throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`______________________________________
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`TASAHIA BEY
` §
`
`
`1135 Duncan Avenue
` §
`
`
`Yeadon, PA 19050
`
` §
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`OPTUM SERVICES, INC.
` §
`1260 E. Woodland Avenue, Suite 220
` §
`Springfield, PA 19064
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`and
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`OPTUMRX, INC.
`
`
`
` §
`2300 Main Street
`
`
`
` §
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`and
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.
`
` §
`9900 Bren Road East
`
`
` §
`Minnetonka, MN 55343
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`and
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC.
`
` §
`9700 Health Care Lane
`
`
` §
`Minnetonka, MN 55343
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`______________________________________
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Civil Action No. __________________
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Tasahia Bey, is an adult female individual who alleges by and through her
`
`attorneys, Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, that her former employer, discriminated and retaliated
`
`against her in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §2601, et.
`
`seq.(“FMLA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.A. §12102 et. seq. as
`
`

`

`amended by the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act of 2008 (“ADAA”). In support
`
`thereof, Plaintiff alleges and avers:
`
`Parties
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Tasahia Bey, is an adult female individual who resides at the above
`
`address, and was at all times relevant, employed as an Authorization Clerk for Optum Services,
`
`Inc., OptumRX, Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and/or UnitedHealthcare, Inc. Plaintiff was
`
`employed from January 2008 until around April 22, 2019, when she was involuntarily terminated
`
`from employment. At the time of her termination, Plaintiff earned around $18.00 an hour with
`
`benefits.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant, Optum Services, Inc. is an entity, organization, and/or company duly
`
`existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a registered office at the
`
`above address, and at all times relevant, was Plaintiff’s employer.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant, OptumRx, Inc. is an entity, organization, and/or company and a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, Inc., with an office at the above captioned address, and
`
`was at all times relevant, Plaintiff’s employer.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant, UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is a corporation incorporated in Minnesota
`
`and purportedly the largest managed care company, by revenue and membership, in the United
`
`States. Defendant UnitedHealth Group, Inc. was, at all times relevant, Plaintiff’s employer.
`
`Alternatively, Defendant, UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is a named Defendant to the extent its acts
`
`were performed or are otherwise attributable to any of its subsidiaries or affiliates.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant, UnitedHealthcare, Inc. is, on information and belief, a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and is incorporated in Minnesota. Defendant,
`
`UnitedHealthcare, Inc., was, at all times relevant, Plaintiff’s employer. Alternatively, Defendant,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`UnitedHealthcare, Inc. is a named Defendant to the extent its acts were performed or are otherwise
`
`attributable to any of its subsidiaries or affiliates.
`
`6.
`
`Defendants, Optum Services, Inc., OptumRX, Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and
`
`UnitedHealthcare, Inc. (hereinafter individually and jointly referred to as “Defendants”) agreed,
`
`accepted, acquiesced, adopted, and/or was otherwise bound by the actions, omissions, and conduct
`
`of its/their owners, officers, managers, supervisors, employees, and agents.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`7.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter as it involves a Federal
`
`Question, 28 U.S.C. §1331, and the Court maintains supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1367,
`
`over the Pennsylvania State Law causes of action
`
`8.
`
`Venue is appropriate as Defendants reside and/or all actions and omissions giving
`
`rise to this litigation occurred in the Eastern District (i.e. Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware,
`
`Lancaster, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, and Philadelphia).
`
`9.
`
`Furthermore, Plaintiff has adequately satisfied all prerequisites to bring these
`
`employment discrimination claims as she exhausted administrative remedies by having filed a
`
`timely Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
`
`and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”), and Plaintiff having received a
`
`Notice of Right to Sue.
`
`Summary of Facts
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff, Tasahia Bey, had the onset of a medical condition in January of 2019 that
`
`persisted and affected her ability to perform everyday activities including work, stand, lift, sit,
`
`sexual intercourse, and focus. On April 1, 2019 Plaintiff’s had a Hysteroscopy and on April 24,
`
`2019 Plaintiff underwent a Uterine Fibroid Embolization procedure.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`11.
`
`In summary, Plaintiff’s uterus and/or fibroids were bleeding excessively and
`
`uncontrollably and was/were substantially limiting Plaintiff from major life activities.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff kept Defendants informed of her medical condition, medical treatment,
`
`and the progress of her medical condition verbally and with medical records.
`
`13.
`
`Defendants regarded Plaintiff as disabled.
`
`14.
`
`On or around January 23, 2019 Defendants, by and through the authorization of
`
`Manager Craig Verani, permitted Plaintiff to work from home and/or telecommute due to the
`
`limitations caused by Plaintiff’s disability.
`
`15.
`
`Telecommuting presents no hardship on Defendants, and is permitted generally for
`
`Authorization Clerks, even those without disabilities.
`
`16.
`
`Despite Plaintiff’s disability, there were no efforts taken by Defendants to formally
`
`recognize Plaintiff as requiring an accommodation, accommodating Plaintiff, and/or granting
`
`Plaintiff an accommodation to work from home or other relief.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff applied for Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for her disability
`
`and/or serious health condition, as she was intermittently required to be absent from work for
`
`doctor and medical visits.
`
`Craig Verani separated from employment for Defendants around March of 2019.
`
`On information and belief, Mr. Verani was replaced by Ruo Z (Last Name
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Unknown).
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff was required to return to work in March 2019, when Plaintiff’s application
`
`for FMLA was denied, due to a failure to submit medical records.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff had not been recognized as having or requiring an accommodation.
`
`There were no meetings or other interactive process.
`
`4
`
`

`

`23.
`
`Plaintiff returned to work but had a worsening of her condition/disability and was
`
`unable to work without telecommuting.
`
`24.
`
`Defendants third party administrator, Sedgwick, approved Plaintiff for intermittent
`
`FMLA from April 12, 2019 through September 24, 2019.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff kept her supervisor, Heather Ionno, informed of her needs for leave and
`
`treatment and that Plaintiff was undergoing a medical procedure and surgery on April 24, 2019.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`On April 22, 2019 Defendants terminated Plaintiff for alleged theft of time.
`
`At the time, Plaintiff was not under a Corrective Action Form, last chance
`
`agreement, Performance Improvement Plan, or any other disciplinary measure threatening
`
`termination.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff disputes the allegation of theft of time, or that she had any prior incidents,
`
`and thus the reason for her termination was pretext to discrimination and retaliation.
`
`29.
`
`Defendants terminated Plaintiff as a retaliation for Plaintiff’s protected activities,
`
`including having been approved for FMLA, having requested or been eligible for an
`
`accommodation, and/or for having been reasonably accommodated.
`
`30.
`
`Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by failing and/or refusing to engage the
`
`interactive process in good faith and reasonably accommodate Plaintiff when Defendants knew
`
`and/or were aware of the need for an accommodation.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff was disparately treated in relation to similarly situated non-disabled
`
`individuals.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`COUNT ONE
`Retaliation in violation of FMLA
`Family Medical Leave Act “FMLA”, 29 USCA 2601 et. seq.
`Plaintiff v. Defendants
`
`
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth at length herein.
`
`Defendants is/are a covered employer(s) under the FMLA as it/they is/are engaged
`
`in commerce and/or in an industry or activity affecting commerce and employ 50 or more
`
`employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or
`
`preceding calendar year.
`
`34.
`
`Alternatively, Defendant is/are a covered employer because it/they employ 50 or
`
`more employees within a 75-mile range of the worksite, for each working day during each of 20
`
`or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff was an eligible employee for FMLA because she had worked for
`
`Defendants for 12 or more months and had worked more than 1250 hours in the preceding year
`
`for Defendants.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff was eligible for intermittent FMLA because her bleeding fibroids and
`
`health conditions were under care, required consecutive missed days, of work, and/or otherwise
`
`presented as a serious health condition.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the FMLA as (1) Plaintiff took
`
`and was approved for FMLA leave, (2) she suffered an adverse employment decision(s) or action
`
`in her termination and discipline, and (3) the adverse decision(s) and termination were casually
`
`related to the approval and Plaintiff’s leave.
`
`38.
`
`The temporal proximity of Plaintiff’s approval and use of FMLA (April 12, 2019)
`
`and her foregoing disparate treatment and/or termination (April 22, 2019) are unusually suggestive
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`of retaliation, and raise a presumption that Plaintiff’s discipline and/or termination was/were
`
`causally related to her leave.
`
`39.
`
`Alternatively, there is sufficient evidence of animus and antagonistic conduct to
`
`support and raise an inference that Defendants’ were motivated by retaliation.
`
`40.
`
`The acts mentioned above were willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, oppressive,
`
`and justify the award of liquidated damages.
`
`41.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ retaliation, Plaintiff has been
`
`deprived of economic benefits including, but not limited to, lost wages, lost back pay, lost front
`
`pay, medical bills, and out-of-pocket expenses.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff demands favorable judgment against Defendants for all interest on the
`
`monetary benefits calculated at the prevailing rate, an additional amount equal to those sums, as
`
`liquidated damages under §107(a), fees and costs including the allowance of reasonable attorneys’
`
`fees, expert witness fees and other costs of the action against Defendant and such other orders and
`
`further relief as may be necessary and appropriate to effectuate the objectives of the FMLA.
`
`43.
`
`In terminating Plaintiff, Defendants considered her leave of absence under the
`
`FMLA and thus under mixed-motive, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff seeks re-employment as a form of relief under the FMLA.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tasahia Bey, demands judgment, against Defendants, Optum
`
`Services, Inc., OptumRX, Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and/or UnitedHealthcare, Inc., for
`
`compensatory damages, equitable relief, liquidated damages, costs of litigation, and all other relief
`
`the Court deems equitable and just.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`COUNT TWO
`Discrimination, Disparate Treatment, and Failure to Accommodate
`Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12102 et. seq.
`Plaintiff v. Defendants
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth at length herein.
`
`Defendants is/are an employer(s) under the ADA as it/they is/are engaged in an
`
`industry affecting commerce and has/have/had a sufficient number of employees working each of
`
`twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff is an individual with a qualified disability as her fibroids and/or other
`
`medical condition significantly prevent her from performing everyday activities, but not the
`
`essential functions of her job, with or without a reasonable accommodation.
`
`48.
`
`Alternatively, Defendants regarded Plaintiff as disabled as Defendants were aware
`
`of her condition, medical records, her approval for FMLA and Short-Term Disability.
`
`49.
`
`Defendants disparately treated and thus discriminated against Plaintiff when
`
`unnecessarily disciplining her in relation to similarly situated non-disabled employees.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants disparately treated and discriminated against Plaintiff when terminating
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`51.
`
`Defendants failed to engage the interactive process in good faith at a time when
`
`Defendants knew and were aware that Plaintiff had a disability and needed an accommodation.
`
`52.
`
`Defendants failed and unreasonably refused to grant Plaintiff a reasonable
`
`accommodation, despite there being no hardship.
`
`53.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discrimination and disparate
`
`treatment, Plaintiff was terminated.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`54.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered loss of wages including loss of back pay, loss of front pay,
`
`loss of amenities of employment, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional damages, embarrassment,
`
`humiliation, loss of reputation, and other similar damages, all to Plaintiff’s great detriment.
`
`55.
`
`Defendants’ actions were willful and wanton and thus require the imposition of
`
`Punitive Damages.
`
`56.
`
`Alternatively, Defendants’ actions were motivated by the foregoing discrimination
`
`and thus Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees under the mixed motive theory of liability.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tasahia Bey, demands judgment, against Defendants, Optum
`
`Services, Inc., OptumRX, Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and/or UnitedHealthcare, Inc., for
`
`compensatory damages, equitable relief, liquidated damages, costs of litigation, and all other relief
`
`the Court deems equitable and just.
`
`COUNT THREE
`Retaliation
`Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12102 et. seq.
`Plaintiff v. Defendant
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth at length herein.
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`telecommuting,
`
`leaves of absence, good faith request for an
`
`accommodation, and/or having been accommodated constitutes protected activity under the ADA.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants disciplined, retaliated, and terminated Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff
`
`having taken the foregoing protected activity.
`
`60.
`
`Defendants’ adverse action is/was/were temporally proximate to Plaintiff’s
`
`protected activity, such that it is/was/were unusually suggestive that Defendants retaliated against
`
`Plaintiff for having taken the protected activity.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`61.
`
`Alternatively, sufficient evidence of antagonistic and/or animus toward Plaintiff
`
`and/or other evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and adverse action
`
`support that Defendants’ actions were retaliation.
`
`62.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered
`
`loss of wages including loss of back pay, loss of front pay, loss of amenities of employment, out-
`
`of-pocket expenses, emotional damages, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, and other
`
`similar damages, all to Plaintiff’s great detriment.
`
`63.
`
`Defendants’ actions were willful and wanton and thus require the imposition of
`
`Punitive Damages.
`
`64.
`
`Alternatively, Defendants’ actions were motivated by the foregoing discrimination
`
`and thus Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees under the mixed motive theory of liability.
`
` WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tasahia Bey, demands judgment, against Defendants, Optum
`
`Services, Inc., OptumRX, Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and/or UnitedHealthcare, Inc., for
`
`compensatory damages, equitable relief, liquidated damages, costs of litigation, and all other relief
`
`the Court deems equitable and just.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
`
`
`_____________________________________
`CHRISTOPHER J. DELGAIZO, ESQUIRE
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC
`1835 Market Street, Suite 2950
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`T: 215-391-4790
`Email: Chris@dereksmithlaw.com
`
`Date: July 17, 2020
`
`
`
`10
`
`

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