Buc hanan Angel i Al t sc hul & Sul l i van LLP

321 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 600 Dana Sullivan

Portland, Oregon 97204 direct: 503-974-5023
main: 503-974-5015
fax: 971-230-0337
dana@baaslaw.com
www.baasemploymentlaw.com



J uly 1, 2014


BY CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Michael J ordan
Director and Chief Operating Officer
Department of Administrative Services
Executive Building
155 Cottage St. NE, U20
Salem, OR 97301-3972

Re: John Plotkin v. State of Oregon


NOTICE OF TORT CLAIM PURSUANT TO ORS 30.275
AND NOTICE TO PRESERVE RECORDS PERTAINING TO LITIGATION

Dear Mr. J ordan:

My partner Andrew Altschul and I represent J ohn Plotkin in connection with any and
all claims that he has against the State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation (SAIF),
individual members of SAIFs Executive Council, and Brenda Rocklin, Mr. Plotkins
predecessor, arising from the ouster of Mr. Plotkin from his role as SAIFs President and
Chief Executive Officer on May 9, 2014. This notice is provided to you pursuant to ORS
30.275(5)(b). As our investigation of Mr. Plotkins claims is ongoing and there are
numerous documents yet to be produced by SAIF in response to Mr. Plotkins public records
requests, including his complete personnel file, this letter is intended only to describe the
facts currently known to us. We reserve the right to offer additional facts in support of Mr.
Plotkins claims as they become known and to assert additional claims supported by new
information.

OVERVIEW

As detailed more fully below, contrary to the restrictions of Oregons ethics laws, Ms.
Rocklin improperly influenced Chris Davie, Vice President of Corporate Policy and External
Affairs, Ryan Fleming, Vice President of Operations and Human Resources, and members of
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 2





SAIFs Board of Directors to bring about Mr. Plotkins abrupt termination after only three
months on the job. Although civil discovery will reveal why Ms. Rocklin desired that Mr.
Plotkins employment be terminated, information currently available suggests that she either
desired to resume the role of SAIFs CEO or wished to maintain the status quo at SAIF by
thwarting Mr. Plotkins efforts to introduce a new, more open and collaborative culture at
SAIF. Mr. Davie and Mr. Fleming, acting in their individual capacities and outside the scope
of their roles as Executive Council members, aided and abetted Ms. Rocklin in achieving her
objective to displace Mr. Plotkin. Seizing upon second- and third-hand accounts (many of
which are untrue) of what are only laughably characterized as inappropriate comments made
by Mr. Plotkin, Mr. Davie, Mr. Fleming and Ms. Rocklin persuaded SAIFs Board that Mr.
Plotkins employment should be terminated.

Contrary to their fiduciary responsibilities to the organization, members of SAIFs
Board allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by Mr. Davie, Mr. Fleming and Ms.
Rocklin. They failed to launch any sort of genuine investigation or otherwise provide Mr.
Plotkin with any meaningful opportunity to respond to the bizarre allegations described
below. Rather, the Board Chair, Catherine Travis, called Mr. Plotkin at home on Saturday
morning May 3, 2014, and demanded his resignation. Stunned, Mr. Plotkin inquired about
the reason for such an abrupt termination, as he had been given no prior notice that there
were concerns of any kind regarding his performance. Ms. Travis responded that the Board
did not need to provide a reasona sure sign a nefarious motive is afoot and shared only
that he had supposedly made statements that implicated a protected class. Ms. Travis
indicated that she had the votes from Board members to terminate Mr. Plotkin and she gave
him until 3:00 p.m. the following day (Sunday) to decide to resign or be terminated.

During a telephone conversation on May 4, Ms. Travis agreed to provide Mr. Plotkin
with additional information about his allegedly inappropriate comments, butinexplicably
only on the condition that Mr. Plotkin would not respond to the allegations. The handful of
comments that SAIF eventually shared with Mr. Plotkin would not have caused offense to
any reasonable person of normal sensitivity. SAIF could not have had any genuine concern
about them, and the concerns were clearly trumped up. Even had Mr. Plotkin caused offense,
the Boards refusal to provide Mr. Plotkin the opportunity to dispute the veracity of the
allegations or explain his conduct is a shocking breach of their fiduciary duty to SAIF
policyholders and taxpayers who ultimately support this four billion dollar enterprise. After
nearly a year-long search and vetting process it is hard to fathom why such minor alleged
infractions could not be resolved by simply counseling Mr. Plotkin to be more circumspect.
Instead, after Mr. Plotkin declined to resign, the Board voted to terminate Mr. Plotkin during
a special meeting on May 9, 2014, thereby causing needless disruption to the organization
and knowingly inviting litigation.

The outrageous manner in which members of SAIFs Board handled Mr. Plotkins
termination is inconsistent with SAIF guidelines and past practices and makes clear that it
was the Boards intention to pressure Mr. Plotkin to resign. While the emotional pressure
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 3





that the Board applied to Mr. Plotkin did not prompt him to resign, the Board did succeed in
its aim to cause Mr. Plotkin to suffer substantial emotional distress and indignity.

Mr. Plotkin intends to pursue a civil action to recover for this emotional harm as well
as for the serious economic harm that the loss of his job has caused him and his family. He
also intends to pursue punitive damages against Mr. Davie, Mr. Fleming and Ms. Rocklin for
the willful way in which they disregarded the law for their own personal ends, knowing that
their actions would cause substantial harm to Mr. Plotkin personally and professionally.


FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. SAIF Hired Mr. Plotkin After a National Search and He and His Wife
Relocated from Colorado to Oregon.

After Brenda Rocklin announced her plans to retire as SAIFs CEO after nine years in
that role, SAIF embarked on a national search for her replacement. After a rigorous
interview process, the SAIF Board of Directors selected Mr. Plotkin as Ms. Rocklins
successor. Mr. Plotkin was highly qualified for the position. He attained his bachelors
degree in economics from Brown University and went on to earn a law degree from
University of Michigan. At the time SAIF offered him the CEO position, Mr. Plotkin was
serving as interim CEO and vice-chair of the Board of Directors of Pinnacol Assurance in
Denver, Colorado, which is Colorados state workers compensation fund. Mr. Plotkin had
served on the Pinnacol Board since 2011 and had assumed the role of interim CEO in
J anuary 2013. According to the press release issued by SAIF in October 2013 announcing
Mr. Plotkins hire, he came highly recommended by representatives of the government,
business and labor in Colorado. It was agreed that Mr. Plotkin would assume the role of
CEO on February 3, 2014, a few weeks prior to Ms. Rocklins departure so that the two of
them could work together to ensure a smooth transition in leadership.

In anticipation of launching this next phase of his career, Mr. Plotkin and his wife
purchased a home in Oregon and left Colorado. The move was not without its hardships as
both Mr. and Ms. Plotkin, who also works for a company that operates in the workers
compensation arena, left behind well-established personal and professional connections to
move to a state and community that was completely new to them. For Mr. Plotkin, however,
the opportunity to lead SAIF and to help the corporation achieve a new level of success
presented a challenge that made the personal risks worthwhile. Moreover, he was
encouraged by the members of SAIFs Board and Executive Council with whom he met
during the interview process that said they appreciated his fresh perspective and were
confident that he was the best candidate for the position. Mr. Plotkin moved to Oregon
anticipating that, like his predecessor, he would have a long career at SAIF and then retire.


Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 4






Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 5





B. Although Brenda Rocklin and Other SAIF Officers and Directors Promised
That They Would Share With Mr. Plotkin any Concerns About His
Leadership, Ms. Rocklin, Mr. Davie and Mr. Fleming Secretly Worked to
Undermine Him and Bring about His Discharge.

Recognizing that the arrival of a new CEO often spurs complaints from employees
loyal to the executive being replaced, Mr. Plotkin spoke very candidly with the Board, the
Executive Council, and even Ms. Rocklin about his desire to be notified of any concerns
about his performance so he could address them constructively. During his first weeks of
employment, Mr. Plotkin met individually with each member of SAIFs Board of Directors
and invited each of them to reach out to him with any questions or concerns. In mid-
February, Ms. Rocklin and Mr. Plotkin spent four days traveling around Oregon meeting
with SAIF employees and stakeholders throughout the state. Mr. Plotkin pointedly asked
Ms. Rocklin to let him know if she became aware of any concerns or complaints about his
approach or style. Ms. Rocklin agreed that she would share with him any issues that came to
her attention.

Ms. Rocklin also suggested, during another conversation with Mr. Plotkin before her
departure, that Mr. Plotkin could rely upon Chris Davie to advise him should any concerns
develop about his leadership. Ms. Rocklins recommendation was echoed by Board Chair
Cathy Travis. During a one-on-one meeting in February 2014, Mr. Plotkin shared with Mr.
Davie his conversations with Ms. Rocklin and Ms. Travis and Mr. Davie committed to
notifying Mr. Plotkin if he heard that anyone was dissatisfied with Mr. Plotkins
performance.

Until May 3, 2014, Mr. Plotkin received nothing but positive feedback from Ms.
Rocklin, the Executive Council and members of the Board. On April 21, 2014, nearly two
months after Ms. Rocklins departure, Mr. Plotkin met her for dinner. She asked how things
were going and Mr. Plotkin described positive changes for which he had received favorable
responses from managers and employees alike. He also mentioned that he found that most of
the Executive Council members were adjusting well to the change in leadership but that
Chris Davie seemed to be somewhat disengaged. Ms. Rocklin did not offer any insight,
instead suggesting only that Mr. Plotkin not curtail the length of Board meeting minutes,
which was a change that Ms. Rocklin and Mr. Plotkin had discussed prior to her departure.

During the dinner, Ms. Rocklin kept to herself the fact that she and Mr. Davie had
been in frequent telephone contact since her departure from SAIF. Phone records produced
by SAIF in response to a public records request have revealed that, although Ms. Rocklin
retired effective February 28, 2014, in the month of March 2014 Mr. Davie and she spoke on
the telephone at least 19 times, totaling over six hours of conversation. In April, Mr. Davie
continued talking with Ms. Rocklin by phone every few days, including a 46-minute call on
April 22, the afternoon after her dinner with Mr. Plotkin.

Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 6





Like Mr. Davie and Ms. Rocklin, Mr. Fleming was also actively undermining Mr.
Plotkin behind the scenes throughout April 2014. As we now know from Mr. Flemings
notes, produced in response to Mr. Plotkins public records requests and a copy of which is
attached as Exhibit A, Mr. Fleming began documenting what he apparently viewed to be
objectionable conduct by Mr. Plotkin beginning in late March 2014. Shockingly, although
Mr. Fleming was the senior manager in charge of Human Resources at SAIF and despite
pledges that Board and Executive Council members would be candid with Mr. Plotkin if his
actions raised any concerns, he never spoke to Mr. Plotkin directly about any concerns. Mr.
Fleming also failed to question the employees whom were reportedly offended by Mr.
Plotkins remarks or obtain information about the context surrounding the alleged remarks,
despite the requirement set forth in SAIF policies and practice that complaints of
inappropriate conduct be investigated. Rather, Mr. Fleming opted to amplify the significance
of largely second- or third-hand accounts reported to him by Theresa McHugh, SAIFs Vice
President of Financial Services, who, like Mr. Fleming and Mr. Davie, had had a long and
close working relationship with Ms. Rocklin.

Documents produced by SAIF in response to public records requests indeed show that
many of the comments that Mr. Fleming and Mr. Davie seized upon to support their
recommendation that Mr. Plotkin be terminated have since been specifically refuted by those
alleged to have heard the comments. In addition, these documents reveal that several
members of SAIFs Executive Council vociferously objected to the fact that Mr. Fleming and
the Board failed to consult with or even notify them of their plan to demand Mr. Plotkins
resignation on a Saturday and then terminate him five days later in a public forum.

Mr. Fleming had dinner with Ms. Rocklin on April 22, 2014, the day after Mr. Plotkin
dined with Ms. Rocklin and the same day that Mr. Davie and Ms. Rocklin had a lengthy
telephone conversation. Mr. Flemings notes reflect that he discussed with Ms. Rocklin the
fact that he was getting reports of inappropriate conversations. Ms. Rocklin responded that
she had heard from Colleen Sealock, formerly SAIFs Vice President of Operations and
Human Resources, that she had had dinner with another SAIF employee who had also
mentioned something similar (an assertion which this employee has since expressly denied).
During this dinner, Ms. Rocklin reported to Mr. Fleming that Mr. Plotkin had talked about a
womans tits while she and Mr. Plotkin were on their road trip throughout the state.
Despite the clearly inappropriate nature of such a comment, had it been made, Mr. Fleming
acknowledged in his own notes that he did not ask for more details. Plainly in derogation
of his professional duties, Mr. Fleming never questioned Mr. Plotkin about the alleged
remark or sought to inquire whether it was even true. Even more outlandish is the fact that, if
Ms. Rocklin truly believed that Mr. Plotkin had made such a comment, she never mentioned
it to Mr. Plotkin, contrary to her promise to let him know if she was aware of any concerns
about his actions.
1


1
In fact, the comment to which Ms. Rocklin was referring related to a story that Mr. Plotkin told her about
attending a cheese-making class with his wife. Within the context of that story, Mr. Plotkin made a comment
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 7






Mr. Davies and Mr. Flemings actions throughout April 2014, all taken without Mr.
Plotkins knowledge, violated many of SAIFs Standards of Conduct. These standards
prohibit SAIF employees from engaging in dishonest conduct, which is defined to include the
withholding of relevant information. SAIFs Standards of Conduct also prohibit subversive
activity that is intended to sabotage SAIFs business activities. In addition, Mr. Davies
repeated telephone calls with Ms. Rocklin, during which he presumably shared information
that he and Mr. Fleming were gathering that they believed would be damaging to Mr.
Plotkin, violated SAIFs prohibition against the unauthorized disclosure of confidential
information and the use of SAIFs communication technology in a manner that is
unprofessional or inappropriate.

C. Waiting Until Mr. Plotkin Left Town for a Conference, Mr. Fleming, Mr.
Davie and Ms. Rocklin Convinced the Board that Mr. Plotkin should be
Fired.

On April 29, 2014, Mr. Plotkin traveled to Washington, D.C. with SAIFs Vice
President of Legal Services to represent SAIF at a national industry conference. Mr. Fleming
seized upon Mr. Plotkins absence and the absence of SAIFs chief legal counsel to notify,
for the first time, members of SAIFs Board and an attorney from the Department of J ustice
(where Ms. Rocklin previously worked and to which she continues to have strong
connections) that he had concerns about Mr. Plotkins conduct. The flurry of telephone calls
made by Mr. Davie and Mr. Fleming between April 29 and May 2 included numerous calls to
Ms. Rocklin and at least one call to Colleen Sealock, the former HR director. Mr. Davie was
the sole member of the SAIF Executive Council whom the Board involved in its
deliberations and communication strategy during that time period.

Although SAIFs Bylaws prohibit the Board from taking action without a meeting
where a quorum of the membership is present, SAIF documents reveal that, by May 2, 2014
and without holding a public meeting, the Board had reached consensus that Mr. Plotkin
should be terminated and that J ohn Gilkey, the Senior Vice President of Policyholder
Services, would be named Interim President and CEO. Documents produced by SAIF also
reveal that Board Chair Cathy Travis spoke to Ms. Rocklin and that she agreed to return to
SAIF as its President and CEO in the event that Mr. Gilkey declined the position. Evidence
of these communications confirm that Ms. Travis shared confidential information with Ms.
Rocklin regarding Mr. Plotkins position with SAIF and his performance before she ever
spoke with Mr. Plotkin, an outrageous breach of confidentiality and basic standards of human
decency.

about goat teats. He was aware that Ms. Rocklin grew up in an Idaho ranching community and did not
anticipate that she would be offended by discussion related to milking goats. Ms. Rocklin deliberately
described the comment as one about womens breasts to create the false and harmful impression that Mr.
Plotkin had engaged in sexual harassment.
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 8





D. After the Board Precipitously Reached Consensus that Mr. Plotkin Should
be Fired, it Acted in an Outrageous Manner in an Effort to Force Mr.
Plotkin to Resign and, When That Effort was Unsuccessful, Terminated Him
in a Manner Calculated to Damage his Professional Reputation.
On May 3, 2014, Ms. Travis, who at the time was in Florida, and Ryan Fleming
finally shared with Mr. Plotkin the information that the Board, two or three members of his
management team, and former employees Ms. Rocklin and Ms. Sealock had known for some
time. At 9:00 on Saturday morning, the day after he returned from effectively representing
SAIF at the D.C. conference, Mr. Plotkin received a phone call from Ms. Travis and Mr.
Fleming at home. He then learned for the first time that the Board and a minority of the
Executive Council had developed concerns about his conduct so grave that they ostensibly
warranted his immediate termination if he failed to resign by 3:00 p.m. the following day.

Notably, Mr. Plotkin had no idea what conduct by him they could possibly be talking
about. He was dumbfounded and highly distraught that he was being asked to make a career-
altering decision without any knowledge of what was even going on, and without any
reasonable hope that he could seek legal advice on a weekend. The cryptic explanation that
Ms. Travis offered for the Boards decision was that Mr. Plotkin had allegedly engaged in
actions that could trigger claims based upon protected class status, which Mr. Plotkin
inferred to mean claims of discrimination. Ms. Travis, however, refused to share any
specifics.

This mysterious allegation of discriminatory conduct was particularly distressing to
Mr. Plotkin because, as the Board was well aware, Mr. Plotkin had actively promoted
diversity and inclusion as a priority at SAIF. Further, as a former board member of the
Mountain States Region of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Mr. Plotkin has personally
participated in the effort to eradicate anti-Semitism and bigotry of all kinds, serving as Chair
of ADLs Regional Civil Rights Committee and a member of the ADLs National Civil
Rights Committee. Also devastating to Mr. Plotkin was the fact that Ms. Travis and other
SAIF leaders had led Mr. Plotkin to believe that he could trust them to make him aware if
concerns developed about his leadership so that he could modify his approach to address
them. When Mr. Plotkin met individually with Board members during his first weeks of
work, he had requested and obtained commitments from each of them that they would call
him if they ever had questions or concerns about him. In short, Mr. Plotkin felt like he was
in the midst of a nightmare, with absolutely no understanding of what he had done that was
objectionable. Mr. Plotkin had never, in all his years of management, seen a personnel
matter handled in such a strange, covert, and secretive way. He had never heard of a CEO
being asked to resign over the telephone on short notice absent extraordinary and exigent
circumstances, let alone without explanation. His sudden resignation, he knew, would imply
that he had engaged in outrageous conduct and that resigning under those circumstances
would irreparably damage his reputation.

Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 9





Mr. Plotkin asked Ms. Travis for additional details about what was going on, and why
his resignation was being demanded. Having just uprooted his personal and professional life,
and his wifes, to relocate to Oregon at significant expense, he understandably needed to
know the story before making the monumental decision of quitting his new job. Ms. Travis
said she would look into whether she could provide additional details and would let him
know whether further explanation would be forthcoming.

Around 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, May 4, Ms. Travis and Mr. Fleming called Mr. Plotkin.
Reading from a prepared script, Ms. Travis indicated that she had been authorized to share
some of the comments that served as the basis for the Boards decision to terminate his
employment. Utterly inexplicably, Ms. Travis advised Mr. Plotkin that she would not permit
Mr. Plotkin to respond to the allegations. She described the following offensive
comments: Mr. Plotkin had joked with coworkers on a few occasions about his dogs
sexuality, including a comment to a coworker that his dog liked to hump black dogs; and Mr.
Plotkin had commented to coworkers that his childhood gym teacher checked to make sure
the boys were wearing jock straps. Ms. Travis ultimately extended the time for Mr. Plotkin
to decide whether to resign to Tuesday, May 6.

Had Ms. Travis actually permitted Mr. Plotkin to explainas would seem to be
demanded by even the most basic HR standardsshe would have learned that some of the
remarks she listed were misquoted or untrue and those that were accurately quoted were
taken out of context. Mr. Plotkins dog had been the subject of discussion at work because
his photo had been featured in the April Fools Day edition of the SAIF newsletter
advertising Take Your English Bull Dog to Work Day. When Mr. Plotkin did take his dog
to work for photographs in connection with the feature, he encountered another employee
with her dog in the courtyard. He pointed out to her lightheartedly that, to avoid any
embarrassment, she might wish to keep her dog, which was black, away from his because his
dog liked to hump other dogs, and was particularly drawn to black dogs. Although he made
the comment in a lighthearted way, the comment he made was true, and his desire to avoid
awkwardness between him and the employee and their pets was genuine. Only a committed
bigot would somehow construe such a remark as racial and such an implication that
reference to the color of a dog is somehow meant to signify black people is itself an offensive
interpretation. It defies logic and decency for anyone at SAIF to take the position that Mr.
Plotkin should reasonably have anticipated a comment about his dog to cause race-based
insult. Notably, the woman to whom Mr. Plotkin made the remark did not object to the
comment at the time, and when she learned that this encounter was one of the alleged reasons
for Mr. Plotkins termination, she wrote an email expressly stating that she took no offense
and the Board had taken the innocent comment out of context.

While Mr. Plotkin did share with members of his executive team that his gym teacher
made a habit of checking boys jock straps, he offered the story within the context of a
discussion about SAIFs employee dress code, and the need to allow SAIF employees more
latitude to make their own decisions about professional clothing, because they are adults. In
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 10





making the comment, he was contrasting a professional work environment to his high school
locker room to highlight the distinction and illustrate why he did not wish supervisors to have
to devote undue attention to the policing of employees attire. Again, the notion that this
remark was sexual or discriminatory in nature is preposterous and if anyone participating in
that conversation (i.e. the members of the Executive Council) perceived it as such, they did
not express their concerns at the time or at any time thereafter.

Mr. Plotkin later learned through an attorney at the Department of J ustice of another
offensive remark that prompted the Boards decision to terminate his employment, which
was even more patently ridiculous than the comments that Ms. Travis had briefly described.
It appears from the discussion of this comment during the May 9 meeting in which the Board
voted to terminate Mr. Plotkins employment (see SAIF Board of Director Minutes, May 9,
2014 (May 9 Minutes), attached and incorporated as Exhibit B, at p. 10) that SAIF takes
the position that Mr. Plotkins comment to the Executive Council in the presence of an
employee who was presenting actuarial information to the effect that he should speak
English, not actuary, was racially offensive because the statement was made to a person of
color. Had anyone permitted Mr. Plotkin to explain his remark, he would have stated that he
was trying to make the point that all employees, including actuarial experts, need to
communicate in plain language in order to convey their message more effectively. It is hard
to fathom how words of constructive criticism, made in the presence of an English-speaking
Asian American employee with the aim of helping him to communicate with an audience
who lacks his technical expertise, could by any stretch of the imagination be characterized as
racist. Again, the only evidence of racism in this circumstance is viewing his utterly benign
comment as somehow racial because it was made in the presence of a person of color.
Again, this employee was not offended by the statement.

As of Saturday, May 3, 2014, Ms. Travis and Mr. Fleming instructed Mr. Plotkin that
he would be home-stationed and Mr. Fleming cut off his access to SAIFs computer
system. It was only after Mr. Plotkin advised the members of the Board, in an email on
Tuesday, May 6, that SAIFs Bylaws did not authorize the Board to delegate to Mr. Fleming
the authority to suspend the CEOs responsibilities without a vote at a public meeting, that
Mr. Plotkin was able to regain access to SAIFs network so that he could carry out his
continuing fiduciary responsibilities to the organization.

On May 5, 2014, Mr. Plotkin emailed members of the Board asking for the
opportunity to address the Board and respond to the allegations against him. He pointed out
that, as a member of the Board of Directors at Pinnacol Assurance in Colorado, he dealt with
a CEO who had engaged in conduct that resulted in damaging public criticism of the
company. That individual was given a year of executive coaching before he ultimately left
the organization. Mr. Plotkin pointed out that he had not been given even a fraction of the
same consideration. He explained that he was unaware that he had caused offense to anyone
but, if he had, he would certainly modify his conduct in the future. He shared the view that
he was bringing positive changes to SAIF and that his abrupt departure would be damaging
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 11





to the organization. He also speculated that it was because of those changes that he was
being pressured to resign for trumped up reasons. Mr. Plotkin received no response to his
email.

On May 6, 2014, Mr. Plotkin sent another email to the Board notifying its members
that he had elected not to resign. Mr. Plotkin reiterated that the actions of the Board had been
extraordinary, unexpected and disturbing. He requested the opportunity to present the
Board with information at a public Board meeting so that they could assess whether it was
truly in SAIFs best interest to terminate his employment. He suggested to the Board that, in
light of his notable accomplishments during his three months as CEO, he should be retained
in his position.

Mr. Plotkin subsequently reached out to each Board member individually and invited
him or her to contact him to discuss the allegations against him. Only one Board member
even responded to his messages and that Board member declined to speak with him. Another
Board member accepted Mr. Plotkins telephone call and spoke briefly with him about the
situation. This Board member indicated, however, that he had already made up his mind
with respect to Mr. Plotkins termination. While no one in leadership at SAIF was willing to
talk to Mr. Plotkin, Mr. Davie remained in daily contact with Ms. Rocklin. Mr. Davies cell
phone records show that he spoke with her at least once each day on May 6, 7 and 8, the days
leading up to the Board meeting to address Mr. Plotkins employment.

On May 7, 2014, the Board held a special meeting to address Mr. Plotkins
employment. However, the meeting was promptly adjourned and rescheduled to May 9,
2014, in order to allow SAIF and Mr. Plotkin the opportunity to explore whether an
agreement could be reached whereby Mr. Plotkin would voluntarily resign. These
discussions proved futile.

At some point, the Board consulted with representatives of the Governors office
about their intention to terminate Mr. Plotkins employment, apparently reporting that Mr.
Plotkin had engaged in workplace harassment. On May 8, 2014, Governor Kitzhabers Chief
of Staff, Mike Bonetto, sent Cathy Travis a letter on behalf of the Governor emphasizing that
the State had a zero tolerance policy for workplace harassment of any kind and conveying the
Governors expectation that any verified complaints of this kind will be handled promptly
and with appropriate action. What SAIF had apparently failed to communicate to the
Governor was that the supposed harassment complaints had not been verified (and were
largely fictitious) and that the decision to terminate Mr. Plotkin had already been made, well
before the Board sought any input from the Governors office.

The public meeting on May 9, 2014 began with an executive session for the purpose
of discussing potential or anticipated litigation and exempt public records (pertaining to
Mr. Plotkin). When the meeting was opened to the public, well over an hour later,
approximately 200 SAIF employees (roughly one-quarter of SAIFs total work force)
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 12





attended in a show of support for Mr. Plotkin. Mr. Plotkin was allotted only ten minutes to
speak. In the discussion that followed, Ms. Travis claimed that there was a breadth of
comments from a large number of people of various levels in this company. May 9
Minutes, p. 10. In fact, records since obtained show that the allegations referenced by Ms.
Travis were not supported and have in fact been explicitly denied by the employees alleged
to have heard the statements. Had the Board conducted even a cursory investigation into the
allegations conveyed to them by Mr. Fleming and Mr. Davie, the Board would have
ascertained that the claims were distorted and either taken out of context or wholly
fabricated. Ms. Travis expressly declined to review the specific allegations, stating thats all
I can say about it, I want to say about it. May 9 Minutes, p. 11. Mr. Plotkin responded,

Madame Chair, just so its clear. I have scrambled. I have asked for
information, and Ive never gotten an accurate accounting in writing. Ive
never gotten anything in writing. I have tried to be honest in my response to
the board about the things that I heard, and tried to express some things that
either I didnt remember, and so forth, but I wouldnt be here today if there
were, there were, if it was 20 deep, real complaints about me that were of
significance. I wouldnt be here today if they had been shared with me, and I
had the opportunity to consider them. You may have them. If you tell me that
you did, then I will take that at face value, but I am not aware of them.
May 9 Minutes, p. 11.

Shortly following this exchange, Board member Robb Van Cleave made a motion to
terminate Mr. Plotkins employment. All Board members voted in favor of termination. The
motion to appoint J ohn Gilkey as the Interim CEO was made and voted on immediately
thereafter.

E. The Boards Response to Reported Concerns about Mr. Plotkins
Conduct Violated SAIFs Leadership Principles and Differed Markedly
From its Handling of Past Complaints Regarding Brenda Rocklin.

The outrageous nature of the Boards handling of Mr. Plotkins termination is made
all the more apparent when compared to SAIFs own leadership principles and to the Boards
handling of complaints about Brenda Rocklins conduct. In 2005, SAIF adopted a set of
Leadership Principles. This list of ten principles is prominently featured on SAIFs website
and SAIF commits to the public that it will adhere to these principles at all times. SAIFs
leadership principles include the following:

Stability is important. We have been here since 1914. The people of
Oregon can depend on SAIF.

We operate with integrity in everything we do. We are accountable, open,
and transparent. The people of Oregon deserve nothing less.
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 13






We are fair. We make decisions objectively and consistently while
recognizing that every policyholder and injured worker is unique.

By unnecessarily discharging a CEO whom the agency had hired only three months before,
the Board dealt a damaging blow to the stability of the organization. Further, the manner in
which the Board terminated Mr. Plotkin was the antithesis of open and transparent as was
the bizarre refusal to engage in any genuine inquiry about the alleged underlying comments,
and the Boards desire to shield itself entirely from Mr. Plotkins side of the story.

The Board also ignored SAIFs pledge that its leaders would act fairly and
consistently. The Board responded to vague and second-hand (and likely drummed up)
complaints about Mr. Plotkins conduct in a manner that was wholly different than the way it
had responded to more serious and credible concerns about Ms. Rocklins conduct. As
recently as 2012, Mike Mueller, Senior Vice President of Claims and former Vice President
of Legal Services, reported to Cathy Travis and Robb Van Cleave serious concerns about Ms.
Rocklins management style and conduct. He shared that Ms. Rocklin expressed preference
for certain members of her management team, openly treating them more favorably than
others. He also reported that Ms. Rocklin verbally berated her subordinates in front of
coworkers, in a manner that was both unprofessional and demoralizing. Mr. Mueller also
advised that Ms. Rocklin, Mr. Davie, Mr. Fleming and Colleen Sealock frequently gathered
in Ms. Rocklins office to have cocktails together at the end of the workday. Mr. Mueller
expressed concern that drinking at work violated various SAIF policies and was generally
inconsistent with SAIFs mission.

The Board responded to Mr. Muellers reports of abusive and unfair treatment of staff
and drinking on the job by consulting with the Department of J ustice and retained an outside
investigator to look into Mr. Muellers allegations. After the formal investigation, the Board
chose not to take any action against Ms. Rocklin, although this was not the first time that
they had received a complaint that she had behaved abusively. Instead, they publicly praised
her for doing an exceptional job and awarded her a lump sum bonus of $35,325. Ms. Travis
met with Mr. Mueller shortly after the investigation concluded and suggested that he needed
to talk to Ms. Rocklin to figure out how he could work with her going forward. When Ms.
Rocklin finally agreed to meet with him, it was to suggest that they reach an agreement
pursuant to which he would leave SAIF, which he ultimately did.

The Boards handling of this 2012 complaint about Ms. Rocklin demonstrates that
they understood that the appropriate response to a complaint about the CEO is to retain a
neutral party with specialized expertise to conduct a thorough investigation and to support
the CEO unless given an objective reason to do otherwise. In fact, SAIFs written
harassment policy expressly promises SAIFs employees that all complaints and reports of
harassment will be promptly and impartially investigated. The Board acted in an
outrageous manner by failing to abide by SAIFs own policies and guidelines and by placing
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 14





the stability of the organization at risk because of its capitulation to the aim of Mr. Davie,
Mr. Fleming and Ms. Rocklin to oust Mr. Plotkin.

ANTICIPATED LEGAL CLAIMS

Mr. Plotkins termination gives rise to claims for damages against Brenda Rocklin,
Chris Davie and Ryan Fleming, in their individual capacities, and against SAIF.

A. Brenda Rocklin Faces Substantial Liability for Intentionally Interfering with
Mr. Plotkins Employment Relationship with SAIF.

Mr. Plotkin intends to pursue claims against Brenda Rocklin for intentionally
interfering with his employment relationship with SAIF, and against Mr. Davie and Mr.
Fleming, in their individual capacities, for aiding and abetting Ms. Rocklin. To state a claim
for intentional interference with economic relations, a plaintiff must prove each of the
following elements: (1) the existence of a professional or business relationship; (2)
intentional interference with that relationship; (3) by a third party; (4) accomplished through
improper means or for an improper purpose; (5) a causal effect between the interference and
the harm to the business relationship; and (6) damages. Allen v. Hall, 328 Or. 276 (1999).
It is beyond dispute that Mr. Plotkin had an employment relationship with SAIF and
that Ms. Rocklin was a third party to that relationship once she retired from SAIF. Evidence
that she was integrally involved in decisions about Mr. Plotkins employment from early
April through the time of his termination provides strong support for a conclusion that she
intentionally interfered with Mr. Plotkins employment relationship.
We expect that we can just as readily establish that Ms. Rocklin brought about Mr.
Plotkins termination by improper means. In order to satisfy this element of a claim for
intentional interference with economic relations, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant
had a duty of non-interference. Straube v. Larson, 287 Or. 357, 361, 600 P.2d 371 (1979). If
a plaintiff bases a defendants liability upon the defendants alleged use of improper means,
the means must violate some objective, identifiable standard, such as a statute or other
regulation, or a recognized rule of common law, or perhaps, an established standard of a
trade or profession. Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Chase Gardens, Inc., 328 Or. 487, 498,
982 P.2d 1117 (1999).
Oregons laws governing the activities of public officials who have left public service
provide such an objective standard. ORS 244.045(4)(b) provides that
A public official who as part of the officials duties invested public funds shall
not within two years after the official ceases to hold the position . . . influence
or try to influence the agency, board, or commission.
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 15





Rocklin was subject to the restrictions of this statute and she flouted her statutory
obligations by taking action to influence SAIF to terminate Mr. Plotkin. The evidence will
establish that Ms. Rocklins input was a contributing cause to SAIFs decision to terminate
Mr. Plotkins employment.
It is reasonable to anticipate that Mr. Plotkin will suffer substantial economic harm as a
consequence of Ms. Rocklins actions. He has suffered and will continue to suffer, unless
reinstated, lost wages for which he intends to seek recovery from Ms. Rocklin. Mr. Plotkin
will also be able to recover damages for mental suffering and damage to his reputation
caused by Ms. Rocklins actions. Wampler v. Palmerton, 250 Or. 65, 73, 439 P.2d 601
(1968). In addition, Mr. Plotkin intends to seek punitive damages against Ms. Rocklin due to
the patently willful nature of her efforts to bring about Mr. Plotkins discharge to satisfy her
own ends. See Friendship Auto v. Bank of Willamette Valley, 300 Or. 522, 532, 716 P.2d 715
(1986) (punitive damages are appropriate to punish a willful, wanton or malicious wrongdoer
and to deter that wrongdoer and others similarly situated from like conduct in the future).
B. Chris Davie and Ryan Fleming are Equally Responsible for the Harm
Caused by Ms. Rocklins Intentional Interference Because They Acted in
Concert with Her and Knew that Her Actions Violated a Statutory Duty to
Refrain from Influencing SAIF.
Mr. Plotkin will also seek to hold Mr. Davie and Mr. Fleming jointly liable for Ms.
Rocklins intentional interference because they acted in concert with her to bring about Mr.
Plotkins discharge. Oregon courts have adopted Section 876 of the Restatement (Second) of
Torts, which provides that persons acting in concert may be liable jointly for one anothers
torts. Granewich v. Harding, 329 Or. 47, 55, 985 P.2d 788 (1999). Specifically, Section 876
provides that an individual may be held accountable for anothers tortious conduct if he:
(a) does a tortious act in concert with the other or pursuant to a common
design with him, or
(b) knows that the others conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives
substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself,
or
(c) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result
and his own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to
the third person.
Restatement (Second) of Torts 876.

Mr. Plotkin will be able to establish liability against Mr. Davie and Mr. Fleming for
tortious interference with Mr. Plotkins employment relationship with SAIF because they
shared a common design with Ms. Rocklin and/or because they were well aware that Ms.
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 16





Rocklins actions violated the restrictions of Oregons ethics law and provided her with
substantial assistance or encouragement nonetheless. Their actions fell outside the course
and scope of their employment with SAIFbecause, among other reasons, sharing confidential
personnel information with non-employees is beyond the scope of their employment.
Further, there is evidence that Mr. Fleming and Mr. Davie took deliberate steps to keep other
Executive Council members in the dark about their efforts to force Mr. Plotkin to resign.
Such duplicitous actions towards their own peers, and their interference with their fellow
officers ability to assess their own obligations as fiduciaries, lends strong support to a
conclusion that Mr. Fleming and Mr. Davie had only their own personal ends in mind.
Consequently, they will be held liable in their individual capacities for the harm caused to
Mr. Plotkin. Mr. Davie and Mr. Fleming will be jointly and severally liable with Ms.
Rocklin for the economic, emotional and reputational harm caused to Mr. Plotkin. Mr.
Plotkin will also seek an award of punitive damages against them.

C. Mr. Plotkin Intends to Hold SAIF Accountable for Intentionally Subjecting
Him to Severe Emotional Distress in an Effort to Force Him to Go Away
Quietly.
Mr. Plotkin will also pursue a claim against SAIF for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. To state a claim for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, a
plaintiff must plead that (1) the defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress on the
plaintiff, (2) the defendant's acts were the cause of the plaintiff's severe emotional distress,
and (3) the defendant's acts constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of
socially tolerable conduct. McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543, 901 P.2d 841 (1995)
(en banc) (quoting Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220, 236, 779 P.2d 1000 (1989)). To prove the
requisite intent a plaintiff need establish that the defendant engaged in conduct knowing that
the conduct was substantially certain to inflict severe emotional distress on the plaintiff.
McGanty, 321 Or. at 550-51. The determination of whether conduct is socially intolerable is
a fact-specific inquiry. The court will evaluate the totality of the circumstances in each
particular case to determine whether it constitutes an extraordinary transgression of the
bounds of socially tolerable conduct. Lathrope-Olson v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 128 Or.
App. 405, 408, 876 P.2d 345 (1994); Franklin v. Portland Comm. College, 100 Or. App. 465,
471, 787 P.2d 489 (1990).
This case is readily distinguishable from cases in which claims of intentional
infliction have been rejected in the employment context because they were based upon a
straightforward breach of contract, excessive supervision or unjust reprimands. See, e.g.,
McWhorter v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, 67 Or. App. 435, 440, 678 P.2d 766 (1984)
(employers intentional breach of employment contract, without more, did not support
intentional infliction of emotional distress claim); Franklin, 100 Or. App. at 471 (excessive
supervision and unjust reprimands usually are insufficient to state a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress). Rather, this case is more closely analogous to claims in
which Oregon courts have recognized that an employers outrageous conduct related to the
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 17





termination can expose the employer to liability for intentional infliction of emotional
distress. See, e.g., Coulter v. Construction & Genl Laborers Union Local 320, 107 Or. App.
522, 527-28, 812 P.2d 850 (1991) (termination of plaintiffs employment for refusing to
engage in a sexual relationship the defendant was sufficiently egregious to state a claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress); Smithson v. Nordstrom, Inc., 63 Or. App. 423,
428-29, 664 P.2d 1119 (1983) (interrogation by security officers and threats of criminal
prosecution if employee did not sign confession were sufficiently egregious actions to state a
claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress).
As fiduciaries, the Board had a duty to respond to reports of misconduct by Mr.
Plotkin in a deliberative manner that would cause the least disruption to the organization and
the State as a whole. Ms. Travis had also expressly promised Mr. Plotkin that he could rely
upon Mr. Davie to discuss with him any complaints that came to Mr. Davies attention, and
similar pledges had been made to Mr. Plotkin by members of the Board and the Executive
Council, as well as Ms. Rocklin. Presented with vague allegations by Mr. Fleming and Mr.
Davie regarding second-hand reports of objectionable statements by Mr. Plotkin, the Board
departed from past practice and SAIF policy and declined to order an investigation, even
though it should have been apparent to them that Mr. Fleming had not even so much as
questioned the employees who were purportedly offended by Mr. Plotkins remarks. The
Board did not even consult with SAIFs own legal counsel, but instead seemed intent to rush
through a final decision before she returned from a successful business trip with Mr. Plotkin.
By blindsiding Mr. Plotkin with a demand for his resignation in a Saturday morning
telephone call, by withholding from him information about the allegations against him, by
then sharing with him vague accusations that he had made discriminatory remarks, knowing
that such an accusation would be particularly distressing to Mr. Plotkin, and by failing to
provide him with any opportunity to explain himself, the Board engaged in outrageous
conduct the intent of which was to force Mr. Plotkin to resign his employment in order to
avoid a claim of wrongful termination.
Although the Board was unsuccessful in strong-arming Mr. Plotkin to resign, they
were successful in causing him severe emotional distress. It has been acutely distressing to
Mr. Plotkin to be terminated after only three months, having relocated to Oregon and left
behind a successful and established career in Colorado. Mr. Plotkin is devastated that the
Board has denied him the opportunity to implement his vision for SAIF and is anxious about
what future employment prospects he may have given the abrupt nature of his termination.
Termination after only three months on the job conveys the impression to potential future
employers that Mr. Plotkin engaged in serious improper and/or illegal behavior that would
warrant sudden termination, even though the supposed transgressions upon which the Board
is relying are nothing close to that level of severity. Mr. Plotkin intends to seek
compensation from SAIF for the emotional distress that he has suffered and will continue to
suffer as a result of the Boards wrongful actions. Mr. Plotkin also reserves the right to
supplement this tort claims notice, if warranted after SAIF has fully complied with his
Michael J ordan
Re: J ohn Plotkin v. State of Oregon
J uly 1, 2014
Page 18





records requests, with additional claims including but not limited to wrongful discharge or
impingement of his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.
NOTICE TO PRESERVE
AND LITIGATION HOLD

This letter is also intended to remind SAIF and its individual officers and managers,
as well as Ms. Rocklin, of their obligation to preserve electronic files and data related to Mr.
Plotkins employment and potential claims and defenses arising therefrom. For individuals,
such as Mr. Davie, Mr. Fleming, and Ms. Rocklin, this should also serve notice of their
obligation to preserve their personal electronic data.
2
SAIF, Mr. Davie, Mr. Fleming, and
Ms. Rocklin must not destroy, conceal, or alter any papers or electronic files or any other
electronic data generated by and/or stored on computers and storage media including hard
disks, floppy disks, back-up tapes, thumb drives, etc. that may contain information related to
this dispute.

SAIF, Mr. Davie, Mr. Fleming, and Ms. Rocklin are also on notice to preserve all
emails, text messages, and/or cell phone records related to this case and to advise all
managers of their obligations under the law.

Failure to comply with this Notice may result in sanctions by the Court for spoliation
of evidence or potential evidence.

Sincerely,

Dana L. Sullivan

Cc: Shannon Rickard (via email)
Tessa Sugahara (via email)
Brenda Rocklin (via certified mail)
J ohn Plotkin (via email)

2
We have reason to believe that Ms. Rocklin may have canceled her cell phone account shortly after concerns
of her involvement became public. Ms. Rocklin has a legal obligation to maintain her physical phone to ensure
no evidence is destroyed. Similarly, Mr. Davies phone should be retained after his upcoming resignation
without any information deleted.
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 of 7
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 7
EXHIBIT A
Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT A
Page 5 of 7
EXHIBIT A
Page 6 of 7
EXHIBIT A
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT B
Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 2 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 3 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 4 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 5 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 6 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 7 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 8 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 9 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 10 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 11 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 12 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 13 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Page 14 of 14