`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
`
`