Hancock V. Psu Complaint
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Hancock V. Psu Complaint as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,630
- Pages: 7
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA John R. Hancock Plaintiff, C.A. No. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Pennsylvania State University, Defendant.
COMPLAINT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1.
John R. Hancock brings this civil rights action against his former employer,
Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”). The action is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., as well as pursuant to Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, on the grounds that Penn State failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Hancock’s disability, and terminated Mr. Hancock on the basis of his disability or perceived disability and in retaliation for his request for reasonable accommodation. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., and 29 U.S.C. § 794. 3.
On July 11, 2005, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") mailed Mr. Hancock a Notice of Right to Sue. A copy of the Notice of Right to Sue is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. Mr. Hancock has filed suit within 90 days of his receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue.
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
4.
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 2 of 7
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because
the violations alleged in the Complaint occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. PARTIES 5.
Plaintiff John R. Hancock is a resident of Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, which
is located in this District. 6.
Defendant Penn State is a state run educational institution with business
offices at 120 South Burrowes Street, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16801, which is in this District. Penn State employs over fifteen employees and is a recipient of federal funding. BACKGROUND 7.
Penn State hired John R. Hancock in 1993. Mr. Hancock worked for Penn
State in the position of Maintenance Worker Utility Grade 9 for nine years, from July 1995 through May 5, 2004, when Penn State terminated his employment. 8.
In Fall of 2003, Mr. Hancock was diagnosed with terminal illness due to
cirrhosis of the liver. 9.
From the Fall of 2003 to the time of his termination, Mr. Hancock’s medical
condition progressively worsened. During this period, Mr. Hancock’s illness impaired his major life activities, including his ability to walk and lift, his control over his bodily functions, and his short-term memory. It has also affected his equilibrium and impaired his ability to eat a normal diet and caused him to suffer from extreme fatigue. 10.
Since early November 2003, Penn State has been aware of Mr. Hancock’s
medical condition. At that time, Mr. Hancock’s wife advised his then-direct supervisor,
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 3 of 7
Mark Bigelow, as well as Human Resource Coordinator Susan Rutan, of Mr. Hancock’s illness. 11.
In the Winter of 2004, despite knowledge of Mr. Hancock’s disability, Penn
State required Mr. Hancock to perform more taxing duties than he had previously performed. Previously, three employees had been assigned the task of cleaning the power plant area; Penn State now required Mr. Hancock and a seventy-year old coworker to clean the entire area. At one point, for a span of ten to fourteen days, Mr. Hancock was required to clean the entire plant himself. In addition, at the same time, Penn State significantly increased the surface area that Mr. Hancock was required to clean. 12.
Mr. Hancock sought reasonable accommodation for his qualified disability.
On or about January 11, 2004, Mr. Hancock discussed such accommodations with his supervisor, Mark Bigelow. Mr. Bigelow’s sole offer of an accommodation was a transfer to a lower level position with decreased pay. The very next day, January 12, 2004, Mr. Hancock agreed to accept the lower-paying position. However, Penn State failed to place Mr. Hancock in this position. 13.
On March 1, 2004, Mr. Bigelow pressured Mr. Hancock to apply for leave
under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and told Mr. Hancock that the earliest Penn State could provide any accommodation was the end of 2004. Moreover, Mr. Bigelow told Mr. Hancock that he must continue to perform all of the physically demanding activities of his current position until that time and emphasized that Mr. Hancock would be required to operate the floor scrubber which Mr. Bigelow stated would likely hit Mr. Hancock directly in the liver and cause painful internal bleeding.
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
14.
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Hancock refused to apply for FMLA leave and continued to perform
his job despite his disability. However, workers in the power plant increasingly undermined his work by placing hostile notes in his locker and by deliberately making him redo his work, by, for example, putting fresh wax beneath objects on the floor, which when removed would expose the area that needed to be buffed. Mr. Hancock notified his supervisor, but no corrective action was taken. 15.
In late April, Eileen Long, a new supervisor was assigned to Mr.
Hancock’s area. Ms. Long made a practice of continually criticizing Mr. Hancock and asking whether he could do certain types of work, such as snow shoveling or floor waxing, jobs that Mr. Hancock had problems performing because of his disability. However, Ms. Long failed to provide Mr. Hancock with the accommodation he had been previously promised, not did she offer any other accommodation. 16.
Ms. Long was aware that Mr. Hancock had a disability, requested
reasonable accommodation, and that he complained about the actions of co-workers. 17.
On May 5, 2004, Area Services Manager Gregory Anderson, Janitorial
Supervisor Eileen Long, and Manager of Human Resources Susan Rutan informed Mr. Hancock that he was discharged due to misconduct, based on statements he had allegedly made earlier that day to Ms. Long. 18.
On May 17, 2004, Penn State sent Mr. Hancock a letter confirming the
meeting on May 5, 2004 and the termination of his employment. 19.
Penn State terminated Mr. Hancock on account of his disability and his
continued requests for reasonable accommodation, and in retaliation for making
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 5 of 7
continued requests for reasonable accommodation. The Defendant’s alleged reason for terminating Mr. Hancock is pretextual. 20.
Subsequent to his dismissal, Plaintiff filed timely charges with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that he had been terminated unlawfully on account of his disability. 21.
On July 11, 2005, Plaintiff was sent a right-to-sue letter by the EEOC.
22.
As a result of the discharge, Plaintiff has lost his income and has had to
buy replacement medical insurance necessary for treating his terminal condition. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 1: Violation of the ADA 23.
Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein by reference.
24.
John Hancock is a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA
because he has a disability, cirrhosis of the liver. 25.
Penn State is an "employer" and a "covered entity" under the ADA.
25.
Prior to the termination of his employment, John Hancock was qualified for
his employment at Penn State as a Maintenance Worker Utility Grade 9. 26.
Penn State violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under the ADA because it did not
make reasonable accommodations to the known physical limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. Such accommodation would not have imposed an undue hardship on the operation of Penn State’s business. 27.
On May 5, 2004, Penn State terminated Mr. Hancock’s employment in
violation of the ADA due to his disability and or his perceived disability, and in retaliation for requests that Mr. Hancock made for reasonable accommodation.
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
28.
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 6 of 7
Mr. Hancock has been damaged by Penn State’s violation of the ADA
because he has been without a job since May 5, 2004, because the manner in which Penn State terminated his employment effectively precluded him from finding alternative employment; because he has been denied access to certain benefits to which he was entitled under Penn State’s employee benefit plan or plans; and because he has suffered humiliation and embarrassment. Count II: Violation of the Rehabilitation Act 29.
Paragraphs 1 through 28 are incorporated herein by reference.
30.
Penn State’s actions violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, because, as alleged above in Count I, Penn State violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under the ADA, and because Penn State is a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, as those terms are defined in the Rehabilitation Act. RELIEF WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff John Hancock asks the court to: a.
assume jurisdiction of his case;
b.
find and declare that Penn State violated the ADA, and the
Rehabilitation Act, and enjoin such further conduct by Penn State; c.
direct that Mr. Hancock be reinstated to his job;
d.
award Mr. Hancock such back pay, front pay, and employment
benefits and all other emoluments of employment as if the discharge had not occurred; e.
award Mr. Hancock compensatory and punitive damages;
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
f.
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 7 of 7
award Mr. Hancock such costs and expenses of suit, and
reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness costs, and such other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper after trial of this matter; g.
find for Mr. Hancock and against Penn State on all counts of this
Complaint; and h.
order such other and further relief as may be deemed just and
proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Edward J. Feinstein Edward J. Feinstein PA I.D. 29718 Stember Feinstein 1705 Allegheny Building 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2301 (412) 391-9018 Attorney for the Plaintiff Dated: October 7, 2005
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA John R. Hancock Plaintiff, C.A. No. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Pennsylvania State University, Defendant.
COMPLAINT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1.
John R. Hancock brings this civil rights action against his former employer,
Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”). The action is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., as well as pursuant to Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, on the grounds that Penn State failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Hancock’s disability, and terminated Mr. Hancock on the basis of his disability or perceived disability and in retaliation for his request for reasonable accommodation. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., and 29 U.S.C. § 794. 3.
On July 11, 2005, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") mailed Mr. Hancock a Notice of Right to Sue. A copy of the Notice of Right to Sue is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. Mr. Hancock has filed suit within 90 days of his receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue.
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
4.
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 2 of 7
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because
the violations alleged in the Complaint occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. PARTIES 5.
Plaintiff John R. Hancock is a resident of Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, which
is located in this District. 6.
Defendant Penn State is a state run educational institution with business
offices at 120 South Burrowes Street, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16801, which is in this District. Penn State employs over fifteen employees and is a recipient of federal funding. BACKGROUND 7.
Penn State hired John R. Hancock in 1993. Mr. Hancock worked for Penn
State in the position of Maintenance Worker Utility Grade 9 for nine years, from July 1995 through May 5, 2004, when Penn State terminated his employment. 8.
In Fall of 2003, Mr. Hancock was diagnosed with terminal illness due to
cirrhosis of the liver. 9.
From the Fall of 2003 to the time of his termination, Mr. Hancock’s medical
condition progressively worsened. During this period, Mr. Hancock’s illness impaired his major life activities, including his ability to walk and lift, his control over his bodily functions, and his short-term memory. It has also affected his equilibrium and impaired his ability to eat a normal diet and caused him to suffer from extreme fatigue. 10.
Since early November 2003, Penn State has been aware of Mr. Hancock’s
medical condition. At that time, Mr. Hancock’s wife advised his then-direct supervisor,
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 3 of 7
Mark Bigelow, as well as Human Resource Coordinator Susan Rutan, of Mr. Hancock’s illness. 11.
In the Winter of 2004, despite knowledge of Mr. Hancock’s disability, Penn
State required Mr. Hancock to perform more taxing duties than he had previously performed. Previously, three employees had been assigned the task of cleaning the power plant area; Penn State now required Mr. Hancock and a seventy-year old coworker to clean the entire area. At one point, for a span of ten to fourteen days, Mr. Hancock was required to clean the entire plant himself. In addition, at the same time, Penn State significantly increased the surface area that Mr. Hancock was required to clean. 12.
Mr. Hancock sought reasonable accommodation for his qualified disability.
On or about January 11, 2004, Mr. Hancock discussed such accommodations with his supervisor, Mark Bigelow. Mr. Bigelow’s sole offer of an accommodation was a transfer to a lower level position with decreased pay. The very next day, January 12, 2004, Mr. Hancock agreed to accept the lower-paying position. However, Penn State failed to place Mr. Hancock in this position. 13.
On March 1, 2004, Mr. Bigelow pressured Mr. Hancock to apply for leave
under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and told Mr. Hancock that the earliest Penn State could provide any accommodation was the end of 2004. Moreover, Mr. Bigelow told Mr. Hancock that he must continue to perform all of the physically demanding activities of his current position until that time and emphasized that Mr. Hancock would be required to operate the floor scrubber which Mr. Bigelow stated would likely hit Mr. Hancock directly in the liver and cause painful internal bleeding.
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
14.
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Hancock refused to apply for FMLA leave and continued to perform
his job despite his disability. However, workers in the power plant increasingly undermined his work by placing hostile notes in his locker and by deliberately making him redo his work, by, for example, putting fresh wax beneath objects on the floor, which when removed would expose the area that needed to be buffed. Mr. Hancock notified his supervisor, but no corrective action was taken. 15.
In late April, Eileen Long, a new supervisor was assigned to Mr.
Hancock’s area. Ms. Long made a practice of continually criticizing Mr. Hancock and asking whether he could do certain types of work, such as snow shoveling or floor waxing, jobs that Mr. Hancock had problems performing because of his disability. However, Ms. Long failed to provide Mr. Hancock with the accommodation he had been previously promised, not did she offer any other accommodation. 16.
Ms. Long was aware that Mr. Hancock had a disability, requested
reasonable accommodation, and that he complained about the actions of co-workers. 17.
On May 5, 2004, Area Services Manager Gregory Anderson, Janitorial
Supervisor Eileen Long, and Manager of Human Resources Susan Rutan informed Mr. Hancock that he was discharged due to misconduct, based on statements he had allegedly made earlier that day to Ms. Long. 18.
On May 17, 2004, Penn State sent Mr. Hancock a letter confirming the
meeting on May 5, 2004 and the termination of his employment. 19.
Penn State terminated Mr. Hancock on account of his disability and his
continued requests for reasonable accommodation, and in retaliation for making
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 5 of 7
continued requests for reasonable accommodation. The Defendant’s alleged reason for terminating Mr. Hancock is pretextual. 20.
Subsequent to his dismissal, Plaintiff filed timely charges with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that he had been terminated unlawfully on account of his disability. 21.
On July 11, 2005, Plaintiff was sent a right-to-sue letter by the EEOC.
22.
As a result of the discharge, Plaintiff has lost his income and has had to
buy replacement medical insurance necessary for treating his terminal condition. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 1: Violation of the ADA 23.
Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein by reference.
24.
John Hancock is a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA
because he has a disability, cirrhosis of the liver. 25.
Penn State is an "employer" and a "covered entity" under the ADA.
25.
Prior to the termination of his employment, John Hancock was qualified for
his employment at Penn State as a Maintenance Worker Utility Grade 9. 26.
Penn State violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under the ADA because it did not
make reasonable accommodations to the known physical limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. Such accommodation would not have imposed an undue hardship on the operation of Penn State’s business. 27.
On May 5, 2004, Penn State terminated Mr. Hancock’s employment in
violation of the ADA due to his disability and or his perceived disability, and in retaliation for requests that Mr. Hancock made for reasonable accommodation.
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
28.
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 6 of 7
Mr. Hancock has been damaged by Penn State’s violation of the ADA
because he has been without a job since May 5, 2004, because the manner in which Penn State terminated his employment effectively precluded him from finding alternative employment; because he has been denied access to certain benefits to which he was entitled under Penn State’s employee benefit plan or plans; and because he has suffered humiliation and embarrassment. Count II: Violation of the Rehabilitation Act 29.
Paragraphs 1 through 28 are incorporated herein by reference.
30.
Penn State’s actions violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, because, as alleged above in Count I, Penn State violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under the ADA, and because Penn State is a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, as those terms are defined in the Rehabilitation Act. RELIEF WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff John Hancock asks the court to: a.
assume jurisdiction of his case;
b.
find and declare that Penn State violated the ADA, and the
Rehabilitation Act, and enjoin such further conduct by Penn State; c.
direct that Mr. Hancock be reinstated to his job;
d.
award Mr. Hancock such back pay, front pay, and employment
benefits and all other emoluments of employment as if the discharge had not occurred; e.
award Mr. Hancock compensatory and punitive damages;
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ
f.
Document 1
Filed 10/07/2005
Page 7 of 7
award Mr. Hancock such costs and expenses of suit, and
reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness costs, and such other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper after trial of this matter; g.
find for Mr. Hancock and against Penn State on all counts of this
Complaint; and h.
order such other and further relief as may be deemed just and
proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Edward J. Feinstein Edward J. Feinstein PA I.D. 29718 Stember Feinstein 1705 Allegheny Building 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2301 (412) 391-9018 Attorney for the Plaintiff Dated: October 7, 2005
Related Documents
Hancock V. Psu Complaint
May 2020 6
Hancock V. Psu Summary
May 2020 6
Hancock
April 2020 5
Psu
May 2020 19
Psu
December 2019 36