throbber
Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT JOHNSON,
`
`
`
`
`
`FERRARO FOODS, INC. and
`FERRARO FOODS OF MARYLAND, LLC,
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Robert Johnson files this Complaint against Defendants Ferraro Foods, Inc. and
`
`Ferraro Foods of Maryland, LLC (collectively referred to as “Ferraro Foods”), seeking relief for
`
`the discrimination he was subjected to and the unlawful termination of his employment by
`
`Ferraro Foods.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Robert Johnson is an adult individual who resides in Johnstown,
`
`Pennsylvania.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Ferraro Foods, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation which operates in
`
`Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina. Ferraro Foods,
`
`Inc.’s principal place of business is located at 287 South Randolphville Rd, Piscataway, New
`
`Jersey 08854, and that location also serves as the headquarters for Ferraro Foods.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Ferraro Foods of Maryland, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 1501 Perryman Road, Suite 150, Aberdeen, Maryland
`
`21001.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`4.
`
`At all relevant times, Ferraro Foods continuously employed more than 15
`
`employees and was a covered employer as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act
`
`(“ADA” – 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.) and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act
`
`(“FEPA” – Md. Code Ann., State Gov't §§ 20-601 et seq.).
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331 in that Plaintiff’s claims arise under the laws of the United States and Plaintiff seeks redress
`
`for violations of federal laws. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because such claims are so closely related to Plaintiff’s federal
`
`claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (b)(2) as a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this
`
`district.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`7.
`
`Ferraro Foods is a specialty foodservice distributor that primarily serves the
`
`Italian restaurant and pizzeria segment in the Eastern United States.
`
`8.
`
`Ferraro Foods is headquartered in Piscataway, New Jersey, and has approximately
`
`8,000 customers who are located in 23 states throughout the country. To meet its distribution
`
`needs, Ferraro Foods has established regional operations in Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, New
`
`York, and North Carolina.
`
`9.
`
`Each of these regional outposts are wholly owned subsidiaries of Ferraro Foods,
`
`Inc. The following is a list of the regional outposts that Ferraro Foods currently owns and
`
`operates: Ferraro Foods of Connecticut, LLC; Ferraro Foods of Florida, LLC; Ferraro Foods of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`Maryland, LLC; Ferraro Foods of Maryland South, LLC; Ferraro Foods of New Jersey, LLC;
`
`Ferraro Foods of New York East, LLC; Ferraro Foods of New York, LLC; Ferraro Foods of New
`
`York North, LLC; and Ferraro Foods of North Carolina, LLC. (“Regional Outposts”)
`
`10.
`
`Although Ferraro Foods, Inc. and its Regional Outposts operate under distinct
`
`corporation names, all of Ferraro Foods’ operations, which include the day-to-day operations at
`
`the Regional Outposts, are controlled by the company’s headquarters in Piscataway, New Jersey.
`
`11.
`
`Each of the Regional Outposts are unilaterally dependent upon Ferraro Foods,
`
`Inc. Because of the nature of this parent-subsidiary relationship, Ferraro Foods, Inc., and all its
`
`Regional Outposts, which includes Ferraro Foods of Maryland, LLC, act as joint employers for
`
`the following reasons
`
`The C-suite executives for Ferraro Foods, Inc. (“Ferraro Foods’ Executives”),
`which includes the President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer,
`Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Information Officer, are all located at and work
`from Ferraro Foods’ headquarters in Piscataway, New Jersey;
`
`Ferraro Foods’ Executives have direct control and authority over the day-to-day
`operations at all the Regional Outposts;
`
`Ferraro Foods’ Executives have exclusive control over the allocation of
`workplace resources at the Regional Outposts, which includes funding and
`allocation of personnel;
`
`Ferraro Foods’ Executives have control and authority over the marketing and
`business strategy at all the Regional Outposts;
`
`Ferraro Foods’ Executives have final decision-making authority over the hiring
`and firing of all personnel at the Regional Outposts; and
`
`All of Ferraro Foods’ human resources functions are controlled from and located
`at Ferraro Foods’ headquarters in Piscataway, New Jersey.
`
`
`a.
`
`
`b.
`
`
`c.
`
`
`d.
`
`
`e.
`
`
`f.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`12.
`
`On July 31, 2019, Johnson was offered the position of Vice President of
`
`Operations by Ferraro Foods. This position would be responsible for the company’s operations in
`
`Connecticut, Maryland, and North Carolina. In addition, Johnson would be expected to assist
`
`with the company’s operations in New Jersey.
`
`13.
`
`Johnson would primarily work from the company’s location in Aberdeen,
`
`Maryland, but would report directly to Ferraro Foods’ President and Chief Operating Officer,
`
`Thomas Recine.
`
`14.
`
`As part of his job offer, Johnson was provided use of vacation days, sick days,
`
`and other fringe benefits including short-term and long-term disability leave. In addition, after
`
`one year of employment, Johnson would be eligible to participate in the company’s 401k plan.
`
`15.
`
`On August 6, 2019, Johnson began his employment with Ferraro Foods.
`
`16.
`
`The first 8 months of Johnson’s employment were largely successful, and the
`
`feedback Johnson received about his performance was encouraging and pointed to a long-term
`
`future with the company.
`
`17.
`
`Throughout Johnson’s employment with Ferraro Foods, he was dealing with a
`
`disability related to his spleen. Johnson would experience frequent pain in his abdominal area,
`
`but he managed this condition without issue and never missed a day of work.
`
`18.
`
`Things, however, changed quickly, beginning on April 6, 2020. On that day,
`
`Johnson suffered a ruptured spleen while working from the office and was transported to the
`
`hospital by ambulance.
`
`19.
`
`Johnson was in the hospital for 10 days and was treated for a variety of issues in
`
`his abdominal area. Throughout his time at the hospital, Johnson kept Ferraro Foods apprised of
`
`the status of his medical situation.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`20.
`
`Upon his release from the hospital on April 16, 2020, Johnson was not medically
`
`cleared to return to work.
`
`21.
`
`Johnson immediately informed Ferraro Foods’ Human Resources Director (“HR
`
`Director”) that he was not permitted to return to work by his doctor. Johnson also informed the
`
`HR Director that he would have a follow-up appointment with his doctor in a few weeks to
`
`determine if he needed additional medical treatment or would be cleared to return to work.
`
`22.
`
`Johnson also notified Ferraro Foods’ HR Director that he was now dealing with
`
`multiple health issues in his abdominal area, and that he would be managing these conditions for
`
`the foreseeable future. Johnson detailed to the HR Director the manner in which these ongoing
`
`health conditions substantially impacted major activities in his life.
`
`23.
`
`Johnson asked Ferraro Foods’ HR Director if he was permitted to use his short-
`
`term or long-term disability leave benefits while he was not working. The HR Director
`
`discouraged Johnson from using any of his disability-leave benefits and told Johnson that he was
`
`not permitted to use his disability-leave benefits unless he took a minimum of 6 weeks off.
`
`24.
`
`After Johnson informed Ferraro Foods that he would be unable to return to work
`
`for a few weeks, the company began searching for his replacement.
`
`25.
`
`Ferraro Foods attempted to conceal its attempts to replace Johnson by searching
`
`for candidates to fill a position that was called Director of Corporate Operations.
`
`26.
`
`Ferraro Foods told prospective candidates for the Director of Corporate
`
`Operations position to keep everything quiet because they would be replacing an individual who
`
`was currently employed with the company as a senior-level operations executive. At least one of
`
`the prospective candidates was able to confirm that he would be replacing Johnson if he was
`
`hired for the Director of Corporate Operations position.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, the essential job duties of the Director of Corporate
`
`Operations position were the same as the essential job duties of Johnson’s position of Vice
`
`President of Operations.
`
`28.
`
`In late April 2020, Johnson was medically cleared to return to work by his doctor.
`
`29.
`
`On May 5, 2020, Johnson returned to work and discovered that many of his job
`
`duties had been permanently reassigned to other employees and that his role with the company
`
`had been effectively marginalized.
`
`30.
`
`At all relevant times, Johnson was able to perform all the essential duties of his
`
`job. Johnson’s only limitation was a lifting restriction, and Johnson informed Ferraro Foods of
`
`this restriction and the need for a reasonable accommodation to manage that issue.
`
`31.
`
`Johnson spoke to Ferraro Foods’ President and COO, Thomas Recine, about the
`
`reassignment of his job duties and questioned why it was happening. Recine simply stated that
`
`“if I had known you were dealing with these health issues, I wouldn’t have hired you to begin
`
`with.”
`
`32.
`
`Soon after, Ferraro Foods began to blame Johnson for a series of issues which
`
`were occurring at Ferraro Foods’ Maryland location. Many of these alleged issues involved
`
`matters over which Johnson had no control or authority.
`
`33.
`
`For example, when Johnson attempted to address alleged issues involving
`
`adequate staffing at Ferraro Foods’ Maryland location, he discovered that he no longer had the
`
`authority or resources to properly resolve this issue as Ferraro Foods prevented him from hiring
`
`new employees at a rate that was competitive in the local market. Other alleged issues involved
`
`troublesome employees who Johnson no longer had the authority to manage or discipline. Even
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`though Ferraro Foods was aware of Johnson’s reduced job responsibilities, Johnson was still
`
`being blamed for issues that were under the purview and control of different managers.
`
`34.
`
`On July 14, 2020, Johnson’s employment with Ferraro Foods was terminated.
`
`Johnson was informed that he was being fired because he was not meeting the requirements of
`
`his position. When Johnson pressed for further details, Ferraro Foods’ representatives refused to
`
`provide any additional explanation.
`
`35.
`
`Soon after, Johnson learned that he was being replaced by a younger employee
`
`who was not dealing with any health-related issues.
`
`36.
`
`Upon information and belief, Ferraro Foods made the decision to replace Johnson
`
`weeks before July 14, 2020 and began training his replacement without Johnson’s knowledge.
`
`37.
`
`The stated reasons for the termination of Johnson’s employment were pretext. It is
`
`believed that Johnson’s firing was part of a pattern and practice of behavior by Ferraro Foods in
`
`which disabled individuals are targeted, marginalized, and eventually removed from the
`
`company so that the company will not have to provide accommodations and other disability-
`
`related benefits as required by federal and state laws.
`
`38.
`
`It is believed that Ferraro Foods acted willfully and in reckless disregard of
`
`Johnson’s rights under federal and state laws when it fired him because they failed to engage in
`
`the interactive process, refused to provide reasonable accommodations for his disabilities, and/or
`
`believed that due to his disabilities, Johnson was or would be unable to perform the essential
`
`functions of his job.
`
`39.
`
`Johnson, however, was able to perform the essential functions of his job at all
`
`relevant times.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`40.
`
`As a result of Ferraro Foods’ discrimination, Johnson has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer a substantial loss of earnings, including, but not limited to, loss of salary,
`
`benefits, health insurance, and other emoluments of employment.
`
`41.
`
`As a further direct and proximate cause of Ferraro Foods’ discrimination,
`
`Johnson’s reputation and career have been damaged.
`
`42.
`
`On December 10, 2020, Johnson filed a Charge of Discrimination against Ferraro
`
`Foods.
`
`43.
`
`Johnson’s Charge was dual-filed with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights.
`
`44.
`
`By letter dated September 16, 2021, the EEOC notified Johnson of his right to file
`
`a civil action against Ferraro Foods.
`
`45.
`
`Johnson has initiated this civil action within 90 days of receiving the EEOC’s
`
`Right to Sue letter.
`
`46.
`
`For all applicable claims, Johnson has exhausted his administrative remedies
`
`under federal and Maryland law.
`
`STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
`
`COUNT I
`Violations of the ADA
`(Johnson v. Ferraro Foods)
`
`Johnson incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 46, as
`
`47.
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`48.
`
`Johnson is a disabled individual as defined by the ADA.
`
`49.
`
`Ferraro Foods was aware of Johnson’s disabilities and still fired Johnson because
`
`of his physical or mental impairments; his perceived physical or mental impairments; and/or due
`
`to his record of impairments.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`50.
`
`The acts and omissions by Ferraro Foods that are described in this Complaint
`
`constitute unlawful discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the ADA.
`
`51.
`
`As a proximate result of Ferraro Foods’ conduct, Johnson has or will suffer
`
`substantial harm, for which Johnson seeks general, compensatory, consequential, and punitive
`
`damages.
`
`COUNT II
`Violations of the FEPA
`(Johnson v. Ferraro Foods)
`
`Johnson incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 51, as
`
`52.
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`53.
`
`Johnson is a disabled individual as defined by the FEPA.
`
`54.
`
`Ferraro Foods was aware of Johnson’s disabilities and still fired Johnson because
`
`of his physical or mental impairments; his perceived physical or mental impairments; and/or due
`
`to his record of impairments.
`
`55.
`
`The acts and omissions by Ferraro Foods that are described in this Complaint
`
`constitute unlawful discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the FEPA.
`
`56.
`
`As a proximate result of Ferraro Foods’ conduct, Johnson has or will suffer
`
`substantial harm, for which Johnson seeks general, compensatory, consequential, and punitive
`
`damages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
`
`Accordingly, Johnson requests that this Court enter judgment on his behalf and enter an
`
`order directing the award of other relief, as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Finding that Ferraro Foods violated the ADA;
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Finding that Ferraro Foods violated the FEPA;
`
`Awarding Plaintiff back pay, front pay, lost benefits, and other emoluments of
`
`employment and such other relief as is necessary to make him whole;
`
`D.
`
`Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages for pain, humiliation, emotional
`
`distress, and damage to reputation;
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G
`
`Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages under the ADA and the FEPA;
`
`Awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs;
`
`Awarding Plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and
`
`H.
`
`Awarding Plaintiff any other relief to which he is entitled and/or which this Court
`
`deems necessary and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02966-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/18/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`A jury trial is demanded for all claims triable by jury
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Sammy Y. Sugiura
`Sammy Y. Sugiura
`Bar No. 21828
`ssugiura@cohengrace.com
`Mark A. Grace
`Bar No. 21814
`mgrace@cohengrace.com
`COHEN & GRACE, LLC
`105 BRAUNLICH DRIVE
`SUITE 300
`PITTSBURGH, PA 15237
`TELEPHONE: (412) 847-0300
`FACSIMILE: (412) 847-0304
`
`COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`
`11
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket