Romero-Valdez v. Parnall Law Firm, LLC

Page 1 of 54
5074300v1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DOMINIQUE ROMERO-VALDEZ, 	§
§
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	1:23-CV-01084-LF-GJF
§ 	(JURY DEMANDED)
PARNALL LAW FIRM, LLC, 	§
§
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. 	§
PRETRIAL ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. The parties conferred and
submit the following Pretrial Order.
I. APPEARANCES
Attorneys who will try this action:
For Plaintiff 	Samantha Adams
Arlyn Crow
Hannah Kohler
ADAMS +C ROW LAW FIRM
5051 Journal Center Blvd. NE, Suite 320
Albuquerque, NM 87109
(505) 582-2819
Sam@adamscrow.com
Arlyn@adamscrow.com
Hannah@adamscrow.com
For Defendant(s) 	William Gilchrist
Lisa G. Zammiello
RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, P.A.
P.O. Box 1888
Albuquerque, NM 87103
(505) 765-5900
dgilchrist@rodey.com
lzammiello@rodey.com
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 54

Page 2 of 54
5074300v1
II. JURISDICTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
A. 	Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
1. 	Was this action removed or transferred from another forum? _X_ Yes __ No
If yes, was the action removed or transferred?
____X____ Removed 	________ Transferred ________ Original forum
2. 	Is subject matter jurisdiction of this Court contested?
___X_____ Uncontested 	________ Contested 	________ Party contesting
3. 	Asserted basis for jurisdiction.
____X____ Federal Question ________ Diversity 	________ Other
Statutory Provision(s) Invoked: 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
B. 	Personal Jurisdiction and Venue.
1. 	Is personal jurisdiction contested?
___X___ Uncontested ________ Contested
Identify the party contesting personal jurisdiction and basis for objection:
__N/A__________________________________________________________________
2. 	Is venue contested?
___X___ Uncontested 	________ Contested 	________________ Party Contesting
Identify the party contesting personal jurisdiction and basis for objection:
_N/A___________________________________________________________________
C. 	Are the proper parties before the Court?
___X___ Uncontested ________ Contested
If contested, identify each missing party or improper party and the basis for contention:
_N/A___________________________________________________________________
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 54

Page 3 of 54
5074300v1
D. 	Identify the affirmative relief sought in this action.
1. 	Plaintiff seeks: Money damages and equitable relief
2. 	Defendant seeks: Money damages
III. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF CLAIMS/DEFENSES
A. 	Plaintiff’s claims:
Ms. Romero-Valdez filed this case after she was fired by Parnall Law Firm LLC (“Parnall
Law Firm” or “PLF”) in June 2023, when she was seven months pregnant and planning to take all
paid leave to which she would be entitled from PLF to give birth to her first child. That leave
would have included 6 weeks of paid maternity leave and 2 weeks of paid parental leave.
Depending upon the circumstances of the birth, Ms. Romero-Valdez may have also taken
additional unpaid leave available to her under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).
Parnall Law Firm pressured Plaintiff into supposedly “resigning” and signing a supposed release
of claims against PLF in circumstances that were both unethical and illegal. In response to
disagreement amongst PLF management as to whether it was appropriate to fire a pregnant woman
who was about to take maternity leave, PLF developed a “compromise” in which it would offer
(threaten) Ms. Romero-Valdez a “lump sum payment in exchange for the release of claims ([giving
her] maybe 24-48 hours to consider).” Alternatively, if she declined, she would have a brief amount
of time “to get her metrics caught up, and keep them up, or be terminated with no severance
package.” However, this is not the offer PLF actually presented to Ms. Romero-Valdez.
When Parnall Law Firm presented its ultimatum to Ms. Romero-Valdez via its Operations
Director, the Operations Director was threatening and intentionally excluded key factors Ms.
Romero-Valdez should have been able to consider in making her decision. The Operations
Director made it seem as though Ms. Romero-Valdez could never be successful at PLF, and
reminded her that, if she chose to stay, she could be fired at any time for any reason without any
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 54

Page 4 of 54
5074300v1
separation package at all. Despite two requests for additional time, Parnall Law Firm allowed Ms.
Romero-Valdez less than 18 hours to make her decision, leaving her without the opportunity to
consult an attorney.
Importantly, PLF did not tell Ms. Romero-Valdez she would have to agree to not sue
Parnall Law Firm in order to accept the severance pay until after Ms. Romero-Valdez said she
would resign. The supposed separation agreement was presented to Ms. Romero-Valdez while she
was visibly distraught, without any explanation, and described merely as “a paper to be signed.”
Ms. Romero-Valdez was led to believe she had to sign the separation agreement immediately, and
she did so in less than 12 minutes.
The circumstances in which Parnall Law Firm fired Ms. Romero-Valdez constitute the
following: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Violation of the Family
and Medical Leave Act and Interference with FMLA Benefits; Violations of the New Mexico
Human Rights Act, Title VII, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; Retaliation; Interference with
Rights in Violation of the HRA and Title VII/Unlawful Interference with Statutory Rights; Breach
of Contract (entitling Ms. Romero-Valdez to Recission); Negligent Misrepresentation; and Fraud.
Additionally, the separation agreement is unenforceable because (i) it is unsupported by
consideration, (ii) it contains an illegal release of claims without a severance clause, and (iii) was
obtained under duress.
Plaintiff incorporates the arguments and defenses raised in her Motions for Summary
Judgment and Replies thereto, as well as her Responses to Defendant’s Motions for Summary
Judgment [Docs. 93, 94, 95, 118, 199, 120 121, 122, 132, 133, 134]. Plaintiff also incorporates all
Requests for Admission admitted by Defendant.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 54

Page 5 of 54
5074300v1
B. 	Defendant’s defenses:
Parnall Law prides itself on providing excellent legal representation to personal injury
clients in New Mexico. It maintains high standards for its employees in order to meet the
standards it sets for itself. Plaintiff was an underperforming at-will employee who was
repeatedly counseled for not meeting the requirements of her job. Plaintiff initially worked
remotely and then as the sole member of her work group at Parnall Law in Parnall Law’s Santa
Fe office. Plaintiff did not handle the workload, job requirements, normal job stresses, and
remote work well, and Plaintiff did not improve after repeated attempts to help her meet the
requirements of her position. Parnall Law provided Plaintiff with ample training and support to
meet the requirements of her position, but Plaintiff continued to fail to meet requirements, and
her attitude was poor.
Plaintiff failed to timely open a claim for a client of Parnall Law on a “Friend of Bert”
case in June of 2023. As a result of that failure and Plaintiff’s history as an underperformer,
management at Parnall Law decided to offer Plaintiff the choice to either resign with a severance
payment or to fully commit to her position. Plaintiff chose to resign. Plaintiff signed a
Separation of Employment Agreement as part of that resignation and payment of severance, and
Parnall Law paid Plaintiff the severance payment. Parnall Law’s decision to offer Plaintiff that
choice was not motivated by any discriminatory animus, it was not based on Plaintiff’s
pregnancy, and it was not motivated by any desire to deny Plaintiff leave which she may have
been entitled to had she decided not to resign.
Parnall Law did not act in bad faith in offering Plaintiff the Separation of Employment
Agreement or in obtaining Plaintiff’s signature on that agreement. Plaintiff was not entitled to
FMLA benefits at the time she quit employment, and Parnall Law did not interfere with any such
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 5 of 54

Page 6 of 54
5074300v1
benefits, because Parnall Law offered Plaintiff the ultimatum based on her poor work
performance. Parnall Law’s decisions were made in good faith and were reasonable business
decisions.
Parnall Law’s decisions did not take place under circumstances that give rise to an
inference of discrimination. As of June 2023, Parnall Law had sufficient legitimate reasons to
make its decisions with respect to Plaintiff’s employment, and it based its decision on those
legitimate reasons, and those reasons were not a pretext for discrimination. Plaintiff did not
engage in any protected activity as that term is used in relevant statutory law, and in any event
Parnall Law’s decisions were not motivated by any such alleged activity.
To the extent Plaintiff claims she has been damaged, she has wholly failed to mitigate
such damages. She did not apply for even one similar position, and the few jobs she did apply to
were less-than-half-hearted attempts to obtain employment. To the extent Plaintiff is entitled to
damages, such damages must be reduced or eliminated.
Parnall Law hereby also incorporates all affirmative defenses raised in its Answer to
Second Amended Complaint for Damages and Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 28), as well as all
argument and defenses raised in its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 88) and the four
supporting memoranda (Docs. 89, 90, 91, 92).
C. 	Defendant’s Counterclaim:
Defendant claims that Plaintiff entered into the Separation of Employment Agreement on
June 28, 2023, that the Separation of Employment Agreement is enforceable, that the Separation
of Employment Agreement contains an agreement not to sue, and that Plaintiff breached that
agreement by filing the current lawsuit. Defendant claims that it is entitled to damages resulting
from Plaintiff’s breach.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 6 of 54

Page 7 of 54
5074300v1
D. 	Plaintiff’s Defense to Defendant’s Counterclaim:
The separation agreement is unenforceable because (i) it is unsupported by consideration,
(ii) it contains an illegal release of claims without a severance clause, and (iii) was obtained under
duress, in bad faith, and by misrepresentation. First, PLF offered Ms. Romero-Valdez two weeks’
pay in exchange for her immediate resignation, which she accepted. There was no mention of a
separation agreement or release of claims until after Ms. Romero-Valdez accepted the offer to
resign. PLF has paid Ms. Romero-Valdez the equivalent of two weeks’ pay only once, leaving the
separation agreement without consideration. Second, the release contained in the separation
agreement does not exclude employment claims that are unwaivable under the circumstances. As
there is no severance clause, the entire agreement is unenforceable. Finally, the specific
circumstances in which PLF obtained Ms. Romero-Valdez’s signature amount to duress (see
uncontested and contested issues of fact, below; see also Ms. Romero-Valdez’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment that the Separation of Employment Agreement is Unenforceable [Doc. 95]).
Ms. Romero-Valdez also incorporates the affirmative defenses asserted in her Amended
Answer to Parnall Law Firm LLC’s Counterclaim for Breach of Contract and Promissory Estoppel
[Doc. 14].
IV. FACTUAL CONTENTIONS UNDERLYING CLAIMS/DEFENSES
A. 	Stipulated Factual Contentions.
The parties agree to the following facts listed separately below:
1. 	Venue is proper in this United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
2. 	The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico has jurisdiction of the
parties and the subject matter.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 7 of 54

Page 8 of 54
5074300v1
3. 	In September 2021, Plaintiff began working for Parnall Law Firm as a Medical Records
Assistant.
4. 	In July of 2022, Plaintiff became a Legal Assistant in the Case Manager Department until
her employment with Parnall Law Firm ended on June 28, 2023.
5. 	At the time Plaintiff was employed at Parnall Law Firm, it had more than 50 employees
with offices in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Rio Rancho.
6. 	Roni Fraire was the Operations Director of Parnall Law Firm at the time Plaintiff’s
employment ended.
7. 	While 	Plaintiff 	was 	employed 	with 	Parnall 	Law 	Firm, 	Ms. 	Fraire 	had 	primary
responsibility for the hiring and firing functions for Defendant, though she does not make any
terminations without approval from Mr. Bert Parnall.
8. 	Parnall Law Firm was Plaintiff’s first job in the legal field.
9. 	In or around July 2022, Ms. Fraire offered Plaintiff a new role as Legal Assistant.
10. Plaintiff informed one of her supervisors that she was pregnant on December 31, 2022, and
her other supervisors and coworkers at Parnall Law Firm in January and February 2023.
11. On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff was seven months pregnant.
12. During the meeting on June 27, 2023, Plaintiff asked Ms. Fraire if she could give her
answer to the Ultimatum the following Monday, Ms. Fraire responded, “I wasn’t given authority
to grant a time. I granted you until tomorrow, without permission. I am scheduled to report your
answer tomorrow. I can report that you want time to consider the options, but I can’t tell you that
the offer won’t be pulled. Tell me what you’d like me to do.”
13. Ms. Fraire e-mailed Plaintiff the Separation of Employment Agreement during the Zoom
meeting on June 28, 2023.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 8 of 54

Page 9 of 54
5074300v1
14. The meeting between Defendant and Plaintiff on June 28, 2023, began at 9:00 am and the
Written Contract was signed by 9:12 am.
15. Plaintiff signed the Written Contract on June 28, 2023, within twelve minutes of Ms. Fraire
first presenting the Written Contract to her.
16. None of the employees who were fired by Defendant between May 19, 2015, and June 28,
2023, were pregnant.
17. The Written Contract includes: (i) a confidentiality provision; (ii) an attestation that
Plaintiff does not possess Firm property; (iii) a non-solicitation provision; (iv) a release of claims;
and (v) an agreement to return keys, equipment, and passwords.
18. June 28, 2023, was Plaintiff’s last day of employment at Parnall Law Firm.
19. Plaintiff gave birth to her baby on August 29, 2023.
20. Defendant paid Plaintiff a payment of six weeks of hourly wages at Plaintiff’s normal rate
of pay, in addition to other wages owed, following Plaintiff’s decision to resign from employment
at Parnall Law.
21. After her employment with Defendant was terminated, Plaintiff filed a Charge of
Discrimination against Defendant with the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions on
December 8, 2023, which was dual-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
B. 	Contested Material Facts.
1. 	Plaintiff’s Contentions:
Background Facts on Defendant Parnall Law Firm
A. In the last ten years, Parnall Law Firm has grown to employ about 105 individuals and has
set an annual revenue goal of twenty-five million dollars, a goal that has increased by about twenty
to thirty-three percent, year over year, in the last few years.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 9 of 54

Page 10 of 54
5074300v1
B. Defendant has a firm financial goal of 25 million dollars this year; last year, the goal was
20 million; in 2023, when Plaintiff was fired, the goal was 15 million; and in 2022, the goal was
less than 15 million.
C. In 2025, Parnall Law Firm is keeping up with the pace to reach its firm financial goal.
D. Over the eight years before Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant was terminated, the
firm experienced very rapid growth.
Plaintiff’s Work Performance
E. Plaintiff understood that, because her supervisor thought she did a good job in the role of
Medical Records Assistant, her supervisor also started training her as a Medical Paralegal.
F. 	While training as a Medical Paralegal, Plaintiff was also satisfactorily performing the
duties of the Medical Records Assistant.
G. There were no complaints against Plaintiff during her time as a Medical Records Assistant
or Medical Paralegal Trainee.
H. When Ms. Fraire moved Plaintiff to the role of Legal Assistant, Ms. Fraire said she was
excited for Plaintiff, thought she would do a good job, and did not express any concern about
Plaintiff’s previous work.
I. 	Ms. Brown began supervising Plaintiff shortly after Plaintiff became a Legal Assistant.
J. 	When Ms. Brown began supervising Plaintiff, Ms. Brown was new to supervising.
K. Prior to Ms. Brown, Plaintiff was supervised directly by Robin Niklinski, who was also
new to the supervisor role and who continued indirectly supervising Plaintiff after Ms. Brown took
over.
L. At the time Plaintiff worked at Parnall Law Firm, she was the only Legal Assistant who
had the responsibility of performing administrative tasks for a satellite office in Santa Fe.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 10 of 54

Page 11 of 54
5074300v1
M. Defendant was aware that Plaintiff routinely performed most of the administrative tasks
for the satellite Santa Fe office.
N. Plaintiff had a different role from any other Legal Assistant at Parnall Law Firm.
O. Defendant’s impression, evaluations and conclusions of her work performance did not
account for her work as an Office Administrator.
P. 	When attorneys or visitors were using the Santa Fe office for meetings or hearings, Plaintiff
could not make a phone call or speak out loud because she would be heard by visitors or on the
meeting or hearing.
Q. Defendant relies on the Smart Advocate Staff Performance Reports to show staff “metrics”
regarding case load and overdue tasks.
R. However, the metrics reported in the Smart Advocate Staff Performance Reports are not
entirely accurate, even if you know which roles a staff member was fulfilling.
S. 	While Plaintiff admits that Smart Advocate showed she often did not have fewer than 50
overdue tasks, it also showed that the other Legal Assistants often did not have fewer than 50
overdue tasks either.
T. 	While Plaintiff could have modified her tasks to change the deadlines, dropping her
overdue task number, as other Legal Assistants did, she did not make a practice of this.
U. On June 28, 2023, the Smart Advocate documentation showed Plaintiff had the highest
case load of all Legal Assistants.
V. Ms. Niklinski never did anything to help Plaintiff with her metrics or work performance.
W. Ms. Fraire never met with Plaintiff about her metrics or work performance.
X. Ms. Brown admits now that she would have trained Plaintiff in a different way in person.
Defendant’s Treatment of Plaintiff
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 11 of 54

Page 12 of 54
5074300v1
Y. After Plaintiff shared her pregnancy status with Defendant, management treated her more
as an annoyance than with consideration for a pregnant person who was trying to go above and
beyond, running the Santa Fe office.
Z. The tasks that Plaintiff was doing as an Administrative Assistant/Office Administrator of
the Santa Fe office never became an issue until after Plaintiff was pregnant.
AA. 	Plaintiff observed that taking over another Legal Assistant’s tasks while that Legal
Assistant was on maternity leave was stressful for Ms. Brown.
BB. 	When Plaintiff became pregnant, Ms. Brown started treating Plaintiff differently.
CC. 	If Plaintiff was late to morning huddle, typically, the reason was due to office
administrative tasks and Ms. Brown was originally very understanding but, after Plaintiff became
pregnant, this was suddenly an issue.
DD. 	Ms. Brown’s attitude worsened when Plaintiff used unpaid time off while pregnant
with COVID after Plaintiff’s doctor told her she was high risk and had to stay home and rest.
Nevertheless, Ms. Brown sent an email of reprimand to Plaintiff’s personnel file, thereafter, giving
Plaintiff no consideration that having COVID put her behind on metrics.
EE. 	Ms. Brown misled Plaintiff by saying that, “per our policy,” unpaid time was not
allowed, and a report would be placed in Plaintiff’s file for using unpaid time the week of January
30, 2023, while Plaintiff was out pregnant with COVID.
FF. But Ms. Brown was citing the new Parnall Law Firm unpaid time off policy that Plaintiff
was not given until Feb 9, 2023, two weeks after being out with COVID while pregnant.
GG. 	The old Employee Handbook did not prohibit unpaid time off.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 12 of 54

Page 13 of 54
5074300v1
HH. 	For the specific “friend of Bert” case that Defendant says was “the last straw,” with
Plaintiff, the issue creating a delay in the rental car was not solely Plaintiff’s responsibility but was
also that of the Case Manager and the Property Paralegal at the time.
II. Plaintiff could not open a claim until the assigned Case Manager completed their tasks.
Defendant’s Discipline of Plaintiff for Reporting Bullying
JJ. In early-April 2023, Plaintiff reported bullying based on emails between Plaintiff and a
coworker, Corina Hopkins, group chat messages between Ms. Hopkins and Plaintiff, and a posting
by Ms. Hopkins referencing Plaintiff.
KK. 	Ms. Fraire conducted an investigation into Plaintiff’s bullying report, but Ms. Fraire
did not interview Plaintiff or consider any of the bullying group messaging or the post when she
performed her “investigation.”
LL. 	Ms. Hopkins is a family friend of Ms. Fraire and Ms. Fraire referred Ms. Hopkins
to work at Parnall Law Firm.
MM. 	Ms. Fraire redirected only Plaintiff not Ms. Hopkins after Plaintiff reported the
bullying.
NN. 	Plaintiff didn’t think it would be productive to make a report to Mr. Parnall about
Ms. Hopkins' bullying because she felt that since Ms. Fraire, as second in command, didn’t take
Plaintiff seriously, Mr. Parnall wouldn’t take it seriously either.
Defendant’s Creation of the “Ultimatum”
OO. 	Mr. Parnall, Mr. Abel, and Ms. Fraire discussed whether to keep or fire Plaintiff
between June 12, 2023, to June 14, 2023, and they finally agreed to give Plaintiff the options “to
stay and do the job or take the money and leave.”
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 13 of 54

Page 14 of 54
5074300v1
PP. To facilitate the decision of whether to fire Plaintiff, Ms. Fraire talked to Plaintiff’s
supervisors, Ms. Brown and Ms. Niklinski, who supported terminating Plaintiff’s employment.
QQ. 	Greg Abel, an attorney who is part of the “Administrative Round Table”
management of Parnall Law Firm, was concerned about the appearance of firing Plaintiff because
she was taking maternity leave in the coming months.
RR. 	Defendant’s decision to give Plaintiff the option to resign and receive six weeks’
pay instead of firing her was “a compromise” between Mr. Abel’s concern of how the law firm
would look and Mr. Parnall’s wanting to go ahead and fire her now.
SS. The ultimatum was not even suggested until Mr. Abel communicated his concern about
firing Plaintiff before she was going on maternity leave.
TT. 	It was not until after Mr. Abel objected to firing Plaintiff because of the appearance
of terminating Plaintiff when she was pregnant that Defendant decided to obtain a release of claims
from Plaintiff.
UU. 	Defendant wanted a release of claims from Plaintiff because Mr. Abel was
concerned about how it would look for Defendant to terminate someone who was pregnant and
who was going to take maternity leave.
VV. 	Defendant decided to give Plaintiff the option of staying if she could improve her
metrics because Parnall Law Firm was concerned about how it might look to fire somebody who
was pregnant and about to take maternity leave.
The June 27, 2023, Meeting
WW. 	On June 27, 2023, Defendant knew Plaintiff was pregnant and would be taking
maternity leave in September.
XX. 	Ms. Fraire unexpectedly asked to meet with Plaintiff over Zoom on June 27, 2023.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 14 of 54

Page 15 of 54
5074300v1
YY. 	During the meeting on June 27, 2023, Defendant told Plaintiff she could either: (1)
continue to work at Parnall Law Firm, but she must 100% commit to meeting her metrics, and if
she cannot meet her metrics, she would be terminated with no separation package; or (2) Defendant
would pay Plaintiff six weeks paid hourly wages if she chose to cease working at Parnall Law Firm
now (the “Ultimatum”).
ZZ. 	Even though Mr. Parnall, Mr. Abel, and Ms. Fraire determined they would tell
Plaintiff she had until July 2023 to get her metrics up or be fired, Defendant never said that to
Plaintiff.
AAA. 	Plaintiff wanted to work until she had her baby, take all paid leave (and potentially
unpaid leave) available to her, and then return to work at Parnall Law Firm.
BBB. 	Plaintiff did not plan to stay home with baby as hers was a two-income household.
CCC. 	Plaintiff wanted more time to consider the choices presented by Defendant because
she needed to talk about it with her husband and with an attorney.
DDD. 	Originally, Defendant was going to give Plaintiff 24-48 hours to decide whether to
stay and do the job or take the money and leave, but when Ms. Fraire met with Plaintiff in the
afternoon of June 27, 2023, Plaintiff was given less than 24 hours to give an answer because Mr.
Parnall, a lawyer, expected Plaintiff to give a prompt response, which was determined to mean the
next morning.
EEE. 	When Ms. Fraire met with Plaintiff on June 27, 2023, Parnall Law Firm expected
her to resign.
FFF. 	Defendant can see how Plaintiff felt threatened on June 27, 2023, because
Defendant thought Plaintiff would believe she could never meet her metrics and should just take
the money.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 15 of 54

Page 16 of 54
5074300v1
GGG. 	Defendant is not surprised that Plaintiff felt threatened on June 27, 2023, when she
was told she was not meeting her metrics and could be fired at any time with no separation package.
The June 28, 2023, Meeting
HHH. 	Plaintiff was upset, exhausted, scared and shocked the night before her meeting
with Ms. Fraire on June 28, 2023.
III. Plaintiff’s husband left the decision up to her, but they had stayed up the night before the
June 28, 2023, meeting, reviewing their bills and trying to figure out what they would do if Plaintiff
lost her job.
JJJ. 	Plaintiff was hoping maybe she had misunderstood Ms. Fraire the day before during
their meeting and that Defendant would let her stay, but Ms. Fraire’s appearance and demeanor
during the meeting made it clear that she was not going to accept anything other than for Plaintiff
to quit.
KKK. 	Even on the morning of June 28, 2023, Plaintiff was not sure what her decision
would be.
LLL. 	Plaintiff told Ms. Fraire she wished she could have more time, but Ms. Fraire did
not say anything.
MMM. 	When Plaintiff said she was feeling like the safer choice was to quit, Ms. Fraire
agreed. Plaintiff then knew she would be fired if she did not quit, and she almost expected to be
fired that minute if she did not.
NNN. 	So, during the meeting on June 28, 2023, Plaintiff felt pressured to resign and
ultimately determined that conceding to resign was the safer option.
OOO. 	Plaintiff did not want to quit working at Parnall Law Firm, but she felt pressured to
resign and did so.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 16 of 54

Page 17 of 54
5074300v1
PPP. 	Based on Ms. Fraire’s threatening tone and words, Plaintiff firmly believed she
would be terminated without any payment if she stayed working at Parnall Law Firm.
QQQ. 	When Plaintiff said she would resign, Ms. Fraire said, “I told you this job isn’t for
everybody. Maybe you’ll have a better time being a stay-at-home mom.”
RRR. 	When, on June 28, 2023, Plaintiff told Defendant that she would resign and take
the six weeks paid hourly wages, she did not agree to release claims against Parnall Law Firm or
sign a release of claims against Parnall Law Firm as the issue had never even been raised, and
Plaintiff was not expecting to be asked to do so nor had she any idea that she would be forced to
do so after having already accepted the stated terms from the day before.
SSS. 	It was only after Plaintiff told Defendant that she would take the second option that
Defendant said it “was going to send her this paper to be signed,” and that she would be
disconnected from the system, and that “she had to sign if that was the option she was taking.”
TTT. 	It was not until after she accepted the offer from the day before, Plaintiff realized
she was expected to sign a paper in order to receive the money.
UUU. 	Plaintiff believed she had to sign the Written Contract before she was kicked off
the Parnall Law Firm system, and recalls Ms. Fraire telling her that would happen in about five
minutes.
VVV. 	After Ms. Fraire sent the Written Contract to Plaintiff, Ms. Fraire watched her as
Plaintiff tried to read it.
WWW. 	Because she was so stressed and upset, trying to not break down crying, Plaintiff
did not really know what she was looking at when looking at the Written Contract.
XXX. 	After Plaintiff signed and sent back the Written Contract, she was kicked off the
system about five minutes later.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 17 of 54

Page 18 of 54
5074300v1
YYY. 	Plaintiff thought that signing the Written Contract was just part of the normal
procedure for when someone is getting terminated and that it meant she understood Parnall Law
Firm was terminating her.
ZZZ. 	If Plaintiff had known that she was releasing her discrimination claims against
Parnall Law Firm, she would not have signed the Written Contract.
AAAA. 	Prior to Plaintiff, Defendant had not asked a non-attorney employee to sign a
release of claims in about eight years.
BBBB. 	After May 19, 2015, Defendant did not require any terminated non-attorney
employee, except Plaintiff, to sign a release of claims in order to get some kind of severance.
CCCC. 	While working at Parnall Law Firm, Plaintiff did not work with settlement
agreements or releases of claims.
DDDD. 	Prior to this lawsuit, Plaintiff was not familiar, nor did she have any experience
with employment law or claims of discrimination, retaliation, or the Family Medical Leave Act
(“FMLA”).
EEEE. 	It is not required to ask for FMLA and Parnall Law Firm does not specifically
require an employee to ask for Parental Leave in order to take it.
FFFF. 	Prior to conceding to resign and signing the Written Contract, Plaintiff was never
informed by anyone at Parnall Law Firm about her FMLA, maternity or parental leave rights.
GGGG. 	Now, Parnall Law Firm automatically informs pregnant women of their FMLA,
maternity and parental leave rights when the Firm Administrator is informed of the pregnancy.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 18 of 54

Page 19 of 54
5074300v1
The Separation of Employment Agreement (“Written Contract”)
HHHH. 	Other than stating that unemployment claims are excluded, the release language in
the Written Contract does not identify what rights Plaintiff had, nor did it explain which rights
were purportedly being waived.
IIII. 	The release language in the Written Contract was intended by Parnall Law Firm to
include charges of discrimination with the Human Rights Bureau and EEOC.
JJJJ. 	Mr. Abel believes the Written Contract was too simplistic and inadequate as a
release.
KKKK. 	In the offer made on June 27, 2023, there was no mention of “release of claims.”
LLLL. 	When Defendant made the verbal offer to Plaintiff on June 27, 2023, Defendant did
not include in the offer that Plaintiff would have to sign a Separation of Employment Agreement
if she wanted to accept the offer to resign in exchange for six weeks paid hourly wages.
MMMM. When Defendant made the offer on June 27, 2023, Defendant did not include in the
offer that Plaintiff would have to release claims against Parnall Law Firm if she wanted to accept
the offer to resign in exchange for six weeks of paid hourly wages.
NNNN. 	When Defendant made the offer on June 27, 2023, Defendant did not include in the
offer that Plaintiff would have to agree not to bring a lawsuit against Parnall Law Firm if she
wanted to accept the offer to resign in exchange for six weeks of paid hourly wages.
OOOO. 	Parnall Law Firm did not, at any time, tell Plaintiff to consult with an attorney
before making a decision on the offer presented on June 27, 2023.
PPPP. 	Plaintiff had less than 18 hours to consider the options presented by Ms. Fraire on
June 27, 2023.
QQQQ. 	Ms. Fraire did not offer to review the Written Contract with Plaintiff.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 19 of 54

Page 20 of 54
5074300v1
RRRR. 	Defendant did not, at any time, tell Plaintiff to consult with an attorney before
signing the Written Contract.
SSSS. 	The Written Contract does not state that the releasor has had the opportunity to
consult with an attorney.
TTTT. 	Plaintiff did not consult with an attorney prior to conceding to resign or signing the
Written Contract, so did not receive the benefit of counsel prior to the same.
UUUU. 	Defendant did not explain to Plaintiff during the June 27, 2023, or June 28, 2023,
meetings what Plaintiff’s rights are under the FMLA, NMHWA, NMHRA, or PLF’s own policies
and procedures (e.g., Maternity Leave, Parental Leave, Paid-Time Off).
VVVV. 	The Written Contract makes no mention of resignation.
WWWW. The Written Contract does not indicate that it supersedes or replaces all other verbal
and written agreements.
XXXX. 	The Written Contract does not contain a Savings Clause or indicate that, if any part
of the Written Contract is legally unenforceable, that the remainder of it is still valid and
enforceable.
After Termination
YYYY. 	If Plaintiff had delivered her baby on June 27, 2023, she would have been entitled
6 weeks of paid Maternity Leave, 2 weeks of paid Parental Leave, all remaining Paid-Time Off,
and all of her remaining paid leave under the New Mexico Healthy Workplaces Act.
ZZZZ. 	After Plaintiff was terminated, Parnall Law Firm reassigned Ms. Brown to work
out of the Santa Fe office.
AAAAA. 	When Ms. Brown was reassigned by Parnall Law Firm to work in the Santa Fe
office, she was not pregnant.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 20 of 54

Page 21 of 54
5074300v1
BBBBB. 	Plaintiff has not spent the money Defendant gave her and is prepared to return it
because she believes the way in which Defendant handled her termination was not right.
CCCCC. 	In her Charge of Discrimination, Plaintiff specifically stated: "Parnall Law Firm
illegally discriminated against Dominique in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act and
violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 to prohibit sex discrimination based on pregnancy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e.”
DDDDD. 	Plaintiff disputes all facts asserted by Defendant.
2. 	Defendant’s Contentions:
A) 	In 2021, after Plaintiff had relocated to Santa Fe, Plaintiff, who had never worked
at a law firm, was told by her mother, who works at Parnall Law, to apply to work at Parnall
Law.
B) 	In August of 2021, Plaintiff applied to Parnall Law and underwent an intensive,
weeks-long interview process before being offered the position of Medical Records Assistant in
mid-September, 2021.
C) 	Plaintiff began work as a Medical Records Assistant on or about September 17,
2021.
Plaintiff’s Training as a Medical Records Assistant
D) 	Upon hire, Plaintiff was trained on Parnall Law’s policies and procedures, and she
signed an acknowledgement of receipt of Parnall Law’s Employee Handbook on September 17,
2021, and an acknowledgement of understanding on September 20, 2021.
E) 	Parnall Law’s Employee Handbook informed Plaintiff about Parnall Law’s “Core
Values,” Talent, Teamwork, Truth, Tenacity, and Triumph, and it made clear that Plaintiff’s
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 21 of 54

Page 22 of 54
5074300v1
employment at Parnall Law would be “on an ‘at-will’ basis and may be terminated by Parnall
Law or the employee at any time for any reason.”
F) 	Parnall Law’s Employee Handbook identified Parnall Law’s attendance policy, as
well as its Paid Time Off policy and Parental and Maternity Leave policies.
G) 	During her initial training, Plaintiff received training on attendance at daily
required meetings.
Plaintiff’s Work as a Medical Records Assistant
H) 	Plaintiff’s supervisor when she was a Medical Records Assistant was Eric Doyle.
I) 	Mr. Doyle did not regularly review Plaintiff’s work, as expected by Parnall Law,
and after Mr. Doyle’s employment with Parnall Law was terminated, Parnall Law had little
information from which to judge Plaintiff’s work as a Medical Records Assistant, and no one
available to supervise Plaintiff in that position.
J) 	Although Mr. Doyle did not regularly review or report on Plaintiff’s work,
Plaintiff did complete her initial three-month self-evaluation on December 20, 2021, and in his
evaluation, Mr. Doyle indicated in the “Evaluation by Team Lead” section that they would
“continue to our goal of getting your task list down further.”
Plaintiff’s Move to the Santa Fe Office
K) 	Plaintiff initially performed work from her home in Santa Fe, and when Parnall
Law opened an office in Santa Fe, Plaintiff helped establish that office and then began working
from that office. Plaintiff had a desk, computer, and phone in the Santa Fe office and was
working in that office daily, before she became a Legal Assistant in July of 2022.
L) 	Plaintiff performed significant work helping Parnall Law move into the Santa Fe
office and establish that office between September of 2021, when Parnall Law initially leased the
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 22 of 54

Page 23 of 54
5074300v1
Santa Fe office and the end of 2021, when the office had been furnished, suitable for work.
Plaintiff continued to work “remotely,” as the only member of the Case Manager Team in the
Santa Fe office. Following her movement to the Legal Assistant role, Plaintiff did perform some
administrative tasks in connection with the Santa Fe office, but Plaintiff was never assigned to be
the administrator of that office, and the expectation from Parnall law was that Plaintiff would
complete the tasks required in her Legal Assistant position.
M) 	Ultimately, Parnall Law firm management moved another individual, attorney
David Link, into the Santa Fe office, to ensure that Plaintiff was not alone in the office, because
she had indicated that she did not feel fully comfortable working in the Santa Fe office alone.
N) 	David Link was not Plaintiff’s supervisor, nor did he oversee or have direct
knowledge of Plaintiff’s work.
Plaintiff’s Move to Legal Assistant
O) 	Because Parnall Law did not have a clear record of Plaintiff’s work as a legal
assistant, and because there was no one in the Medical Records Team to supervise and continue
to train Plaintiff, Ms. Fraire offered Plaintiff the position of Legal Assistant, within the Case
Manager Team, which Plaintiff accepted.
P) 	Plaintiff began training for the position of Legal Assistant in July of 2022, while
transitioning from her work as a Medical Records Assistant.
Q) 	During her training for the Legal Assistant position, Plaintiff received training on
attendance at daily required meetings. Plaintiff also received training on opening insurance
claims “(Don’t take no for an answer).”
R) 	Plaintiff received a Legal Assistant job description as part of her training (referred
to as a “scorecard” by Parnall Law). That Legal Assistant scorecard specified that a Legal
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 23 of 54

Page 24 of 54
5074300v1
Assistant “must,” among other tasks: (i) “[a]ttend weekly firm wide huddle every Monday
morning at 8:00”; (ii) “[a]ttend daily team mini huddle Tuesday through Friday at 8:00 am”; (iii)
“[o]pening all UM/UIM claims within 1 day of signed retainer; (iv) “[o]pening all Liability
claims within 1 day of receipt of liability information from police report or IPRA”; and (v)
“[e]nsure overdue tasks never exceed 50.” Further, that Legal Assistant scorecard specified that
it was part of a Legal Assistant’s “Duties/Responsibilities” to “[c]omplete all CM/paralegal
requests accurately and promptly.”
S) 	Plaintiff’s initial supervisor was her Team Lead, Robin Niklinski.
T) 	In September of 2022, Robin Niklinski was promoted to Team Director of the
Case Manager Team, and a Case Manager, JaNeisha Brown, was promoted to the Team Lead
position on September 12, 2022, supervising Plaintiff’s work from that point forward.
U) 	After a period during which both Plaintiff and JaNeisha Brown settled into their
new positions, JaNeisha Brown regularly “tweeked” with Plaintiff, which meant that she met
with Plaintiff at least every two weeks to discuss Plaintiff’s work output – her metrics – and
timeliness of her task completion. Tweeking is a term used by Parnall Law to indicate regular
meetings, held every two weeks – literally shorthand for “two-weekers” – although a supervisor
might hold a tweek at any time.
V) 	On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff received and acknowledged an updated Employee
Handbook for Parnall Law. That updated Employee Handbook contained an updated Vision
Statement, indicating that Parnall Law sought “[t]o be the most respected and trusted personal
injury firm across New Mexico.” It contained the same Core Values as the previous version of
the Employee Handbook. It reiterated that Plaintiff’s employment was “on an ‘at-will’ basis and
may be terminated by Parnall Law or the employee at any time for any reason.” And it
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 24 of 54

Page 25 of 54
5074300v1
contained an updated “Presence/Absence” section, detailing attendance requirements, Paid Time
Off policy, Maternity Leave, Parental Leave, Family Medical Act Leave, and a then-new section
separating out earned sick leave under the New Mexico Healthy Workplaces Act.
Parnall Law’s Measurement of and Use of Metrics
W) 	Parnall Law utilizes a computer-based case management platform called Smart
Advocate. Through that platform, Parnall Law assigns tasks on a particular case to a particular
job position.
X) 	Legal Assistants are assigned cases alphabetically and randomly through Smart
Advocate based on the first letter of the last name of the client. A particular Legal Assistant
may, for instance, be assigned to cases with clients whose names begin with A through D.
Y) 	Once a case is assigned to a Legal Assistant, the tasks associated with Legal
Assistants automatically populate into Smart Advocate as tasks assigned to that Legal Assistant.
Each task automatically identifies a due date, based on requirements for that task.
Z) 	Legal Assistants are assigned approximately 10 tasks per case, including opening
claims with the insurance company. Opening claims is thought to be the most important task
assigned to a Legal Assistant, and Parnall Law requires that liability claims are opened “within 1
day of receipt of liability information from police report or IPRA” and “UM/UIM claims within
1 day of signed retainer.”
AA) 	Once a Legal Assistant completes all assigned tasks on a case, Smart Advocate
still records them as being assigned to that case, even though there are no further Legal Assistant
tasks to complete on that case. Accordingly, the assigned cases number on Smart Advocate does
not provide accurate information concerning the number of cases on which a Legal Assistant
may have active work. Further, Legal Assistants who have only been working in that role for a
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 25 of 54

Page 26 of 54
5074300v1
short period will show a smaller number of assigned cases, whereas Legal Assistants who have
been working longer will show a larger number of assigned cases.
AB) 	When a Legal Assistant completes a task, the Legal Assistant marks the task as
complete. If a Legal Assistant cannot complete a task by the deadline, the task will either be
identified as “overdue” or the Legal Assistant can modify the task and manually extend the
deadline. If the Legal Assistant modifies a task, it will be identified as “modified.”
AC) 	During the time that Plaintiff worked in the Case Manager Team, the Team had a
goal to try to keep overdue tasks below 50.
JaNeisha Brown’s Supervision of Plaintiff as Her Team Lead
AD) 	During JaNeisha Brown’s tenure as Team Lead during Plaintiff’s employment at
Parnall Law, through June 28, 2023, Ms. Brown supervised a total of four Legal Assistants,
including: (i) Dominique Romero, beginning September 12, 2022; (ii) Esteban Marulanda,
beginning September 12, 2022; (iii) Edgar Ortiz, beginning March 7, 2023, and ending May 8,
2023; and (iv) Jenny Montoya, beginning March 22, 2023.
AE) 	During JaNeisha Brown’s tenure as Team Lead during Plaintiff’s employment at
Parnall Law, through June 28, 2023, Plaintiff rarely kept her overdue tasks below 50, and
JaNeisha Brown tweeked with Plaintiff on that issue, as well as opening claims timely and
appearing for morning huddles on time, and coached with Plaintiff on those issues on a number
of occasions, including: (i) October 28, 2022; (ii) November 10, 2022; (iii) November 15, 2022;
(iv) December 14, 2022; (v) December 29, 2022; (vi) January 3, 2023; (vii) January 25, 2023;
(viii) February 8, 2023; February 16, 2023 (ix) February 21, 2023; (x) February 24, 2023; (xi)
March 22, 2023; (xii) April 5, 2023; (xiii) April 19, 2023; (xiv) May 3, 2023; (xv) May 4, 2023;
(xvi) May 16, 2023; (xvii) June 13, 2023; and (xviii) June 16, 2023.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 26 of 54

Page 27 of 54
5074300v1
AF) 	During JaNeisha Brown’s tenure as Team Lead during Plaintiff’s employment at
Parnall Law, through June 28, 2023, Plaintiff consistently had the worst or among the worst
metrics of the Legal Assistants Ms. Brown supervised. Ms. Brown worked to try to help
Plaintiff meet her metrics consistently, even assisting on completing tasks on Plaintiff’s task list.
AG) 	During JaNeisha Brown’s tenure as Team Lead during Plaintiff’s employment at
Parnall Law, through June 28, 2023, Plaintiff was late to morning huddles a few times per
month.
Plaintiff’s Failure to Open a Claim on a “Friend of Bert” Case
AH) 	On June 10, 2023, Bert Parnall received an email from an attorney at Parnall Law.
At the time, Mr. Parnall was out of the country. That attorney conveyed to Mr. Parnall that a
client called Parnall Law on Saturday, June 10, 2023, that he spoke with the client, and that the
client needed assistance opening a claim in order to be able to rent a car.
AI) 	Mr. Parnall forwarded that email to Parnall Law’s administrative team, Greg Abel
and Roni Fraire, and reminded them that the client had come to Parnall Law “through [his]
connection” and that opening a claim so the person could obtain a rental car should “be an
absolute priority.” In response, on Monday, June 12, 2023, Ms. Fraire told Mr. Parnall that the
“claim was set to be open on 6/7 by the legal asst Dominique,” that “Dominique had not opened
this claim and this is not acceptable.” Ms. Fraire further informed Mr. Parnall that “Dominique
is not and has not been performing her role for a while now.”
AJ) 	Mr. Parnall responded that same day, June 12, 2023, stating “I would let
Dominique go, with maternity leave being severance pay. Unless that is a harsh thing to do to a
mother. If maternity leave is in September, and we’ve decided to let her go [](and I’ve heard
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 27 of 54

Page 28 of 54
5074300v1
issues with her before; it’s my impression she is not working while alone and remote), I suggest
letting her go now.”
AK) 	Although Greg Abel responded the next day, June 13, 2023, that he was
concerned about appearances, Mr. Parnall responded that “I prefer not to worry about
appearances. We have not fired anyone going on maternity leave before. . . . we’re just delaying
the inevitable.”
AL) 	Ms. Fraire responded to that email, indicating that she had talked to Plaintiff’s
supervisors, JaNeisha Brown and Robin Niklinski, and that, due to ongoing performance issues,
they were “both ready to let her go.” Accordingly, Ms. Fraire proposed a plan to provide an
ultimatum to Plaintiff, but to give her the choice to resign with a severance payment instead of
committing to meeting metrics.
AM) 	On June 13, JaNeisha Brown tweeked with Plaintiff about “Metrics and Opening
Claims,” following up with an email in which she stated that she “[c]onfirmed a claim was not
opened timely on a Bert case and the client complained.” Ms. Brown recounted that she
“[a]dvised that Bert is very very upset about this,” and that “I am not sure what is going to
happen and it is now out of my hands.”
AN) 	As of June 13, 2023, Parnall Law had sufficient information and reason to
terminate Plaintiff’s at-will employment.
Plaintiff Informs Parnall Law of her Pregnancy
AO) 	Plaintiff informed a few people, including her mother, who works at Parnall Law,
and Robin Niklinski, Director of the Case Manager Team, that she was pregnant on New Year’s
Eve, December 31, 2022. Plaintiff informed JaNeisha Brown of her pregnancy sometime after
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 28 of 54

Page 29 of 54
5074300v1
January 1, 2023, but before Parnall Law’s employee “goal trip” in January of 2023. Plaintiff
informed others at Parnall Law on that goal trip.
AP) 	Plaintiff’s water broke, and she went to the hospital to give birth on August 29,
2023.
Plaintiff Alleges “Bullying” From a Case Manager/Paralegal
AQ) 	In March of 2023, a then-new Case Manager, Corina Calzada Hopkins, sent
several emails to Plaintiff, to check on tasks that Plaintiff had been assigned, and to seek
guidance and assistance in understanding which tasks had been completed, so that Ms. Hopkins
could complete her own work.
AR) 	Eventually, Plaintiff began responding “rock” to Ms. Hopkins, indicating that
Plaintiff believed Ms. Hopkins’s emails were unnecessary. On March 20, 2023, Ms. Hopkins
reached out to her Team Lead, Robin Niklinski, asking for assistance, because Ms. Hopkins did
not understand the “rock” responses, and to understand if she was not following some protocol.
AS) 	Following that email, and before Plaintiff had told her Team Lead, JaNeisha
Brown, that she believed she was being “bullied,” Ms. Brown and Ms. Niklinski held a Zoom
meeting including Plaintiff and Ms. Hopkins on March 21, 2023. Ms. Brown and Ms. Niklinski
led a productive conversation, in which Ms. Hopkins was informed of how to check in Smart
Advocate for task status, and spoke to Plaintiff about the importance of clear communication, so
that everyone can work together as a team.
AT) 	Subsequently, in her mid-year Self Review, on March 24, 2023, Plaintiff referred
again to the communication with Ms. Hopkins and indicated that she had “experienced a little bit
of unnecessary drama and bullying.” In the Team Lead section, Ms. Brown recommended that
Plaintiff read a book called Crucial Conversations, which is a book and process that all Team
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 29 of 54

Page 30 of 54
5074300v1
Leads at Parnall Law are trained on, as a way to learn to communicate directly and have hard
conversations. Ms. Brown even reached out to Ms. Fraire to get agreement to allow Plaintiff to
take that training.
AU) 	Ms. Fraire subsequently reviewed Plaintiff’s Self Review and then reached out to
Ms. Brown, asking for all communications between Plaintiff and Ms. Hopkins and indicating
that she thought Plaintiff’s allegation about being “bullied” was a “very serious allegation.” Ms.
Brown responded with information concerning the meeting on March 21, 2023.
AV) 	Ms. Fraire then conducted an investigation into the allegations, and on April 12,
2023, met with Plaintiff over Zoom to discuss her investigation. At that meeting, Ms. Fraire
expressed her findings that there was no bullying by Corina and reiterated that it was Plaintiff’s
job, as a Legal Assistant, to help the Case Manager when needed. Ms. Fraire also expressed that
she hoped that Plaintiff had made progress on her reading of Crucial Conversations, to help
Plaintiff communicate more effectively.
AW) 	Plaintiff does not know why Ms. Hopkins allegedly “bullied” her. Ms. Hopkins’s
requests from Plaintiff for further help were not related to Plaintiff’s pregnancy. Although Ms.
Fraire offered to set up a further meeting with Bert Parnall if Plaintiff wanted to pursue the
matter further, Plaintiff declined to set up such a meeting.
Plaintiff is Presented with an Ultimatum and Resigns
AX) 	On June 27, 2023, Ms. Fraire met via Zoom with Plaintiff. Ms. Fraire indicated to
Plaintiff that she wanted to speak about Plaintiff’s plans for continued work at Parnall Law.
Plaintiff indicated that she intended to “work until I – my water broke.” Ms. Fraire then
informed Plaintiff that she wanted to speak about Plaintiff’s work performance, including
Plaintiff’s failure to open a claim timely on a Bert case. Ms. Fraire told her that Bert was upset
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 30 of 54

Page 31 of 54
5074300v1
with Plaintiff because of that, and Ms. Fraire then offered Plaintiff to “either stay working here
and give us your 100 percent, but you could be fired at any time for any reason, or you can take
the six-week paid leave and leave effective immediately.”
AY) 	Plaintiff and Ms. Fraire did not talk about what type of leave Plaintiff might take
for maternity, and Plaintiff did not ask for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act or
Parnall Law’s policies at the meeting on June 27, 2023.
AZ) 	Ms. Fraire gave Plaintiff until the next morning to decide. On the morning of
June 28, 2023, Plaintiff told Ms. Fraire that she was going to take the six weeks of pay and leave
employment.
AAA) Ms. Fraire then forwarded Plaintiff a proposed Separation Agreement, which
Plaintiff reviewed and signed.
Parnall Law Has Employed Other Pregnant Women Who Have Taken Leave
AAB) Parnall Law has had seven female employees take maternity leave in the past ten
years, and six of those employees also took the extra two weeks of parental leave.
AAC) Plaintiff’s own sister, who works for Parnall Law, took maternity leave after
Plaintiff resigned, and she returned to work at Parnall Law after that leave.
AAD) Plaintiff was aware of other female employees at Parnall Law who took maternity
leave when Plaintiff worked there and returned back to work after such leave.
AAE) Employees at Parnall Law were encouraging when Plaintiff told them she wanted
to start a family as early as early 2022, and Plaintiff never heard anyone at Parnall Law express
concern about her pregnancy.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 31 of 54

Page 32 of 54
5074300v1
Plaintiff Did Not Complain About Alleged Pregnancy Discrimination
AAF) 	Plaintiff never complained to her supervisor or anyone in the Case Manager Team
or anyone in administration at Parnall Law that she believed she was being treated differently
because of her pregnancy.
AAG) Plaintiff did suggest to the other employee who worked in the Santa Fe office,
David Link, on the day before she resigned her employment, that she thought that the reprimand
she was receiving was related to her pregnancy. But Mr. Link did not take Plaintiff’s statement
as any type of complaint, nor did Mr. Link report Plaintiff’s statement to Plaintiff’s supervisor or
anyone in management at Parnall Law. Indeed, Mr. Link, who was not Plaintiff’s supervisor, did
not have any basis to believe that Plaintiff was being singled out due to her pregnancy.
Plaintiff Was Not Replaced
AAH) When a staff employee departs work at Parnall Law, they are not typically
replaced with a new hire. New hires are simply made when a need exists and after Parnall Law’s
rigorous hiring process.
AAI) 	Since Plaintiff resigned her employment with Parnall Law in June of 2023,
Parnall Law has hired various Legal Assistants, both male and female, but did not hire any
additional Legal Assistant until February of 2024
V. APPLICABLE LAW
A. 	Do the parties agree which law controls the action?
__X___ Yes _____ No
If yes, identify the applicable law: the New Mexico Human Rights Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 28-1-
1, et seq.; Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e – 2000e-17; the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e(k); the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq.; the New Mexico
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 32 of 54

Page 33 of 54
5074300v1
Declaratory Judgment Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 44-6-1, et seq.; New Mexico common law; federal
common law interpreting statutes; and federal procedural law.
If no, identify the dispute and set forth each party’s position regarding the applicable law.
1. 	Plaintiff – N/A
2. 	Defendant – N/A
VI. CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW
Identify the specific issues of law which are contested.
1. 	Plaintiff
Declaratory Judgment – Separation Agreement
A. Whether the Separation of Employment Agreement is unenforceable.
B. Whether the Separation of Employment Agreement lacks consideration.
C. Whether Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral contract for Plaintiff’s resignation
that is a separate and distinct contract from the Separation of Employment Agreement.
D. Whether the six week’s paid wages paid by Defendant to Plaintiff is consideration for the
oral contract for Plaintiff’s resignation or the Separation of Employment Agreement.
E. 	Whether the Separation of Employment Agreement contains an illegal release of claims
that renders the entire contract void and unenforceable.
F. 	Whether Plaintiff waived her Title VII or Family Medical Leave Act claims knowingly and
voluntarily.
G. If Plaintiff did not waive her Title VII or Family Medical Leave Act claims knowingly and
voluntarily, whether the omission of a savings or severance clause renders the entire Separation of
Employment Agreement void and unenforceable.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 33 of 54

Page 34 of 54
5074300v1
H. Whether Plaintiff’s signature on the Separation of Employment Agreement was obtained
under duress.
I. 	Whether the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Severance Agreement were
such that Plaintiff was induced to enter into a contract she otherwise would not have entered into.
J. 	Whether Defendant intentionally presented such a serious business or financial loss or
injury to Plaintiff that she had no reasonable choice or alternative but to sign the Separation of
Employment Agreement.
K. Whether Defendant breached a contract with Plaintiff.
L. 	Whether Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Plaintiff.
Pregnancy Discrimination
M. Whether Defendant discriminated in the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment
due to her pregnancy.
N. Whether Defendant took an adverse action against Plaintiff.
O. Whether Defendant constructively discharged Plaintiff.
P. 	Whether Plaintiff’s pregnancy was a motivating factor of Defendant in the termination of
Plaintiff’s employment.
Q. Whether Plaintiff’s pregnancy was a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision to give
Plaintiff an ultimatum that included obtaining a release of claims from her.
R. Whether Plaintiff’s pregnancy was a motivating factor in its poor treatment of her prior to
the termination of her employment.
S. 	Whether Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s discrimination.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 34 of 54

Page 35 of 54
5074300v1
Breach of Contract
T. 	Whether an oral contract was formed on June 28, 2023, for Plaintiff’s resignation in
exchange for six weeks’ pay that did not include the terms of the Written Contract (“Oral
Contract”).
U. Whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff six weeks’ pay pursuant to the Oral Contract.
V. Whether Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s breach of contract.
Breach of Implied Cov. Of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
W. Whether Defendant utilized a contract to obtain a release of claims in such a way as to
violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing attendant to a contract.
X. Whether Defendant wrongfully and intentionally used a contract to Plaintiff’s detriment in
order to obtain a release of claims from her.
Y. Whether it was bad faith for Defendant to inform Plaintiff that she needed to sign a paper
that included a release of claims in order to receive the benefit of a contract.
Z. 	Whether Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
AA. 	Whether the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies to an oral
contract.
Fraud/Negligent Misrepresentation
BB. 	Whether Defendant had a duty to disclose that it would require Plaintiff to sign a
release of claims if she resigned prior to her notifying Defendant she would resign.
CC. 	If Defendant did disclose to Plaintiff that she would be required to sign a release of
claims, whether that disclosure was recklessly made.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 35 of 54

Page 36 of 54
5074300v1
DD. 	If Defendant did disclose to Plaintiff that she would be required to sign a release of
claims, whether that disclosure was negligently made.
EE. Whether, prior to requiring Plaintiff to notify Defendant of whether she would resign,
Defendant knew it would require Plaintiff to sign a release of claims if she resigned.
FF. Whether Defendant negligently, intentionally, or recklessly misled Plaintiff by failing to
mention a release of claims prior to Plaintiff’s acceptance of a contract.
GG. 	Whether Defendant negligently, intentionally, or recklessly misled Plaintiff in
Defendant’s presentation of the release of claims to Plaintiff, including calling the release, “this
paper.”
HH. 	Whether Defendant negligently, intentionally, or recklessly omitted information in
order to induce Plaintiff to sign a release of claims.
II. Whether Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s omission(s) when she accepted the Oral Contract.
JJ. Whether Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s omission(s) when signing the Separation of
Employment Agreement that included the release of claims.
KK. 	Whether Defendant’s omission(s) was material.
LL. Whether Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s fraud or negligent
misrepresentations.
FMLA Interference
MM. 	Whether Defendant violated the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) with respect
to Plaintiff’s pregnancy and/or childbirth.
NN. 	Whether Plaintiff was entitled to FMLA leave for her pregnancy and/or childbirth.
OO. 	Whether Defendant took an adverse action against Plaintiff that interfered with
Plaintiff’s right to take FMLA leave.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 36 of 54

Page 37 of 54
5074300v1
PP. Whether Defendant’s actions were related to the exercise or attempted exercise of
Plaintiff’s FMLA rights.
QQ. 	Whether Defendant breached its duty to notify Plaintiff that FMLA coverage may
apply to her pregnancy and/or childbirth.
RR. 	Whether Plaintiff was prejudiced as a result of Defendant’s FMLA violation(s).
Interference with NMHRA and Title VII Rights
SS. Whether Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s rights to file a charge under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 by requiring her to release her Title VII claims.
TT. Whether Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s rights to file a charge under New Mexico
Human Rights Act (“NMHRA”) by requiring her to release her NMHRA claims.
UU. 	Whether Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s interference with
her statutory rights under Title VII and/or the NMHRA.
Punitive Damages
VV. 	Whether Defendant’s acts and/or omissions were willful, wanton, reckless, and/or
undertaken with conscious disregard for and indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.
WW. 	Whether Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
2. 	Defendant
A. 	Whether the Separation of Employment Agreement is an enforceable agreement.
B. 	Whether Defendant breached the Separation of Employment Agreement.
C. 	Whether Plaintiff has been harmed by any alleged breach of the Separation of
Employment Agreement.
D. 	Whether, if the Separation of Employment Agreement is unenforceable, any
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing would exist.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 37 of 54

Page 38 of 54
5074300v1
E. 	Whether, if the Separation of Employment Agreement is enforceable, Defendant
violated any implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
F. 	Whether, if the Separation of Employment Agreement is enforceable, the release
of claims and agreement not to sue in that agreement is enforceable and to what extent and as to
which claims.
G. 	What are the terms of the agreement entered into by Defendant and Plaintiff at the
termination of her employment concerning payment of severance benefits and do they include
the terms specified in the Separation of Employment Agreement.
H. 	Whether Plaintiff was legally entitled to any Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) benefits at the time she quit her employment with Defendant.
I. 	Whether Defendant constructively discharged Plaintiff.
J. 	Whether, if Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action in relation to her
discharge, such action was taken to interfere with any rights she held under the FMLA, or was
taken for legitimate reasons.
K. 	Whether Plaintiff was constructively discharged in relation to her claims of
pregnancy discrimination.
L. 	Whether, if Plaintiff was constructively discharged in relation to her claims of
pregnancy discrimination, such discharge was based on discriminatory animus or was made for
legitimate reasons.
M. 	Whether any reasons provided by Defendant for its employment decisions related
to Plaintiff’s employment are pretextual.
N. 	Whether Plaintiff engaged in any protected activity under Title VII or the New
Mexico Human Rights Act.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 38 of 54

Page 39 of 54
5074300v1
O. 	Whether, if Plaintiff engaged in protected activity, Defendant’s decisions related
to her employment were made in retaliation for engaging in such activity.
P. 	Whether Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing her lawsuit
with respect to claims under Title VII and the NMHRA.
VII. MOTIONS
A. 	Pending Motions—The parties identified the following motions as pending when
they submitted the proposed Pretrial Order. All the identified motions have since
been decided:
1. 	Plaintiff:
a. Motion for Partial Summary Judgement against Parnall Law Firm for Breach of
Oral Contract by Domonique Romero Valdez (Doc 93), filed on July 7, 2025;
b. 	Motion for Partial Summary Judgement Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing, Fraud, and Pregnancy Discrimination (Doc 94), filed on July 7, 2025; and
c. 	Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that the Separation of Employment
Agreement is Unenforceable (Doc 95), filed on July 7, 2025.
2. 	Defendant
a. 	Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims by Parnall Law Firm (Doc
88), filed on July 3, 2025;
b. 	Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum in Support of Counts IX, X
and XII by Parnall Law Firm (Doc 91), filed on July 7, 2025; and
c. 	Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum in Support of Counts VI VII
and VIII by Parnall Law Firm (Doc 92), filed on July 7, 2025.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 39 of 54

Page 40 of 54
5074300v1
B. 	Motions which may be filed—Since the proposed Pretrial Order was submitted, all
motions in limine have been decided. The other potential motions have not yet been
filed:
1. 	Plaintiff – motions in limine; motions for directed verdict on the counterclaim;
any requested bench memos
2. 	Defendant – motions in limine; motions for directed verdict; motions for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict; post-trial motions as needed
Briefing must be complete and filed with the Court by January 6, 2026, for Motions in
Limine.
VIII. DISCOVERY
A. 	Has discovery been completed? __X___ Yes _____ No
If no, discovery terminates on __________________________________.
B. 	Are there any discovery matters of which the Court should be aware? No.
IX. ANTICIPATED WITNESSES
Each party is under a continuing duty to supplement this list and the description of
anticipated testimony. This does not, however, apply to a rebuttal witness. Indicate if the
witness will testify in person or by deposition and include a brief description of the anticipated
testimony. If the testimony is by deposition, identify the deposition by page number and line
number. A witness who has not been identified and whose testimony has not been disclosed may
not testify at trial unless good cause is shown.
A. 	Plaintiff’s Witnesses:
1. 	Plaintiff will call or have available at trial the following witnesses:
a. 	Dominique Romero-Valdez, Plaintiff – Ms. Romero-Valdez will testify to
the facts of her claims and the damages she has suffered as a result of Defendant’s actions.
b. 	Bertrand (“Bert”) R. Parnall, attorney and owner of Defendant Parnall Law
Firm, LLC – Mr. Parnall is expected to testify to the facts related to the termination of
Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 40 of 54

Page 41 of 54
5074300v1
c. 	Roni Fraire, Operations Manager at Parnall Law Firm, LLC, in her personal
capacity and as a 30(b)(6) representative of Parnall Law Firm, LLC – Ms. Fraire is expected
to testify to testify to the facts related to the termination of Plaintiff’s employment with
Defendant and matters related to Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, as well as
Defendant’s history of, and policies and procedures related to, the termination of
employees, discipline of employees, evaluation of employee performance, and matters
related to the various forms of leave Defendant offers to employees.
d. 	JaNeisha Brown, Plaintiff’s Supervisor at Parnall Law Firm, LLC – Ms.
Brown is expected to testify to matters related to Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant
and Ms. Brown’s supervision of Plaintiff and other employees.
e. 	Greg Abel, Attorney at Parnall Law Firm, LLC – Mr. Abel is expected to
testify to his knowledge of the facts surrounding Defendant’s decision to terminate
Plaintiff’s employment and offer Plaintiff the Ultimatum, as well as his concerns about
firing a pregnant employee about to take maternity leave.
2. 	Plaintiff may call the following witnesses:
a. 	David Link, Attorney at Parnall Law Firm – If called to testify, Mr. Link
would testify to facts known to him about Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff during her
employment with Defendant.
b. 	Robin Niklinski, Pre-litigation Department Director at Parnall Law Firm,
LLC – If called to testify, Ms. Niklinski would testify to matters related to Plaintiff’s
employment with Defendant and Ms. Niklinski’s supervision of Plaintiff and other
employees.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 41 of 54

Page 42 of 54
5074300v1
c. 	Christopher Maldonado, Case Manager at Parnall Law Firm, LLC – If
called to testify, Mr. Maldonado would testify to his observations regarding the negative
change in treatment of Ms. Romero-Valdez by her supervisors at the Firm after she became
pregnant.
d. 	Esteban Marulanda, Case Manager at Parnall Law Firm, LLC – If called to
testify, Mr. Marulanda would testify to his observations regarding the negative change in
treatment of Ms. Romero-Valdez by her supervisors at the Firm after she became pregnant.
Mr. Marulanda can also testify to the quality of Ms. Romero-Valdez’s work.
e. 	Yareth Marquez, Legal Assistant at Parnall Law Firm, LLC – If called to
testify, Ms. Marquez would testify to Ms. Romero-Valdez’s work ethic and quality of her
work, as well as Ms. Romero-Valdez’s heavy case load, which increased noticeably after
she became pregnant. Ms. Marquez would also provide testimony as to her observations
regarding Ms. Romero-Valdez’s supervisors’ disparate treatment of Ms. Romero-Valdez
compared to other legal assistants, despite Ms. Romero-Valdez having the largest case load
and working overtime many weeks.
f. 	Rick Anglada, Investigation Lead at Parnall Law Firm, LLC – If called to
testify, Mr. Anglada would testify to Ms. Romero-Valdez’s work ethic and quality of her
work. Mr. Anglada would also testify to the statements made by Roni Fraire regarding the
reasons Ms. Romero-Valdez was no longer working at Parnall Law Firm.
g. 	Whitney Romero, Plaintiff’s sister, Physical Evidence Coordinator at
Parnall Law Fim, LLC – If called to testify, Ms. Romero can provide testimony regarding
Plaintiff’s mental and emotional state after Parnall Law Firm increased her caseload and
increased scrutiny of her work after she became pregnant. Ms. Romero can provide
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 42 of 54

Page 43 of 54
5074300v1
testimony regarding Plaintiff’s mental and emotional state after Parnall Law Firm
effectively terminated Plaintiff’s employment.
h. 	Elana Varilek, Plaintiff’s mom, Lead Intake Specialist at Parnall Law Firm,
LLC – If called to testify, Ms. Varilek is expected to provide testimony regarding Plaintiff’s
mental and emotional state surrounding the time that Parnall Law Firm effectively
terminated her employment.
i. 	Danette Valdez, former employee of Parnall Law Firm, LLC, current
address and phone number unknown. If called to testify, Ms. Valdez would testify to
information regarding the issues raised in the Complaint and Counterclaim.
j. 	Adrian Cordova, former employee of Parnall Law Firm, LLC – If called to
testify, Mr. Cordova would testify to Plaintiff’s strong work ethic and positive attitude.
k. 	Joshua Rovelli, Attorney at Parnall Law Firm, LLC – If called to testify,
Mr. Rovelli would provide testimony as to his observations regarding the increased
scrutiny of Plaintiff’s work by her supervisors after she became pregnant.
l. 	Derek Valdez, Plaintiff’s Spouse – If called to testify, Mr. Valdez would
testify to the emotional toll Defendant’s actions had on Plaintiff and the impact Defendant’s
actions had on his and Plaintiff’s family and finances.
m. 	Any witness necessary for authentication, rebuttal, or impeachment.
B. 	Defendant’s Witnesses:
1. 	Defendant will call or have available at trial the following witnesses:
A. 	Bert Parnall. Mr. Parnall will provide testimony related to the business of Parnall
Law Firm, LLC, its history and processes. Mr. Parnall will provide testimony related to his role
in making decisions related to Plaintiff’s employment at Parnall Law Firm.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 43 of 54

Page 44 of 54
5074300v1
B. 	Greg Abel. Mr. Abel will provide testimony related to the management processes
of Parnall Law Firm. Mr. Abel will provide testimony related to his role in making decisions
related to Plaintiff’s employment at Parnall Law Firm.
C. 	Robin Niklinski. Ms. Niklinski will provide testimony related to her supervision
and management of the work group in which Plaintiff worked at Parnall Law Firm, as well as her
direct supervision and interactions with Plaintiff. Ms. Niklinski will provide testimony
concerning her role in supervising, correcting, and assisting Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s direct
supervisor, JaNeisha Brown, to attempt to meet expectations. Ms. Niklinski will provide
testimony concerning her thoughts about Plaintiff’s performance, Plaintiff’s separation of
employment, and interactions she had with Parnall Law Firm management concerning Plaintiff.
D. 	JaNeisha Brown. Ms. Brown will provide testimony related to her supervision
and management of Plaintiff. Ms. Brown will provide testimony concerning her role in
supervising, correcting, and assisting Plaintiff. Ms. Brown will provide testimony concerning
her thoughts about Plaintiff’s performance, including how it related to other employees who she
supervised and who were similarly situated to Plaintiff. Ms. Brown will provide testimony
related to her thoughts about Plaintiff’s separation of employment, and interactions she had with
Parnall Law Firm management concerning Plaintiff.
E. 	Roni Fraire. Ms. Fraire will provide testimony related to the management
processes of Parnall Law Firm. Ms. Fraire will provide testimony related to her role in making
decisions related to Plaintiff’s employment at Parnall Law Firm. Ms. Fraire will provide
testimony related to her supervision and management of the work group in which Plaintiff
worked at Parnall Law Firm, as well as her direct supervision and interactions with Plaintiff.
Ms. Fraire will provide testimony concerning her role in supervising, correcting, and assisting
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 44 of 54

Page 45 of 54
5074300v1
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s direct supervisors, JaNeisha Brown and Robin Niklinski, to attempt to
meet expectations. Ms. Fraire will provide testimony concerning her thoughts about Plaintiff’s
performance, Plaintiff’s separation of employment, and her participation with Parnall Law Firm
management concerning Plaintiff. Ms. Fraire will provide testimony concerning presentation of
an ultimatum to Plaintiff and presentation of the Separation of Employment Agreement. Ms.
Fraire will provide testimony concerning details of Plaintiff’s work history.
2. 	Defendant may call the following witnesses:
F. 	Madison Wilson. Ms. Wilson may provide testimony concerning her experience
working at Parnall Law, including taking maternity-related leave and being pregnant at Parnall
Law.
G. 	Arya Castorena. Ms. Castorena may provide testimony concerning her
experience working at Parnall Law, including taking maternity-related leave and being pregnant
at Parnall Law. Ms. Castorena may also testify concerning communications with Plaintiff.
H. 	Catri Estime. Ms. Estime may provide testimony concerning her experience
working at Parnall Law, including taking maternity-related leave and being pregnant at Parnall
Law. Ms. Estime may also testify concerning communications with Plaintiff.
I. 	David Link. Mr. Link may provide testimony concerning his experience working
in the Santa Fe office of Parnall Law with Plaintiff, as well as conversations and correspondence
he had with Plaintiff.
J. 	Whitney Romero. Ms. Romero may provide testimony concerning her experience
working at Parnall Law, including taking maternity-related leave and being pregnant at Parnall
Law. Ms. Romero may provide testimony concerning her communications with Plaintiff
concerning Plaintiff’s work at Parnall Law and this case.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 45 of 54

Page 46 of 54
5074300v1
K. 	Elana Varilek. Ms. Varilek may provide testimony concerning her experience
working at Parnall Law. Ms. Varilek may provide testimony concerning her communications
with Plaintiff concerning Plaintiff’s work at Parnall Law and this case.
L. 	Corina Calzada. Ms. Calzada may provide testimony concerning Plaintiff’s
allegation that she was bullying Plaintiff.
M. 	Any witness necessary for rebuttal, authentication, or impeachment.
X. TRIAL PREPARATION
A. 	Exhibits.
The parties must confer over all trial exhibits. This does not apply to rebuttal exhibits that
cannot be anticipated before trial. The parties must file a “consolidated exhibit list identifying all
exhibits that the parties have stipulated are admissible” and a “consolidated exhibit list identifying
all exhibits the parties have stipulated to be authentic, but to which there are other objections” no
later than fourteen (14) calendar days before the pre-trial conference.
For those exhibits on which a stipulation could not be reached, the offering party must file
a separate “contested exhibit list” no later than fourteen (14) calendar days before the pre-trial
conference. Each party’s contested exhibit list must be filed on the date identified in the preceding
paragraph. 	All exhibits must be marked before trial. Exhibits must be marked numerically by
Plaintiff on yellow labels and alphabetically by Defendant on blue labels. 	The identification
number or letter will remain the same whether the exhibit is admitted or not.
The Court will prepare its exhibit list based on the parties’ submissions and will admit all
exhibits to which the parties have no objection at the beginning of trial. Any contested exhibits
will be admitted when offered, if the Court overrules any remaining objections.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 46 of 54

Page 47 of 54
5074300v1
B. 	Witness Lists.
Each party’s witness list must be filed with the Clerk and served on all parties by December
24, 2025. Indicate whether the witness is testifying by deposition or in person. Objections to use
of deposition testimony are due within fourteen (14) days before the pre-trial conference. 	The
objecting party must mark those portions of the requested deposition testimony to which the party
objects. 	Marking must comply with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 10.6. 	The parties must confer about any
disputes and, if unable to resolve any differences, must notify the Court in writing at least seven
(7) calendar days before the pre-trial conference.
C. 	Voir Dire.
1. 	If allowed, do the parties wish to participate in voir dire?
Plaintiff 	___X__ Yes _____ No
Defendant 	___X__ Yes _____ No
2. 	Each party wishing to participate in voir dire must serve on all parties and file with
the Clerk a pleading entitled “Proposed Voir Dire Questions.” The pleading must identify
the specific areas about which the party wishes to inquire and must set forth proposed voir
dire questions. This request must be filed at least fourteen (14) days before the pre-trial
conference.
D. 	Jury Instructions and Verdict.
1. 	In General. The parties must confer about proposed jury instructions. The Court
will prepare and provide the parties with a Court-proposed set of general “stock”
instructions that will be given. The stock instructions are available from the Court’s web
site. The instructions that the parties must submit to the Court will be those which set
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 47 of 54

Page 48 of 54
5074300v1
forth the elements and definitions of the claims or charges, and the elements and any
definitions of any defenses.
2. 	Sources for Instructions. If pattern instructions are followed by the judge, the
judge will indicate at the pretrial conference his or her preference for the source of
instruction.
3. 	Submission of Proposed Instructions. The parties must submit one mutually
approved set of jury instructions no later than fourteen (14) days before the pre-trial
conference. For those instructions the parties were unable to agree upon, each party must
submit its own proposed instructions at the same time as submission of the mutually
agreed instructions.
4. 	Form of Instructions.
a. 	Submit sets of double-spaced instructions as follows:
sets of originals without citations and headed “Instruction No. ___”; and
__ set(s) with citations and numbered accordingly, one of which will be filed.
b. 	If requested, also submit all instructions in a format compatible with
MS Word. Please refer to the procedures, available on our web site, for
electronically submitting proposed text.
c. 	Submit no more than one instruction to a page.
d. 	All deviations from pattern instructions must be identified as “modified”
in the citation and the modification must be highlighted in the body of the
instruction.
e. 	Submit a cover sheet on all sets of instructions.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 48 of 54

Page 49 of 54
5074300v1
5. 	Deadlines for Submitting Instructions.
a. 	Instructions shall be filed fourteen (14) days before the pre-trial
conference.
b. 	Supplemental unanticipated jury instructions may be submitted at trial.
E. 	Statement of Case.
The parties must confer and submit an agreed statement of the case to the Court that will
be read to the jury panel during jury selection. 	The statement must be submitted to the Court
fourteen (14) days before the pre-trial conference.
XI. OTHER MATTERS
A. 	Settlement Possibilities.
1. 	The possibility of settlement in this case is considered:
___X____ Poor 	______ Fair 	______ Good ______ Excellent 	___ ___
Unknown
2. 	Do the parties have a settlement conference set with the assigned Magistrate
Judge?
___ ____ Yes _______ No 	If yes, when?
If a settlement conference has already been held, indicate approximate date: July 18,
2025
Would a follow-up settlement conference be beneficial? 	______ Yes 	______ No
__X___ Unknown
3. 	Does either party wish to explore any alternatives for dispute resolution such as
mediation or a summary jury trial?
If yes, please identify: _ ____________________________________________
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 49 of 54

Page 50 of 54
5074300v1
If no, explain why not: ___It is possible that a second mediation could be useful,
depending on the outcome of all pending summary judgment motions
__________________________________________________
B. 	Length of Trial and Trial Setting.
1. 	This action is a 	______ Bench Trial 	______ Jury Trial 	___X___ Both
2. 	The case is set for trial on February 2, 2025.
3. 	The estimated length of trial is 5 day(s).
XII. EXCEPTIONS
Plaintiff takes exception to Defendant’s refusal to stipulate to the following facts, which
Defendant has already admitted and which Plaintiff should not have to prove again:
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact YY;
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact KKKK – Defendant did not dispute this fact in its Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing, Fraud, and Pregnancy Discrimination [Doc. 116], but “takes issue with the
phrasing.” So, Plaintiff proposes adopting the Court’s language used in Doc. 145, “[A]
release of claims was not discussed in conjunction with the oral offer[.]”;
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact LLLL;
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact MMMM;
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact NNNN;
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact OOOO;
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact PPPP;
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact RRRR;
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact SSSS;
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 50 of 54

Page 51 of 54
5074300v1
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact TTTT;
• 	Plaintiff's Fact UUUU;
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact WWWW; and
• 	Plaintiff’s Fact XXXX.
Plaintiff has pled a claim for negligent misrepresentation “in the alternative” under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8 by alleging in her Second Amended Complaint that Defendant made a false statement
about 	the 	separation 	of 	employment 	agreement, 	whether 	the 	false 	statement 	or 	false
misrepresentation was intentional and fraudulent or whether it was innocent and simply negligent.
[Doc. 27, at ¶¶ 40, 82-83,150, 157]. Plaintiff has sought all damages available to her for
negligence, misrepresentation, fraudulent conduct, willful and/or reckless conduct. [Doc. 27, at
¶¶ 40, 144, 150, 158]. Plaintiff discussed misrepresentation in the SAC. Plaintiff has pled that Bert
Parnall “knew or should have known” that an employee who believes their civil rights have been
violated would not knowingly release claims for less money than she would have received under
PLF’s maternity/parental leave policy. Further, Plaintiff has pled that, “Under New Mexico law,
misrepresentation of a material fact, even if innocently made, will entitle the party who has
justifiably relied on that fact to rescind the contract.” SAC, ¶157. Moreover, Defendant has
admitted to Requests for Admissions that pertain directly to Plaintiff’s claim for negligent
misrepresentation by admitting:
• 	When PLF made the verbal offer to Ms. Romero-Valdez on June 27, 2023, PLF did not
include in the offer that Ms. Romero-Valdez would have to sign a Separation of
Employment Agreement if she wanted to accept the offer to resign in exchange for 6 weeks
paid hourly wages. PLF Request for Admissions, April 15, 2025, attached hereto as Ex. 2
(“PLF RFAs”), Request for Admission No. 8.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 51 of 54

Page 52 of 54
5074300v1
• 	When PLF made the offer on June 27, 2023, PLF did not include in the offer that Ms.
Romero-Valdez would have to release claims against PLF if she wanted to accept the offer
to resign in exchange for 6 weeks of paid hourly wages. PLF RFAs, Request for Admission
No. 9.
• 	When PLF made the offer on June 27, 2023, PLF did not include in the offer that Ms.
Romero-Valdez would have to agree not to bring a lawsuit against PLF if she wanted to
accept the offer to resign in exchange for 6 weeks of paid hourly wages. PLF RFAs,
Request for Admission No. 10.
• 	The “Separation of Employment Agreement” did not indicate that it supersedes or replaces
all other verbal and written agreements. PLF Supp RFAs, Request for Admission Nos. 14.
Defendant takes exception to Plaintiff’s inclusion of “negligently” in relation to the entry
into the Separation of Employment Agreement. Plaintiff does not have a claim for negligent
misrepresentation in this matter. This exception specifically concerns statements in Plaintiff’s
contested issues of law CC, EE, FF, and GG.
Defendant takes exception to Plaintiff’s contested issue of law R concerning whether
discriminatory animus played any role in alleged poor treatment of Plaintiff during her
employment. Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination as well as interference with FMLA benefits
concern her termination specifically. Plaintiff should not be allowed to materially alter her legal
theories at this point in the case.
Defendant takes exception to Plaintiff’s Contested Material Facts DD, EE, FF, and GG,
because they concern a claim under the New Mexico Healthy Workplaces Act, which claim has
been dismissed by the Court. Those facts are therefore not relevant to the current matter.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 52 of 54

Page 53 of 54
5074300v1
The Court has taken the issue as to whether Plaintiff adequately pled a claim for
negligent misrepresentation under advisement.
XIII. MODIFICATIONS-INTERPRETATION
The Pretrial Order when entered will control the course of trial and may only be amended
sua sponte by the Court or by consent of the parties and Court approval. The pleadings will be
deemed merged herein.
The foregoing proposed Pretrial Order (prior to execution by the Court) is hereby
approved this 23rd day of December, 2025.
ADAMS +C ROW LAW FIRM
/s/ Samantha Adams ________________
Samantha M. Adams
Arlyn Crow
Hannah Kohler
5051 Journal Center Blvd. NE, Suite 320
Albuquerque, NM 87109
(505) 582-2819
Sam@adamscrow.com
Arlyn@adamscrow.com
Hannah@adamscrow.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, P.A.
/s/ William G. Gilchrist
William Gilchrist
Lisa G. Zammiello
P.O. Box 1888
Albuquerque, NM 87103
(505) 765-5900
dgilchrist@rodey.com
lzammiello@rodey.com
Attorney for Defendant
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 53 of 54

Page 54 of 54
5074300v1
The Court hereby enters the Pretrial Order submitted by the parties and as amended by
the Court.
Dated: January 29, 2026
__________________________________
Laura Fashing
United States Magistrate Judge
Presiding by Consent
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 231 Filed 01/29/26 Page 54 of 54