Case 8:21-cv-03276-CBD Document 1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 1 of 8
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`
`
`
`RACHEL FRASER,
`
`10404 Blackstone Ave,
`
`Cheltenham, MD 20623
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KAISER PERMANENTE
`
`2101 East Jefferson Street,
`
`Rockville, MD 20852
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`:
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`*JURY TRIAL DEMANDED*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`Comes now the Plaintiff Rachel Fraser, by and through the office of undersigned counsel,
`
`
`
`Charles Tucker Jr. and the law firm of Tucker Moore Law Group, LLP, and sues the above-
`
`named defendant, stating the cause as follows:
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
`
`of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3)
`
`of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and
`
`pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
`
`2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this is a civil action arising
`
`under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Plaintiff also
`
`seeks declaratory relief as authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`3. Defendant’s corporate site, at which Plaintiff was employed at all times relevant to this
`
`Complaint, is located at 4000 Garden City Drive, Hyattsville, MD, which is within the
`
`jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`
`
`
`RACHEL FRASER,
`
`10404 Blackstone Ave,
`
`Cheltenham, MD 20623
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KAISER PERMANENTE
`
`2101 East Jefferson Street,
`
`Rockville, MD 20852
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`:
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`*JURY TRIAL DEMANDED*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`Comes now the Plaintiff Rachel Fraser, by and through the office of undersigned counsel,
`
`
`
`Charles Tucker Jr. and the law firm of Tucker Moore Law Group, LLP, and sues the above-
`
`named defendant, stating the cause as follows:
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
`
`of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3)
`
`of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and
`
`pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
`
`2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this is a civil action arising
`
`under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Plaintiff also
`
`seeks declaratory relief as authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`3. Defendant’s corporate site, at which Plaintiff was employed at all times relevant to this
`
`Complaint, is located at 4000 Garden City Drive, Hyattsville, MD, which is within the
`
`jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-03276-CBD Document 1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 2 of 8
`
`4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as the
`
`judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
`
`occurred.
`
`5. On August 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed Charge of Discrimination 531-2020-02552 with the
`
`Prince Georges County Human Rights Commission, dually filed with the EEOC, alleging that
`
`Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of disability and retaliation.
`
`
`
`6. In or around October 2020, the Commission issued to Plaintiff a Right to Sue Letter.
`
`7. This civil action was timely commenced within 90 days of receiving a Right to Sue,
`
`and all conditions precedent for this suit have been met and/or complied with by Plaintiff Rachel
`
`Fraser.
`
`
`8. Plaintiff Fraser is an adult resident of the state of Maryland. At all times relevant to
`
`PARTIES
`
`this Complaint, Plaintiff had compression syndrome and right arm paresthesia, a disability
`
`affecting one or more major life activities, thus recognized under the Rehabilitation Act and
`
`Americans with Disabilities Act.
`
`9. At all relevant times, Defendant Kaiser Permanente, Inc., a non-profit, integrated
`
`health care delivery organization, headquartered in Oakland, California, with operations in
`
`Maryland. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an
`
`industry affecting commerce under Sections 101(5) and 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §
`
`12111(5), (7).
`
`10. At all relevant times, Defendant has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the
`
`ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-03276-CBD Document 1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 3 of 8
`
`FACTS UNDERLYING ALL COUNTS
`
`
`
`11. Plaintiff began employment with Defendant Kaiser Permanente as an Ultrasound
`
`Technician in February 2009.
`
`12. In or around October of 2014, Plaintiff experienced a workplace injury, which caused
`
`her to suffer from tingling in her arm and arm tremors, requiring physical therapy and
`
`acupuncture treatment.
`
`13. Plaintiff filed a workman’s compensation case which was settled out of court with a
`
`monetary settlement.
`
`14. Around this time, Plaintiff began using approved FMLA leave for her disability. After
`
`she began using FMLA leave, her Supervisor, Artine Hollis began harassing her in the form of
`
`write-ups for alleged performance issues.
`
`15. Upon her return to her department, her injury was worsened due to an unergonomic
`
`machine which was eventually removed once the ergonomic assessment deemed the machine
`
`unergonomic. She was provided an alternate assignment as a reasonable accommodation until
`
`the machine was removed and replaced.
`
`16. In 2017, Plaintiff suffered another on the job injury while was bending down trying to
`
`retrieve a probe.
`
`17. Plaintiff was diagnosed with right side sciatica and was unable to move. Sciatica
`
`presents Plaintiff with limited mobility, pain and spasms. Plaintiff filed a second worker’s
`
`compensation claim.
`
`18. From 2017 to 2020, Plaintiff had to take FMLA intermittent leave for acupuncture
`
`and physical therapy sessions to treat her disabilities.
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-03276-CBD Document 1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 4 of 8
`
`19. Although Defendant accommodated Plaintiff during this period under FMLA, her
`
`supervisor and managers would often tell her that given her frequent absences for doctor’s
`
`appointments she would have to find another position.
`
`20. In retaliation for engaging in the protected processes of worker’s compensation and
`
`medical accommodation, Defendant would constantly investigate client and issue her
`
`unwarranted corrective actions / write ups and suspensions under the pretext of poor
`
`performance.
`
`21. For instance, Plaintiff received corrective action in 2015 for time and attendance,
`
`which was unfounded, given the time she was taking off was approved time under FMLA for
`
`medical treatment and appointments.
`
`22. In 2020, Patient continued to routinely use FMLA leave to attend doctors’
`
`appointments related to her 2014 and 2017 workplace injuries. Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendant increased in its efforts to harass Plaintiff for use of the protected leave and threatened
`
`with termination for her taking FMLA Leave.
`
`23. In March 2020, Plaintiff complained of the harassment by Ms. Hollins. In May 2020,
`
`Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave in retaliation for the harassment complaint. Plaintiff
`
`was subsequently discharged on June 22, 2020.
`
`
`
`COUNT I – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS
`
`WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND SECTION 504 of the REHABILITATION ACT
`
`(42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., 29 U.S.C. §§ 794)
`
`24. Every paragraph falling outside this count is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`25. The Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 expressly prohibit discrimination in
`
`employment on the basis of disability. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., 29 U.S.C. §§ 794.
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-03276-CBD Document 1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 5 of 8
`
`26. Specifically, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.,
`
`prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals because of a disability “in
`
`regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees,
`
`employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of
`
`employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112.
`
`26. Because compression syndrome and sciatica substantially limit at least one of
`
`Plaintiff’s major life activities Plaintiff is an individual with a disability under the ADA.
`
`27. Plaintiff was fully qualified to be an Ultrasound Technician and could perform all the
`
`essential functions of the position with a reasonable accommodation.
`
`28. Defendant Kaiser Permanente terminated and disqualified Plaintiff because she
`
`engaged in the accommodation process.
`
`29. Defendant Kaiser Permanente is a covered employer to which the ADA applies.
`
`30. Kaiser Permanente’s harassment and termination of Plaintiff on the basis of his
`
`disability and retaliation violated the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
`
`31. Defendant, Kaiser Permanente violated the ADA by subjecting Fraser to disability
`
`discrimination when in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation action and requesting
`
`reasonable accommodations that to enabled her to return to an Ultrasound Technician position
`
`that she held successfully for five years prior to becoming disabled.
`
`32. As a result, Defendant discriminatorily terminated Fraser’s employment.
`
`33.The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 12 through 30 above has been
`
`to deprive Rachel Fraser of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her
`
`status as an employee because of her disability.
`
`34. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 through 30
`
`above were intentional.
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-03276-CBD Document 1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 6 of 8
`
`35. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 through 30
`
`above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of
`
`Rachel Fraser.
`
`36. As a result of Kaiser Permanente’s actions, Ms. Fraser has suffered and will continue
`
`to suffer both economic and non-economic harm.
`
`
`
`COUNT II – (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) – Title VII – Unlawful Retaliation)
`
`37. Every paragraph falling outside this count is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`38. Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity when she engaged the worker’s compensation
`
`action and requestest reasonable accommodations that to enabled her to return to an Ultrasound
`
`Technician position that she held successfully for five years prior to becoming disabled.
`
`39. Defendant violated Title VII by perpetuating a hostile work environment and ongoing
`
`harassment of Fraser after her engagement in the medical accommodations process, unjustly
`
`reprimanding Fraser out of employment opportunities.
`
`40. As a result, Defendant discriminatorily terminated Fraser’s employment.
`
`41.The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 12 through 30 above has been
`
`to deprive Rachel Fraser of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her
`
`status as an employee because of her disability.
`
`42. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 through 41
`
`above were intentional.
`
`43. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 through 41
`
`above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of
`
`Rachel Fraser.
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-03276-CBD Document 1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 7 of 8
`
`44. As a result of Kaiser Permanente’s actions, Ms. Fraser has suffered and will continue
`
`to suffer both economic and non-economic harm.
`
`
`
`COUNT III – (Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Title VII)
`
`45. Every paragraph falling outside this count is incorporated herein by reference
`
`46. On account of her disability and engagement in protected activity, Plaintiff Ms. Fraser
`
`was subjected to unwelcome harassing treatment in the form of unjust discipline, administrative
`
`leave, constructive and ultimately actual termination of her employment.
`
`47. All of these acts constitute forms of harassment which are sufficiently severe to alter
`
`the conditions of employment and create an abusive atmosphere.
`
`48. This conduct constitutes discriminatory acts that a reasonable person would find
`
`hostile or abusive, and Ms. Fraser did in fact find them hostile and abusive, as evidenced by the
`
`strain her mental health was under from the hostility and abuse.
`
`49. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 through 41
`
`above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of
`
`Rachel Fraser.
`
`50. As a result of Kaiser Permanente’s actions, Ms. Fraser has suffered and will continue
`
`to suffer both economic and non-economic harm.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter Judgment in favor of
`
`Plaintiff and against Defendants and award the following relief:
`
`A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Kaiser Permanente, its officers, servants,
`
`employees, attorneys, all persons in active concert or participation with it, and
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-03276-CBD Document 1 Filed 12/24/21 Page 8 of 8
`
`successors, from engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis
`
`of disability.
`
`B. Appropriate injunctive relief, including but not limited to reinstatement of Plaintiff’s
`
`position with Kaiser Permanente and an order restraining Kaiser Permanente from
`
`engaging in further discriminatory conduct of the types alleged in this Complaint;
`
`C. Back pay in an amount to be determined at trial;
`
`D. In the event reinstatement is not granted, front pay;
`
`E. Compensatory and consequential damages, including for emotional distress against
`
`defendant Kaiser Permanente;
`
`F. Punitive damages against defendant Kaiser Permanente;
`
`G. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;
`
`H. Attorneys’ fees and costs of this action; and
`
`I. Any such further relief as the Court deems appropriate
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Tucker Moore Group, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Charles Tucker Jr. .
`Charles Tucker, Jr. (Bar No.: 19045)
`Tucker Moore Group LLP
`8181 Professional Place, Suite 207
`Hyattsville, MD 20785
`T: (301) 577-1175
`F: (240) 467-5787
`charles@tuckerlawgroupllp.com
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
