throbber
Case: 4:21-cv-01911-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/08/21 1 of 25. PageID #: 1
`
`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

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