DISTRICT COURT, OTERO COUNTY, COLORADO Sixteenth Judicial District Court Otero County Courthouse 13 W. 3RD Street, Room 207 La Junta, CO 81050-1536 Tele: 719-384-4981 Fax: 719-384-4991 COURT USE ONLY
Plaintiff: Wesley Colvin Case Number: v. Div.: Ctrm.: Defendant: Qwest Communications International, Inc.
(Attorney for Plaintiff)
Curtis L. Kennedy 8405 E. Princeton Ave. Denver, CO 80237-1741 Phone: (303) 770-0440 Fax: (303) 843-0360 Email: [email protected] Atty. Reg. #: 12351
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (with Demand for Jury)
PLAINTIFF WESLEY COLVIN, by and through his counsel, Curtis L. Kennedy, files this Class Action Complaint:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. For many decades, Qwest Communications International, Inc. (and predecessor
Bell Telephone companies) contracted to provide retirees with a “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” payable throughout retirement and for two months after death. Qwest and its predecessors have a long history of treating the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” as a lifetime contract payable from operating revenues. However, most recently Defendant Qwest terminated its long standing contract with more than 4,500 retirees. Accordingly, efforts were made by countless retirees to have the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” reinstated, but
Qwest gave written confirmation that it was sticking by its decision to terminate the contract.
Therefore, this is a class action complaint for breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. The Otero County District Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the claims for relief based upon breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
3. Venue of this action lies in this district court since the acts complained of herein occurred within this County where the subject matter contract – “Telephone Concession
Reimbursement” – was to be performed by Qwest and paid to Plaintiff residing in this County.
THE PARTIES
4. Named Plaintiff WESLEY COLVIN is a United States citizen and resident in a rural area outside of Swink, Otero County, within the Sixteenth Judicial District of Colorado.
He was formerly employed as a manager within the Network Switching Department at U S
WEST Communications, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of U S WEST, Inc. He retired from
U S WEST, Inc. in February 1990 after 30 years of employment service. From February 1990
- 2 - until December 2003, he received the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement”, a “Retiree
Telephone Discount” on his local telephone service.
5. In July 2000, U S WEST, Inc. merged with QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL, Inc., the surviving corporation.
6. Defendant QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, Inc. (“QWEST”) is a Delaware corporation qualified to do business within the State of Colorado. QWEST’s principle executive office and place of business is within Colorado. QWEST is a telecommunications company that provides communication services, data, multimedia and
Internet-based services on a national and global basis, and wireless services, local telecommunications and related services in a 14-state local service area, including Colorado.
QWEST is the successor employer and provider of the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” to Named Plaintiff and the proposed class of QWEST Retirees.
7. The “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” is also known as a “Retiree
Telephone Discount” on local residential exchange telephone service and some toll (“long distance”) charges.
8. The “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” has been an established contractual commitment in existence at QWEST and predecessor companies for more than forty (40) years.
9. The “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” is not governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and is not a welfare benefit plan. The
“Telephone Concession Reimbursement” specifically fits within the exemption outlined by the
- 3 - Department of Labor’s regulation, 29 C.F.R. 2510.3-1(e), because it is a discount on a commodity of the kind which QWEST’s offers for sale in the regular course of business. 1
10. During the period February 1990 though most of 1994, Named Plaintiff received the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” when his local telephone exchange provider was U
S WEST Communications, Inc. In 1994, U S WEST, Inc. sold its rights to the local telephone exchange to an “Independent Telephone Company” named Pacific Telecom. A few years later,
Pacific Telecom sold the local telephone exchange to another “Independent Telephone
Company” named Century Telephone, the current “Independent Telephone Company”. From
1994 through 2003, Named Plaintiff received the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” for local telephone service provided by the Independent Telephone Company during which time he was considered by U S WEST and, then, QWEST, as “grandfathered” having a protected right to receive the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement.” During year 2003, Named Plaintiff’s
“Retiree Telephone Discount” or “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” amounted to about
$100 monthly.
1 29 C.F.R. 2510.3-1 lists practices which the Department of Labor has determined are not subject to ERISA’s provisions. 29 C.F.R. 2510.3-1(e) states: “Sales to employees. For purposes of title I of the Act and this chapter, the terms “employee welfare benefit plan” and “welfare plan” shall not include the sale by an employer to employees of an employer, whether or not at prevailing market prices, of articles or commodities of the kind which the employer offers for sale in the regular course of business.” Therefore, Defendant’s counsel are put on notice that the claims made herein are not preempted by ERISA, there is no federal court subject matter jurisdiction, and any attempted removal to federal court would be wrongful.
- 4 - FACTS
11. Since post-World War II, AT&T’s wholly owned companies, to-wit: “Mountain
Bell,” “Northwestern Bell,” “Pacific Northwest Bell,” committed to provide a “Telephone
Concession Reimbursement” payable out of operating revenues during the lifetime of every retiree.
12. Prior to the January 1, 1984 effective divestiture of AT&T and creation of U S
WEST, Inc. as a new holding company, Mountain Bell, Northwestern Bell and Pacific Northwest
Bell committed to provide the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” payable from operating revenues during the lifetime of every retiree.
13. During the several years before the divestiture of AT&T, the “Baby Bell” companies – Mountain Bell, Northwestern Bell and Pacific Northwest Bell – issued to their employees (including Named Plaintiff and members of the proposed class) a brochure with the following or substantially similar language:
“TELEPHONE SERVICE AFTER RETIREMENT — Effective with your retirement, charges for your residence telephone service will be paid by this Company. This means that, except for a few special types of service, you will receive free local service and be allowed a reasonable amount of toll service over Bell System or connecting lines within the continental United States and Canada during your lifetime. . . . . After retirement, if you take up residence in an area not served by [the Company] this concession still applies.”
14. Effective January 1, 1984, there was a federal court approved divestiture of AT&T and Baby Bell companies were transferred to new holding companies, including U S WEST, Inc.
15. As part of the federal court approved terms of the divestiture of AT&T, the newly
- 5 - created holding companies, including U S WEST, were required to continue providing retirees the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement,” as previously committed by AT&T’s wholly owned companies.
16. Since the January 1, 1984 effective divestiture of AT&T and creation of U S
WEST, Inc. as the new holding company for Mountain Bell, Northwestern Bell and Pacific
Northwest Bell, U S WEST, Inc. has committed to provide the “Telephone Concession
Reimbursement” payable out of operating revenues during the lifetime of every eligible retiree plus two months after the death of the retiree.
17. Soon after the divestiture of AT&T, Mountain Bell, Northwestern Bell and Pacific
Northwest Bell sent written confirmation to its retirees, stating:
“Dear Retired Employee: I know that you have been anxious to learn the effect that divestiture will have on your telephone concession. . . . employees who were retired as of December 31, 1983 will continue to enjoy essentially the same telephone concession.. . . You will receive a 100% discount on local service charges. . . .If you currently live in an area served by a company other than PNB, Mountain Bell or Northwestern Bell, you will also receive the same concession privileges.”
18. The aforesaid commitment is now binding upon QWEST, the successor in interest to U S WEST.
19. In addition, upon information and belief, since 1984 U S WEST represented to state public utilities commissions that a rate base for U S WEST had to include the cost of providing the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” to its retirees. Accordingly, the state utilities commissions in fourteen different states set charges for ratepayers that included U S
- 6 - WEST’s costs of providing the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” to its retirees.
20. Prior to and when the Named Plaintiff commenced his retirement, U S WEST habitually made official written representations stating that the “Telephone Concession
Reimbursement” would be payable out of operating revenues during the lifetime of the retiree and for two months following the death of the retiree.
21. In numerous official publications given to employees and retirees, U S WEST memorialized its commitment to provide the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” like the following text which is quoted from the document issued on or about the date indicated:
A. (March 26, 1984): “CONCESSION POLICY Local Service will be provided at the same level as was received prior to divestiture. . . . If you are billed by another telephone company: Subtract the allowed amount from the total of your Local Service statement. . . .Mail your payment for the balance, if any, (toll and Local Service) to your SERVING company. . . Send ALL remaining pages of the bill (your serving company and ATTCOM) to your Pensioner Contact. . . . Your account will be credited for the allowable amount on the following month’s bill.”
* * *
B. (1984): “CONCESSION TELEPHONE SERVICE FOR RETIREMENTS ON AND AFTER 1/1/84 You will be pleased to know that the Company will pay for a portion of your telephone service after you retire. If you presently have concession in independent telephone company territory, this concession will continue to apply.”
* * *
C. (February 12, 1990): “Concession: If you have it now, you still will under new plan – If you work for a U S WEST
- 7 - Communications company – or if you’re retired from one – and your company’s previous policy said you qualified for concession benefits on company-provided phone service, you’ll still qualify, under a new regional policy adopted Jan. 1. Basically, the new policy says that: - If you previously received “grandfathered” concession in independent territory, you’ll continue to receive concession, unless you move your residence.”
* * *
D. (February 26, 1990): “CONCESSION PLAN SET FOR FOURTEEN STATES – Among the many changes occurring in U S WEST Communications is a newly defined concession policy. Simply stated: If you work for a U S WEST Communications company or if you’re retired from one - and your company’s previous policy qualified you for concession benefits on company- provided phone service, you’ll still qualify under a new regional policy adopted January 1. Basically, the new policy says that: –If you had concession service before, and if you didn’t change your primary residence, you’ll keep your concession benefits on basic service, intraLATA toll and custom calling features. –If you previously received ‘grandfathered’ concession in independent territory, you will continue to receive concession, unless you move your residence. . . Look for official communications for complete details.”
* * *
E. (March 16, 1990): “As a [post-1984] retiree of U S WEST Communications or Regulated Business Resources Incorporated (BRI), you are entitled to 100% Concession on your local service and 100% of your INTRA Lata Toll. If you are served by an Independent company and are currently receiving telephone concession, you will continue to receive this benefit until you move.”
* * *
- 8 - F. (October 5, 1990): “Dear U S WEST Communications Retiree, -U S WEST Communications (USWC) would like to take this opportunity to update you on concession. We recognize that telephone concession is a very important benefit to you and want to ensure that all retirees receive appropriate treatment. . . Our policy is to provide retirees with the benefits that they are entitled to at the time they retire and that is what you are currently receiving. . . If you have questions about your concession and are served by USWC, contact your local business office. If you are served by an independent company, are eligible to receive concession and have questions, call the Retiree Concession Office at 800-521-0503.”
* * *
G. (February 28, 1991): “Dear U S WEST Communications Retiree, . . . All retirees between 1-1-84 and 12-31-89 will now receive concession at 100% for local service and intraLaTA toll regardless of the number of years of service they had at the time of their retirement. This change is effective with bills dated February 13, 1991 and forward.”
* * *
H. (June 1996): “Dear Retiree: . . . As an employee retiring with a service pension from U S WEST Communications or regulated Business Resources Inc. (BRI), you are entitled to 100% concession on: Local Monthly Service Charges - U S WEST Intra- Lata Toll Charges. . . .LOCAL MONTHLY SERVICE PROVIDED BY A COMPANY OTHER THAN U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS: Call the U S WEST Independent Telephone Concession Office at 800-521-0503 to verify if you meet eligibility requirements. If eligible, you will be provided with the procedures to follow to ensure you are reimbursed for Local Monthly Service and Intra-lata charges.”
* * *
I. (December 18, 1996): “Dear Retiree:. . . Recently, U S WEST Communications sold your local telephone exchange to an Independent Company. As a result, you must follow new
- 9 - procedures in order to continue receiving telephone concession benefits.. . . Employees who retired 01-01-84 through current date (today) PLEASE NOTE: . . PROTECTED (or grandfathered) TELEPHONE CONCESSION WILL CONTINUE TO BE ELIGIBLE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS: - a change of residence occurs within the existing Independent Telephone Company’s service area, or - a change of residence occurs to another Independent Telephone Company’s service area. At such time as one of these moves occur, telephone concession with the Independent Telephone Company will cease.”
* * *
J. (October 1999): “Dear Retiree: . . . As an employee retiring with a service pension from U S WEST Communications or regulated Business Resources Inc. (BRI), you are entitled to 100% concession on: Local Monthly Service Charges - U S WEST Intra- Lata Toll Charges. . LOCAL MONTHLY SERVICE PROVIDED BY A COMPANY OTHER THAN U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS: Call the U S WEST Independent Telephone Concession Office at 800-521-0503 to verify if you meet eligibility requirements. If eligible, you will be provided with the procedures to follow to ensure you are reimbursed for Local Monthly Service and Intra-lata charges.”
* * *
22. From 1984 to July 2000, U S WEST, Inc. used the aforesaid standardized communications as the primary informational document issued to its retirees to inform them of their rights and obligations for the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement”.
23. All of the written representations issued by Mountain Bell, Northwestern Bell,
Pacific Northwest Bell and U S WEST were part of a common course of conduct designed to impress upon Named Plaintiff and Retirees that the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement”
- 10 - was a legally enforceable commitment.
24. For instance, U S WEST sent retirees a “Benefits and Compensation Newsletter” dated April 29, 1987 containing the following text: “What are the benefits of the spouse or eligible dependent of a retiree at the time of the retiree’s death? . . . At the time of the death of the retiree, concession telephone service will be continued for two billing periods. Service pensioners who retired prior to 1/1/84 receive 100% local and up to $25 toll concession per month. Service pensioners retired after 1/1/84 are entitled to 100% local service telephone concession. This includes service with Mountain Bell and independent companies.”
25. In none of the written communications that were issued to Named Plaintiff and
Retirees were there statements and disclosures to advise them that the company could terminate the contract.
26. Prior to U S WEST’s merger with QWEST occurring in July 2000, U S WEST continued to represent and reaffirm its lifetime commitment to provide the “Telephone
Concession Reimbursement” to Named Plaintiff and Retirees.
27. U S WEST memorialized its commitment in policies and procedures for the
“Telephone Concession Reimbursement” with the following text: “if U SW sells an exchange to an Independent Telephone Company, the sale will be ‘transparent’ employee discount change for employees retired January 1, 1990 and forward. . . Employee Discount will cease when the retiree moves to a new or within the same Independent Company. . . ”
28. After U S WEST’s merger with QWEST and up until December 2003, QWEST
- 11 - continued to represent and reaffirm its commitment to provide the “Telephone Concession
Reimbursement” to Named Plaintiff and Retirees, on the same terms as if the local telephone service continued to be provided by QWEST.
29. U S WEST reiterated its commitment to continue providing the same level of
“Telephone Concession Reimbursement” to QWEST Retirees by posting an official notice on it internal website containing the following text: “Service provided by an Independent Company and currently receiving Employee Discount is grandfathered until the service is moved or disconnected.”
30. Whenever QWEST sold a local telephone exchange to an Independent Company,
QWEST would send out a standardized communication with the following text as appears in a notice issued in April 2001:
“Dear Retiree: Recently, Qwest sold your local telephone exchange to an Independent Company. . . As a result, you must follow the new procedures in order to continue receiving Employee Discount. . . Protection (or grandfathering) of Employee Discount reimbursement due to sale of exchange by Qwest to an Independent Company is contingent on region retired from as well as retirement date.”
31. Named Plaintiff and many members of the class have local telephone service provided by Independent Telephone Companies due to the business decisions of U S WEST and
QWEST to sale telephone exchanges to competitors. For this reason, U S WEST and QWEST confirmed in writing that the retirees were “grandfathered” or “protected” for the “Telephone
Concession Reimbursement”.
- 12 - 32. QWEST provided thousands of retirees the following chart which summarized the company’s commitment regarding the terms and conditions for the “Telephone Concession
Reimbursement” or “Retiree Telephone Discount”:
- 13 - 33. QWEST has official procedures and policies outlined for the “Telephone
Concession Reimbursement” wherein the company and predecessors have repeatedly memorialized its commitment that “the concession rate will apply to the retiree’s service at the residence where the employee resides as long as such residence is served by USWC” and that for certain retirees living within an area serviced by an “Independent Telephone Company” that
“concession is protected and independent service can be established and moved” and that “the concession rate shall continue for two months after the date of death.”
34. By its rules, procedures and representations made, QWEST committed to provide the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” during the lifetime of Named Plaintiff and every eligible retiree, plus two months after death of the retiree.
35. QWEST committed and contracted to provide Named Plaintiff and members of the class provided local telephone service by an Independent Telephone Company the same level of “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” as if the local telephone service was being provided by QWEST. This is what QWEST repeatedly refers to as “grandfathering.”
36. However, current QWEST leadership have commenced a campaign to renege on the company’s prior commitments to various group of retirees as they look every which way to decrease the company’s liabilities to QWEST Retirees.
37. In December 2003, QWEST announced that it was no longer going to provide the
“Telephone Concession Reimbursement” to a group of more than 4,500 retirees residing in areas receiving local telephone service from companies other than QWEST.
- 14 - 38. On or about December 9, 2003, QWEST Executive Vice President and Chief
Human Resources Officer Barry Allen sent Named Plaintiff and members of the class a letter containing the following text:
“Dear Concession Participant, As part of our responsibility to wisely steward our financial resources and to encourage and promote use of Qwest products and services, the company has made the decision to no longer reimburse retirees and employees for services not provided by Qwest. Your December 2003 bill will be the last local service bill to be reimbursed.”
39. Naturally, this surprise announcement caused great consternation to Named
Plaintiff and thousands of retirees, many of whom sent letters and email asking QWEST leadership to continue its prior commitment to provide the “Telephone Concession
Reimbursement.”
40. QWEST leadership refuted the retirees’ demands and pleas.
41. The present QWEST leadership has refused and continues to refuse to acknowledge that writings and actions by past QWEST and U S WEST leadership served to memorialize the lifetime commitment to provide the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” to retirees, even those residing in areas not serviced by QWEST.
42. The present QWEST leadership has refused and continues to refuse to acknowledge that due to past writings and representations, principles of promissory estoppel, now, forbid QWEST and successors from eliminating the lifetime commitment to provide retirees with the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement.”
43. The savings to be realized by QWEST by eliminating the “Telephone Concession
- 15 - Reimbursement” historically given to Named Plaintiff and the proposed class of QWEST
Retirees is about $150,000 per month. This amount is completely offset by the $150,000 monthly “consulting fee” currently paid to deposed former QWEST Chief Executive Officer
Joseph Nachio.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
44. Class Definition. Named Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class consisting of all QWEST Retirees (U S WEST Communications, Inc. Mountain Bell, Pacific
Northwest Bell, Northwestern Bell and U S WEST Business Resources, Inc.) whose “Telephone
Concession Reimbursement” was terminated in January 2004, including those QWEST Retirees served by Independent Telephone Companies, not QWEST. The class is easily identified by
QWEST’s records as those 4,500 or more retirees who were sent the December 9, 2003 letter quoted in paragraph No. 38 herein above.
45. This action is maintainable as a class action under Colorado Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23, subsections (a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
46. Class Size. The precise size of the class is presently unknown and will be determined through discovery. However, Named Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis allege, that the size of the class is estimated to be well over four thousand five hundred
(4,500). The class is so numerous that joinder of all the members of the class is impractical.
47. Questions of Law and Fact Common to the Class. This suit poses questions of
- 16 - law and fact which are common to and affect the rights of all putative class members. The questions presented include, but are not limited to: A) the existence of QWEST’s contract to provide Named Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class the “Telephone Concession
Reimbursement;” B) whether QWEST wilfully breached the contract; C) whether QWEST (and the predecessor companies) made a commitment to Named Plaintiff and each member of the class that should be enforced under principles of promissory estoppel; and D) whether Named
Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class is entitled to relief and the form and extent of the relief and damages to be awarded.
48. Typicality of the Claims of the Representatives. The claims of Named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the proposed class of QWEST Retirees as a whole.
49. Named Plaintiff’s reliance on written representations from different time periods than same or similar ones issued to other QWEST Retirees during other time periods does not undermine Named Plaintiff’s ability to represent the entire class.
50. Adequacy of Representation. Named Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to or in conflict with the interests of the proposed class of QWEST Retirees. Indeed, Named Plaintiff has the support of thousands of QWEST Retirees.
51. Named Plaintiff’s counsel Curtis L. Kennedy is experienced counsel who has served as Class counsel in cases successfully litigated against U S WEST, including multi- plaintiff civil actions involving QWEST and predecessors.
52. QWEST’s refusal to acknowledge there was a lifetime commitment to provide the
- 17 - “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” makes appropriate an award of final injunctive and declaratory class-wide relief.
53. Questions of law or fact common to the members of the proposed class predominate over any questions affecting only individual QWEST Retirees. The predominant questions in this litigation concern the rights of proposed class members to receive declaratory, injunctive relief and damages.
54. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
55. Members of the proposed class have little interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions.
56. Named Plaintiff knows of no other litigation concerning this controversy which has previously been commenced by members of the proposed class.
57. In the interests of judicial efficiency, the claims arising out of this controversy should be consolidated in this proposed class action before this Court.
58. No undue difficulties are anticipated to result from the prosecution of this proceeding as a class action.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Wilful Breach of Contract)
59. Named Plaintiff incorporates and realleges by reference the foregoing paragraphs
1 through 58, as if they were fully set forth herein.
- 18 - 60. In consideration of and during Named Plaintiff’s employment and each proposed class member’s respective employment, QWEST and predecessor companies entered into a contract whereby QWEST agreed to provide the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” throughout retirement and for two months following the death of the retiree.
61. Named Plaintiff and each proposed class member have fulfilled all obligations and requirements for the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement.”
62. QWEST wilfully breached the aforesaid contract and ended the “Telephone
Concession Reimbursement”, causing Named Plaintiff and each proposed class member to suffer damages equivalent to the value of the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement,” consequential damages, plus interest.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Promissory Estoppel)
63. Named Plaintiff incorporates and realleges by reference the foregoing paragraphs
1 through 62, as if they were fully set forth herein.
64. Throughout Named Plaintiff’s employment and during the respective employment of class members, U S WEST companies repeatedly represented a commitment that the
“Telephone Concession Reimbursement” or “Retiree Telephone Discount” would be provided throughout retirement for persons receiving local telephone service from U S WEST and that there was “grandfathering” or the same protected status provided to Named Plaintiff and class members receiving local telephone service from an Independent Telephone Company.
- 19 - 65. U S WEST companies expected Named Plaintiff and members of the class to continue in their respective employments relying upon the aforesaid commitment, and Named
Plaintiff and members of the class continued with their respective employment relying upon the aforesaid commitment. This commitment is binding upon QWEST, the successor.
66. Justice requires that principles of promissory estoppel be applied to enforce the commitment, and Named Plaintiff and members of the class should be granted injunctive relief reinstating the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” or, in the alternative awarded damages representing the loss in value of the “Retiree Telephone Discount”.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff WESLEY COLVIN, Individually, and on behalf of the proposed class of QWEST Retirees seeks orders and judgments against QWEST as follows:
A. Order this action be maintained as a class action under Colo.R.Civ.P., Rule 23(a),
(b)(2) and (b)(3), and require QWEST at company expense to publish and mail notification of this action to all members of the proposed class of QWEST Retirees;
B. Grant judgment against QWEST for wilful breach of the contract to continue the
“Telephone Concession Reimbursement” and award Named Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class damages representing the loss of the benefit of the contract, consequential damages, plus pre-judgment or moratory interest;
C. Grant judgment against QWEST applying principles of promissory estoppel and
- 20 - grant injunctive relief reinstating the “Telephone Concession Reimbursement” or, in the alternative, award Named Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class damages representing the loss of the “Retiree Telephone Discount” or “Telephone Concession Reimbursement”, consequential damages, plus pre-judgment or moratory interest;
D. Grant Named Plaintiff and the proposed class members such other and further class-wide relief, including appropriate equitable relief, as the Court deems just and proper;
E. Order QWEST’s officers, employees and agents not to retaliate against Named
Plaintiff (and his relatives) and the class of QWEST Retirees on the basis of the filing or prosecution of this action; and
F. Order QWEST to pay the reasonable value of Named Plaintiff’s interim and final attorney's fees for services performed, expert witness fees, accounting fees, necessary expenses of litigation, and costs of this action.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Named Plaintiff demands a jury trial.
DATED this 11th day of March, 2004. Respectfully submitted,
______Named Plaintiff’s Name and Address: CURTIS L. KENNEDY, #12351 8405 E. Princeton Avenue Wesley Colvin Denver, Colorado 80237-1741 25041 Lazy Acres Road Telephone: (303) 770-0440 La Junta, CO 81050-9740 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
- 21 -