`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`COREY CASEY
`5196 South Avenue
`Boardman, Ohio 45867
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MERCY HEALTH PHYSICIANS
`YOUNGSTOWN, LLC
`c/o Joseph A. Shoaff
`Statutory Agent
`1044 Belmont Avenue
`Youngstown, Ohio 44501
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`CASE NO.
`
`JUDGE:
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`AND REINSTATEMENT
`
`JURY DEMAND ENDORSED
`HEREIN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Corey Casey, by and through undersigned counsel, as his Complaint against the
`
`Defendant, states and avers the following:
`
`PARTIES AND VENUE
`
`1. Casey is a resident of the city of Boardman, County of Mahoning, State of Ohio.
`
`2. Defendant is a Domestic Limited Liability Company with a place of business located at 1044
`
`Belmont Ave Youngstown, Ohio 44501.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that Casey is
`
`alleging federal law claims regarding the deprivation of Casey’s rights under the Americans
`
`with Disabilities Act as amended, the Family Medical Leave Act, and the Age Discrimination
`
`in Employment Act.
`
`4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`5. All material events alleged in this Complaint occurred in Mahoning County.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 2 of 25. PageID #: 2
`
`6. Within 300 days of the conduct alleged below, Casey dual filed a Charge of Discrimination
`
`with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) and the Ohio Civil Rights
`
`Commission (“OCRC”), Charge No. 532-2021-01375 against Defendant.
`
`7. On or about July 26, 2021, the EEOC issued and mailed a Notice of Right to Sue letter to
`
`Casey regarding the Charge of Discrimination.
`
`8. Casey received his Right to Sue letter from the EEOC in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
`
`5(f)(1), which has been attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
`
`9. Casey filed this Complaint within 90 days of the issuance of the Notice of Right to Sue letter.
`
`10. Casey has properly exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
`
`1614.407(b).
`
`11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because a substantial part of
`
`the events or omissions giving rise to this action, including the unlawful employment
`
`practices alleged herein, occurred in this district.
`
`FACTS
`
`12. Defendant operates a health care system throughout Ohio.
`
`13. At all times relevant herein, Defendant operated a facility located at 905 Sahara Trail Poland,
`
`Ohio 44514. (“Poland Location”)
`
`14. Casey is a former employee of Defendant.
`
`15. Defendant employed Casey at the Poland Location.
`
`16. Defendant hired Casey as an aide in or around July 2018.
`
`17.
`
`In or around February 2020, Defendant promoted Casey to a Licensed Practical Nurse.
`
`18. Casey is biracial, African American and Native American.
`
`19. Casey has a dark skin complexion.
`
`.2
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 3 of 25. PageID #: 3
`
`20. Casey appears African American.
`
`21. Casey has Crohn’s disease. (“Crohn’s”).
`
`22. As a result of Casey’s Crohn’s, Casey occasionally experiences debilitating pain and severe
`
`nausea and requires regular access to a restroom.
`
`23. Casey’s Crohn’s affects his gastrointestinal body system.
`
`24. Casey’s Crohn’s is a physiological disability.
`
`25. As a result of the occasional debilitating pain and other symptoms of his Crohn’s, Casey’s
`
`Crohn’s impacts one or more of his major life activities, including working.
`
`26. Casey has a record of his Crohn’s.
`
`27. Despite his Crohn’s, Casey was able to perform the essential functions of his job.
`
`28. As a result of suffering from Crohn’s, Casey is and was considered disabled within the
`
`meaning of the ADA.
`
`29. As a result of suffering from Crohn’s, Casey is and was considered disabled within the
`
`meaning of O.R.C § 4112.01(A)(13).
`
`30.
`
`In or around September 2020, Casey disclosed his Crohn’s to Defendant and requested
`
`FMLA leave for his condition. (“FMLA Request”)
`
`31. As of September 2020, Casey worked for Defendant for at least 12 months.
`
`32. As of September 2020, Casey had at least 1,250 hours of service for Defendant during the
`
`previous 12 months.
`
`33. As of September 2020, Defendant employed over 50 employees within a 75 mile radius.
`
`34. As of September 2020, Defendant were covered employers pursuant to the FMLA.
`
`35. As of September 2020, Casey was eligible to utilize FMLA leave.
`
`36. Casey’s Crohn’s is a serious medical condition.
`
`.3
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 4 of 25. PageID #: 4
`
`37. Casey’s Crohn’s is an FMLA qualifying condition.
`
`38. As of September 2020, Casey was entitled to utilize FMLA leave for his Crohn’s.
`
`39.
`
`In or around September 2020, Defendant granted Casey’s FMLA Request.
`
`40.
`
`In or around September 2020, Casey began using intermittent FMLA leave when he had
`
`flair-ups of his Crohn’s.
`
`41.
`
`In or around October 2020, Casey transferred to Defendant’s Endocrinology department.
`
`(“Transfer”)
`
`42. Following the Transfer, Defendant provided Casey with one day of video lessons to train
`
`him for his role in the Endocrinology department. (“Video Training”)
`
`43. Aside from the Video Training, Defendant did not provide Casey with any additional training
`
`for his new role in the Endocrinology department.
`
`44. During Casey’s employment, Defendant provided Caucasian employees additional training
`
`in excess of the Video Training.
`
`45. During Casey’s employment, Defendant provided non-disabled employees additional
`
`training in excess of the Video Training.
`
`46. During Casey’s employment, During Casey’s employment, Defendant provided employees
`
`who did not use FMLA leave with additional training in excess of the Video Training.
`
`47. Following the Transfer, Casey repeatedly requested training in addition to the Video
`
`Training. (“Training Requests”)
`
`48.
`
`In response to Casey’s Training Requests, Defendant did not provide Casey with any
`
`additional training.
`
`49. Refusing to properly train an employee for their job duties is an adverse action.
`
`50. Refusing to properly train an employee for their job duties is an adverse employment action.
`
`.4
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 5 of 25. PageID #: 5
`
`51.
`
`In or around January 2021, Beth Lavender, Defendant’s practice manager, met with Casey
`
`to discuss his Training Requests. (“January Meeting”)
`
`52. Lavender is Caucasian.
`
`53. Lavender is not disabled.
`
`54. At all times relevant herein, Defendant employed Lavender in a supervisory role.
`
`55. At all times relevant herein, Defendant empowered Lavender to take tangible employment
`
`actions in relation to Defendant’s employees.
`
`56. At all times relevant herein, Lavender was empowered to terminate Defendant’s employees.
`
`57. During the January Meeting, Casey complained about the lack of adequate training.
`
`58. During the January Meeting, Casey reiterated his Training Request.
`
`59. During the January Meeting, Casey informed Lavender that he would be using FMLA leave
`
`for upcoming medical examinations related to his Crohn’s.
`
`60. Following the January Meeting, Defendant did not provide Casey with any additional
`
`training.
`
`61. Following the January Meeting, Lavender and Defendant reassigned Casey to the COVID-
`
`19 vaccine clinic. (“COVID Relocation”)
`
`62. The COVID-19 vaccine clinic was a less desirable position than the endocrinology
`
`department.
`
`63. The COVID Relocation was an adverse action.
`
`64. The COVID Relocation was an adverse employment action.
`
`65. Upon information and belief, Defendant did not reassign employees from the endocrinology
`
`department, who did not have upcoming FMLA leave, to the COVID vaccine clinic.
`
`66. Due to his Crohns Casey takes medication that weakens his immune system.
`
`.5
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 6 of 25. PageID #: 6
`
`67. Due to the medication Casey takes for his Crohns Casey was at high risk for contracting
`
`COVID-19.
`
`68. Following the COVID Relocation, Casey disclosed his susceptibility to COVID to Lavender,
`
`and asked Defendant to reconsider the COVID Relocation so as not to put Casey at a higher
`
`risk of contracting COVID. (“Request for Reconsideration”)
`
`69. Casey’s Request for Reconsideration was a request for accommodation.
`
`70. Casey’ Request for Reconsideration was reasonable.
`
`71. Casey’ Request for Reconsideration did not cause an undue hardship to Defendant.
`
`72. Defendant did not determine if Casey’ Request for Reconsideration would cause an undue
`
`hardship.
`
`73. Defendant have no contemporaneously created documents reflecting any effort to determine
`
`if Casey’ Request for Reconsideration would cause an undue hardship.
`
`74. After the Request for Reconsideration, no one at Defendant engaged in an interactive process
`
`to find a reasonable accommodation for Casey’ disability.
`
`75. Defendant violated The ADA when no one at Defendant engaged in an interactive process
`
`to find a reasonable accommodation for Casey’ disability.
`
`76. Defendant violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. when no one at Defendant engaged in an
`
`interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation for Casey’ disability.
`
`77. Defendant denied Casey’s Request for Reconsideration.
`
`78.
`
`In response to Casey’s Request for Reconsideration, Lavender told Casey that if he did not
`
`accept the COVID Relocation, Defendant would terminate his employment.
`
`79. Following Defendant’s denial of the Request for Reconsideration, Casey appeared at and
`
`preformed work at the COVID vaccine clinic.
`
`.6
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 7 of 25. PageID #: 7
`
`80. On or around January 22, 2021, Casey experienced a sever flare up of his Crohns.
`
`81. On or around January 22, 2021, Casey used FMLA to cover his severe Chrons flare up.
`
`82. Casey used FMLA leave from January 22, 2021 through February 23, 2021. (“Medical
`
`Leave”)
`
`83. While Casey was on Medical Leave, Lavendar informed Casey that Defendant had hired
`
`Kelly Hoyle as an LPN.
`
`84. Hoyle is Caucasian.
`
`85. Upon information and belief, Hoyle is not disabled.
`
`86. Upon returning to work on or around February 23, 2021, Casey observed that Defendant
`
`provided Hoyle with training in excess of the Video Training. (“Extra Training”)
`
`87. Hoyle’s Extra Training included Defendant providing Hoyle with hands on training under
`
`the supervision of physicians and senior LPN’s.
`
`88. Hoyle’s Extra Training included Hoyle logging in under other employee’s names to
`
`familiarize herself with Defendant’s systems.
`
`89. Hoyle’s Extra Training included Hoyle being allowed to escort patients to rooms and process
`
`their initial documents under the supervision of senior coworkers.
`
`90. On or around March 2, 2021, Dr. Steven Robbins asked Casey to disclose his medical history,
`
`including prescribed medications, to Dr. Robbins. (“Medical History Inquiry”)
`
`91. At all times relevant herein, Defendant employed Dr. Robbins as a physician.
`
`92. Dr. Robbins is not African American.
`
`93. At all times relevant herein, Dr. Robbins had the power to hire and fire Defendant’s
`
`employees.
`
`94. Dr. Robbins is not Casey’s treating physician.
`
`.7
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 8 of 25. PageID #: 8
`
`95. Casey has never seen Dr. Robbins for medical treatment.
`
`96. During the Medical History Inquiry, Dr. Robbins was acting in his position as Defendant’s
`
`employee.
`
`97. Casey was uncomfortable with the Medical History Inquiry
`
`98. A reasonable person, similarly situated to Casey would feel uncomfortable with the Medical
`
`History Inquiry.
`
`99. Upon information and belief, Dr. Robbins did not ask non-African American employees
`
`about their medical history.
`
`100. Upon information and belief, Dr. Robbins did not ask non-disabled employees about their
`
`medical history.
`
`101. Upon information and belief, Dr. Robbins did not ask employees who did not use FMLA
`
`leave about their medical history.
`
`102. On or around March 24, 2021, Carrie Gurski told Casey that due to over staffing, one of the
`
`LPNs would be reassigned to a float position.
`
`103. At all times relevant herein, Defendant employed Gurski as a practice manager.
`
`104. At all times relevant herein, Gurski had the power to hire and fire Defendant’s employees.
`
`105. Upon information and belief, Gurski is not disabled.
`
`106. Gurski is Caucasian.
`
`107. On or around March 24, 2021, Gurski informed Casey that Defendant had elected to assign
`
`him to the float position. (“Float Assignment”)
`
`108. The float position was less desirable than a scheduled LPN position due to excess travel and
`
`variable hours.
`
`109. At the time of the Float Assignment, Casey had more seniority than Hoyle.
`
`.8
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 9 of 25. PageID #: 9
`
`110. Defendant did not assign Hoyle to the Float Assignment.
`
`111. After receiving the Float Assignment, Casey asked Dr. Robbins and Dr. Milad Absuag why
`
`he had been selected for the Float Assignment. (“Float Inquiry”)
`
`112. At all times relevant herein, Defendant employed Dr. Absuag as a physician.
`
`113. Dr. Absuag is not African American.
`
`114. At all times relevant herein, Dr. Absuag had the power to hire and fire Defendant’s
`
`employees.
`
`115. In response to the Float Inquiry, Dr. Robbins and Dr. Absuag informed Casey that Defendant
`
`had selected him for the Float Assignment because he did not have the same training that
`
`Hoyle had and that Casey had “all that medical stuff.”
`
`116. In stating that Casey had “all that medical stuff” Dr. Robbins and Dr. Absuag were referring
`
`to Casey’s disability and FMLA use.
`
`117. In stating that Defendant had selected Casey for the Float Assignment due to “all that medical
`
`stuff” Dr. Robbins and Dr. Absuag were admitting that Defendant assigned Casey to the float
`
`position based on his disability and FMLA use.
`
`118. On March 25, 2021, Casey submitted a complaint to Defendant’s human resources
`
`department complaining that he was experiencing discrimination based on his race,
`
`disability, and FMLA use. (“Discrimination Complaint”)
`
`119. Upon information and belief, Defendant has a policy against treating employees in a disparate
`
`manner based on the employee’s protected class or protected activity. (“Discrimination Policy”)
`
`120. Casey’s Discrimination Complaint was a complaint of violations of Defendant’s Discrimination
`
`Policy.
`
`.9
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 10 of 25. PageID #: 10
`
`121. Upon information and belief, Defendant has a policy to investigate complaints of violations of
`
`the Discrimination Policy. (“Investigation Policy”)
`
`122. Pursuant to Defendant’s Investigation Policy, an investigation should include interviewing
`
`the complainant.
`
`123. Pursuant to Defendant’s Investigation Policy, an investigation should include interviewing
`
`the subject of the complaint.
`
`124. Pursuant to Defendant’s Investigation Policy, an investigation should include interviewing
`
`the subject of the reported discrimination.
`
`125. Pursuant to Defendant’s Investigation Policy, an investigation should include interviewing
`
`witnesses to the reported discrimination.
`
`126. Pursuant to Defendant’s Investigation Policy, an investigation should include getting a
`
`written statement from the complainant.
`
`127. Pursuant to Defendant’s Investigation Policy, an investigation should include getting a
`
`written statement from the subject of the complaint.
`
`128. Pursuant to Defendant’s Investigation Policy, an investigation should include getting a
`
`written statement from the subject of the reported discrimination.
`
`129. In response to Casey’s Discrimination Complaint, Defendant did not interview Casey.
`
`130. In response to Casey’s Discrimination Complaint, Defendant did not interview Dr. Robbins.
`
`131. In response to Casey’s Discrimination Complaint, Defendant did not interview Dr. Absuag.
`
`132. In response to Casey’s Discrimination Complaint, Defendant did not interview Gurski.
`
`133. In response to Casey’s Discrimination Complaint, Defendant did not interview Lavender.
`
`134. In response to Casey’s Discrimination Complaint, Defendant did not get a written statement
`
`from Casey.
`
`.10
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 11 of 25. PageID #: 11
`
`135. In response to Casey’s Discrimination Complaint, Defendant did not get a written statement
`
`from Dr. Robbins.
`
`136. In response to Casey’s Discrimination Complaint, Defendant did not get a written statement
`
`from Dr. Absuag.
`
`137. In response to Casey’s Discrimination Complaint, Defendant did not get a written statement
`
`from Gurski.
`
`138. In response to Casey’s Discrimination Complaint, Defendant did not get a written statement
`
`from Lavender.
`
`139. Defendant did not investigate Casey’s Discrimination Complaint.
`
`140. Defendant did not discipline anyone based on the Discrimination Complaint.
`
`141. By not disciplining any based on the Discrimination Complaint, Defendant ratified Lavender,
`
`Gurski, Dr. Robbins, and Dr. Abusag’s conduct.
`
`142. By not disciplining anyone based on the Discrimination Complaint, Defendant allowed
`
`Lavender, Gurski, Dr. Robbins, and Dr. Abusag’s conduct to continue.
`
`143. On or around March 26, 2021 Casey experienced a flair up of his Crohns and requested two
`
`days of FMLA leave. (“March FMLA Request”)
`
`144. In response to Casey’s March FMLA Request, Defendant told Casey that he was no longer
`
`permitted to take individual days of FMLA leave and that he would be required to take off
`
`multiple days of FMLA.
`
`145. Based on Defendant’s order to take multiple days off whenever he used FMLA leave, Casey
`
`used FMLA leave from March 26, 2021 through April 13, 2021.
`
`146. On April 6, 2021, Casey filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. (“EEOC Charge”)
`
`.11
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 12 of 25. PageID #: 12
`
`147. Upon information and belief, the EEOC informed Defendant that Casey had filed the EEOC
`
`Charge.
`
`148. On or around April 13, 2021, Casey returned to work the Float Assignment.
`
`149. While Casey was working the Float Assignment, Casey requested to be returned to normal
`
`LPN duties as the Float Assignment’s uncertain schedule and excessive travel created an
`
`undue hardship with Casey’s Crohns due to, among other factors, limited restroom access.
`
`(“Second Request for Accommodation”)
`
`150. Casey’s Second Accommodation Request was a request for accommodation.
`
`151. Casey’ Second Accommodation Request was reasonable.
`
`152. Casey’ Second Accommodation Request did not cause an undue hardship to Defendant.
`
`153. Defendant did not determine if Casey’ Second Accommodation Request would cause an
`
`undue hardship.
`
`154. Defendant have no contemporaneously created documents reflecting any effort to determine
`
`if Casey’ Second Accommodation Request would cause an undue hardship.
`
`155. After the Second Accommodation Request, no one at Defendant engaged in an interactive
`
`process to find a reasonable accommodation for Casey’ disability.
`
`156. Defendant violated The ADA when no one at Defendant engaged in an interactive process
`
`to find a reasonable accommodation for Casey’ disability.
`
`157. Defendant violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. when no one at Defendant engaged in an
`
`interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation for Casey’ disability.
`
`158. Defendant denied Casey’s Second Accommodation Request.
`
`159. On or around April 30, 2021, Gurski called Casey and informed him that Defendant was
`
`terminating his employment for alleged performance issues.
`
`.12
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 13 of 25. PageID #: 13
`
`160. Defendant did not terminate similarly situated non-disabled employees whose performance was
`
`equal to or less than Casey’s.
`
`161. Defendant terminated Casey based on her his.
`
`162. Defendant did not terminate similarly situated employees who were not utilizing FMLA leave
`
`whose performance was equal to or less than Casey’s.
`
`163. Defendant terminated Casey based on his FMLA use.
`
`164. Defendant did not terminate similarly situated non-African American employees whose
`
`performance was equal to or less than Casey’s.
`
`165. Defendant terminated Casey based on his race and color.
`
`166. Defendant did not terminate employees who had not made complaints similar to the
`
`Discrimination Complaint and EEOC Charge for whose performance was equal to or less than
`
`Casey’s.
`
`167. Defendant terminated Casey based on his Discrimination Complaint.
`
`168. Defendant terminated Casey based on his EEOC Charge.
`
`169. Defendant did not proffer a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating Casey.
`
`170. Defendant knowingly terminated Casey’s employment.
`
`171. Defendant knowingly took an adverse employment action against Casey.
`
`172. Defendant knowingly took an adverse action against Casey.
`
`173. Defendant intentionally terminated Casey’s employment.
`
`174. Defendant intentionally took an adverse employment action against Casey.
`
`175. Defendant intentionally took an adverse action against Casey.
`
`176. Defendant knew that terminating Casey would cause Casey harm, including economic harm.
`
`177. Defendant willfully terminated Casey’s employment.
`
`.13
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 14 of 25. PageID #: 14
`
`178. Defendant willfully took an adverse employment action against Casey.
`
`179. Defendant willfully took an adverse action against Casey.
`
`180. Upon information and belief, subsequent to Casey’s termination, Defendant hired a non-
`
`African American individual to replace Casey.
`
`181. Upon information and belief, subsequent to Casey’s termination, Defendant hired a non-
`
`disabled individual to replace Casey.
`
`182. The above facts demonstrate that Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of disability
`
`discrimination.
`
`183. The above facts demonstrate that Defendant violated the FMLA.
`
`184. The above facts demonstrate that Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of race and
`
`color discrimination.
`
`185. The above facts demonstrate that Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful
`
`retaliation.
`
`186. There was a causal connection between Casey’s disability and Defendant’ termination of
`
`Casey.
`
`187. There was a causal connection between Casey’s race and color and Defendant’ termination
`
`of Casey.
`
`188. There was a causal connection between Casey’s FMLA use and Defendant’ termination of
`
`Casey.
`
`189. There was a causal connection between Casey’s Discrimination Complaint and EEOC
`
`Charge and Defendant’s termination of Casey.
`
`190. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’ conduct, Casey suffered and will continue to
`
`suffer damages.
`
`.14
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 15 of 25. PageID #: 15
`
`
`191. Casey restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully
`
`COUNT I: VIOLATIONS OF THE FMLA
`
`restated herein.
`
`192. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., covered employers are required to provide employees
`
`job-protected unpaid leave for qualified medical and family situations.
`
`193. Defendant is a covered employer under the FMLA.
`
`194. During his employment, Casey had an FMLA qualifying medical condition.
`
`195. During his employment, Casey was eligible to utilize FMLA leave.
`
`196. During his employment, Casey used FMLA leave in connection with his Crohn’s.
`
`197. Defendant terminated Casey’s employment to interfere with his right to utilize FMLA leave.
`
`198. Defendant terminated Casey’s employment in retaliation for his utilization of FMLA leave.
`
`199. Defendant unlawfully interfered with Casey’s exercise of his rights under the FMLA in
`
`violation of Section 105 of the FMLA and section 825.220 of the FMLA regulations.
`
`200. Defendant unlawfully retaliated against Casey for the exercise of his rights under the FMLA
`
`in violation of Section 105 of the FMLA and section 825.220 of the FMLA regulations.
`
`201. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’ conduct, Casey is entitled to all damages
`
`provided for in 29 U.S.C. § 2617, including liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees.
`
`COUNT II: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et
`seq.
`
`202. Casey restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated
`
`herein.
`
`203. Casey has Crohn’s.
`
`204. Casey’s conditions constitute physiological impairments.
`
`.15
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 16 of 25. PageID #: 16
`
`205. Casey’s conditions substantially impair one or more of his major life activities including
`
`working.
`
`206. Casey is disabled.
`
`207. Casey informed Defendant of his disabling conditions.
`
`208. In the alternative, Defendant perceived Casey as being disabled.
`
`209. Defendant perceived Casey’s condition to substantially impair one or more of his major life
`
`activities including working.
`
`210. During his employment, Casey requested reasonable accommodations from Defendant for
`
`his disability.
`
`211. Defendant denied Casey’s request for reasonable accommodations.
`
`212. Defendant treated Casey less favorably than other similarly-situated employees based on his
`
`disabling conditions.
`
`213. Defendant treated Casey less favorably than other similarly-situated employees based on his
`
`perceived disabling condition.
`
`214. Defendant terminated Casey’s employment based on his disabilities.
`
`215. Defendant terminated Casey’s employment based on his perceived disabilities.
`
`216. Defendant violated the ADA when it discharged Casey based on his disabilities.
`
`217. Defendant violated the ADA when it discharged Casey based on his perceived disabilities.
`
`218. Defendant violated the ADA by discriminating against Casey based on his perceived
`
`disabling condition.
`
`219. As a result of Defendant’ discrimination against Casey in violation of the ADA, Casey has
`
`been denied employment opportunities providing substantial compensation and benefits,
`
`thereby entitling Casey to injunctive, equitable, and compensatory monetary relief.
`
`.16
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 17 of 25. PageID #: 17
`
`220. As a result of Defendant’ discrimination against Casey in violation of the ADA, Casey has
`
`suffered mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression,
`
`humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and
`
`emotional pain and suffering.
`
`221. In its discriminatory actions as alleged above, Defendant acted with malice or reckless
`
`indifference to the rights of Casey, thereby entitling Casey to an award of punitive damages.
`
`222. To remedy the violations of the rights of Casey secured by the ADA, Casey requests that the
`
`Court award him the relief demanded below.
`
`COUNT III: RACE AND COLOR DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S. Code
`§ 2000e et seq.
`
`223. Casey restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated
`
`herein.
`
`224. Casey is African American.
`
`225. Defendant treated Casey differently than other similarly-situated employees based on his
`
`race and color.
`
`226. Defendants terminated Casey’s employment based on his race and color.
`
`227. Defendants violated 42 U.S. Code § 2000e et seq. when they discharged Casey based on his
`
`race.
`
`228. As a result of Defendants’ discrimination against Casey in violation of 42 U.S. Code §
`
`2000e et seq., Casey has been denied employment opportunities providing substantial
`
`compensation and benefits, thereby entitling Casey to injunctive, equitable, and
`
`compensatory monetary relief.
`
`229. As a result of Defendants’ discrimination against Casey in violation of 42 U.S. Code §
`
`2000e et seq., Casey has suffered mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not
`
`.17
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 18 of 25. PageID #: 18
`
`limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem
`
`and self-confidence, and emotional pain and suffering.
`
`230. In its discriminatory actions as alleged above, Defendants acted with malice or reckless
`
`indifference to the rights of Casey, thereby entitling Casey to an award of punitive
`
`damages.
`
`231. To remedy the violations of the rights of Casey secured by the 42 U.S. Code § 2000e et seq.,
`
`Casey requests that the Court award him the relief demanded below.
`
`COUNT IV: RETALIATORY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S. Code §
`2000e-3
`
`232. Casey restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated
`
`herein.
`
`233. On or around March 25, 2021, Casey complained to Defendant that he was experiencing
`
`race, color, and disability discrimination as well as FMLA retaliation.
`
`234. On or around April 6, 2021, Casey filed the EEOC Charge.
`
`235. Following Casey’s Discrimination Complaint and EEOC Charge, Defendant terminated
`
`Casey.
`
`236. Defendant’s actions were retaliatory in nature based on Casey’s opposition to unlawful
`
`discriminatory conduct.
`
`237. Pursuant to 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-3, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice “because he
`
`has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter …”
`
`238. Defendant retaliatory conduct towards Casey violated 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-3 et seq.
`
`239. As a result of Defendant’s retaliation against Casey in violation of 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-3
`
`et seq., Casey has been denied employment opportunities providing substantial
`
`.18
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 19 of 25. PageID #: 19
`
`compensation and benefits, thereby entitling Casey to injunctive, equitable, and
`
`compensatory monetary relief.
`
`240. As a result of Defendant’s discrimination against Casey in violation of 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-
`
`3 et seq., Casey has suffered mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited
`
`to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-
`
`confidence, and emotional pain and suffering.
`
`241. In its discriminatory actions as alleged above, Defendant have acted with malice or reckless
`
`indifference to the rights of Casey, thereby entitling Casey to an award of punitive damages.
`
`242. To remedy the violations of the rights of Casey secured by 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-3 et seq.,
`
`Casey requests that the Court award him the relief prayed for below.
`
`COUNT VI: RACE AND COLOR DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF O.R.C. §
`4112.01 et seq.
`
`
`243. Casey restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated
`
`herein.
`
`244. Casey is African American.
`
`245. Defendants treated Casey differently than other similarly-situated employees based on his
`
`race and color.
`
`246. Defendants terminated Casey’s employment based on his race and color.
`
`247. Defendants violated O.R.C §4112.02 et seq. when they discharged Casey based on his race
`
`and color.
`
`248. As a result of Defendants’ discrimination against Casey in violation of O.R.C §4112.02 et
`
`seq., Casey has been denied employment opportunities providing substantial compensation
`
`and benefits, thereby entitling Casey to injunctive, equitable, and compensatory monetary
`
`relief.
`
`.19
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 20 of 25. PageID #: 20
`
`249. As a result of Defendants’ discrimination against Casey in violation of O.R.C §4112.02 et
`
`seq., Casey has suffered mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited
`
`to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-
`
`confidence, and emotional pain and suffering.
`
`250. In its discriminatory actions as alleged above, Defendants acted with malice or reckless
`
`indifference to the rights of Casey, thereby entitling Casey to an award of punitive
`
`damages.
`
`251. To remedy the violations of the rights of Casey secured by the O.R.C §4112.02 et seq., Casey
`
`requests that the Court award him the relief demanded below.
`
`COUNT VII: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 4112.02 et seq.
`
`252. Casey restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated
`
`herein.
`
`253. Casey has Crohn’s.
`
`254. Casey’s condition substantially impair one or more of his major life activities including
`
`working.
`
`255. Casey is disabled.
`
`256. Cas