Crowley Sex Trafficking & Forced Labor Lawsuit: PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CROWLEY MARITIME’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT THE DEPOSITION OF CEO Tom CROWLEY, JR
June 16, 2023—Jacksonville, Florida
The complete PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT THE DEPOSITION OF CEO THOMAS B. CROWLEY, JR. can be found here in pdf format, and can be read below in its entirety:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
VANESSA TREMINIO,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO.: 3:22-cv-174-MMH-PDB
CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION,
and JUAN EMILIO BLANCO,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT THE DEPOSITION OF CEO THOMAS B. CROWLEY, JR.
This is a case about allegations of sexual abuse, sex trafficking, and forced labor at Crowley Maritime Corporation (“Crowley”) stemming from Plaintiff’s alleged workplace sexual assault by her supervisor, and her subsequent alleged rape by the same supervisor on a business trip in 2017. This case is also about prior and subsequent coverups by Crowley regarding Plaintiff’s alleged rape, and the actions Crowley took in response to Plaintiff’s allegations, from 2017 until she was terminated in 2021, and from the time of her termination until the time this lawsuit was filed. Many of the employees and senior managers involved no longer work at Crowley. However, CEO Thomas B. Crowley, Jr. (“Mr. Crowley”) was the leader of Crowley when all of the alleged events occurred, and today he remains in complete control of the company. Mr. Crowley has even met the Plaintiff, and he has personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual assault and rape by her supervisor. Crowley CEO Mr. Crowley should be deposed because he has unique firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in the case and Plaintiff has exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods.
There is no dispute that in 2017, Plaintiff reported to a senior Crowley executive that she had been raped by her supervisor on a business trip, shortly after the alleged rape occurred at a hotel in Jacksonville, Florida. Crowley’s reaction was a combination of lies, intentional violations of company policies, breaches of the terms of multi-billion-dollar government contracts, deliberate coverups of serious sex crime allegations, and unlawful conduct. This case has become one of the most high-profile and high-stakes lawsuits in which Crowley Maritime Corporation has ever found itself involved, and there are literally billions of dollars in contracts with the United States government potentially at stake in the outcome. Through all of this, the buck stops with Mr. Crowley.
As the party seeking to prevent Mr. Crowley’s deposition, Defendant Crowley Maritime Corporation (“Crowley”) carries a heavy burden to show why discovery should be denied. Crowley has not carried that burden. Instead, Crowley has engaged in systematic obstruction, trying to stifle the Plaintiff and impede discovery at every turn with motions for protective orders (ECF Nos. 42, 53, 60, 65).
The Court’s January 5, 2023 Order on the Motions to Dismiss (“Order,” ECF No. 34) helped frame the scope of discovery in this case. The Court recognized that Plaintiff’s allegations were “sufficient to raise a reasonable inference that Crowley knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact that any future sex act would be commercial in nature because something of value was being given on account of the sex act.” Order, p. 12. The Court has expressly emphasized that Crowley’s conduct, even after the alleged rape, has bearing on whether Crowley knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact that a combination of force, fraud, or coercion would cause Plaintiff to engage in a commercial sex act:
Indeed, this inference is strengthened by Treminio’s allegation that Lopez did, in fact, offer Treminio continued employment in exchange for silence about Blanco’s rape in Jacksonville. See id. ¶ 50. Based on these allegations about Blanco, Najera, and Lopez’s conduct, the Court finds that Treminio’s allegations, taken as true, raise a reasonably plausible inference that Crowley knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact that Blanco would use force to cause Treminio to engage in a commercial sex act.
Treminio v. Crowley Mar. Corp., 3:22-CV-174-MMH-PDB, 2023 WL 113565, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2023), Order, p.12.
Mr. Crowley’s deposition is likely to produce new evidence. The apex doctrine recognizes the distinctive positions of high-ranking corporate executives, “in the absence of a showing that the individual possesses relevant evidence which is not readily obtainable from other sources.” Moore v. Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 3:09-CV-298-J-34TEM, 2010 WL 11505066, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2010). Depositions of top corporate executives are not per se prohibited, but “courts frequently restrict efforts to depose senior executives where the party seeking the deposition can obtain the same information through a less intrusive means, or where the party has not established that the executive has some unique knowledge pertinent to the issues in the case.” Maronda Homes, Inc. of Fla. v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., No. 6:14-CV-1287-ORL-31, 2015 WL 1565299, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2015).
Here, Mr. Crowley has unique personal knowledge regarding the conduct of Arthur LaMoureaux, a current Crowley employee and Crowley’s former Vice President of Internal Audit, Ethics and Compliance. Mr LaMoureaux reported directly to Mr. Crowley, and it is Mr. LaMoureaux to whom Plaintiff directly reported the alleged rape in 2017. Although Defendant Crowley disputes the extent of Mr. Crowley’s involvement and the extent of his knowledge regarding the matters at issue, it cannot be said that Mr. Crowley does not have any direct knowledge of the facts. What is more, it is completely appropriate to compel his deposition since, as Crowley concedes, Plaintiff has already deposed lesser-ranking former employees who may have more direct knowledge than Mr. Crowley. See McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 2006 WL 5359797, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2006) (“An officer at the apex of the corporation can only be deposed if he or she has unique knowledge or the subject matter requested in deposition was pursued unsatisfactorily through less intrusive means.”)
The parties are in agreement that Plaintiff reported her alleged rape to Crowley via Vice President Arthur LaMoureaux in late 2017, shortly after the alleged rape occurred. However, there is a contentious dispute between the parties about what LaMoureaux did with that information, whom he told, when he told them, and the actions Crowley took in response. As set forth in detail below, Mr. Crowley has direct and unique personal knowledge about important matters in dispute which justify having his deposition taken. See, e.g., Jernigan v. Scholastic, Inc., 6:17-CV-2039-Orl-37KRS, 2018 WL 11323497, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2018) (allowing the Plaintiff to take the deposition of the President of the Defendant corporation due to the individual’s personal knowledge about matters in dispute). As Mr. Crowley stated in his sworn declaration submitted to this court in support of Defendant Crowley’s motion for a protective order, he has served as “Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer for Crowley…for approximately twenty-nine (29) years.” (Exhibit 1).
The company Mr. Crowley has led for nearly three decades bears his name, and he therefore personally embodies his company in a way that is not typical for the CEO of comparably sized public or private corporations. Mr. Crowley also wields power over potentially every aspect of his company. Today, the website of Crowley Maritime Corporation states, “The company is wholly and privately owned by the Crowley family and Crowley employees.”[1] In 2007 it was reported that Mr. Crowley was himself also Crowley’s controlling shareholder, then holding a reported 65.2 percent of the company’s outstanding common stock,[2] likely giving him full voting control of the corporation, and absolute power over the operation of his company within the boundaries of the law.In his sworn declaration submitted to this court in support of Crowley’s motion for a protective order, Mr. Crowley stated, “I am not personally involved in the day-to-day management of Crowley’s non-senior leadership employees or operations.” (Exhibit 1).
As a result of depositions of former Crowley employees and written discovery exchanged, there are important facts at issue in this case involving Mr. Crowley’s unique firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge of Mr. Crowley’s operational management of, and dealings with, senior Crowley leader Arthur LaMoureaux.
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she reported that she had been raped by former Crowley employee and Co-Defendant Juan Emilio Blanco to Blanco’s supervisor Jose V. Lopez, and later to Crowley’s Vice President of Internal Audit, Ethics and Compliance Arthur LaMoureaux:
“… Mrs. Treminio called Arthur LaMoureaux, Crowley’s Vice President of Ethics and Compliance. Mrs. Treminio reported being raped by Juan Emilio Blanco, and also detailed how she had been treated by Jose Lopez and a female Crowley employee when she went to Crowley headquarters to report the rape. (Amended Complaint ¶ 64)
Defendant Crowley has acknowledged, in its response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, that LaMoureaux “was aware of Plaintiff's allegation that she was sexually assaulted by Defendant Blanco during a trip to Jacksonville in November 2017 pursuant to a conversation with Plaintiff in or around December 2017 or January 2018…” (Exhibit 2)
In his deposition in this case, Mr. LaMoureaux testified that Plaintiff called him on his cell phone in November or December of 2017 and reported that she had been raped by her supervisor, Co-Defendant Juan Emilio Blanco, in a hotel in Jacksonville, Florida during a business trip. In his deposition, LaMoureaux was asked about this phone call:
Q: Was she crying at the time when she was talking to you?
A: I remember she was sentimental and -- and she was broken. She seemed to be crying.
Q: She was broken?
A: You know, she was hurting.
LaMoureaux Dep. 285:9–14 (Exhibit 3)
In his deposition in this case, Mr. LaMoureaux was also asked if he believed Plaintiff when she reported to him that Blanco had raped her:
Q: Did you believe her?
A: I did at the time, you know. I thought -- I didn't do an investigation, but she -- I thought she was sincere, you know.
LaMoureaux Dep. 223:17-20 (Exhibit 3)
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that after being asked by Mr. LaMoureaux for permission to investigate her rape allegations, and after giving Mr. LaMoureaux permission, LaMoureaux called Plaintiff approximately two weeks later to follow-up on their first conversation. According to her Amended Complaint:
“About two weeks after she reported her rape and the aftermath to Arthur LaMoureaux, Mrs. Treminio was still in Puerto Rico when she received a call from LaMoureaux. First, LaMoureaux apologized for what had happened to her in Jacksonville. Then LaMoureaux told Mrs. Treminio that Crowley’s investigation was able to prove that Mrs. Treminio was telling the truth about being raped by Juan Emilio Blanco. Accordingly, Crowley had decided to terminate the employment of Juan Emilio Blanco and two additional employees.” (Amended Complaint ¶ 66)
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also alleges that during their second conversation, LaMoureaux silenced her and told her not to notify Crowley Human Resources regarding her rape allegation:
“LaMoureaux admonished Mrs. Treminio not to file a complaint with Crowley HR regarding her rape or the cover up, and he told her that his investigation would be the final word on the matter. He refused to provide Mrs. Treminio a copy of the investigation report, any paperwork relating to the investigation, or any proof of the action Crowley had taken as a result of the investigation. LaMoureaux told Mrs. Treminio that she was not entitled to any of those documents and that she had “no rights under the ethics investigation process.” (Amended Complaint ¶ 70)
“Before Mr. LaMoureaux ended his call with Mrs. Treminio, he had a final intimidating message. He told Mrs. Treminio that if her story ever became public, it could severely damage the company’s reputation and tarnish its relationship with the U.S. government, which was one of the company’s largest and most important customers. In that call, Mr. LaMoureaux specifically mentioned Crowley’s “Defense Freight Transportation Services (DFTS)” contracts, which were worth billions of dollars...” (Amended Complaint ¶ 71)
However, during his deposition in the case, Mr. LaMoureaux made extraordinary sworn statements regarding what he claimed was the only conversation he had with Plaintiff regarding her rape allegations. In LaMoureaux’s sworn accounting of their first conversation, Plaintiff reported her rape to Crowley’s highest ranking “Ethics” executive, but then “begged” him not to tell anyone:
A: I remember telling her, "I'm so sorry that this happened to you, Vanessa," you know. And I told her, "Vanessa, we need to report this to HR. This is a serious allegation that you're making here." And, you know, "They're the ones that need to look into this. And I think we need to go to HR. You have to go to HR." And her response at the time was, "I do not -- Arthur, I beg you. Do not tell anybody because I don't want my reputation damaged." And, you know, I felt like I had this big secret to keep, and I, you know -- and basically that was the -- that was the gist of the conversation that first time that we talked.
LaMoureaux Dep. 34:20-25 (Exhibit 3)
Later in his deposition, Mr. LaMoureaux was asked if, at the time she reported her rape to LaMoureaux, he thought that Plaintiff wanted to continue working for Blanco after she had alleged that Blanco raped her. LaMoureaux testified that Plaintiff made it clear that she did not:
Q: Okay. So at that moment, did you think that Ms. Treminio would want to continue working for -- for Juan Blanco?
A: No. I think she made it clear to me when she spoke to me the first time that she did not want to work for him, you know, that -- that she wanted to not have to travel with him, and she didn't want to report to him.
LaMoureaux Dep. 332:10-17 (Exhibit 3)
Yet, Mr. LaMoureaux was never able to explain how Plaintiff, who at the time of their first call was still being supervised by Defendant Juan Emilio Blanco, could make it “clear” to LaMoureaux (while “crying” and seemingly “broken”) that she did not want to work for, or travel with, Blanco, while also “begging” Crowley’s highest ranking Ethics and Internal Audit executive to take no action to investigate or punish Blanco for the rape or to remove him as her supervisor.
It is undisputed that Mr. LaMoureaux felt Plaintiff’s allegations of rape were “serious” and “sincere,” yet he testified that he did not conduct any investigation into Plaintiff’s allegations of being raped by her supervisor. Mr. LaMoureaux also admitted that by not reporting Plaintiff’s rape allegation to Crowley Human Resources and by not initiating a formal investigation into Plaintiff’s claims of workplace or work-related sexual violence, he had intentionally violated Crowley’s own “Prohibiting Violence in the Workplace” policy in effect in 2017 (Exhibit 4):
Q: Yes. And then moving down to [Section] 4.2 [of Crowley’s Prohibiting Violence in the Workplace policy], which is directed to "All Crowley management is responsible for:" the following things -- but you've agreed with me that at the time of Vanessa's incident and up through December of 2021, you did consider yourself and the company considered you Crowley management; correct?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: And then 4.2.2 says, "Crowley management is responsible for: informing the human resources department and, slash" –
…
Q: "And, slash, or operational resilience." So the management is responsible for -- they must do it. It's not an option. It's not "may." It's your responsibility to inform human resources department and operational resilience, or operational resilience, or human resource department?
A: Yes.
Q: And can we agree that that was not done in Vanessa's case?
A: In Vanessa's case, like I've expressed before, she made an allegation that something happened to her. I had no proof that something did happen to her. It was just an allegation at that point. And, secondly, she begged me not to divulge what she had told me. She swore me to secrecy, basically --
Q: Okay.
A: -- that -- that --
Q: But does it say that the Crowley management can choose whether to report it based on what the -- an employee in El Salvador begs you to do? Does it say that?
A: No, it does not say that.
LaMoureaux Dep. 220:4-25, 221:1-18 (Exhibit 3)
In another deposition of a former high-ranking Crowley executive taken in this case, Crowley’s former Director of Human Resources and Vice President of People Services Tiffanny King confirmed under oath that LaMoureaux had a duty to report Plaintiff’s rape allegation to Crowley Human Resources, and that he had broken Crowley’s policies and procedures, its Code of Conduct, and the company’s Core Values by failing to report Plaintiff’s rape allegations in 2017:
Q: Okay. So what does that [Section 4.2.2 of Crowley’s Prohibiting Violence in the Workplace policy]-- doesn't this mean that all Crowley management, including people like Arthur LaMoureaux, having received a phone call from Vanessa Treminio where she alleges gender violence, sexual violence in the workplace, he had a duty, according to these policies and procedures, to inform the human resources department or -- and/or operational resilience when receiving a complaint?
A: Yes.
Q: And he did not do that; right?
A: Correct.
Q: Would it matter if he were asked to keep the -- to keep it confidential? Would that matter?
A: No.
Q: It wouldn't matter. Okay.
King Dep. 204:4-18 (Exhibit 5)
Q: Did the fact that Arthur LaMoureaux didn't divulge that information, that he withheld that information in connection with this meeting, -- did that violate Crowley's policies and procedures?
A: He had an obligation to report that to HR.
Q: And he had an opportunity to do it in connection with this meeting, in addition to other opportunities; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And he didn't do it?
A: Correct.
Q: And did that also violate the code of conduct?
A: Yes.
Q: And Crowley's core values?
A: Yes.
King Dep. 277:3-21 (Exhibit 5)
During his deposition, Mr. LaMoureaux also testified that in addition to intentionally breaking Crowley’s policies by not reporting Plaintiff’s rape allegation to Human Resources, he also never consulted with any of Crowley’s attorneys regarding the matter, never made any written notes based on the conversation, and never reduced any of the details of his conversation with Plaintiff to a writing:
Q: And she was talking to you in Spanish and she was crying?
A: Yes. She cried during the
Q: "She cried during the conversation." After the conversation, did you take any notes?
A: In all honestly, I don't think I did because it was a, you know, serious allegation and she did not want anybody to know about it. And so I doubted that I would have put it on paper to -- you know, with the risk of somebody seeing my notes or something.
Q: Okay. Did you ever have a situation where someone took your notes without permission?
A: Well, you know, we had open -- we have open spaces at Crowley. We don't have offices. So cubicles are open. And, you know, I never caught anybody looking into my stuff or whatever, but if you -- you know, anything you left on your desk or if you left your computer open, whatever, you had the chance of somebody seeing it because of the cubicles.
Q: Would taking notes have helped you recollect of these details?
A: Yeah.
Q: Did you routinely not put things in writing to prevent a paper trail?
A: No…
LaMoureaux Dep. 295:9-25, 296:1-11 (Exhibit 3)
Q: Is it best practices to put things in writing related to an investigation?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have an opportunity to put things in writing?
A: Eventually after the call, I could have probably put something in writing.
Q: Did you?
A: I don't recall. I don't recall putting anything in writing. Again, as I just said, because, you know, she wanted this to be --remain -- you know, she did not want me discussing this with anybody. She did not want me to -- to tell anybody about this.
LaMoureaux Dep. 297:11-24 (Exhibit 3)
Q: And it was a serious matter, but you didn't take any notes?
A: I did not, that I recall. And probably because I didn't have anything to take notes with at the time.
Q: Did you consult a lawyer?
A: I did not because she swore me to secrecy and she did not want me to discuss the matter with anybody, and I wanted to respect her wishes.
Q: Did you have the impression that if you said something to a lawyer, that the lawyer would violate the secrecy?
A: Well, first of all, I don't have a -- I don't know of any lawyers other than my Crowley, you know, colleagues. And I don't even know if that applies -- that secrecy applies with a colleague of mine. I don't know the legalities of it. But, no, I did not discuss it with anyone because of her wishes that I did not discuss it with anyone.
Q: And you didn't consult with Crowley's lawyers --
A: I did not.
LaMoureaux Dep. 300:2-24 (Exhibit 3)
Arthur LaMoureaux joined Crowley in 1990 as an internal auditor, and was promoted to Vice President of Internal Audit, Ethics and Compliance in March of 2010 by CEO Tom Crowley. In the press release announcing LaMoureaux’s promotion, CEO Tom Crowley said, “Given the size, scope and diversity of Crowley, we believe it is of the utmost importance to sharpen our focus even further on ethics and compliance…Arthur will be helping us expand our code of conduct, more clearly establish our confidential reporting structure, and coordinate even more training, education and communication on ethics and compliance.”[3]
Crowley’s March 22, 2010 press release announcing the promotion of LaMoureaux to Vice President of Internal Audit, Ethics and Compliance stated that LaMoureaux would “report directly to Crowley’s board of directors,”[4] of which Mr. Thomas B. Crowley, Jr. was at all times the Chairman.
LaMoureaux testified that he in fact reported “operationally” to the Audit Committee of Crowley’s full Board of Directors, of which CEO Thomas Crowley was Chairman, and administratively to Crowley Vice Chairman and Executive Vice President Bill Pennella:
Q: Okay. So at the time of this promotion to VP in 2010, were you the highest ranking executive in the internal audit department at Crowley Maritime Corporation?
A: Yes.
Q: And your title was vice president; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: So who did you report to?
A: Mr. Bill Pennella.
Q: …What was Bill Pennella's title at that time?
A: He was vice chairman -- so I reported to the audit committee operationally and to Bill Pennella administratively. So he was like the person I would go to to get vacation, you know, time off, et cetera. But functionally we had an audit committee made up of several members of the board of directors. And functionally I reported to the board of directors/audit committee.
LaMoureaux Dep. 82:19-25, 83:1-2 (Exhibit 3)
Q: So did you report to the full board of directors or only to the audit committee?
A: The audit committee.
Q: So whatever it says in this press release is incorrect?
A: Yeah. Well, my understanding has always been that I reported to the audit committee.
LaMoureaux Dep. 85:24-25, 86:1-5 (Exhibit 3)
During his deposition, LaMoureaux stated that in 2017 when many of the events at issue in this case occurred, he recalled that Crowley’s Audit Committee may have consisted of 3 members: CEO Thomas B. Crowley, Jr., one outside director, and Mike Roberts, a member of Crowley’s legal department:
Q: Okay. What about at the time of the - - incidents that we're discussing in this litigation? In 2017 who were the members of that audit committee?
A: Again, I don't know if we had already made the switch to go from the big group to -- to the smaller group. But in the smaller group, I might remember all of those. It was Mr. Tom Crowley. There was an outside member…I don't recall all of the members, to be honest with you. But there was one outside member, Tom Crowley, and Mike Roberts, I think, who was the -- he was the VP of legal. Yeah, I can't necessarily recall everyone.
Q: Okay. So operationally you reported to this audit committee?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: So operationally you reported to [CEO] Tom Crowley?
A: To the audit committee, who he was a member of.
LaMoureaux Dep. 83:15–25, 84:1-10 (Exhibit 3)
Crowley’s Audit Committee, which was led by CEO Thomas B. Crowley, Jr., was thus, according to Mr. LaMoureaux, the operational supervisor of Mr. LaMoureaux at all times during the events contained in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint—during the time that Plaintiff reported to Mr. LaMoureaux that she had been raped by her supervisor; and during the time that Mr. LaMoureaux intentionally breached company policies and concealed Plaintiff’s sincere and serious allegations of rape. Because CEO Thomas B. Crowley, Jr. was the Chairman of the Audit Committee to which LaMoureaux reported, Mr. Crowley was LaMoureaux’s operational supervisor.
In his deposition, Mr. LaMoureaux described his internal audit function, which involved producing “audit reports” based upon the work of his internal audit team. LaMoureaux stated in his sworn testimony that “So a lot of times they [the audit reports] were addressed to Mr. Tom Crowley. So they would go to him…” LaMoureaux Dep. 118:25, 119:1 (Exhibit 3). LaMoureaux also testified that he spoke to Tom Crowley and the other audit committee members about reports of harassment, hostile work environment, and sexual harassment that had been received by Crowley through its EthicsPoint complaint system in November of 2017. However, LaMoureaux claimed that he only spoke about these reports in general terms, and never told CEO Tom Crowley about the rape allegation made to him by Plaintiff Vanessa Treminio:
Q: Okay. But you wouldn’t raise it [three separate complaints about Defendant Blanco] with the audit committee?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because, again, I didn’t – I didn’t have details of any – of – you know, I only knew that there was a report. So in general terms, we could have probably – we would have – in our summary statement, we would say we had 15 reports that came in from El Salvador this year, you know, five of them were in Spanish, three were anonymous, five were people that identified themselves, three had to do with conflict of interest, five had to do with fraud. That type of thing. General, yes, we would. But specifics as to, you know, they’re claiming that this guy or that guy or whatever, we didn’t – I wouldn’t be in a position to do that because I didn’t have all the details.
LaMoureaux Dep. 92:1–19 (Exhibit 3)
It is extraordinary testimony by Mr. LaMoureaux that he attended a meeting of Crowley’s Audit Committee, where CEO and Chairman Tom Crowley was present and presiding, and spoke about complaints that had been made about Defendant Blanco in “general terms,” and yet never once mentioned the fact that LaMoureaux had received a credible allegation of rape made by a female Salvadoran employee against Blanco.
CEO Tom Crowley Jr. has unique firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge regarding the Audit Committee’s oversight and operational management of Arthur LaMoureaux and of Crowley’s internal audit functions.
CEO Tom Crowley has unique firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge regarding the reason why Crowley’s Vice President of Internal Audit, Ethics and Compliance would—for years—conceal an incredibly serious rape allegation, which has turned into a genuine crisis for Crowley Maritime Corporation, from the Audit Committee, the full Board of Directors, Crowley’s legal department, and CEO Tom Crowley Jr.
Plaintiff is entitled to ask Mr. Crowley whether it was his expectation that Mr. LaMoureaux should conceal such matters from the Audit Committee, and from him. CEO Tom Crowley has unique firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge regarding the answer to this question.
As CEO Tom Crowley Jr. stated in his sworn declaration submitted in support of Defendant Crowley’s motion for a protective order, “In or around June 2021, I received an email communication from Ms. Treminio that was addressed to me and approximately ten (10) other members of Crowley’s leadership team. I did not respond to Ms. Treminio’s email.” (Exhibit 1).
Ms. Treminio’s June 11, 2021 email to CEO Tom Crowley Jr. and other senior Crowley leaders, stated, in part:
Dear Tom Crowley and senior leadership members…In 2017 I was a victim of sexual abuse by my immediate boss on a business trip in Jacksonville, Fl. A fact that was reported to the authorities Jaqueline Najera – Manager of Human Resources El Salvador and Jose Lopez – Manager of Inland JAX) who They threatened to take away my job if I discussed it with someone else since it was putting DFTS business in risk, it was also escalated to Arthur LaMoreaux in 2017, receiving confirmation from him that they had been able to verify the facts and that they were going to proceed with the immediate dismissal of Juan Blanco who was responsible for the incident, Jose Lopez and Jaqueline Garay for cover-ups, after making my complaint with the authorities in Crowley ABSOLUTELY no one ever offered me any kind of help, they did not want to give me any document so I could proceed to sue Juan Blanco, nor did anyone within the company follow up on me case to see if I was in the process of overcoming the trauma nor was I made to sign a confidentiality agreement for the case. (Exhibit 6)
CEO Tom Crowley Jr. “did not respond to Ms. Treminio’s email.” But Plaintiff is entitled to ask Mr. Crowley what actions he did take in response to Ms. Treminio’s email. Was Mr. Crowley curious about the allegation that Ms. Treminio had been sexually abused on a Crowley business trip in 2017? Was Mr. Crowley curious about the fact that this woman was alleging that she had “escalated” the matter of her sexual abuse to Crowley Vice President Arthur LaMoreaux in 2017? Or did Mr. Crowley already know all these things? CEO Tom Crowley Jr. has unique firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge regarding the answers to these questions.
Finally, CEO Tom Crowley Jr. has unique firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge regarding the curious facts and circumstances surrounding Arthur LaMoureaux’s departure from full-time employment with Crowley on December 31, 2021, shortly after attorneys for Ms. Treminio approached attorneys for Crowley and threatened litigation against the company for the sexual abuse, forced labor, and sexual trafficking Ms. Treminio had endured while working for Crowley.
According to Mr. LaMoureaux’s testimony, the first people he told about Plaintiff’s rape allegations were outside counsel Crowley retained to defend the Company in this litigation, and Reece Alford, Crowley’s General Counsel. And instead of being fired for violating Crowley’s policies by not reporting or investigating Ms. Treminio’s rape allegation, Mr. LaMoureaux was given continued employment with the company, and a very generous compensation package, which LaMoureaux testified to during his deposition in this case:
Q: And in your current employment as – you called it a consultant with Crowley -- how -- how are you paid? Are you a salaried employee, or are you paid with different frequency depending on pending cases?
A: A salaried employee.
Q: And what's your salary as a part-time employee right now?
A: $100,000 a year.
Q: And is there a term limit on this part-time arrangement?
A: It's a five-year agreement.
Q: So it's set to expire in 2026?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, actually, let me phrase it better. What was the effective date of that five-year plan?
A: It started January 1st of '22. So five years --
Q: January of 2022?
A: Because I retired in December of 2021, yeah.
LaMoureaux Dep. 77:5–24 (Exhibit 3)
Only CEO Tom Crowley Jr. has the unique firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge regarding why Arthur LaMoureaux was rewarded for covering up Plaintiff Vanessa Treminio’s rape allegation, because only CEO Tom Crowley Jr. could have ultimately approved such an arrangement.
What is this case about? Mr. LaMoureaux answered in his own sworn testimony during his deposition in this case:
Q: Okay. What is your understanding as to what this case is about?
A: My understanding is that Ms. Vanessa Treminio is claiming that she was raped and that she feels -- or somebody feels that Crowley has some involvement in this -- or there's a conspiracy on the part of Crowley to protect the employee that supposedly raped Vanessa, and that we somehow protected him and allowed him to -- to perpetrate whatever, you know, he's alleged to have done, knowing that he was doing it and that, you know -- so basically that's basically what I understand.
LaMoureaux Dep. 67:12–23 (Exhibit 3)
Plaintiff wishes to ask CEO Tom Crowley Jr. the same question, and she also wants to ask Mr. Crowley why he never bothered to reply to her email in June of 2021, and why he never instructed anyone from Crowley to reply on his behalf.
This case alleging sex trafficking and forced labor hinges upon what Crowley and its agents knew or should have known, when they knew it, and the actions taken by Crowley, its agents, leaders, and CEO in response. Mr. Crowley possesses unique personal knowledge about hotly-contested matters in dispute in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff should be allowed to take his deposition.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Crowley’s Motion for a protective order be denied in its entirety, that Mr. Thomas B. Crowley, Jr. be required to appear for a deposition forthwith, and that Plaintiff need not give Mr. Crowley notice of his deposition fourteen days in advance because Plaintiff has already given Mr. Crowley ample notice of her intent to depose him.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ J. Ryan Melogy
J. RYAN MELOGY
pro hac vice
Maritime Legal Solutions, PLLC
276 Fifth Ave., Suite 704-1454
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (302) 827-3890
ADRIA G. NOTARI
Florida Bar No. 87272
NOTARI LAW, P.A.
1820 SW 14th Court
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
Tel: (954) 257-9028 Fax: (954) 231-1128
[1] “About Crowley: Company Overview,” Crowley.com (https://www.crowley.com/company-overview), accessed June 5, 2023.
[2] “Crowley going private after lawsuit settlement,” American Shipper, March 20, 2007 (https://www.freightwaves.com/news/crowley-going-private-after-lawsuit-settlement)
[3] “LaMoureaux Promoted to Vice President of Internal Audit, Ethics and Compliance,” Crowley.com, March 22, 2010, (https://www.crowley.com/news-and-media/press-releases/lamoureaux-promoted-to-vice-president-of-internal-audit-ethics-and-compliance), accessed June 5, 2023.
[4] “LaMoureaux Promoted to Vice President of Internal Audit, Ethics and Compliance,” Crowley Maritime Corporation, March 22, 2010 (https://www.crowley.com/news-and-media/press-releases/lamoureaux-promoted-to-vice-president-of-internal-audit-ethics-and-compliance)
Do you believe you have similar claims?
Schedule a Free Consultation
Email Help at justiceformariners dot com,
or call/text +1 (347) 562-9119