suffolk Assessor Maria Kattmann

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK

MARIA KATTMANN,

Plaintiff

v. Law No.: ___________________________
(CIVIL ACTION)
Plaintiff Demands a Trial By Jury

CITY OF SUFFOLK,

Defendant.

SERVE:

C. Edward Roettger, Jr., Esquire
Suffolk City Attorney
441 Market Street
Suffolk, VA 23439

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, MARIA KATTMANN (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), by Counsel, and as and for her Complaint hereby sets forth as follows:
Parties, Jurisdiction, Venue and Procedural Requirements
1. Defendant, City of Suffolk (“Defendant City”) is a municipal corporation within the Commonwealth of Virginia and is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court.
2. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the City of Suffolk, Virginia.
3. The causes of action alleged in this action arose in the City of Suffolk, Virginia.
4. Pursuant to Va. Code §15.2-209, the Plaintiff presented a notice of claim to the City of Suffolk on April 16, 2008.
Factual Background
5. At all times relevant herein, the Defendant City acted under color of the statutes, customs, ordinances and usage of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Suffolk.
6. From June 5, 1996, through May 7, 2008, Plaintiff was been employed by Defendant City in the position of City Assessor.
7. The City Assessor’s duties and responsibilities to conduct real estate assessments of real estate located in the municipality are set forth generally in Virginia Code Section 58.1-3200 et seq. and in the City of Suffolk Municipal Code (“Municipal Code”) at Part II, Chapter 82, Article X (Real Property), commencing at Sections 82-401 et seq.
8. The position of City Assessor is a City Council appointed position with the Defendant City, and as such, the City Assessor is a “department head” or “department director” of the Defendant City.
9. On May 15, 1996, Plaintiff and Defendant City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”), which set forth the terms and conditions for Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant City and compensation to be paid by Defendant City with respect to such employment. A copy of such MOU is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
10. On June 5, 1996, the City Counsel for Defendant City approved Plaintiff’s MOU.
11. Paragraph 4 of the MOU states that “[t]he City Assessor position will be included in the City’s compensation plan.”
12. On or about July 1, 2006, the Defendant City adopted a compensation plan that provided for increased compensation for Defendant City’s employees for the July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 fiscal year (“Defendant City’s 2006-2007 Compensation Plan”).
13. However, Defendant City has failed and/or refused to include Plaintiff, in her position as the City Assessor, in Defendant City’s 2006-2007 Compensation Plan.
14. On or about July 1, 2007, Defendant City adopted a compensation plan that provided for increased compensation for Defendant City’s employees for the July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008 fiscal year (“Defendant City’s 2007-2008 Compensation Plan”).
15. However, Defendant City has failed and/or refused to include Plaintiff, in her position as the City Assessor, in Defendant City’s 2007-2008 Compensation Plan through May 7, 2008 (the date of Plaintiff’s termination of employment by Defendant City).
16. On or about October 2007, Plaintiff discovered that she had been excluded from Defendant City’s 2006-2007 Compensation Plan and Defendant City’s 2007-2008 Compensation Plan.
17. Since late October 2007, Plaintiff has made repeated demands to Defendant City for the amount equal to the difference between the compensation Plaintiff would have been paid had she been included in Defendant City’s 2006-2007 Compensation Plan and Defendant City’s 2007-2008 Compensation Plan and the compensation actually paid to Plaintiff, as such difference is adjusted for cost of living increases thereon.
18. However, as of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant City has not paid to Plaintiff any portion of the amount demanded by Plaintiff, as described in paragraph 17 of this Complaint.
19. Paragraph 13 of the MOU states that in the event of the termination of employment of Plaintiff by Defendant City, Plaintiff shall be entitled to payment of “accrued leave as provided in Paragraph 10 [of the MOU]” and “a lump sum cash payment equal to three months’ base compensation paid by the Counsel to the Assessor as stipulated in Paragraph 4 [of the MOU].”
20. However, as of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant City has failed and/or refused to pay to Plaintiff any portion of the Plaintiff’s accrued and unpaid leave or the lump sum cash payment, described in paragraph 19 of this Complaint.
21. On July 1, 2001, Defendant City adopted a 401(A) Executive Staff Plan (“Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan”).
22. The Defendant City established the Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan as an employee retirement or pension plan, for which Defendant City’s department heads or department directors were eligible participants.
23. Since the adoption on July 1, 2001 of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan, the Defendant City has offered only certain department heads or department directors and assistant city managers of Defendant City to participate in the Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
24. Since the adoption on July 1, 2001 of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan, the Defendant City has failed and/or refused to notify Plaintiff of her eligibility, as City Assessor, for enrollment and participation in the Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
25. Since the adoption on July 1, 2001 of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan, the Defendant City has failed and/or refused to include Plaintiff as a participant in the Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
26. On or about October 2007, Plaintiff discovered that she had been excluded from participation in the Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
27. Since late October 2007, Plaintiff has repeatedly sought information from, and questioned Defendant City (by and through Plaintiff’s communications with the City Council members of Defendant City and various of the Defendant City’s employees, agents, and representatives) about, the Defendant City’s adoption and enforcement of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan, including, but not limited to, why only certain department heads or department directors and assistant city managers of Defendant City, had been included as participants in the Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan, while she and other department heads or department directors and assistant city managers of Defendant City had been excluded from enrollment and participation in the Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
28. Since late October 2007, Plaintiff has made repeated demands to Defendant City for the amount, adjusted for the market rate of return, equal to the sum of (i) the additional amount Plaintiff’s investments would have grown by being in a deferred tax account (i.e., a 401(A) account) rather than a taxable account, had she been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption and made the maximum contributions allowable by an employee participant of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan; (ii) the amount of taxes Plaintiff would have saved had she been able to make the maximum contributions into a deferred tax account (i.e., a 401(A) account) rather than a taxable account, had Plaintiff been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption; and (iii) the amount of matching contributions the Defendant would have been required to contribute into an account for Plaintiff, had Plaintiff been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption.
29. However, as of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant City has not paid to Plaintiff any portion of the amount demanded by Plaintiff, as described in paragraph 28 of this Complaint.
30. On March 16, 2008, Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, sent a Notice of Claim to Defendant City with respect to her claims alleged herein.
Count I – Breach of Contract Regarding Compensation
31. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 as though fully set forth herein.
32. The Defendant City’s failure(s) and/or refusal(s) to include Plaintiff, in her position as the City Assessor, in Defendant City’s 2006-2007 Compensation Plan and Defendant City’s 2007-2008 Compensation Plan constitute material breaches of the Defendant City’s obligations set forth in the MOU.
33. The Defendant City’s failure and/or refusal to pay to Plaintiff the amount equal to the difference between the compensation Plaintiff would have been paid had she been included in Defendant City’s 2006-2007 Compensation Plan and Defendant City’s 2007-2008 Compensation Plan and the compensation actually paid to Plaintiff, as such difference is adjusted for cost of living increases thereon, constitutes continued material breaches of the Defendant City’s obligations set forth in the MOU.
34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City’s actions described in paragraphs 31 through 33 hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Eight and 67/100 Dollars ($18,628.67) representing the difference between the compensation Plaintiff would have been paid had she been included in Defendant City’s 2006-2007 Compensation Plan and Defendant City’s 2007-2008 Compensation Plan and the compensation actually paid to Plaintiff, as such difference is adjusted for cost of living increases during such periods.
35. In addition, since the date of Plaintiff’s filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff continues to suffer damages in the amount of interest that would have accrued and been owing to Plaintiff on the difference between the compensation Plaintiff would have been paid had she been included in Defendant City’s 2006-2007 Compensation Plan and Defendant City’s 2007-2008 Compensation Plan and the compensation actually paid to Plaintiff, which interest is accrued based upon the rate of inflation during such period, and which interest is to be finally determined at the trial of this matter.
36. The Defendant City’s failure(s) and/or refusal(s) to pay to Plaintiff the amount of Plaintiff’s accrued and unpaid leave and the lump sum cash payment, as described in paragraph 20 of this Complaint constitute material breaches of the Defendant City’s obligations set forth in the MOU.
37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City’s actions described in paragraphs 31 and 36 hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-Four and 10/100 Dollars ($33,574.10), representing the sum of (i) Plaintiff’s accrued and unpaid leave balance in the amount of Ten Thousand One Hundred Nine and 12/100 Dollars ($10,109.12); and (ii) the lump sum cash payment, described in paragraph 19 of this Complaint and paragraph 10 of the MOU, in the amount of Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Four and 98/100 Dollars ($23,464.98).
38. By reason of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs 31 through 37, Plaintiff demands enforcement of the terms of the MOU against the Defendant City, such that Defendant City is ordered to pay to Plaintiff damages as follows: (i) Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Eight and 67/100 Dollars ($18,628.67) representing the difference between the compensation Plaintiff would have been paid had she been included in Defendant City’s 2006-2007 Compensation Plan and Defendant City’s 2007-2008 Compensation Plan and the compensation actually paid to Plaintiff, as such difference is adjusted for cost of living increases during such periods; plus (ii) interest (in an amount to be finally determined at trial) that would have accrued and been owing to Plaintiff on the sum described in clause (i) of this paragraph 38, based upon the rate of inflation for the period after the date of filing of this Complaint; plus (iii) Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-Four and 10/100 Dollars ($33,574.10), representing the sum of (A) Plaintiff’s accrued and unpaid leave balance in the amount of Ten Thousand One Hundred Nine and 12/100 Dollars ($10,109.12); and (B) the lump sum cash payment, described in paragraph 19 of this Complaint and paragraph 10 of the MOU, in the amount of Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Four and 98/100 Dollars ($23,464.98).
39. Plaintiff has retained legal counsel with respect to the matter that is the subject of this Complaint, and has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees and associated costs for the bringing of this action.
40. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant City for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and associated costs for the prosecution of this action.
Count II – Breach of Contract Regarding Defendant’s 401(A) Plan
41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 through 30 as though fully set forth herein.
42. The Defendant City’s failure(s) and/or refusal(s) to notify Plaintiff of her eligibility, as City Assessor, for enrollment and participation in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan, constitute material breaches of the Defendant City’s obligations set forth in the Plan Agreement for Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
43. The Defendant City’s failure and/or refusal to include Plaintiff, as City Assessor, as a participant in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan, constitutes material breaches of the Defendant City’s obligations set forth in the Plan Agreement for Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City’s actions described in paragraphs 41 through 43 hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of Ninety-Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Six and 08/100 Dollars ($93,956.08), representing the amount, adjusted for the market rate of return, equal to the sum of (i) the additional amount Plaintiff’s investments would have grown by being in a deferred tax account (i.e., a 401(A) account) rather than a taxable account, had she been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption and made the maximum contributions allowable by an employee participant of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan; (ii) the amount of taxes Plaintiff would have saved had she been able to make the maximum contributions into a deferred tax account (i.e., a 401(A) account) rather than a taxable account, had Plaintiff been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption; and (iii) the amount of matching contributions the Defendant City would have been required to contribute into an account for Plaintiff, had Plaintiff been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption.
45. In addition, Plaintiff continues to suffer damages in the amount of interest that would have accrued and been owing to Plaintiff, on the amounts described in paragraph 44 herein, based upon the market rate of return for such investments, since the date of Plaintiff’s filing of this Complaint, in an amount to be finally determined at the trial of this matter.
46. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff demands enforcement of the terms of the Plan Agreement for Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan against the Defendant City, such that Defendant City is ordered to pay to Plaintiff damages in the amount of Ninety-Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Six and 08/100 Dollars ($93,956.08), representing the amount, adjusted for the market rate of return, equal to the sum of (i) the additional amount Plaintiff’s investments would have grown by being in a deferred tax account (i.e., a 401(A) account) rather than a taxable account, had she been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption and made the maximum contributions allowable by an employee participant of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan; (ii) the amount of taxes Plaintiff would have saved had she been able to make the maximum contributions into a deferred tax account (i.e., a 401(A) account) rather than a taxable account, had Plaintiff been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption; and (iii) the amount of matching contributions the Defendant City would have been required to contribute into an account for Plaintiff, had Plaintiff been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption, plus interest (in an amount to be finally determined at trial) that would have accrued thereon and been owing to Plaintiff, based upon the market rate of return for such investments, since the date of Plaintiff’s filing of this Complaint.
47. Plaintiff has retained legal counsel with respect to the matter that is the subject of this Complaint, and has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees and associated costs for the bringing of this action.
48. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant City for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and associated costs for the prosecution of this action.
Count III – Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Comply with
Regulations and Other Requirements Regarding Defendant’s 401(A) Plan

49. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 as though fully set forth herein.
50. Defendant City owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff as Plaintiff’s employer and administrator of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
51. From and after the date of the adoption of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan through May 7, 2008 (the date of Plaintiff’s termination of employment with Defendant), the Plaintiff, as City Assessor, was a department head or department director for the Defendant City, and as such, qualified to be an eligible participant of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
52. From and after the date of the adoption of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan through May 7, 2008 (the date of Plaintiff’s termination of employment with Defendant), Defendant City breached its fiduciary duty to Plaintiff as Plaintiff’s employer and administrator of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan by (i) failing and/or refusing to notify Plaintiff of her eligibility, as City Assessor, for enrollment and participation in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan; (ii) failing and/or refusing to enroll Plaintiff as a participant in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan, and thereby, excluding Plaintiff from participation in Defendant City’s 401(A) from the date of adoption of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan through May 7, 2008 (the date of Plaintiff’s termination of employment with Defendant); resulting in a financial gain for Defendant City’s own benefit.
53. Defendant City had actual and/or constructive knowledge of its fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff with respect to the administration of Defendant’s 401(A) Plan and of Plaintiff’s exclusion therefrom, as described in paragraphs 49 through 52 herein. However, Defendant City intentionally, willfully and deliberately disregarded Plaintiff’s rights, entitlement and interest in being notified of, and participating and being enrolled in, Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City’s breach of fiduciary duties, as described in paragraphs 49 through 53 herein, Plaintiff has suffered, and will suffer in the future, compensatory damages, including back pay; front pay; loss of fringe benefits; embarrassment, humiliation, and inconvenience; loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary injury, in amounts to be determined at trial in an amount to be determined at trial.
55. In addition, Plaintiff has retained legal counsel with respect to the matter that is the subject of this Complaint, and has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees and associated costs for the bringing of this action.
56. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant City for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and associated costs for the prosecution of this action.
Count IV – Retaliatory Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
57. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 as though fully set forth herein.
58. Plaintiff communicated with Defendant City (by and through the City Council members of Defendant City and various of the Defendant City’s employees, agents, and representatives), regarding the circumstances surrounding the Defendant City’s adoption and enforcement of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan, including, but not limited to, why only certain department heads or department directors and assistant city managers of Defendant City, had been included as participants in the Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan, while she and other department heads or department directors and assistant city managers of Defendant City, had been excluded from enrollment and participation in the Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan.
59. In response to Plaintiff’s speech described in paragraphs 27, 28, and 58 herein, Defendant City, by and through the affirmative vote of each of the City Council members of Defendant City, intentionally terminated Plaintiff’s employment, effective immediately, during a City Council meeting held on May 7, 2008.
60. Plaintiff’s speech described in paragraphs 27, 28, and 58 herein was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision by Defendant City, by and through the affirmative vote of each of the City Council members of Defendant City, to terminate Plaintiff’s employment on May 7, 2008.
61. Defendant’s termination of the employment of Plaintiff, as described in paragraphs 59 and 60 herein, constituted retaliatory discharge of Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff’s disclosure of and complaints regarding Defendant City’s lack of compliance with federal and state taxation statutes, regulations, and other rules with respect to employee retirement or pension plans.
62. Defendant’s actions described in paragraphs 59 and 60 herein constituted retaliatory discharge in violation of the public policies underlying federal and state taxation statutes, regulations, and other rules with respect to the administration, maintenance and enforcement of employee retirement or pension plans, and which public policies are designed to protect the property rights of people in general.
63. Defendant City, by and through the actions of each of the City Council members of Defendant City described in paragraphs 59 and 60 herein, terminated Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant City in retaliation for disclosure of and complaints regarding Defendant City’s lack of compliance with federal and state taxation statutes, regulations, and other rules with respect to employee retirement or pension plans, after fabricating reasons which were pretextual and a sham for the unlawful termination of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant City.
64. During the relevant time periods herein, Plaintiff performed her official duties as City Assessor for Defendant City, in performing real estate assessments for the City of Suffolk, Virginia, in accordance with Virginia Code Section 58.1-3200 et seq. generally, and Virginia Code Section 58.1-3201 specifically, and in accordance with Municipal Code Section 82-401 et seq. generally, and Municipal Code Sections 82-426 and 82-451 specifically.
65. Upon Defendant City’s receipt of complaints by certain real estate owners of the City of Suffolk regarding increases in the annual real estate assessments to such owners’ real estate located in the City of Suffolk as a result of Plaintiff’s performance of such real estate assessments in her position as City Assessor, the Defendant City, by and through the affirmative vote of each of the City Council members of Defendant City, intentionally terminated Plaintiff’s employment, effective immediately, during a City Council meeting held on May 7, 2008.
66. Plaintiff’s speech described in paragraphs 27, 28, and 58 herein, as well as Plaintiff’s performance of her official duties as City Assessor for Defendant City, and the resulting complaints received by Defendant City from certain real estate owners of the City of Suffolk with respect to such real estate assessments performed by Plaintiff as City Assessor, as described in paragraphs 64 and 65 herein, were substantial or motivating factors in the decision by Defendant City, by and through the affirmative vote of each of the City Council members of Defendant City, to terminate Plaintiff’s employment on May 7, 2008.
67. Defendant City’s termination of the employment of Plaintiff, as described in paragraph 65 and 66 herein, constituted retaliatory discharge of Plaintiff in response to complaints by certain real estate owners of the City of Suffolk regarding increases in the annual assessments to such owners’ real estate located in the City of Suffolk, which real estate assessments were performed by Plaintiff pursuant to the statutory mandates of her position as City Assessor for Defendant City under Virginia Code Section 58.1-3200 et seq. generally, and Virginia Code Section 58.1-3201 specifically, and under Municipal Code Section 82-401 et seq. generally, and Municipal Code Sections 82-426 and 82-451 specifically.
68. Defendant City’s actions described in paragraphs 65 and 66 herein, constituted retaliatory discharge in violation of the public policies underlying local and state taxation statutes, regulations, and other rules with respect to the performance of annual real estate assessments of real estate located within the City of Suffolk, and the resulting collection of taxes thereon, which public policies are designed to protect the property interests of the people in general, as well as to promote the general welfare of the people.
69. Defendant City, by and through the actions of each of the City Council members of Defendant City as described in paragraphs 65 and 66 herein, terminated Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant City in retaliation for complaints received from certain real estate owners of the City of Suffolk regarding increases in the annual real estate assessments to such owners’ real estate located in the City of Suffolk, which real estate assessments were performed by Plaintiff pursuant to the statutory mandates of her position as City Assessor for Defendant City, after fabricating reasons which were pretextual and a sham for the unlawful termination of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant City.
70. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful retaliation by Defendant City, as described in paragraphs 57 through 69 herein, Plaintiff has suffered, and will suffer in the future, compensatory damages, including front pay; loss of career opportunities, promotions and advances; loss of retirement or pension benefits; loss of fringe benefits; embarrassment, humiliation, and inconvenience; loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary injury, in amounts to be determined at trial in an amount to be determined at trial.
71. In addition, Plaintiff has retained legal counsel with respect to the matter that is the subject of this Complaint, and has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees and associated costs for the bringing of this action.
72. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant City for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and associated costs for the prosecution of this action.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an order, as follows:
a. As to Count I (Breach of Contract Regarding Compensation): Awarding payment by Defendant City to Plaintiff of damages as follows: (i) Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Eight and 67/100 Dollars ($18,628.67) representing the difference between the compensation Plaintiff would have been paid had she been included in Defendant City’s 2006-2007 Compensation Plan and Defendant City’s 2007-2008 Compensation Plan and the compensation actually paid to Plaintiff, as such difference is adjusted for cost of living increases during such periods; plus (ii) interest (in an amount to be finally determined at trial) that would have accrued and been owing to Plaintiff on the sum described in the aforementioned clause (i) of this paragraph, based upon the rate of inflation for the period after the date of filing of this Complaint; plus (iii) Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-Four and 10/100 Dollars ($33,574.10), representing the sum of (A) Plaintiff’s accrued and unpaid leave balance in the amount of Ten Thousand One Hundred Nine and 12/100 Dollars ($10,109.12); and (B) the lump sum cash payment, described in paragraph 19 of this Complaint and paragraph 10 of the MOU, in the amount of Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Four and 98/100 Dollars ($23,464.98).
b. As to Count II (Breach of Contract Regarding Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan): Awarding payment by Defendant City to Plaintiff of damages in the amount of Ninety-Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Six and 08/100 Dollars ($93,956.08), representing the amount, adjusted for the market rate of return, equal to the sum of (i) the additional amount Plaintiff’s investments would have grown by being in a deferred tax account (i.e., a 401(A) account) rather than a taxable account, had she been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption and made the maximum contributions allowable by an employee participant of Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan; (ii) the amount of taxes Plaintiff would have saved had she been able to make the maximum contributions into a deferred tax account (i.e., a 401(A) account) rather than a taxable account, had Plaintiff been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption; and (iii) the amount of matching contributions the Defendant City would have been required to contribute into an account for Plaintiff, had Plaintiff been included in Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan since its adoption, plus interest (in an amount to be finally determined at trial) that would have accrued thereon and been owing to Plaintiff, based upon the market rate of return for such investments, since the date of Plaintiff’s filing of this Complaint; plus interest at the statutory judgment rate from the date of judgment through full satisfaction of the judgment; court costs; reasonable attorneys’ fees; and for such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
c. As to Count III (Breach of Fiduciary Duty Regarding Defendant City’s 401(A) Plan): Awarding payment by Defendant City to Plaintiff of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; plus interest at the statutory judgment rate from the date of judgment through full satisfaction of the judgment; court costs; reasonable attorneys’ fees; and for such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
d. As to Count IV (Retaliatory Discharge in Violation of Public Policy): Awarding payment by Defendant City to Plaintiff of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; plus interest at the statutory judgment rate from the date of judgment through full satisfaction of the judgment; court costs; reasonable attorneys’ fees; and for such further relief as this Court deems just and proper; and
e. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial with a jury on all issues in the cause, including liability and damages.
Respectfully Submitted,

MARIA KATTMANN

By:_____________________________
Of Counsel

Lisa A. Bertini, Esq. (VSB #29660)
Vivile R. Dietrich, Esq. (VSB #72893)
BERTINI O’DONNELL & JOCHENS, P.C.
999 Waterside Drive, Suite 1010
Norfolk, VA 23510-3320
Tel.: (757) 670-3868
Fax: (757) 670-3865

Mark J. Krudys, Esq. (VSB #30718)
MARK J. KRUDYS, PLC
1011 East Main St., Suite 204
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel.: (804) 692-8244
Fax: (804) 692-8246