Date Filed 5/22/2023 4:31 PM
`Superior Court - Worcester
`Docket Number
`
`m0
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`EFILED
`
`WORCESTER,ss.
`
`JAMILAH WRIGHT,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`V.
`
`LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA,INC.,
`
`Defendant
`
`WORCESTER SUPERIOR COURT
`CIVIL ACTION NO: 736905 3-B
`
`Neeeeeea
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Jamilah Wright (“Ms. Wright”) is an individual with a primary address located
`
`at 59 Pine Street, Fitchburg, MA 01420.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Life Care Centers of America, Inc. (““LCCA”or “the Company’) is a
`
`Tennessee company registered in Massachusetts and doing business in Massachusetts that
`
`provides skilled nursing and rehabilitation services at locations throughout the United States,
`
`including multiple locations in Massachusetts.
`
`3.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 223A § 3 and this Court
`
`has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 212 § 3A and 4, and M.G.L. c. 151B § 9.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is appropriate in Worcester County because the Plaintiff resides in Fitchburg,
`
`Worcester County, Massachusetts.
`
`
`Superior Court - Worcester
`Docket Number
`
`m0
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`EFILED
`
`WORCESTER,ss.
`
`JAMILAH WRIGHT,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`V.
`
`LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA,INC.,
`
`Defendant
`
`WORCESTER SUPERIOR COURT
`CIVIL ACTION NO: 736905 3-B
`
`Neeeeeea
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Jamilah Wright (“Ms. Wright”) is an individual with a primary address located
`
`at 59 Pine Street, Fitchburg, MA 01420.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Life Care Centers of America, Inc. (““LCCA”or “the Company’) is a
`
`Tennessee company registered in Massachusetts and doing business in Massachusetts that
`
`provides skilled nursing and rehabilitation services at locations throughout the United States,
`
`including multiple locations in Massachusetts.
`
`3.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 223A § 3 and this Court
`
`has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 212 § 3A and 4, and M.G.L. c. 151B § 9.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is appropriate in Worcester County because the Plaintiff resides in Fitchburg,
`
`Worcester County, Massachusetts.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/22/2023 4:31 PM
`Superior Court - Worcester
`Docket Number
`
`Facts
`
`5.
`
`LCCAis a company that provides skilled nursing and rehabilitation services at locations
`
`throughout the United States, including multiple locations in Massachusetts.
`6.
`One ofLCCA’s locations in Massachusetts is Life Care Center ofNashoba Valley
`
`located in Littleton, Massachusetts.
`
`7.
`
`NashobaValley is a skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility in Littleton,
`
`Massachusetts.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Ms. Wright has been a licensed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) since March 7, 1995.
`
`In or about September 2016, Ms. Wright was hired by LCCAto work as a Certified
`
`Nursing Assistant (CNA) at Nashoba Valley.
`
`10.
`
`On or about October 27, 2018, following a shooting incident that occurredin the
`
`neighborhood where Ms. Wright lived, Ms. Wright was arrested and charged with serving as an
`
`accessory after a crime.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`The allegations against Ms. Wright were false, and Ms. Wright disputed the charges.
`
`Onor about October 31, 2018, notwithstanding Ms. Wright’s dispute of the charges and
`
`her availability to work, LCCA terminated Ms. Wright’s employmentonthe basis ofherarrest.
`
`The charges against Ms. Wright were ultimately dismissed.
`
`Onor about June 4, 2019, Ms. Wright applied to work again for LCCA at Nashoba
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Valley.
`
`15.
`
`LCCA rehired Ms. Wright, but LCCA informed Ms. Wright that she would lose the
`
`seniority she had earnedin herfirst two years working for LCCA and would haveto start over
`
`for purposesof pay rates and benefits.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/22/2023 4:31 PM
`Superior Court - Worcester
`Docket Number
`
`16.
`
`Throughout Ms. Wright’s employment with LCCA, and especially following Ms.
`
`Wright’s return in 2019, Ms. Wright experienced a work environment in which she was made to
`
`feel uncomfortable due to her race and associated stereotyping.
`
`During Ms. Wright’s employment at NashobaValley, she was one of few African-
`17.
`American employees, and all ofthe individuals employed in managementroles were white.
`
`18.
`
`Ms. Wright’s supervisors were consistently unable to pronounceherfirst name, and
`
`treated her as-an outsider even after she had workedthere for a significant period of time.
`
`19. When Ms. Wright returned to LCCA in 2019, co-workers and supervisors frequently
`
`madejokes and inappropriate comments about the incidentrelated to her arrest, even though Ms.
`
`Wright had been cleared of the charges.
`
`20.
`
`The comments about Ms. Wright’s arrest were characterized by racist stereotyping, and
`
`some of Ms. Wright’s co-workers implied that she was somehowa threat to their personalsafety.
`
`21.
`
`Some of Ms. Wright’s co-workers made commentssuch as “don’t get Jamilah mad” and
`
`others falsely suggested that Ms. Wright had been armed and had “waved a gun around.”
`
`22.
`
`Noneof the charges against Ms. Wright involved possession ofa firearm, and Ms.
`
`Wright has never ownedorpossessed a firearm.
`
`23.
`
`Ms. Wright’s co-workers’ perceptions about her were influenced by negativeracial
`
`stereotypes and assumptions.
`
`24.
`
`Partly because of this work environment, Ms. Wright requested a transfer to another
`
`LCCAlocation.
`
`25.|Onor about February 21, 2020, Ms. Wright was approvedto transfer to the LCCA
`
`location in Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/22/2023 4:31 PM
`Superior Court - Worcester
`Docket Number
`
`26.
`
`Onor about March 6, 2020, Ms. Wright was in a car accident and suffered injuriesthat
`
`required her to be out of work for three days.
`
`27.
`
`Ms. Wright did not transfer to the Fitchburg location, but instead returned to work on or
`
`about March 9, 2020 at the LCCA NashobaVailey location.
`
`28.
`
`Upon Ms. Wright’s return to LCCA NashobaValley, she was assigned to new patients
`
`who werein isolation.
`
`29.
`
`Ms. Wright was told by LCCA that these new patients were “just having flu-like
`
`symptoms.”
`
`30.
`
`In fact, the patients Ms. Wright was assigned to were infected with COVID-19, the novel
`
`coronavirus that has caused a global pandemic.
`
`31.
`
`Not only did LCCAfail to inform Ms. Wright that the patients had been suffering from
`
`COVID-19, but LCCA also denied Ms. Wright the necessary Personal Protective Equipment
`(PPE) to care for those patients.
`
`32.
`Onor about March 24, 2020, two days after Ms. Wright began caring for these patients,
`she developeda fever.
`|
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Ms. Wright contacted her primary care physician and then tested positive for COVID-19.
`
`Asaresult of being infected with COVID-19, Ms. Wright was requiredto isolate herself.
`
`35.|Assoonas Ms. Wright finished the required isolation period, her mothertested positive
`for COVID-19 and Ms. Wright was requiredto isolate again.
`|
`
`36. When Ms. Wright wasfinally ready to return to work, LCCA informed her that she had
`
`“been out too long” and would haveto start all over again for purposesof seniority, pay and
`
`benefits.
`
`37.
`
`Onor about June 1, 2020, LCCA terminated Ms. Wright’s employment.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/22/2023 4:31 PM
`Superior Court - Worcester
`Docket Number
`
`38.
`
`It was madeclear to Ms. Wright that her employment had been terminated due to her
`
`necessary quarantine andrelated leave in addition to the preexisting race-based bias to which she
`
`had been subjected.
`39. White employees ofLCCA at NashobaValley were treated differently from black
`
`employees with respect to time off and employmentstatus.
`
`40. White employees at LCCA at Nashoba Valley wereless likely to face negative
`
`employment consequencesfor beinglate or taking time off than non-white employees.
`
`41.
`
`There is at least one white employee of LCCA at Nashoba Valley who was charged with
`
`domestic assault, but whose employment wasnot terminated.
`
`42.
`
`Thereis at least one white employee of LCCA at Nashoba Valley who wasrehired
`
`several months after leaving employment with LCCA without suffering any loss of seniority.
`
`43.|LCCA’s decision to terminate Ms. Wright’s employmentfollowing her infection with
`
`COVID-19, and its position that Ms. Wright would lose all seniority for purposes of pay and
`
`benefits if she returned to work there, were motivated in part by negative racial stereotyping.
`
`44.
`
`By terminating Ms. Wright’s employmentfollowingher infection with COVID-19, and
`
`taking the position that Ms. Wright would loseall seniority for purposesof pay and benefits if
`she returned to work there, LCCA treated Ms. Wright differently from other similarly situated
`
`white employees.
`
`45.
`
`Ms. Wright has complied with all applicable prerequisites to filing this action, including
`
`but not limited to the filing of a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against
`
`Discrimination (MCAD).
`
`COUNT I
`Violations of M.G.L. c. 151B § 4, Race Discrimination
`
`46.|Ms. Wright restates and incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphsherein.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/22/2023 4:31 PM
`Superior Court - Worcester
`Docket Number
`
`47.
`
`Asset forth herein, the Defendant’s decision to deny Ms. Wright the seniority, pay, and
`
`benefits she earned was motivated by negative racial stereotyping and thus violated M.G.L. c.
`
`151B § 4.
`
`48.
`
`As set forth herein, the Defendant subjected Ms. Wright to a hostile work environment
`
`based on negative racial stereotyping in violation of M.G.L. c. 151B § 4.
`
`49.
`
`As set forth herein, the Defendant’s termination of Ms. Wright was motivated by
`
`negative racial stereotyping and thus violated M.G.L. c. 151B § 4.
`
`50.
`
`Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 151B §9, Ms. Wrightis entitled to recover from the Defendants
`
`her damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`COUNT
`Violations of M.G.L. c. 149 § 148C, Earned Sick Time
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Ms. Wright restates and incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphsherein.
`
`Asset forth herein, the Defendant’s decision to deny Ms. Wright the seniority, pay, and
`
`benefits she earned was motivated by her use of earned sick time, necessary quarantine, and
`related leave and thus violated M.G.L. c. 149 § 148C.
`
`53.
`
`Asset forth herein, the Defendant subjected Ms. Wright to a hostile work environment
`
`based on heruse of earned sick time, necessary quarantine, and related leave in violation of
`
`M.G.L. c. 149 § 148C.
`
`54.
`
`As set forth herein, the Defendant’s termination of Ms. Wright was motivated by her use
`
`of earned sick time, necessary quarantine, and related leave and thus violated M.G.L. c. 149 §
`
`148C.
`
`55.
`
`Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149 §150 Ms. Wrightis entitled to recover from the Defendant
`
`treble her damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/22/2023 4:31 PM
`Superior Court - Worcester
`Docket Number
`
`COUNT Itt
`Breach of Contract
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`Ms. Wright restates and incorporatesall of the foregoing paragraphsherein.
`
`Byits conduct described herein, the Defendant breached its contract with Ms. Wright,
`
`and Ms. Wright is entitled to be compensated for her resulting damages.
`
`58.
`
`Alternatively, the Defendant should be held liable to Ms. Wright undertheprinciples of
`
`promissory estoppel because Ms. Wright reasonably relied on the Defendant’s representation
`
`that she would be able to return to work after Ms. Wright’s necessary quarantine andrelated
`
`leave without losing seniority, wages, or benefits.
`
`59.
`
`Ms. Wright could have pursued other employment opportunities if she had known she
`
`would havelost the seniority, wages, and benefits she had earnedpriorto her necessary
`
`quarantine and related leave.
`
`60.
`
`Ms. Wrightis entitled to her damages and reasonable attorney’s fees andcosts.
`
`COUNT IV
`Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
`Ms. Wright restates and incorporates all ofthe foregoing paragraphs herein.
`By the conductdescribed herein, the Defendant breached the covenant ofgood faith and
`
`61.
`62.
`
`fair dealing implied in their contract with Ms. Wright, and Ms. Wrightis entitled to her damages
`and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
`WHEREFORE,PlaintiffJamilah Wright prays that this Honorable Court enterthe
`
`followingrelief:
`
`A.
`
`Enter judgmentin her favor on all counts of her Complaint according to her proof
`
`‘at trial;
`
`B.
`
`Awardherall her costs of suit, interest and attorneys' fees;
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/22/2023 4:31 PM
`Superior Court - Worcester
`Docket Number
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Award her treble damages with respect to her unpaid wages;
`
`Award her compensatory damages; and
`
`Award her such otherrelief as this Court deemsjust and appropriate.
`
`PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY AS TO ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Plaintiff Jamilah Wright
`Byherattorneys,
`
`/s/Benjamin C. Rudol,
`Benjamin C. Rudolf, BBO# 667695
`Fernando M.Figueroa, BBO# 698934
`Murphy & Rudolf, LLP
`446 Main Street,
`Suite 1530
`Worcester, MA 01608
`(508) 425-6330
`brudolf@murphyrudolf.com
`figueroa@murphyrudolf.com
`
`Dated: May 22, 2023
`
`
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
