"We are committed to: The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity." —The Windermere Mission Statement "In the real estate business somebody's word is very important. If you say you're going to do something, you've got to do it." —Windermere CEO Geoff Wood's Public Affirmation

________________________________

 

 

CASE UPDATE 07/19/2011: Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Intermountain Fair Housing Council. This case is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.

CONSUMER ALERTS: Defendant and former owner of the now-defunct Windermere Real Estate Capital Group, Steve Osburn, was hit with a Federal Tax Lien of $254,170.96;in addition to a "$5909 Judgment Civil Disposition entered for: Osburn, Steven A. Defendant; Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group Inc. Defendant; State Of Idaho Ex Rel Industrial Commission, Plaintiff." Nonetheless, Mr. Osburn is now listed as an Associate Broker at Windermere Real Estate Sun Valley LLC, and states on his Windermere web page, "Steve has worked hard to gain the respect of his peers and has gained a reputation for being extremely honest and straight forward," and "Steve was the Designated Broker and Owner of Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group, Inc. from March 2001 to June 2011 when he sold the brokerage to Windermere Access Realty to return to sales full time.

Co-Defendant Mary Liese is now listed as a Realtor at Windermere Real Estate Richard B. Smith, and says on here Windermere web page, "...a career based on the highest levels of customer service and caring in the industry," despite the allegation that she is less-than-caring about folks under 55 years of age.

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/CAPITAL GROUP of BOISE, IDAHO, SUED FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT—TITLE VIII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1968. WINDERMERE AGENT MARY LIESE ALLEGED TO HAVE TOLD AN IFHC TESTER, "WE PREFER PEOPLE 55 AND OVER."

 

Complaint Charges: "The Defendants have engaged in coercion, intimidation..." (Left) Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group Realtor Mary Liese, and Windermere Capital Group's President and Broker Steve Osburn.

Windermere Real Estate, the nation’s most predatory and consumer-abusive real estate company, has been sued for violating the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act is Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap. (Access the Complaint here.)

The Complaint was filed in United States District for the District of Idaho on October 15, 2009, by the Intermountain Fair Housing Council, Plaintiff; against Orchards at Fairview Condominium Association, Inc., and Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group, Inc., Defendants.

Under “NATURE OF THIS ACTION” the Complaint in states:

“1. This is an action brought by the above-named Plaintiff for declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief and damage on the following bases:

a. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq. (hereinafter “FHA’), and in particular:

         i. Discrimination in the sale or rental, or otherwise made available, a dwelling because of “familial status” and “handicap”, 42 U.S.C. §3604;

         ii. Discriminatory terms, conditions or privileges in the sale or rental of a dwelling because of “familial status” and “handicap”, 42 U.S.C. §3604;

         iii. Making, printing or publishing  a notice or statement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates a preference, limitation or discrimination based on “familial status” and “handicap”, 42 U.S.C. §3604; and

         vi. Interference, coercion or intimidation, 42 U.S.C. §3617.

b. Fair Housing Regulations, 24 C.F.R. §100 et seq.”

Under “PARTIES” the Complaint in part states:

1. The Defendant Orchards at Fairview Condominium Association, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Orchards”), is a business organized under the laws and doing business in the State of Idaho. Its principal place of business is 6855 Fairview Avenue, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83704. The Defendant Orchards is the condominium association which manages and maintains the Orchards at Fairview Condominiums (hereinafter “the Subject Property”), the real property that is the subject of this proceeding and which is located at 1530 North McKinney Lane, Boise, Idaho 83704.

5. The Defendant Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Windermere”) is a business organized under the laws and doing business in the State of Idaho. Its principal place of business is 501 Front Street, Boise, Idaho 83702. The Defendant Windermere is the real estate firm which handled the sale of units at the Subject Property.”

Under “GENERAL ALLEGATIONS” the Complaint in part states:

“15.  Richard Mabbutt, Executive Director of the Plaintiff, was contacted by Michael Dixon, agent for the Defendant Orchards, who requested a meeting to discuss the matter. Mr. Mabbutt met with Mr. Dixon and his associate Mary Givens at 802 West Bannock, Boise, Idaho on or about the 6th day of December, 2005. At said meeting, Mr. Dixon asserted that the use of the term “empty nester” in the Idaho Statesman newspaper article was the reporter’s choice of words. Mr. Dixon explicitly stated that the Subject Property is not intended to be an age-restricted community and that it will be open to families with minor children. He claimed that the Subject Property will contain a playground, although it was observed that the site plans did not contain any such fixture. Mr. Mabbutt explicitly warned the representatives of the Defendant Orchards present at the meeting that the use of the word “adult” in their advertising and other materials will violate the FHA. Said meeting lasted approximately one hour.

16. On or about the 14th day of May, 2007, Mr. Mabbutt observed a sign at the Subject Property which described the property as an “active adult condominium community”.

17. The Plaintiff began testing the Subject Property to determine whether there continues to be a pattern of discriminatory conduct with regards to said real property. On or about the 16th day of May, 2007, an IFHC tester met with Mary Liese, an agent for the Defendant Windermere, at the Subject Property. Ms. Liese made discriminatory statements to the IFHC tester, such as “we prefer people 55 and over” and specifically pointed out that the complex does not have a playground. Ms. Liese provided to the IFHC tester a document entitled “Commonly Asked Questions on Condominium Ownership”, which describes the rules of the Subject Property. Said rules expressly prohibit swing sets, unaccompanied minor children using the pool, and children and teenage parties at the community center.

18. On or about the 23rd day of May, 2007, the Plaintiff sent another tester to the Subject Property. Said IFHC tester was provided with the same materials as the first IFHC tester. In addition, the second IFHC tester requested and received from the Defendant Windermere a copy of the “Condominium Declaration and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the McKinney Condominiums” (hereinafter “Condominium Declaration”) (which expressly provides that said condominiums are “commonly referred to and known as ‘The Orchards at Fairview’ ”). Said Condominium Declaration contains discriminatory statements, including the prohibition of “group homes. . .or any similar type of lodging, care or treatment facility.” The Defendant Windermere has continued to disseminate discriminatory materials regarding the Subject Property and the Defendant Orchards failed to rescind the discriminatory statements contained in said Condominium Declaration.”

The Complaint Charges the Defendants with:

“COUNT ONE—DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF “FAMILIAL STATUS”

21. The Plaintiff realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-20 above.

22. The Defendants have discriminated in the terms, conditions and privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, and the provision of services and facilities in connection therewith, on the basis of “familial status”. 42 U.S.C. §3604(b). Such conduct is willful and intentional.

COUNT TWO—DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF “HANDICAP”

23. The Plaintiff realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-22 above.

24. The Defendants have discriminated in the sale or rental of, and otherwise made unavailable and denied, a dwelling on the basis of “handicap”. 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(1). Such conduct is willful and intentional.

25. The Defendants have discriminated in the terms, conditions and privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, and the services and facilities in connection therewith, on the basis of “handicap”. 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(2). Such conduct is willful and intentional.

COUNT THREE—DISCRIMINATORY NOTICE OR STATEMENT

26. The Plaintiff realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-25 above.

27. The Defendants have made, print or published a notice or statement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates a preference, limitation and discrimination on the basis of “familial status” and “handicap”. 42 U.S.C. §3604(c). Such conduct is willful and intentional.

COUNT FOUR—INTERFERENCE, COERCION OR INTIMIDATION

28. The Plaintiff realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-27 above.

29. The Defendants have engaged in coercion, intimidation or interference in the exercise or enjoyment of rights granted by 42 U.S.C. §§3603 and 3604.”

 

_____________________________________________________

 

 

State of Idaho Ex Rel Default Judgment Against President and Broker Steve Osburn, Windermere Real Estate Capital Group, Boise

The public record reports on September 2, 2010, a "Comment: $5909; Judgment. Civil Disposition entered for: Osburn, Steven A. Defendant; Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group Inc. Defendant; State Of Idaho Ex Rel Industrial Commission, Plaintiff."

The State of Idaho Industrial Commission is responsible for:
• Regulating workers’ compensation activities in Idaho, including companies licensed to issue workers’ compensation policies. • Settling disputes between injured worked and insurers. • Deciding appeals for unemployment decisions from the Idaho Department of Labor. • Ensuring that employers have workers’ compensation coverage as required by law. • Providing compensation to innocent victims of crime through the Crime Victims Compensation Program.

Ex Rel, the abbreviated form of "ex relatione" means "upon relation or report." Legal proceedings which are initiated "ex rel." are brought in the name of the state but on the information and at the instigation of a private individual with a private interest in the outcome.

 

_____________________________________________________

 

Windermere Real Estate Capital Group's President Steve Osburn, Federal Tax Lien of $254,170.96

The Idaho Business Review Blog has reported in part that under FEDERAL TAX LIENS-Week of 6/14/10, in Ada County (Idaho):

"Listed are filed Federal Tax Liens. Listings include individual or business, address, amount, file number.

OSBURN, Steven, 501 Front St, Boise, $254,170.96, 110043933"

 

_________________________________________________

 

BOISE, IDAHO, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/RICHARD B. SMITH and ITS ECOBROKER, MINDI MCALLASTER, SUED FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT IN MOLDY HOME CASE WHERE BUYER WAS FORCED TO MOVE FROM THE NEWLY PURCHASED PROPERTY

(Above L to R) Jason Gray Smith, Broker/Owner/EcoBroker at Boise, Idaho, Windermere Real Estate/Richard B. Smith, who states on his Windermere webpage, "Your broker must be there for you during each part of the deal..."; Shelley Smith Eichmann, Owner at Windermere Real Estate/Richard B. Smith; and Mindi McAllaster, AB & EcoBroker at Boise, Idaho, Windermere Real Estate/Richard B. Smith, who says on her Windermere webpage, "I joined Windermere/Richard B. Smith because of its mission to serve the community through leadership, the highest ethical standards,and uncompromising honesty and integrity. I'm proud to find a brokerage whose mission matches my own personal standards of excellence."

ALLEGATIONS FROM THE COMPLAINT:

"The Complaint demonstrates that the Defendants did the exact opposite of what their legal duties to the Plaintiff required and instead encouraged the Plaintiff to close the transaction as soon as possible...

Defendants failed to advise or even recommend that Plaintiff not sign any closing documents until there was proof that the mold had been removed and repairs had been completed as set forth in the Agreement Addendum #1.

Defendants did not act in the best interest of his client; knowing that the mold had not been removed prior to Plaintiff signing the closing documents and taking possession of the property."

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE

 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA

ANITA MARLENE BROYLES, an individual

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MINDY MCALLISTER, an individual, and WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/RICHARD B. SMITH, an Idaho corporation.

Defendant. 

Case No. CV-OC-2011-08871

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Anita Marlene Broyles, by and through her attorney of record, Jacob D. Deaton, of the Law Office of Jacob D. Deaton, PLLC, as and for causes of action against the Defendant states and alleges as follows:

STATUS OF PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Anita Marlene Broyles, is an individual currently residing in Ada County, Idaho.

2. Defendant Mindy McAllister was at all times hereto an employee of Windermere, Real Estate/Richard B. Smith, Inc. and a licensed real estate agent for the state of Idaho.

3. Defendant, Windermere, Real Estate/Richard B. Smith, Inc. is an Idaho corporation currently doing business as a real estate broker/agent.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Jurisdiction lies in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho.

5. Venue is proper in this judicial district as the actions alleged herein occurred in Ada County and the damages claimed exceed $10,000. 00

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. The case outlines a breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act. It involves the purchase of a mobile home located in Star, Idaho during the time Plaintiff was represented by Defendant Mindy McAllister and Windermere Real Estate/Richard B. Smith, Inc. for the purpose of purchasing the mobile home in Star, Idaho. The Complaint outlines the wrongful conduct engaged in by the Defendants in that, despite the discovery of mold and in defiance of their legal obligations to the Plaintiff, they did not advise their client to delay the transaction in order to ascertain the nature of the mold problem and the ensure that the problem was remedied prior to the closing. The Complaint demonstrates that the Defendants did the exact opposite of what their legal duties to the Plaintiff required and instead encouraged the Plaintiff to close the transaction as soon as possible.

7. Plaintiff/Buyer, entered into contract, (the "Agreement") with Defendant Windermere Real Estate/Richard B. Smith, Inc. whereby the Defendants and Plaintiff agreed that Defendants would act as Plaintiff’s real estate agents in the purchase of a home.

8. In February 2009, Plaintiff, with the Defendants assistance, found a home and made an offer to purchase the property. The offer was accepted by the Seller and a contract for the purchase of the property was created and signed by the Buyer and Seller.

9. Home inspections were conducted as part of the purchasing process and the presence of mold was discovered.

10. Plaintiff and Defendant signed an Addendum #1 to the Agreement on February 20, 2009. Conditions of Addendum #1 dated February 20, 2009 stated microbial substance was found and that Seller was to have remedied by closing.

11. Plaintiff relied upon Defendants' expertise and advice in closing the transaction and purchasing the real property.

12. The closing occurred as scheduled despite the discovery of the mold. 

13. After closing, it was discovered that the mold problem had not been remedied and was in fact quite substantial.

14. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to move from her home. She has been unable to return to her home since December 2010.

15. Plaintiff has incurred costs related to ongoing mold inspection and repair.

16. Plaintiff has incurred costs of vacating the property and relocating during repairs.

17. Plaintiff’s home owners insurance will not renew her policy due to the mold claim.

18. Plaintiff has had to enroll with a different home owner's policy at a higher rate than the rate she had at the time of purchase of the property.

19. Plaintiff has had exacerbated nasal congestion and sinus problems since her exposure to the mold in the property.

20. Plaintiff has incurred non economical damages as a  direct cause of Defendants' negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the consumer protection act.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—Breach of Contract

21. The Plaintiff hereby alleges the above paragraphs as a fully set forth herein.

22. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into the Agreement wherein the Defendants agreed to act as Buyer's agents in the purchase of a residential property.

23. Defendants breached the Agreement due to failure to ensure that the conditions of Addendum #1 were resolved prior to the signing of the closing documents and Plaintiff taking possession of the property.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—Breach of Fiduciary Duty

24. The Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as a fully set forth herein.

25. The Defendants owed a duty as fiduciary to the Plaintiff.

26. Defendants failed to advise or even recommend that Plaintiff not sign any closing documents until there was proof that the mold had been removed and repairs had been completed as set forth in the Agreement Addendum #1.

27. Defendants did not act in the best interest of his client; knowing that the mold had not been removed prior to Plaintiff signing the closing documents and taking possession of the property.

28. Plaintiff has had the burden of repairing the purchase property, relocating to a difference residence and bearing all the inspection, and sample collecting costs of the mold. All of which could have been eliminated had Defendants informed Plaintiff of current condition of the purchase property prior to Plaintiff signing closing documents and taking possession of the property.

29. Defendants had a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff by advising her not to close the transaction until all mold had been removed.

30. Defendants breached their fiduciary duty when Defendants advised Plaintiff to sign the final closing documents even though Defendants had knowledge that the mold had not yet been removed. Plaintiff was advised improperly and without care.

3 1. Plaintiff suffered damages, the exact amount which will be proven at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—Negligence

32. The Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as a fully set forth herein.

33. The Defendants owed a duty of reasonable care to the Plaintiff.

34. Defendants failed to advise or even recommend that Plaintiff not sign any closing documents until there was proof that the mold had been removed and repairs had been completed as set forth in the Agreement Addendum #1.

35. Defendants did not act in the best interest of his client; knowing that the mold had not been removed prior to Plaintiff signing the closing documents and taking possession of the property.

36. Plaintiff has had the burden of repairing the purchase property, relocating to a difference residence and bearing all the inspection, and sample collecting costs of the mold. All of which could have been eliminated had Defendants informed Plaintiff of current condition of the purchase property prior to Plaintiff signing closing documents and taking possession of the property.

37. Defendants had a duty to the Plaintiff by advising her not to close the transaction until all mold had been removed.

38. Defendants breached their duty when Defendants advised Plaintiff to sign the final closing documents even though Defendants had knowledge that the mold had not yet been removed. Plaintiff was advised improperly and without care.

39. Plaintiff suffered damages, the exact amount which will be proven at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - Consumer Protection Act

40. The Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as a fully set forth herein.

41. During the course of the operation of its business, Defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive act or practice by representing to Plaintiff that is was "ok" for her to sign closing documents without having all the mold removed and damages repaired prior to Plaintiff's signing.

42. As a result of the Defendants conduct, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual and nominal damages.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as to all causes of action raised in this complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

AS TO CAUSE ONE

1. Award Plaintiff's nominal and compensatory damages.

2. Award Plaintiff's costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Idaho Code Sections 12-120 and 12-121.

3. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.

AS TO CAUSE TWO

1. Award Plaintiff's compensatory damages.

2. Award reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Idaho Code Sections 12-120 and 12-121.

3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

AS TO CAUSE THREE

1. Award Plaintiff's nominal and compensatory damages.

2. Award reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Idaho Code Sections 12-120 and 12-121.

3. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.

AS TO CAUSE FOUR

1. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages.

2. Award reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (48-606) and Idaho Code Sections 12-120 and 12-121.

3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

            DATED this 6^th day of May, 2011.

 

_____________________________________________

JACOB D. DEATON

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

 DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE

 

 

 

 

The Windermere Real Estate Relocation Rape Case:

Court Declares that Windermere "...condoned a rape by a business colleague..."

 

Editorial Preface: The incredibly violent and insidious psychological ramifications of rape, connected through an “abusive work environment” serves as an unfortunate yet credible subtext for the way in which Windermere Real Estate treats employees and damaged customers alike: Windermere’s application of aggressive, wasteful and mendacious litigation to stall and ruin innocent consumers, serves as the coercive metaphor of corporate power and arrogance: Windermere has no concern for the social damage it has done to people or communities. It cares only about how to manipulate the law and the courts to avoid any legal responsibility.

 

(Above L to R) Windermere CEO Geoff Wood (far left) is currently listed as a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation. Peggy Scott (second from left), also a current Governing Person of Windermere Relocation, "... did not give Little any advice about going to the police, and she did not conduct an investigation of Little's complaint or any follow-up interview with Little." Windermere General Counsel, attorney Paul Drayna (third from left) is listed as the registered agent of RELO LLC, the current entity name of Windermere Relocation. Windermere Founder John W. Jacobi (fourth from left) along with Gayle Glew (far right) are listed as Governing Persons of Windermere Relocation during the Little case. Glew told Ms. Little he did not want any "clouds in the office," and subsequently, after she would not accept a pay cut, that she should clean out her desk.

All citizens who abhor such treatment of women in the workplace should recall Maureen Little v. Windermere Relocation when choosing real estate services. WindermereWatch visitors will also want to read the United States District Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit's Order and Amended Opinion from the Little case.

 

Summarized and excerpted from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals

 

Maureen Little was employed by Windermere Relocation Services (“Windermere”) as a Corporate Services Manager, a position that required her “to develop an ongoing business relationship and relocation contacts with corporations in order to obtain corporate clients needing relocation services for their employees.” Until she was terminated, she received only positive feedback from her supervisors. Windermere’s records confirm that during the relevant period, Little had the best transaction closure record of all corporate managers by a large margin.

Unlike the other managers, Little’s employment contract provided that Little would receive $2,000 monthly, plus a $1,000 monthly override and $250 per closed sale. The override was based on the assumption that Little would close four transactions per month, with a provision for rollover when she did not make the target. According to Windermere President Gayle Glew, the other managers had not received the $1,000 override.

One of Windermere’s clients was the Starbucks Corporation. Some time in 1997, Little performed some relocation services for Starbucks Human Resources Director, Dan Guerrero, on a contract basis, and she learned from him that Starbucks was dissatisfied with its primary relocation provider. Glew told Little that he would “do whatever it takes to get this account” and that Little should “do the best job she could.” Thus, little believed that, as part of her job, she was to build a business relationship with Guerrero to try and get the Starbucks account, and she had at least two business lunches with Guerrero toward this end.

On October 14, Little accepted Guerrero’s invitation to discuss the account at a restaurant. After eating dinner with Guerrero and having a couple of drinks, Little suddenly became ill and passed out. She awoke to find herself being raped by Guerrero in his car. She fought him off and jumped out of the car, but again she became violently ill. Guerrero put her back in the car and took her to his apartment, where he raped her again. Little fell asleep, and when she awoke he was raping her again. Afterward, he showered and drover her to her car.

Little was reluctant to tell anyone at Windermere about the rape because, in her own words, “I knew how important the Starbucks account was to Mr. Glew. Mr. Glew would ask me on a consistent basis the status of the account and I was afraid that if I told him about the rape, he would see me as an impediment to obtaining the Starbucks account.” This belief was reinforced when, a few days after the rape, Little reported the rape to Chris Delay, Director of Relocation Services (apparently not one of Little’s supervisors), and Delay advised her not to tell anyone in management. Little believed that Delay feared “what might happen to [Little] if [she] did tell.”

On October 23, about nine days after the rape, Little reported it to Peggy Scott, the Vice President of Operations, who was designated in Windermere’s Harassment Policy as a complaint-receiving manager. Little described Scott’s response:

She came out around the desk and I could tell she was upset and she just gave me a hug and said she wished there was something she could do. She didn't understand what I was going through. She asked me if I was in therapy. Then she proceeded to tell me she wouldn't say anything to [Glew] unless I proceeded to seek legal action [against Dan Guerrero].

 

Scott told Little that "[s]he thought it would be best that [Little] try to put it behind [her] and to keep working in therapy," and that she should discontinue working on the Starbucks account. She did not give Little any advice about going to the police, and she did not conduct an investigation of Little's complaint or any follow-up interview with Little. Scott testified in her deposition that, because the rape occurred outside the "working environment," she believed that it fell outside the scope of Windermere's Harassment Policy.

 

Despite Little's supposed removal from the Starbucks account, Glew continued to ask her about the status of the Starbucks account during the next six weeks. "[As of December 2,] Gayle was asking me questions about Starbucks ... a couple of times every month to see what the status was." Concerned by Glew's questions, Little told her immediate supervisor, Linda Bellisario, the Vice President of Sales and Marketing, on December 2, 1997, about the rape. Little had been reluctant to tell Bellisario because she "felt that [Bellisario] would immediately go to Gayle and Gayle would terminate my position.... I knew how much this account meant to him. He said he would do whatever it took to get this account." Bellisario told Little to inform Glew of the incident.

 

When Little told Glew of the rape, which, according to Glew, was the first he had heard of it, Glew's" immediate response was that he did not want to hear anything about it." He told Little that she would have to respond to his attorneys. Glew then informed her that he was restructuring her salary from $3,000 monthly to $2,000 monthly plus $250 per closed transaction. The pay reduction was effective immediately and non-negotiable. Bellisario, who was present at that portion of the meeting, appeared "surprised and upset" to Little.

 

Little found the pay cut unacceptable, and Glew told her to go home for two days to think it over "because he did not want any `clouds in the office.'" When Little still found the pay cut unacceptable two days later, Glew told her it would be best if she moved on and that she should clean out her desk.

 

Little brought suit against Windermere, alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Revised Code of Washington § 49.60; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Windermere on all four claims.

 

Little appealed dismissal of her claims, and the appeals court reversed in part, and ruled:

 

In sum, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Little, because her employer effectively condoned a rape by a business colleague and its effects, Little was subjected to an abusive work environment that "detract[ed] from [her] job performance, discourage[d] [her] from remaining on the job, [and kept her] from advancing in [her] career[]."

 

Incredibly, Windermere asked for a rehearing, but "...the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

 

________________________________

 

WINDERMERE: AMERICA'S PREDATORY REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISE

Consumer advocates, legal experts and elected lawmakers all agree that the American real estate industry demands greater regulation to protect consumers from the human disaster of real estate fraud perpetrated by unethical realtors employed at companies like Windermere Real Estate. Windermere manipulates our clogged, inundated courts and the justice system to stall, wear down and financially exhaust victimized consumers, many of whom are wiped-out by the cost of pursuing civil justice in a process where innocent victims must CHASE perpetrators of real estate fraud through the courts AFTER a fraudulent offense has been committed. Acts of fraud are so common and widespread throughout the Windermere real estate network, that the defense of real estate fraud has become has become just another bottomline expense on the Windermere balance sheet. And the litigation nightmare of real estate fraud can happen to anyone who deals with Windermere Real Estate. It could happen to you. Windermere is by far the most unethical, deceitful, and culturally toxic real estate company operating in the United States. Windermere knowingly, deliberately, and unabashedly profits on corrupt franchise owners, brokers and agents with proven histories of fraud and ethical misconduct, many of whom are profiled in the pages of WindermereWatch.com. Despite Windermere's well-documented assault on victim speech rights, more and more unconscionable cases of Windermere fraud continue emerging.

Windermere is headquartered in Seattle, at franchiser Windermere Services Company. It was founded by John W. Jacobi, and he has kept the company a private, family-owned enterprise, eluding the transparency and ethical accountability required by stockholders. For decades, Windermere has harnessed the art of positive PR, affixing itself—however superficially—to community art events, the homeless, and even an annual college rowing competition which opens Seattle's boating season—the Windermere Cup—irresponsibly promoted by, and in conjunction with, the University of Washington. But those are the disingenuous and cynical sideshows created by an adept market manipulator, shown only briefly to the public, to obscure and obfuscate Windermere's true predatory nature.

FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES' MANAGEMENT TEAM AND DESIGNATED GOVERNING PEOPLE: EXPERTS IN MARKETING FRAUD, ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS, AND AT COERCING DAMAGED WINDERMERE CLIENTS INTO SILENCE BY SUPPRESSING THEIR SPEECH RIGHTS

The shameless greed and repugnant ethics of Seattle's Jacobi family, deliberately profiting on the loss and suffering of Windermere victims through commissions on the fraudulent home deals and unlawful misconduct of dishonest Windermere agents, brokers and franchise owners. Forget human decency, commercial reputation or social responsibility—it's all about the money.

Before turning the business over to his children and son-in-law, Windermere founder John W. Jacobi (left) simply ignored any complaints of fraud from Windermere victims, sending them straight to the lawyers. Yet despite claims of retirement, Jacobi is still indeed quite active at franchiser Windermere Services Company:

In Complaint 10-2-36192-8 SEA, filed in King County Superior Court on October 12, 2010, Windermere Services Company has sued former Windermere Puyallup Canyon Road owner Joe Maxwell for default on an “Unconditional Guaranty of Payment” promissory note. The Maxwell Answer and Counterclaims state that the “Plaintiff's [Windermere Services Company] claims are barred by Plaintiff’s fraud, duress, and unclean hands,” and alleges $4,000,000 in damages and violation of Washington's Franchise Investment Protection Act; and also that "The alleged Note and Guarantee are unconscionable and unenforceable." Maxwell's Counterclaims state "6. The WPCR Operating Agreement contains a provision granting Jacobi a special veto power which among other things, states that the company shall conduct its business and manage its affairs in accordance with the directions of Jacobi and all management decisions are subject to Jacobi’s review," and "13. In early 2006, WSC and Jacobi decided to open another WSC office in the territory in which WPCR was operating, despite the objections of Maxwell. As a result of the opening of this new WSC office, WPCR lost a significant number of its real estate agents and revenue that transferred to the new office in Graham, Washington," and "14. As a direct result of these actions taken by WSC and Jacobi, WPCR was left with a large debt burden and overhead, and WPCR’s revenue was significantly reduced... 22. On September 14, 2010, Maxwell heard from a real estate agent working at WPCR that the agent had received and email from WSC notifying him WPCR’s franchise had been terminated. This notice was sent to WPCR’s real estate agents before Maxwell learned of the termination of WPCR’s franchise." Read the complete report on this case here.

Jacobi's Washington Loan Company is also currently being sued for Intentional Misrepresentation—read that report here. And the Windermere affiliated service company, Commonwealth Land Title Company of Puget Sound, has recently been found negligent by a jury who awarded the third-party plaintiffs $1,190,000. Read the Commonwealth report here.

 

Current Governing Person and Windermere Services Company CEO Geoffrey P. Wood (left) is married to John W. Jacobi's daughter, Jill Jacobi-Wood. Wood is the chief architect of Windermere marketing fraud, inducing business volume through—among other fraudulent promotion—an express warranty of "The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity." When called upon to honor his company's warranty, Wood instructs Demco lawyers—led by Matthew F. Davis–to sue vocal victims for libel and defamation. Wood is also a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation, the subject enterprise of Windermere's employee rape case. He was briefly a real estate sales person in 1994, but that license was CANCELLED in 1995, and Wood currently has no real estate license of any kind that WindermereWatch can find.

 

Governing Person Jill Jacobi-Wood (left), Windermere Services President, is a licensed real estate broker in Washington State, and as such is subject to the statutory condition of RCW 18.86.030 "(d) To deal honestly and in good faith." For her part in Windermere's marketing fraud and malfeasance, Jacobi-Wood's RE license should be cancelled by the Washington State DOL's real estate division. By promoting honesty and integrity—while in reality—she is suing and coercing Windermere victims to shutup about their Windermere experience, Jacobi-Wood is hardly dealing honestly and in good faith.

 

 

Governing Person John O'Brien "OB"Jacobi (left) is General Manager of franchiser Windermere Services Company and also has many Windermere realty brokerage offices. He's a licensed real estate broker who is also called upon by statutory law to "Deal honestly and in good faith." But John "OB" Jacobi instead promotes fraudulent claims of honesty and integrity, and falsely sues victims of Windermere misconduct for libel and defamation to intimidate them and coerce their silence. Then this junior Jacobi runs away and voluntarily dismisses his own mendacious lawsuit when a victim refuses to sign Windermere's dark clause settlement agreement that has cost the victimized party so much distress and money and to defend.

 

 

Windermere Services Governing Person and attorney—WSBA# 26636—Paul Drayna (left) has even more stringent ethical requirements placed upon him through his collateral professions of Lawyer and Notary Public; and Drayna is also bound by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. But Mr. Drayna is not just practicing marketing fraud at Windermere. As Windermere in-house counsel, Drayna oversees Windermere's legal strategy of abusing process by falsely suing victims for libel and defamation, and then attempting to intimidate and coerce those victims out of their speech rights and into Windermere's Dark Clause silence agreement. When victims WON'T sign the Windermere Dark Clause, Drayna runs away too, and voluntarily dismisses his own company's lawsuit under Civil Rule 41—but only after first costing the victim thousands to defend the phony lawsuit. Drayna is even copied on the mendacious, Demco-authored settlement documents meant to quash speech rights and be signed by Windermere victims.

 

WINDERMERE'S DEMCO LAW FIRM: ESCHEWING ETHICS and DOING WHAT OTHER LAWYERS JUST WON'T DO

 

Attorney and multi-office Windermere broker John Demco (left) is the ethically-elastic Windermere kingpin lawyer who operates Demco Law, Windermere’s in-house legal firm, whose primary job is to stall and outspend small fry consumers damaged by dishonest Windermere brokers, agents and franchise owners. When an innocent real estate consumer has the misfortune to suffer one of Windermere’s many bad apples, Demco Law Firm will refuse to settle the matter forthrightly, no matter what conspicuously unlawful or offensive conduct the agent or broker has committed. Demco and Windermere will force the aggrieved party to sue or swallow their damage and go away—standard Windermere operating procedure.

 

WindermereWatch has compiled voluminous evidence that Windermere-Demco attorney Matthew F. Davis (left), WSBA# 20939, is the kind of lawyer about which jokes are coined. Davis is franchiser Windermere Services' frontline bully—the guy in the legal trenches actually wrecking lives, making threats, and suing victims who speak out. When Shakespeare was recommending "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," in Henry the Sixth, Part 2, he was talking about egomaniacal lawyers like Matt Davis.

Attorney Matt Davis of Windermere's Demco Law Firm is so unethical, so deceitful and intimidating, that he's famous in law circles. As Windermere-Demco's lead attorney, Matthew F. Davis is renown for his dishonesty, dubious legal tactics, lack of decency and disrespect for the rules of professional conduct. He will do absolutely anything to win—without regard for truth or justice. He will lie to courts and opposing parties. He will file fallacious and erroneous documents with the court. He will email opposing parties telling them not to hire a lawyer when he has just served them a lawsuit. He will call a judge's chambers and request more time without informing the opposing party. He will file orders for a bench trial when he knows a jury trial has been demanded and paid for. He will trick, stall, coerce, menace and threaten. He will invent and extend mendacious Windermere litigation and abuse the legal process for no other reason than to exhaust an opponent’s pocketbook. If he can, he will get YOUR attorney to quit—a favorite tactic.

Windermere, Davis and Demco Law will push a $5 cat poop case all the way to the state supreme court just to avoid paying damages—because it’s all in the Windermere operating budget. And in the end, Windermere and Davis will try to coerce silence about your Windermere experience by trying to make you sign a "settlement" agreement that terminates your speech rights, so you can't ever inform the public about your Windermere debacle. What if you DON'T sign that you'll shut up, and then SPEAK UP instead? Windermere-Demco's Matt Davis will sue you for libel and defamation, then run away and dismiss his own lawsuit on the eve of trial—because after all—you're telling the truth.

Windermere's Clear and Overt Marketing Fraud:

"THE HIGHEST ETHICAL STANDARDS. UNCOMPROMISING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY."

—The Windermere Real Estate Mission Statement

Windermere widely promotes its deceptive express warranty in sales documents and on the internet which states "We are committed to... The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity." In other Windermere promotion, like the Puget Sound Business Journal, Windermere CEO Geoff Wood is quoted as saying "In the real estate business somebody's word is very important. If you say you're going to do something, you've got to do it." The article goes on to say, "Geoff oversees marketing, legal, financial and internet development services throughout the Windermere network..." Mr. Wood claims absolute dominion over both Windermere legal and internet strategy, making him chief architect of Windermere marketing fraud.

Effective reportage can be harsh in recounting facts, but it must be said in consideration of all the Windermere victims profiled here who truly sought Windermere's vaunted honesty and integrity, that Windermere Services CEO Geoffrey P. Wood is simply lying when he states his company's utterly false and fraudulent commitment to honesty and integrity. He both lies and deceives again when he says that "In the real estate business somebody's word is very important. If you say you're going to do something, you've got to do it." Wood clearly doesn't do what he says he's going to do—be committed to uncompromising honesty and integrity. Wood himself is indeed IN the real estate business and his word is absolutely no good at all. He sues victims of Windermere misconduct for trade libel and defamation to shut them up, and then he tries to use the legal system to suppress victims' speech rights when they ask him to actually perform on the warranty he promotes. As this website proves, Mr. Wood does anything BUT what he says he's gonna do. Far from providing victimized Windermere customers a commitment to high ethical standards, honesty and integrity, Wood and Windermere run away and hide behind their lawyers when innocent consumers are ruined by their Windermere experience.

John W. Jacobi, Geoff Wood, his wife Jill Jacobi-Wood, and governing cohorts John O'brien "OB" Jacobi and attorney Paul Drayna have gone to the absolute ends of the earth in stonewalling, ignoring, denying and fleeing any and all responsibility for Windermere wrongdoing and misconduct. When called upon by victimized Windermere consumers to make good on its warranty of honesty and integrity, Windermere even states in legal pleadings that Windermere agents are NOT agents of Windermere at all—but independent contractors. As the legally-designated Governing People and top managers of the Windermere empire who drive policy, ethics and market promotion, it demands repeating that John W, Jacobi, Geoff Wood, Jill Jacobi-Wood, John OB Jacobi and attorney Paul Drayna are all clearly lying when they promise high ethical standards and uncompromising honesty to the public and consumers of real estate services.

Protect your life, home, family and future by cancelling or not renewing your Windermere listing. Don't risk doing business with Windermere Real Estate, the brand built on lies, fraud and ruined lives. Refuse to fund public predator Windermere Real Estate with commission from the sale of your home.

________________________________

 

Is WindermereWatch.com of social benefit to consumers and the public? You decide:

Windermere Real Estate is one of our country’s largest real estate companies and widely promotes a fraudulent express warranty that states “We are committed to... The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity.” The definition of an express warranty from Black's Law Dictionary is: "A warranty created by the overt words or actions of the seller. • Under the UCC, an express warranty is created by any of the following: (1) an affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer relating to the goods that becomes the basis of the bargain."

But when customers are victimized by dishonest Windermere brokers and agents, and complain in writing through legal counsel to franchiser Windermere Services Company, it is absolutely silent in the face of clear and convincing evidence, and forces the customer to sue or go away. In many cases, unsuspecting consumer lives are thrown into complete chaos through costly litigation; and also because the subject homes may actually be uninhabitable or unserviceable for reasons about which Windermere knew and had a legal obligation to disclose—but did not. For some victims, the long and expensive litigation forced upon them even results in bankruptcy and homelessness. Despite their clear evidence, many victims go on to lose in court because they can't afford attorneys or have no legal experience, and Windermere exploits those impediments to endless advantage—lives, homes, and personal finances are ruined forever. And Windermere expects those victims to just go away without their lives and homes, merely for buying a house through Windermere Real Estate, innocently.

Although such irrefutable evidence of Windermere broker/agent misconduct has been presented to franchiser Windermere Services Company, it knowingly continues collecting commissions from dishonest agents and brokers by deliberately passing them on to other unwitting consumers. Just one example is Windermere S.C.A. Redmond's Paul Stickney, who received a $522,200 court judgment for not disclosing a conflict of interest, but is still producing commissions for his Windermere SCA franchise, and Windermere Services Company. Is that the "Highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity?" You may want to search and visit more websites about Windermere's predatory business conduct.

When victims use the media to report their Windermere experiences honestly, Windermere sues them for libel and defamation through false lawsuits to intimidate, silence, and hush bad PR—read one of those lawsuits here. It then tries to coerce victims into signing a “dark clause settlement agreement” that permanently terminates their speech rights—read some of those "settlement" agreements here. Through an expensive and emotionally distressing roller coaster ride with Windermere's nasty Demco lawyers, a victim of Windermere fraud is told they will be taken all the way to trial on trumped-up libel and defamation charges, and if they don't sign the dark clause, their life and future will be ruined. When a victim persists in refusing to sign, Windermere voluntarily dismisses its own lawsuit under Civil Rule 41, just before trial, after costing the victim years and yet thousands more to defend against the false action. This predatory legal tactic is known as abuse of process or malicious prosecution. In one example cited below, franchiser Windermere Services Company served an outspoken victim a lawsuit for libel and defamation, and then immediately sent them an email instructing that they "...need not hire an attorney," and further stating, “…we will try to resolve this directly and outside the legal system.”

Every Windermere office in every state is legally tied to franchiser Windermere Services Company's fraudulent express warranty, false advertising, predatory conduct and policies through privity and its pecuniary franchise agreement. Some legal observers believe that Windermere's conduct has RICO and Civil Rights violation implications. If you have recently purchased a Windermere franchise without having been disclosed Windermere's falling brand value, PR decline, and its adverse website problems, click here for its duty of disclosure under Federal Trade Commission rules. Proof that Windermere Services Company knew about WindermereWatch.com in March of 2007 is in this document.

Windermere Real Estate is a textbook corporate predator who operates franchises in Washington State, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii and British Columbia. Windermere repeatedly makes the false claim that it has offices in Wyoming, but it does not. If you’re buying or selling property through ANY Windermere office, a percentage from your transaction will be used by franchiser Windermere Services Company to silence and financially ruin innocent parties who’ve encountered Windermere fraud. Windermere won't pay legitimate damages or acknowledge wrongdoing, and will stall settlement of cases all the way to state supreme courts, a legal strategy that Windermere routinely employs to bankrupt victims and exhaust their resources.

We believe the information presented here is of profound social benefit to consumers and the community, and we are dedicated to providing it.

THROUGH FEES AND COMMISSIONS PAID TO FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY, EVERY WINDERMERE NETWORK OFFICE IN EVERY STATE IS AN ENTHUSIASTIC PARTNER AND KNOWING ACCESSORY TO WINDERMERE MARKETING FRAUD AND ITS PREDATORY POLICIES

(Back to top)