Tarpeh Petition

E-FILED 2017 JUL 12 10:23 AM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JASPER COUNTY
ABRAHAM TARPEH, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
) No. LACV120371
)
vs. )
) AMENDED PETITION AT LAW
RYAN HOENICKE, DANIELLE WILLIAMS, ) and JURY DEMAND
CLEO BOYD, ALLEN FINCHUM, )
MATT SCHWABACH, )
TERRY VAN HUYSEN, JIM BAILEY )
TYLER RAWLS, TPI IOWA, LLC, )
TPI COMPOSITES, INC., AND INSURANCE )
COMPANY STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA )
)
Defendants. )
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Abraham Tarpeh, by and through the undersigned counsel, and
hereby files this Petition at Law against Defendants TPI Composites, Inc., TPI Iowa, LLC, Ryan
Hoenicke, Danielle Williams, Cleo Boyd, Allen Finchum, Matt Schwabach, Terry Van Huysen,
Jim Bailey and Tyler Rawls and Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania (Defendants).
Plaintiff alleges upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts, and upon information
and belief based upon the investigation of counsel as to all other matters, as follows:
PARTIES
1. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Abraham Tarpeh (Tarpeh) was a resident
of Polk County, Iowa, and employed by Defendant TPI Iowa, LLC a Delaware limited liability
company.
2. At all times material hereto, and upon information and belief, Defendant TPI
Composites, Inc. (TPI Composites) was a corporation registered with the Secretary of State of
Arizona, and the parent company of TPI Iowa, LLC.
3. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Ryan
Hoenicke was employed by TPI Iowa as an Environmental Health and Safety Manager, and a
resident of Polk County, Iowa.
4. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Danielle
Williams was employed by TPI Iowa as a Human Resources Manager.
5. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Cleo Boyd
was employed by TPI Iowa as a Human Resources Manager.
6. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant, Matt
Schwabach was employed by TPI Iowa as a team leader.
7. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Terry Van
Huysen was employed by TPI Iowa as the general manager, and a resident of Polk County, Iowa.
8. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Allen
Finchum was employed by TPI Iowa as the operations manager.
9. Upon information and belief, at times material hereto, Defendant Jim Bailey was
employed by TPI Iowa as an Environmental Health and Safety Manager.
10. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Tyler Rawls
was employed by TPI Iowa as a shift leader.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Petition as if
fully set forth herein.

12. These are gross negligence, civil rights, public policy, fraud, breach of contract,
breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, joint venture and punitive damage
claims, and this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this cause of
action.
13. Venue is proper in Jasper County pursuant to Iowa Code Section 616.18.
14. Damages exceed the threshold for small claims court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
15. Tarpeh incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 14 of this Petition as if
16. TPI Composites is a wind blade manufacturing business having one of its
business addresses at 2300 N. 33rd Ave., Newton, IA.
17. TPI Iowa is a wind blade manufacturing business located at 2300 N. 33rd Ave.,
Newton, Iowa.
18. TPI Composites holds itself out as the largest U.S. based independent
manufacturer of wind blades in the wind energy market.
19. In 2015, TPI Composites reported revenue of $586,000,000.00.
20. TPI Iowa employs hundreds of employees at the Newton, Iowa manufacturing
plant.
21. At all material times hereto, Tarpeh was a prospective, current or former
employee of TPI Iowa.
22. As a part of the wind blade manufacturing process, TPI Iowas employees work
with hazardous chemicals while manufacturing the wind blades.
23. During his employment at TPI Iowa, Tarpeh worked with hazardous chemicals
while manufacturing the wind blades.

24. TPI Iowas employees work with Dry Layup Adhesives while manufacturing the
wind blades.
25. TPI Iowas employees work with a hazardous Curing Agent while manufacturing
the wind blades.
26. TPI Iowas employees work with a hazardous Resin while manufacturing the
wind blades.
27. In addition to the Adhesives, Curing Agent and Resin, TPI Employees work with
other toxic chemicals (Adhesives, Resin, Curing Agent & other chemicals collectively referred to
as Chemicals).
28. The Dry Layup Adhesives are flammable liquefied gases and/or vapors.
29. The Dry Layup Adhesives are known to cause adverse target organ effects, birth
defects, other reproductive harm, eye irritation, skin irritation, respiratory tract irritation, cardiac
sensitization, simple asphyxiation, gastrointestinal irritation, central nervous system depression,
liver effects, kidney effects and bladder effects or peripheral neuropathy.
30. The Resin is known to cause skin corrosion or irritation, serious eye damage, skin
sensitization, cancer, damage to fertility, damage to the unborn child, respiratory irritation, and
damage to the reproduction system.
31. The Curing Agent is can be toxic following a single oral or dermal exposure.
32. The Curing Agent is classified can cause skin corrosion or irritation, serious eye
damage or eye irritation, respiratory sensitization, skin sensitization, reproductive system
damage, damage to fertility, and allergy or asthma symptoms or breathing difficulties if inhaled.
33. Personal Protective equipment (PPE) is required to be worn to avoid the
adverse health effects of the Adhesives, Resin and Curing Agent.

34. Since August 13, 2008, TPI Iowa, LLC has documented approximately three
hundred fifty (350) injuries on its Iowa OSHA logs caused by Chemical exposure to its
employees at the Newton, IA manufacturing plant.
35. Tarpeh was employed by Defendants in or around November 18, 2013.
36. As of November 18, 2013, hundreds of Chemical injuries had been documented
by TPI Iowa in their Iowa OSHA logs.
37. Tarpehs work duties at TPI included, but were not limited to the molding
department, where Tarpeh would enter wind blades and apply chemicals to the wind blades.
38. Tarpeh worked directly with the Chemicals on a daily basis.
39. Tarpeh was not provided with sufficient PPE to protect him from the known
hazards of the Chemicals he worked with at TPI Iowa.
40. The PPE provided to the Tarpeh did not prevent exposure, inhalation, or
ingestion, of the Chemicals.
41. Defendants knew that Tarpeh was not provided with sufficient protective
equipment to avoid a Chemical injury.
42. While employed at TPI Iowa, Tarpeh reported to Defendants that his skin was
breaking out with bumps and rashes on his upper arm and lower legs, and that he was
experiencing respiratory problems.
43. At the time Tarpeh initially reported his symptoms, Tarpeh was not sent to a
doctor.
44. Instead, Defendants instructed Tarpeh to participate in a three-step program that
was administered by non-medical professionals, and consisted of applying lotions and bandages
to his open rashes and wounds.

45. At the time Tarpeh reported his symptoms, employees at TPI Iowa also instructed
Tarpeh to continue working.
46. On or about October 29, 2015, Tarpeh broke out with severe rashes all over his
body.
47. The October reaction was months after he experienced and reported initial
symptoms to Defendants.
48. In October 2015, Defendants sent Tarpeh to a physician named Dr. Miller.
49. Dr. Miller concluded that Tarpeh had a permanent allergy to epoxy resin and told
Nyonne that he was to avoid epoxy resin.
50. Tarpeh did not have an allergy to epoxy resin prior to being exposed to the
Chemicals while working at TPI Iowa.
51. Tarpeh requested an accommodation from TPI Iowa to comply with Dr. Millers
restrictions.
52. Upon receipt of Tarpehs request for an accommodation, TPI Iowa did not engage
Tarpeh in an interactive process with Tarpeh to attempt to accommodate his disability.
53. TPI Iowa denied Tarpeh request and terminated him.
54. To date, Tarpeh continues to suffer adverse symptoms from the Chemicals.
55. Tarpeh itches all over his body as a result of the Chemical exposure.
56. Tarpeh has congestion in his throat and lungs as a result of the Chemical
exposure.
COUNT I: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

(Tarpeh vs. Hoenicke, Williams, Boyd, Schwabach, Finchum, Van Huysen, Bailey, Rawls)
57. Tarpeh incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 56 of the Petition as if

58. Defendants each owed a duty of care to Tarpeh while Tarpeh was working in the
scope of his employment at TPI Iowa.
59. Defendants each violated their duty of care to the Tarpeh.
60. Defendants each had knowledge and understood that the Chemicals used by
Tarpeh in the scope of his employment at TPI Iowa caused injury.
61. Defendants each knew that it was probable, and not merely possible, that Tarpeh
would suffer injuries as a result of his exposure to the dangerous Chemicals.
62. Defendants each consciously failed to avoid the danger of Tarpeh suffering
injuries from the Chemicals.
63. Tarpeh suffered damages as a result of his injuries caused by the Chemicals.
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (IOWA CODE
CHAPTER 216) DIABILITY DISCRIMINATION
(Tarpeh vs. TPI Iowa)
65. Within three hundred (300) days of the acts which he complains, Tarpeh filed
charges of discrimination with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission against the above-named
Defendant TPI Iowa, LLC.
66. On December 28, 2016, less than ninety (90) days prior to the filing this Petition,
the Iowa Civil Rights Commission issued to Tarpeh, pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 216.16, a
Notice of Right to Sue with respect to such charges.
67. Tarpehs physical conditions covered by the Iowa Civil Rights Act which qualify
as disabilities include permanent injuries as a result of his exposure to Chemicals while working
in the scope of his employment at TPI Iowa.

68. Tarpehs permanent injuries due to Chemical exposure substantially limit one or
more of Tarpehs life functions.
69. Tarpehs physical conditions require reasonable accommodation.
70. Tarpehs physical impairments at the time of his employment with TPI Iowa
qualified him under the Iowa Civil Rights Act as he was substantially limited in one or more
major life activities, were regarded as having a physical and/or mental impairment that
substantially limited one or more major life activities, or had a record of a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities.
71. TPI Iowa violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act by failing to accommodate Tarpeh
conditions and by terminating him because of his conditions covered by the Iowa Civil Rights
Act.
72. Tarpehs termination in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act was a proximate
cause of his damages.
COUNT III: WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
73. Tarpeh incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 72 of the Petition as of
74. Tarpehs employment was terminated in contravention to one or more clearly
defined public policies.
75. Tarpehs employment was terminated because he filed a workers compensation
claim.
76. Tarpehs employment was terminated after TPI Iowa knowingly infected him
with a health condition that allegedly precluded him from continuing his employment at TPI
Iowa for safety reasons.
77. Tarpehs discharge from employment was a proximate cause of damages suffered
by the Tarpeh.
78. As a result of TPI Iowas actions as set forth above, Tarpeh has suffered
emotional distress, mental anguish, pain and suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, loss of the
enjoyment of life, medical expenses, and lost past and future wages and benefits.
COUNT IV FRAUD
(Tarpeh vs. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa)
80. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that as an employee, Tarpeh
was their most valuable asset.
81. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that his health and safety
was a primary consideration in every company decision and plan made by TPI Composites and
TPI Iowa.
82. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that they were committed to
protecting him from injury.
83. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that they would provide him
with a safe work environment.
84. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that they had established
safety rules, programs and procedures that assured safe operations.

85. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that they provide training to
everyone in their organization to help them do their job safely.
86. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that they would ensure that
he would work in an environment that is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause
serious physical harm.
87. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that if he suffered an injury,
they would send him to a doctor to determine if the injury was work-related.
88. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that they had established a
safety committee to enforce safety policies and prevent accidents and injuries in areas of safety
concern.
89. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that the materials he worked
with at were not dangerous if he wore the PPE provided by TPI Composites and TPI Iowa.
90. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Tarpeh that allergic contact
dermatitis was avoidable if he followed their recommended safety practices.
91. The representations made by TPI and TPI Iowa in paragraphs eighty (80) through
ninety (90) were false.
92. The misrepresentations made by TPI and TPI Iowa in paragraphs eighty (80)
through ninety (90) are material.
93. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa made the misrepresentations to Tarpeh with the
intent to deceive him into accepting employment at TPI Iowa.
intent to deceive him so that he would continue to work at TPI Iowa after he accepted
employment.
intent to deceive him so that they could employ him and fulfill production expectations for which
they were contractually bound.
intent to deceive him so that they could make a monetary profit at the expense of Tarpehs
livelihood and health.
97. Tarpeh relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas
misrepresentations by accepting employment at TPI Iowa.
98. Tarpeh relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas
misrepresentations by continuing to work at TPI Iowa for more than two years.
99. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa knew that their misrepresentations were false given
that they had reported hundreds of chemical injuries in their Iowa OSHA logs prior to Tarpehs
injury.
100. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa knew that their misrepresentations were false given
their systematic practice of hiring healthy employees and then terminating them from
employment after their employees sustained a Chemical injury.
101. TPI Iowa used Iowas workers compensation statute to perpetrate the fraud
against Tarpeh in order to avoid liability.
102. Tarpeh suffered damages when he was permanently injured due to exposure to the
Chemicals he worked with while employed at TPI Iowa.
103. Tarpeh suffered damages when he was terminated by TPI Iowa from employment.
COUNT V BREACH OF CONTRACT

105. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Tarpeh communicated to Tarpeh that it would
provide him with a safe and hazard free work environment.
106. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Tarpeh communicated to Tarpeh that TPI
Iowa had established safety procedures to ensure safe business operations.
Iowa would comply with its established safety procedures.
Iowa would provide him with a work environment that was free from recognized hazards that
result in serious physical harm.
109. Tarpeh accepted TPI Iowas offer for employment by commencing employment
in November of 2013 and working continuously at TPI Iowa for approximately two years.
110. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Tarpeh by failing to provide Tarpeh with a
hazard free work environment.
111. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Tarpeh by failing to establish and/or
comply with safety procedures that assured safe business operations.
112. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Tarpeh by failing to provide Tarpeh with a
work environment that was free from recognized hazards that result in serious harm.
113. Tarpeh suffered damages as a result of TPI Iowas breach.
114. The damages sustained by Tarpeh were proximately caused by TPI Iowa.
COUNT VI BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR

DEALING

116. TPI Iowa failed to act in good faith with respect to its offer for employment to
Tarpeh.
117. TPI Iowa failed to act in good faith with respect to its employment relationship
with Tarpeh.
118. TPI Iowa evaded its obligation of good faith in performance by failing to provide
Tarpeh with a safe work environment due to a lack of diligence.
119. TPI Iowa evaded its obligation of good faith in performance by failing to provide
Tarpeh with a safe work environment by willfully rendering imperfect performance.
120. Tarpeh suffered damages as a result of TPI Iowas breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.
121. The damages sustained by Tarpeh were proximately caused by TPI Iowa.
COUNT VII JOINT VENTURE
(Tarpeh vs. TPI Composites)
123. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are an association of two entities engaged in the
business of wind blade manufacturing.
124. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are engaged in a common undertaking.
125. TPI Composites and TPI Iowas wind blade manufacturing businesses enterprise
are for profit.

126. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a joint proprietary interest in their for profit
business enterprises.
127. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a mutual right to control their for profit
128. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a right to share in the profits of their for profit
129. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a duty to share in the losses of their for profit
130. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are a joint venture.
131. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa share tort liability.
132. TPI Iowa was negligent in facility to provide Tarpeh with a safe workplace
environment.
133. TPI Iowa was generally negligent under the circumstances.
134. TPI Iowas negligence caused Tarpeh to suffer injuries.
135. TPI Composites is liable to Tarpeh for his damages proximately caused by TPI
Iowas negligence.
COUNT VIII NEGLIGENCE
(Tarpeh vs. TPI Composites)
137. TPI Composites owed Tarpeh a duty to provide him with a safe workplace.
138. TPI Composites was negligent in failing to provide Tarpeh with a safe workplace
environment.
139. TPI Composites was generally negligent under the circumstances.
140. TPI Composites negligence caused Tarpeh to suffer injuries.
COUNT IX PIERCING
142. TPI Iowa is a mere instrumentality of TPI Composites.
143. TPI Iowa serves no legitimate business purpose.
144. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as a means of perpetrating fraud against Tarpeh.
145. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as an unfair device to perpetrate fraud against
Tarpeh.
146. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as a means to attempt to avoid its legal obligation
to Tarpeh and other employees.
147. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa to circumvent liability under Iowas
discrimination statutes.
148. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa to circumvent liability under Iowas workers
compensation statutes.
149. TPI Iowa was used primarily by TPI Composites as a means to promote fraud and
injustice.
COUNT X - NEGLIGENT INSPECTION
(Tarpeh vs. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania)

151. While Tarpeh was employed at TPI Iowa, Insurance Company State of
Pennsylvania was TPI Iowas workers compensation insurer.
152. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania undertook, gratuitiously or for
consideration, an inspection(s) that it should have recognized as necessary for the protection of
Tarpeh.
153. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Tarpeh for physical harm
resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking because its failure
to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of the harm to Tarpeh.
resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking because the harm
to Tarpeh was suffered because of reliance of TPI Composites, TPI Iowa or Tarpeh upon the
undertaking.
resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking because it
undertook to perform a duty owed by TPI Composites and TPI Iowa to Tarpeh.
COUNT XI FAILURE TO INSPECT
(Tarpeh vs. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania)
156. Tarpeh incorporates paragraphs 1 through 155 of the Petition as if fully set forth
herein.
157. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania owed a duty to Tarpeh to inspect the
premises at TPI Iowa.
158. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania failed to inspect the premises at TPI
Iowa.
159. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvanias failure to inspect the premises at TPI
Iowa caused injury and damages to Tarpeh.
160. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Tarpeh for the damages
suffered by Tarpeh as a result of its failure to inspect the premises at TPI Iowa.
COUNT XII PUNITIVE DAMAGES
161. Defendants took the actions in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the willful
and wanton disregard for the rights and safety of Tarpeh.
162. The actions described in paragraphs 1 through 158, except those averments
pertaining to TPI Iowas violations of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, entitle Tarpeh to punitive
damages.
RELIEF (Count II & III)
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tarpeh requests judgment be entered in his favor and against
Defendant TPI Iowa, LLC, and that the Court order the following:
A. That TPI Iowas conduct complained herein be declared to be in violation of
Plaintiffs rights as secured by Iowa Code Chapter 216, and the public policy of the state of
Iowa;
B. That TPI Iowa be enjoined from any conduct violating Plaintiffs rights or the
rights of others similarly situated as secured by Iowa Code Chapter 216, the public policy of the
state of Iowa, and such injunctive and other relief as will prevent TPI Iowa from continuing their
discriminatory practices;
C. That judgment for compensatory damages be awarded in Plaintiff Tarpehs favor
against Defendants;
D. That judgment for lost earnings and benefits with interest and other affirmative
relieve be awarded in Plaintiff Tarpehs favor against Defendants.
E. That Plaintiff Tarpeh be awarded emotional distress damages;
F. That Plaintiff Tarpeh be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs; and
G. That Plaintiff Tarpeh be awarded such other additional and further relief as the
Court deems proper.
RELIEF (Count I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII)
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tarpeh requests judgment be entered in his favor and against
Defendant TPI Composites, TPI Iowa, LLC, Hoenicke, Williams, Boyd, Schwabach, Finchum,
Van Huysen, Bailey, Rawls, and Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania and that the Court
order the Defendants to pay the following damages sustained by Tarpeh:
A. Past medical expenses;
B. Future medical expenses;
C. Past loss of full mind and body;
D. Future loss of full mind and body;
E. Past lost wages;
F. Future lost wages and loss of earning capacity;
G. Past physical pain and mental suffering;
H. Future physical pain and mental suffering;
I. Punitive damages;
J. Any other element of loss recognized by Iowa law not specifically set forth
herein;
K. Any other additional and further relief that the Court deems proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Tarpeh demands a trial by jury of all issues herein.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Matthew M. Sahag

Matthew M. Sahag
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
AT# 0008849
301 East Walnut Street, Suite 1
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
PHONE: 515.288.5008
FAX: 515.288.5010
E-MAIL: matthew@dickeycampbell.com

Tarpeh Petition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tarpeh Petition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-FILED 2017 JUL 12 10:23 AM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JASPER COUNTY

Arizona, and the parent company of TPI Iowa, LLC.

resident of Polk County, Iowa.

Williams was employed by TPI Iowa as a Human Resources Manager.

was employed by TPI Iowa as a Human Resources Manager.

Schwabach was employed by TPI Iowa as a team leader.

Finchum was employed by TPI Iowa as the operations manager.

employed by TPI Iowa as an Environmental Health and Safety Manager.

was employed by TPI Iowa as a shift leader.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

fully set forth herein.

14. Damages exceed the threshold for small claims court.

fully set forth herein.

business addresses at 2300 N. 33rd Ave., Newton, IA.

manufacturer of wind blades in the wind energy market.

19. In 2015, TPI Composites reported revenue of $586,000,000.00.

employee of TPI Iowa.

with hazardous chemicals while manufacturing the wind blades.

while manufacturing the wind blades.

the wind blades.

sensitization, simple asphyxiation, gastrointestinal irritation, central nervous system depression,

liver effects, kidney effects and bladder effects or peripheral neuropathy.

damage to the reproduction system.

damage or eye irritation, respiratory sensitization, skin sensitization, reproductive system

33. Personal Protective equipment (PPE) is required to be worn to avoid the

adverse health effects of the Adhesives, Resin and Curing Agent.

employees at the Newton, IA manufacturing plant.

35. Tarpeh was employed by Defendants in or around November 18, 2013.

by TPI Iowa in their Iowa OSHA logs.

38. Tarpeh worked directly with the Chemicals on a daily basis.

hazards of the Chemicals he worked with at TPI Iowa.

ingestion, of the Chemicals.

equipment to avoid a Chemical injury.

experiencing respiratory problems.

44. Instead, Defendants instructed Tarpeh to participate in a three-step program that

to his open rashes and wounds.

Tarpeh to continue working.

Nyonne that he was to avoid epoxy resin.

Chemicals while working at TPI Iowa.

Tarpeh in an interactive process with Tarpeh to attempt to accommodate his disability.

53. TPI Iowa denied Tarpeh request and terminated him.

COUNT I: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

fully set forth herein.

scope of his employment at TPI Iowa.

59. Defendants each violated their duty of care to the Tarpeh.

Tarpeh in the scope of his employment at TPI Iowa caused injury.

would suffer injuries as a result of his exposure to the dangerous Chemicals.

injuries from the Chemicals.

fully set forth herein.

Defendant TPI Iowa, LLC.

Notice of Right to Sue with respect to such charges.

in the scope of his employment at TPI Iowa.

more of Tarpehs life functions.

69. Tarpehs physical conditions require reasonable accommodation.

impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities.

cause of his damages.

COUNT III: WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

(Tarpeh vs. TPI Iowa)

73. Tarpeh incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 72 of the Petition as of

fully set forth herein.

74. Tarpehs employment was terminated in contravention to one or more clearly

defined public policies.

75. Tarpehs employment was terminated because he filed a workers compensation