Grettings,
This is a precautionary report for any one wishing to enroll in online class at Kaplan University - Don't do it! This University is totally disorganized, non caring, disrespectful and selfish.
As a prolific law student, I am pursuing my legal career else where. I am one who learned the hard way, undergoing insurrmountable stress, pain and suffering, from "fake" or so called professionsal at this circus which portray itself as a top notch school. Don't believe the hype! As for all of its law programs, they are not accredited by the ABA, so don't waist your time in this nut house.
Today, a multi million dollar law suit has been filed in federal court against this supposed university. I am the Plaintiff. I have read some of your reports, but to today it has exceeded beyond belief, the deceptions that continues at this college. (Read My Suit Below, And Contact Me So We Can Go A Step Further With A Class Action) Thanks in advance for all concerns and criticism.
In the united states disctrict court
southern district of forida
case no. _07cv60721 civ. Judge ungaro
Dwayne Brown
Plaintiff
Versus
Kaplan University
Kaplans Financial Aid Dept. JURY TRIAL
Andy Rosen
Ron Blumenthal
Gregory Marino
Bridgett McGuire
Claire Gallicano
Defendant (s)
Nature of Action and Preliminary Statement
1. This is a civil rights action for damages and declaratory relief, brought in accordance with Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1331and Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (a) (1) and 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201. The Defendant (s) are citizens of the State of Florida, while the Plaintiff resides in North Carolina. The amount in controversy exceeds 75,000 dollars in damages, exclusive of interest and cost.
2. The Defendant (s) are being sued in both, their official and individual capacities. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant (s) has violated his United States Constitutional rights in accordance with the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, by virtue of unlawful termination.
3. On April 13th, The Plaintiff was terminated from Kaplan University, located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for simply inquiring of academics and financial discrepancies, and for simply voicing his right to file legal action in regards to such discrepancies.in dismissing the Plaintiff from the university, the administration deprived the Plaintiff of a fair tribunal, by the unconstitutional failure to provide:
a) Notice and opportunity to be heard
B) A disciplinary hearing.
C) Evidence and names of the witnesses against him.
D) An oral or written report of the facts to which each witness testified.
E) The opportunity to present a defense before the board or administrative official.
F) The opportunity to produce supporting - oral testimony or written affidavits.
G) A summary of the findings.
For these reason and those set forth below; the Plaintiffs rights to procedural due process was violated pursuant to the 5th, 6th 8th and 14th amendments of the constitution, to which, he seek relief in the sum of 3.4 Million dollars in damages, declaratory relief, court cost and attorney frees.
Jurisdiction
4. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1331,1332 (a), 1391 and Const. Amendments 5,6, 8, and 14.
Venue
5. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1391 (a), as the events and deprivations transpired within the Southern District, where each Defendant can be located and the amount in controversy exceeds 75,000 dollars in damages.
Parties
6. Dwayne Brown, hereinafter, referred to as the plaintiff, is a former law student of Kaplan University, who was working towards a Bachelor of Science Degree in legal studies; the Plaintiff is a resident of Charlotte, NC.
7. Kaplan University is an online college with a campus based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Its Financial Aid Department is also situated in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
8. Andy Rosen, is the President of Kaplan University, he is responsible for the over all operations of Kaplan University.
9. Ron Blumenthal is the Vice President of Kaplans administration, and as such, Blumenthal responsible in whole or in part, for the over all administrative functions.
10. Gregory Marino, is the Senior Vice President of Kaplan University, and in whole or part, Marino is responsible for the over all operations of Kaplan University.
11. Bridget McGuire, is the Director of Kaplans financial aid department, and is responsible for the over all management and day to day operations of the aforementioned department.
12. Amber Lewis is an administrative assistant to Ron Blumenthal (Vice President of Kaplan University.
13. Claire Galliano is the Director of the compliance department at Kaplan University.
Statement of Claim
14. This matter involves the illegal termination of the Plaintiff Dwayne Brown, from Kaplan University for simply inquiring about financial and academic discrepancies and for voicing the right to file a civil action in respect to such discrepancies.in January the Plaintiff was admitted to Kaplan University and majored in the schools (Bachelor of Science) legal studies program, with a grade point average of 3.85. Upon admission, the Plaintiff received federal funding by way of loans and grants for tuition costs. Plaintiff also paid out of pocket expenses for admission fees.
15. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs admission was approved and classes commenced in January V (Late Term) and end in April. During the course of his enrollment, there were underlying financial obligations in which the Plaintiff was required to adhere to and maintain. The schools financial aid department is responsible for apprising and informing the Plaintiff of any outstanding documentation and/or, application - obligations which may be required towards maintaining enrollment. As time progressed into Plaintiffs first two terms, he took care as to inquire about any financial obligations which may have been out standing on his behalf. Therefore, he commenced such communications with the financial aid department, in hope of getting an advance start on things.in doing so, the Plaintiff learned that the financial aid department had failed on numerous occasions to record, scan, document and post, crucial and vital information supply to them from the Plaintiff and loaning agencies, which were essential towards maintaining enrollment at the aforesaid University.
16. Such failures - caused a tremendous amount of stress, delays in academic achievements and resubmissions of documents, in which the financial aid department had previously indicated that they had received and approved. The oversights and failures continued to persist for weeks and months, to the degree that each person in whom the Plaintiff had previously communed with, all supplied conflicting information as to the receipt and approval of such documents. After complaining and addressing these matters over a two month time frame, most of the aforementioned documentation was eventually scanned in and posted. It is noted; just as well, that a number of other students also endured similar complications with this department as Plaintiff has experienced and conveyed herein.
17. In February the Plaintiff respectfully requested all living expense funds owed to him by reason of loans and grants awarded to him from the federal government. Typically, these funds are V residue monies left over from loans, which may be utilized for school supplies or personal use. Upon requesting such funds, from the financial aid department, the Plaintiff was informed by various members of the faculty that he owed the University 300.00 dollars, and therefore, he does not qualify for such assistance. Later, such assertions proved to be false and inaccurate.
18. In fact, the situation escalated to the degree that it became a most grievous and perplexing issue for the faculty at Kaplans financial aid department to rectify, as each individual in whom the Plaintiff spoke with in respect to the same, rendered conflicting statements and assessments as to whether Plaintiff was entitled to such funds or whether the Plaintiff owed the university out of pocket expenses just the same.
19. Amidst the chaos, and during that particular time, the Plaintiff was assigned a new financial aid officer by the name of Frankie Knight. When the Plaintiff inquired about his living expense status, Ms. Knight, initially relayed to the Plaintiff that he did not qualify for such funding, but later recanted such information to reflect that she was relatively {new} at the University and does not even know what a living expense application is. Finally, after weeks of inquisitions, Knight relayed to the Plaintiff that he was in fact, entitled to such funding and that such funding was approved, and that a check in the sum of 225.00 dollars would be made out to the Plaintiff at (some point). Not satisfied with the previous discrepancies and the vague information supplied by Ms. Knight and other faculty, the Plaintiff requested to speak with a supervisor for affirmation and assurance of the calculated figures provided, as there appeared to be a mathematical oversight. Accordingly, the Plaintiff spoke with
20. Elisabeth Mitchell, a (lead Financial Aid Officer), who indicated that the Plaintiff was entitled to the living expense funds and that he was approved for the same. Noting; however, that there was a discrepancy as to the amount of funds in which the Plaintiff would receive. Mitchell indicated that based upon the fact, that the Plaintiff had been awarded 35, study hour credits, that he would receive additional federal funding for his current (two V terms). Mitchell relayed that she was not certain as to the exact amount which would be awarded, but indicated that she would follow up and advise the Plaintiff of the same. Again, this was a long and complicated process, in which, Mitchell, subsequently, ceased communication in regards to this issue.
21. After weeks of attempted contacts and e-mailing personnel of authority who could assist in the matter, the Plaintiff was eventually notified by Mitchell, that all financial issues was out of her hands, and that she was instructed by the Defendant Bridget McGuire, the (director of financial aid), that all communication regarding this matter, must be directed to her. However, it is emphatically noted, that as the Plaintiff complied with such referrals, the Defendant McGuire refused to communicate with the Plaintiff from the very onset. Thusly, the Plaintiff continued to seek inquiries from any staff member having authority to address the matter.
22. Finally, the Plaintiff was successful in tracking down the Defendant, Bridget McGuire, (Senior Director of Financial Aid). McGuire indicated to the Plaintiff, that he was not approved for such funding until he had completed his first two terms. Yet, the Plaintiff relayed to McGuire that her subordinates Knight and Mitchell had both affirmed that he was in fact, entitled to such funding as of the current (two-terms). Again, McGuire maintained her very own notions that the Plaintiff was not entitled to such funding.
23. Moreover, it must also, be noted, that there was also a discrepancy with respect to the calculated figures of the loan values provided by the government to the Plaintiff, in which McGuire created, by the failure to adequately investigate and to effectively communicate the same to the Plaintiff prior to supplying her very own opinion and inaccurate calculations.
24. Mean while, the Defendant Bridget McGuire continued to avoid the Plaintiff. Such obligatory failures continued for weeks and months. Comprehensibly, it became quite apparent that, the McGuire, nor her subordinates could not bring themselves to agree in furnishing such crucial information to the Plaintiff regarding his qualifications for the living expense entitlements, and because of such confusion, McGuire, instructed the entire financial aid faculty to cease communication with the Plaintiff, and that all inquiries regarding this matter should be address directly by her.
25. Such restrictive orders and instructions handed down to staff by McGuire seriously hampered the Plaintiffs academic progress and personal affairs. Notwithstanding, McGuire herself, had now refused to communicate with the Plaintiff.in addition, the Plaintiff was faced with the very same impact regarding Frankie Knight, Elisabeth Mitchell, and all other staff as well as each Defendant nominated in the caption of this complaint, who had the authority to address the matter and/or to take precautionary measures to assists the Plaintiff in rectifying the same.
26. Yet, on the contrary each Defendant neglected to accommodate or assist the Plaintiff any further. As reflected, the entire staff at Kaplan University - immediately shut down and ceased to assist or communicate with the Plaintiff in regards to this matter, under direct orders of McGuire, who had firmly instructed them not to assist the Plaintiff in any financial issues.
27. Such callous and egregious indifferences of the failure to communicate - continued for three months. (Although there was however, a very narrow and limited moment in which the Plaintiff was eventually able reach McGuire - through persistent eVmails and phone calls. Yet, such moments were absolutely futile, as McGuire continued to maintain her denials and continued to obstruct others from assisting the Plaintiff.
28. Learning that the Defendant McGuire, had completely obstructed Plaintiff from
Retrieving valid and legitimate information from qualified personnel who could assist him in rectifying this matter, he then proceeded to draft and submitted a number of informal complaints to the following individuals for assistance:
Andy Rosen (President).
Ron Blumenthal (Vice President of Kaplans Administration).
Gregory Marino, (Vice of Kaplan University), and
Claire Gallicano (Director of Kaplans Compliance Department).
29. Each Defendant herein, received such notices as was confirmed, but on the contrary, each Defendant refused to intervene and in the same token, delegated the matters over to the Defendant Clair Gallicano (Director of Compliance), who also avoided communication with the Plaintiff. It was not until and after, multiple phone calls and e-mails to the Defendant Galicano, that she relayed to the Plaintiff, that she alone was handling such concerns and that she would be investigating them accordingly.
30. Several days had lapsed without a response from the Defendant. The Plaintiff then, attempted to contact the Defendant on multiple occasions, but to no avail. However, after a number of consecutive attempts on separate days, the Plaintiff was successful in tracking the Defendant down. She again relayed to the Plaintiff, just as in the previous weeks that she would look into the matters. Again, days and weeks lapsed and the Defendant was incommunicative. Finally, the Plaintiff contacted the Vice President Ron Blumenthals office, and spoke with the defendant Amber Lewis, (Administrative Assistant) of Mr. Ron Blumenthal. Lewis indicated that Blumenthal was not available and that she would e-mail - him in respect to the Plaintiffs concerns. Several days later, the Plaintiff had not heard from the Defendant Blumenthal.
31. Accordingly, the Plaintiff contacted his office again on April in which again, the Defendant indicated that Blumenthal was not available. The plaintiff then demanded to speak with Blumenthals assistant. Lewis refused. At this point, the Plaintiff indicated that he had legitimate legal issues at hand which called for address by such personnel.
32. Lewis then disconnected the line. Again, the Plaintiff called back requesting assistance and that if she failed to permit him to speak with such personnel, she would be held accountable in a civil action.
33. Lewis then stated that the Plaintiff was an immature idiot and threatens the Plaintiff not to call the office any more with threats of legal actions and disconnected the line.
34. Moments later, the Plaintiff spoke with Gregory Marino, who identified himself as the President of the university. At this point the Plaintiff was extremely upset and demanded to be released from the school, based upon all of the negative events he had experience to date.
35. However, the Plaintiff indicated that he would not withdraw from the school if he would be responsible for repayment of the loans. Marino agreed to assist the Plaintiff in that area. Yet, Marino indicated that it would have to be the Plaintiffs decision to stay with the school or withdraw. Marino went on to relay that {if} the Plaintiff decided to withdraw, he would ensure that the Plaintiff would not owed the school or loaning agencies any money for such an early withdrawal, and also that they (Kaplan) would repay any debts owed in this regard. One week later, the Plaintiff receives an e-mail from the Defendant Claire Gallicano, which stated the following:
36. It has been brought to the administrations attention that you have continued to verbally threaten and abuse Kaplan University employees. The latest situation was documented Monday, April 9 in your phone conversation with a staff member where you used inappropriate and threatening language. Accordingly, because of continued inappropriate behavior, Kaplan University officials have decided to dismiss you for violating the Code of Conduct. It was also decided to refund all payments made to your account due to your numerous complaints about Kaplan Universitys course content, administrative processes, and customer service. Your transcript, with completed course grades, will be cleared for release immediately.
37. Clearly, the Plaintiff was terminated from Kaplan University for simply inquiring about academic and financial matters and for voicing his right to file suit in respect to such discrepancies. Notwithstanding, however, whether a student can be terminated from a private institution which receives federal funding, for simply trying to rectify matters which would have caused serious harm, is an issue in of itself. But more significantly, the Defendant (s) in this action are being sued for something more grave and damaging. (Unlawful) termination.
CAUSE OF ACTION
Count One
38. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant (s), Kaplan University, its administration and review committee, has violated his United States Constitutional rights in accordance with the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, by virtue of unlawful termination - without procedural due process.
39. On April 13th, The Plaintiff was terminated from Kaplan University, for simply inquiring of academics and financial discrepancies and exercising his right to file legal action in regards to such discrepancies.in dismissing the Plaintiff from the university, the school and its administration deprived the Plaintiff of a fair tribunal, by the failure to provide:
Notice and opportunity to be heard
A disciplinary hearing.
Evidence and names of the witnesses against him.
An oral or written report of the facts to which each witness testified.
The opportunity to present a defense before the board or administrative official.
The opportunity to produce supporting - oral testimony or written affidavits.
A summary of the findings.
40. Kaplan University breached its very own policies and regulations in the failure to adhere to the safeguards described above. Even absent such policies, Kaplan University owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to ensure that procedural due process was furnished to the Plaintiff during and after its decision to terminate the Plaintiff from the University. Kaplan University, carelessly, recklessly, negligently and indifferently deprived the Plaintiff of constitutional protections, rights, privileges and safeguards by failure to provide procedural due process as described herein.
Count Two
41. The Defendant Andy Rosen, is being sued in his individual and official capacity for inflicting the following damages and harm upon the Plaintiff:
As the President of Kaplan University, Rosen owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to have intervened, when he was placed on notice regarding the Plaintiffs complaints of financial complications and discrepancies. However, Rosen breach such duties of reasonable care by the callous and egregious disregard and indifference, wherein, he refused to intervene while being placed on notice more than once of such dangers to the Plaintiff. Had Rosen exercised his supervisory authority, the matters herein, most likely, would have been resolved and the Plaintiff would not have been unlawfully terminated. Rosen is the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff damages and harm as described in this action.
Count Three
42. The Defendant Rosen, as the President of Kaplan University, owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to have adequately trained and supervised his subordinates, namely; Ron Blumenthal, Gregory Marino, Bridget McGuire and Claire Gallicano, wherein, having direct knowledge of their acts, omissions and unprofessional conduct, to wit, their failure to intervene, lack of communication, negligence and reckless disregard. While Rosen was placed on notice more than once of such conduct, Rosen breach a duty of reasonable care to the Plaintiff by the unconstitutional failure to adequately train and supervise such subordinates. Had Rosen exercised his supervisory authority, the matters herein, most likely, would have been resolved and the events may not have escalated to the point of Plaintiff being unlawfully terminated. Rosen is the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff damages and harm as described herein.
Count Four
43. Rosen, the President of Kaplan University, owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care as to ensure that procedural due process and proper guidelines were adhered to in the termination of the Plaintiff from Kaplan University. Such procedural due process and guidelines were not meted out, wherefore, the Plaintiff was deprived of the following prior to dismissal:
Notice and opportunity to be heard.
A disciplinary hearing.
Evidence and names of the witnesses against him.
An oral or written report of the facts to which each witness testified.
The opportunity to present a defense before the board or administrative official.
The opportunity to produce supporting - oral testimony or written affidavits.
A summary of the findings.
44. Rosen breached such duties owed to the Plaintiff by the unconstitutional failures to take precautionary measures to ensure that fundamental fairness of procedural due process and safeguards were applied in the termination process of the Plaintiff from Kaplan University. Rosen is the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs damages and injuries sustained herein.in addition, Rosen has violated the Plaintiffs United States Constitutional Rights pursuant to the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th, Amendments.
Count Five
45. The Defendant Ron Blumenthal, is being sued in his individual and official capacity for inflicting the following damages and harm upon the Plaintiff:
As the Vice President of Kaplan Universitys administration, Blumenthal owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to have intervened, when he was placed on notice more than once, regarding the Plaintiffs complaints of financial complications and discrepancies. However, Blumenthal breach such duties of reasonable care by the callous and egregious disregard and indifference, wherein, he refused to intervene while being placed on notice more than once of such dangers to the Plaintiff. Had Blumenthal exercised his supervisory authority, the matters herein, most likely, would have been resolved and the Plaintiff may have not been unlawfully terminated. Blumenthal is the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff damages and harm as described in this action.
Count Six
46. The Defendant Blumenthal, as the Vice President of Kaplan Universitys administration, Blumenthal owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to have adequately trained and supervised his subordinates, namely; Amber Lewis, who, on a number of occasion, refused to relay legitimate legal issues to Blumenthal, which information was detrimental and crucial towards the Plaintiff continuation in the school, and other matters regarding financial issues.in fact, Blumenthals assistant, Amber Lewis is highly responsible for the ensuring that Blumenthal receives critical information relayed to her from any student with legitimate concerns. However, Lewis refused to accommodate the Plaintiff when he earnestly pleaded with her to speak with an assistant. Lewis became hostile and refused to perform her duties as an administrative assistant, and subsequently called the Plaintiff an immature idiot, and therewith, threatened the Plaintiff not to call Blumenthals office - voicing his right to file a civil action. Blumenthal, moreover, is responsible for the conduct Bridget McGuire and Claire Gallicano, whereof, having direct knowledge of their acts, omissions and unprofessional conduct, to wit, their failure to intervene, lack of communication and reckless disregard. Blumenthal had been placed on notice more than once of such conduct, yet, Blumenthal breach a duty of reasonable care owed to the Plaintiff by the unconstitutional failure to adequately train and supervise such subordinates. Had Blumenthal exercised his supervisory authority, the matters complained of, most likely would have been resolved and the Plaintiff may not have been unlawfully terminated. Blumenthal is the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff damages and harm as described herein.
Count Seven
47. Blumenthal, the Vice President of Kaplan Universitys administration, Blumenthal owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care as to ensure that procedural due process and proper guidelines were adhered to in the termination of the Plaintiff from Kaplan University. Such procedural due process and guidelines were not meted out, wherefore, the Plaintiff was deprived of the following prior to dismissal:
Notice and opportunity to be heard.
A disciplinary hearing.
Evidence and names of the witnesses against him.
An oral or written report of the facts to which each witness testified.
The opportunity to present a defense before the board or administrative official.
The opportunity to produce supporting - oral testimony or written affidavits.
A summary of the findings.
48. Blumenthal breached such duties owed to the Plaintiff by the unconstitutional failures to take precautionary measures to ensure that fundamental fairness of procedural due process and safeguards were applied to the termination of the Plaintiff from Kaplan University. Blumenthal is the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs damages and injuries.in addition, Blumenthal has violated the Plaintiffs United States Constitutional Rights pursuant to the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th, Amendments.
Count Eight
49. The Defendant Gregory Marino, is being sued in his individual and official capacity for inflicting the following damages and harm upon the Plaintiff:
As the Senior Vice President of Kaplan University, Marino owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to have intervened, when he was placed on notice regarding the Plaintiffs complaints of financial complications and discrepancies. However, Marino breach such duties of reasonable care by the callous and egregious disregard and indifference, wherein, he refused to intervene when being placed on notice more than once of such dangers to the Plaintiff. Had Marino exercised his supervisory authority, the matters herein, would most likely have been resolved and the Plaintiff would not have been unlawfully terminated. Marino is the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff damages and harm as described in this action.
Count Nine
50. The Defendant Marino, as the Vice President of Kaplan University, owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to have adequately trained and supervised his subordinates, namely; Bridget McGuire and Claire Gallicano, wherein, having direct knowledge of their acts, omissions and unprofessional conduct, to wit, their failure to intervene, lack of communication and reckless disregard. While Marino, was placed on notice more than once of such conduct, Marino breach a duty of reasonable care to the Plaintiff by the unconstitutional failure to adequately train and supervise such subordinates. Had Marino exercised his supervisory authority, the matters herein, most likely, would have been resolved and such events may not have escalated to the point of the Plaintiff being unlawfully terminated. Marino is the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff damages and harm as described herein.
Count Ten
51. Marino, as the Senior President of Kaplan University, owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care as to ensure that procedural due process and proper guidelines were adhered to in the termination of the Plaintiff from Kaplan University. Such procedural due process and guidelines were not meted out, wherefore, the Plaintiff was deprived of the following prior to dismissal:
Notice and opportunity to be heard.
A disciplinary hearing.
Evidence and names of the witnesses against him.
An oral or written report of the facts to which each witness testified.
The opportunity to present a defense before the board or administrative official.
The opportunity to produce supporting - oral testimony or written affidavits.
A summary of the findings.
52. Marino breached such duties owed to the Plaintiff by the unconstitutional failures to take precautionary measures to ensure that fundamental fairness of procedural due process and safeguards were applied to the termination process of the Plaintiff from Kaplan University. Marino is the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs damages and injuries.in addition, Marino has violated the Plaintiffs United States Constitutional Rights pursuant to the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th, Amendments.
Count Eleven
53. The Defendant Bridget McGuire is being sued in her individual and official capacity for being the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff being unlawfully terminated from Kaplan University. McGuire is {primarily} and essentially the lead cause of this action being filed to begin with. McGuire was placed on notice on multiple occasions of the Plaintiffs financial issues and complication. After refusing to rectify the situation to bring it to a close. McGuire, elected to play Hide and Seek. I.E., McGuire, {ordered} the entire financial aid department to cease communication with the Plaintiff regarding such meaningful and crucial issues as described herein. McGuire, after obstructing (all) staff from communicating with the Plaintiff, she herself joined the fray just the same, and avoided her obligations and responsibly and duties owed to the Plaintiff.
54. Had McGuire exercised precautionary care to assist the Plaintiff in this matter, it is likely, that the financial discrepancies would have been resolved and such events may not have escalated to the point of the Plaintiff being unlawfully terminated. McGuire owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to have assisted the Plaintiff and rectify the financial deficiencies as set forth herein. Yet, McGuire deliberately, callously, and maliciously breached such duties of reasonable care to the Plaintiff by the unconstitutional failure to effectively communicate with the Plaintiff and by continuously avoiding her obligations and duties owed to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, McGuire has violated the Plaintiffs United States Constitutional Rights to equal protection of the law and due process clauses as well.
Count Twelve
55. The Defendant Amber Lewis, (Administrative Assistant to Ron Blumenthal), is being sued in her individual and official capacity. Lewis is the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff being unlawfully terminated from Kaplan University. Lewis had been placed on direct notice through various phone conversations and written notices, as to the seriousness of the Plaintiffs ongoing complications and financial concerns. On numerous occasions, the Defendant failed to inform or to convey such messages and notices to Ron Blumenthal for corrective actions. As reflected herein, on April 13th, the Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated from Kaplan University. The termination fell upon the Plaintiff for simply voicing his right to file a civil action in respect to the schools failure to assist the Plaintiff in rectifying a crucial financial matter in which all of the Defendants herein, were aware of and refused to correct, assist of accommodate the Plaintiff in any aspect.
56. The Defendant Lewis, intentionally obstructed and interfered with the Plaintiff receiving assistance from Personnel of Ron Blumenthals office.in fact, Lewis became hostile in light of Plaintiff comment that she could be held liable in a civil action for refusing to permit the Plaintiff to speak with such personnel. And Lewis refused, called the Plaintiff degrading names and threatened him not to call the office with any further legal implications. As an administrative assistant to Ron Blumenthal, Lewis owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to have relayed and forwarded any and all legitimate concerns or complaints in which the Plaintiff desired address to from Ron Blumenthal and/or his counterparts.
57. Lewis neglected to relay such information on numerous of occasions, not limited to but including April 9th, wherein, she became hostile, refused to assist the Plaintiff, refused to relay his message, calling the Plaintiff names and threatened him not to call the office with any further legal implications. Lewis breached such duties of reasonable care to the Plaintiff by her negligence, reckless acts and omissions as defined herein. Had Lewis performed proper and adequate exercise of administrative duties and functions as required, and {if} the Defendant had taken appropriate measures to assist the Plaintiff in this matter, it is likely, that the financial discrepancies would have been resolved and such events may not have escalated to the point of the Plaintiff being unlawfully terminated. Accordingly, Lewis breached duties and obligations owed to the Plaintiff and have violated the Plaintiffs United States Constitutional Rights to equal protection and due process clauses.
Injury
58. The Plaintiff contends that, in lights of being unlawfully terminated from Kaplan University, his career has end and his chances of enrollment in any other college or university or taking the bar exam are now impossible. Firstly, the Defendant (s) has placed the word {dismissal} on the Plaintiffs {transcript}, which alerts any and all schools, not to accept the Plaintiff into such - schools based upon a {bad} record. Secondly, the Plaintiff may not be entitled to any additional federal education funding, or be allowed to sit for the bar exam, based upon the unlawful termination mentioned herein. Thusly, the Plaintiff is hindered from attaining an education, advancing his career and obtaining employment in the legal field.
59. The Plaintiffs reputation and personal life has been damaged by the unlawful termination, in that he is now looked upon as a failure and a person without direction and purpose in life and higher education.
60. The Plaintiff and his family have suffered mental and emotional distress in the unlawful termination and the events leading up to such a dismissal. Notwithstanding, the dismissal has caused a tremendous amount of pain and suffering. The Plaintiffs damages and injuries are irreparable.
61. The Defendant (s) has violated the Plaintiffs United States Constitutional Rights pursuant to the 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments. Not limited to, be including State Constitutional Rights, Substantive Due Process and Procedural protections as well.
Relief
62. The Plaintiff seeks the Sum of 3.4 Million Dollars in damages and punitive relief as a whole, or concurrently, from each defendant in their individual and official capacities for unlawful termination.
63. The Plaintiff seeks damages and punitive relief for unlawful termination contrary to his fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth Amendment Rights.
64. The Plaintiff seeks damages and punitive relief for breach of duty, contract, and procedures regarding their acts, omissions and failure to intervene.
65. The Plaintiff seeks damages and punitive relief for breach of policies.
66. The Plaintiff seeks damages for irreparable harm, injuries and damages.
67. The Plaintiff seeks relief for mental and emotional stress and unwaton pain and suffering.
68. The Plaintiff seeks amounts in damages, and compensatory damages for the loss of his career and lack of future earnings due to the illegal termination mentioned herein.
69. The Plaintiff seeks direct and consequential damages, for the acts and omissions each Defendant as described herein.
70. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment in respect to all rights, privileges and immunities violated by the Defendants as described herein.
71. The Plaintiff seek an award of attorney fees and all cost associated with bring this action, and any other relief this court deems suitable and reasonable for such injuries and ham.
72. The Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all issues.
73. The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this action as future evidence unravels for further prosecution of this matter.
Previous Suits
74. The Plaintiff has not filed any other action in any other court dealing with the facts as listed herein
Declaration
I Dwayne Brown, hereby, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, pursuant to 28 U.S. C Section 1746:18 U.S.C. Section 1621.
Executed: 2007
Plaintiff Pro Se
0 comments