`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`KOLLER LAW LLC
`David M. Koller, Esq. (90119)
`2043 Locust Street, Suite 1B
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`T: (215) 545-8917
`F: (215) 575-0826
`davidk@kollerlawfirm.com
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`TRUDY HOLLOWAY
`
`323 Dague Farm Drive
`
`Coatesville, PA 19320
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF
`PHILADELPHIA,
`
`
`3401 Civic Center Boulevard
`Philadelphia, PA 19104
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`
`
`
`
` CIVIL ACTION
`
`Plaintiff, Trudy Holloway (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through her attorney, Koller
`
`
`
`Law, LLC, bring this civil matter against Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (hereinafter
`
`“Defendant”), for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as amended,
`
`the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), and the Family and Medical Leave Act
`
`(“FMLA”) of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et. seq.. In support thereof, Plaintiff avers as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`2. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing at the above captioned address.
`
`3. Upon information and belief, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is a children’s hospital
`
`with a location and corporate headquarters located at 3401 Civic Center Boulevard,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19104.
`
`4. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an eligible employee under the FMLA. Plaintiff
`
`was employed by Defendant for at least twelve hundred and fifty (1,250) hours of service
`
`during the twelve-month period prior to requiring leave.
`
`5. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an eligible employer under the FMLA.
`
`Defendant is an entity engaged in an industry or activity affecting commerce which
`
`employs 50 or more employees in all of its offices for each working day during each of 20
`
`or more calendar workweek in the current or preceding year.
`
`6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant employed managers, supervisors, agents, and
`
`employees who Plaintiff alleges had the authority to make decisions concerning Plaintiff’s
`
`employment. In making said decisions, these individuals engaged in the pattern and
`
`practice of discriminatory treatment, which forms the basis of Plaintiff’s allegations in the
`
`instant Complaint.
`
`7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant employed managers, supervisors, agents, and
`
`employees who acted directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer. In so acting,
`
`these individuals engaged in the pattern and practice of discriminatory treatment, which
`
`forms the basis of Plaintiff’s allegations in the instant Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`9. The Court may properly maintain personal jurisdiction over Defendant because the
`
`Defendant’s contacts with this state and this judicial district are sufficient for the exercise
`
`of jurisdiction and comply with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, thus
`
`satisfying the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`
`Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and its progeny.
`
`10. The Court may exercise original subject-matter jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(4) because it arises under the laws of the United States
`
`and seeks redress for violations of federal law.
`
`11. The Court may also maintain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims set forth
`
`herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure because they are sufficiently related to one or more claims within the Court’s
`
`original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.
`
`12. Venue is properly laid in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1391(b)(1) and 1391(b)(2) because some of the Plaintiff is domiciled in this judicial
`
`district, the Defendant is located in this judicial district and because all of the acts and/or
`
`omissions giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in this judicial district.
`
`EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
`
`13. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`14. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies under the ADA and the PHRA.
`
`15. Plaintiff timely filed a Charge of Discrimination (“Charge”) with the U.S. Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging disability discrimination and
`
`retaliation against Defendant.
`
`16. The Charge was assigned a Charge Number of 530-2021-01538 and was dual filed with
`
`the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”).
`
`17. The EEOC issued Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights (“Right to Sue”) relative to
`
`the Charge and that Right to Sue is dated May 11, 2021. Plaintiff received the Right to Sue
`
`by mail.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`
`18. Prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff notified the EEOC of her intent to proceed with a
`
`lawsuit in federal court.
`
`19. Plaintiff files the instant Complaint within ninety (90) days of her receipt of her Right to
`
`Sue in this matter.
`
`20. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies as to the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`MATERIAL FACTS
`
`21. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`22. On June 18, 2018, Defendant hired Plaintiff in the position of Foundations Business
`
`Manager.
`
`23. Plaintiff was well qualified for her position and performed well.
`
`24. On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff transferred her to the position of Financial Data Analyst II.
`
`25. Approximately two (2) weeks into taking over the role as Financial Data Analyst II,
`
`Plaintiff began to experience, headaches, dizziness and pain and ringing in her ears and
`
`informed Defendant of same.
`
`26. In or around August 2020, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Ottis Media (middle ear
`
`infection) in both of her ears.
`
`27. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff received multiple medical treatments to treat her Ottis Media.
`
`28. However, Plaintiff did not respond to the medical treatments and her symptoms persisted
`
`and worsened.
`
`29. By late August 2020, Plaintiff was additionally suffering from vibrations in her head,
`
`facial numbness, and Tinnitus (ringing in the ears).
`
`30. Plaintiff informed Defendant of the severe and increasing symptoms of her disabilities
`
`that she had been experiencing, as well as her medical need to be absent from work on
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`
`various occasions to manage her symptoms, undergo various diagnostic tests, and receive
`
`treatment, thereby advising Defendant of her need for a reasonable accommodation.
`
`31. However, Michelle Ulrich, Manage of Revenue and Reimbursement, proceeded to
`
`reprimand Plaintiff for not taking adequate notes during meetings, despite the fact that
`
`she was fully aware that Plaintiff’s disabilities prohibited her from hearing well enough
`
`to take detailed notes.
`
`32. On or about August 26, 2020, Plaintiff was treated by an Otolaryngologist who diagnosed
`
`Plaintiff with Hearing Loss in her left ear and ordered additional testing.
`
`33. Throughout September 2020, Plaintiff continued to suffer from the aforesaid symptoms
`
`and informed Defendant of same.
`
`34. Plaintiff underwent a Computed Tomography Scan (“CAT Scan”) and Magnetic
`
`Resonance Imaging (“MRI”) and yet her physician was unable to ameliorate her
`
`suffering.
`
`35. As a result, Plaintiff was concerned that her disabilities were only worsening and
`
`approached Defendant to discuss her options should she require additional
`
`accommodations such as time away from the workplace.
`
`36. Although Plaintiff advised Defendant she was suffering from serious health conditions
`
`that qualified her for a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act
`
`(“FMLA”), Defendant failed to offer Plaintiff information regarding FMLA leave during
`
`this conversation.
`
`37. Furthermore, Chronic Ottis Media, Tinnitus, and Hearing Loss are disabilities within the
`
`meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (“ADA”), as amended, and the
`
`Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) in that they substantially impair one or
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`
`more of Plaintiff’s major life activities, including, but not limited to, hearing and
`
`concentrating.
`
`38. However, rather than engaging in the interactive process and considering Plaintiff’s
`
`medical need for an accommodation, Defendant instead denied her the right to utilize
`
`FMLA leave and chastised her when she requested the reasonable accommodation of
`
`being absent from work due to her disabilities. Defendant further failed to discuss any
`
`alternate accommodations notwithstanding Plaintiff’s concern that the symptoms of her
`
`disabilities were negatively impacting her ability to perform her job duties satisfactorily.
`
`39. On or around October 7, 2020, Defendant abruptly terminated Plaintiff’s employment,
`
`allegedly due to poor performance.
`
`40. During the conversation wherein Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff
`
`again stated that her disabilities significantly impacted her ability to concentrate and
`
`reasserted her need for a reasonable accommodation.
`
`41. However, Ms. Ulrich flatly denied Plaintiff’s request and stated that Defendant was
`
`unwilling to wait for Plaintiff’s symptoms to resolve.
`
`42. It is Plaintiff’s position that Defendant discriminated against her due to her disabilities,
`
`and retaliated against her for requesting a reasonable accommodation in violation of the
`
`ADA and PHRA. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant interfered with her rights under
`
`the FMLA and/or retaliated against her based on her request for a medical leave of
`
`absence to which she was entitled pursuant to the FMLA.
`
`COUNT I – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
`AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED
`
`43. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`44. Plaintiff is a “qualified individual with a disability” as that term is defined under the
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`
`ADA because Plaintiff has, or had, at all times relevant hereto, a disability that
`
`substantially limits or limited one or more major life activities or because Plaintiff had a
`
`record of such an impairment or because Plaintiff was regarded as and/or perceived by
`
`Defendant and its agents as being disabled.
`
`45. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the job.
`
`46. Plaintiff was subject to an adverse employment action, including, but not limited to
`
`termination.
`
`47. Circumstances indicated that Plaintiff’s disabilities were the reason for the adverse
`
`employment action.
`
`48. Defendant did not have a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating Plaintiff.
`
`49. Plaintiff’s disabilities motivated Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff.
`
`50. The purported reason for Defendant’s decision is pretextual.
`
`51. Others similarly situated but outside of Plaintiff’s protected class were treated more
`
`favorably.
`
`52. The above actions by Defendant also constitute a failure to accommodate and a failure to
`
`engage in the required interactive process.
`
`53. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful disability discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered
`
`damages as set forth herein.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the damages set forth in the Prayer for Relief clause of
`
`this Complaint, infra.
`
`COUNT II – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
`PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT
`
`54. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`55. Plaintiff is a “qualified individual with a disability” as that term is defined under the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`
`PHRA because Plaintiff has, or had, at all times relevant hereto, a disability that
`
`substantially limits or limited one or more major life activities or because Plaintiff had a
`
`record of such an impairment or because Plaintiff was regarded as and/or perceived by
`
`Defendant and its agents as being disabled.
`
`56. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the job.
`
`57. Plaintiff was subject to an adverse employment action, including, but not limited to
`
`termination.
`
`58. Circumstances indicated that Plaintiff’s disabilities were the reason for the adverse
`
`employment action.
`
`59. Defendant did not have a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating Plaintiff.
`
`60. Plaintiff’s disabilities motivated Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff.
`
`61. The purported reason for Defendant’s decision is pretextual.
`
`62. Others similarly situated but outside of Plaintiff’s protected class were treated more
`
`favorably.
`
`63. The above actions by Defendant also constitute a failure to accommodate and a failure to
`
`engage in the required interactive process.
`
`64. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful disability discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered
`
`damages as set forth herein.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the damages set forth in the Prayer for Relief clause of
`
`this Complaint, infra.
`
`COUNT III – RETALIATION
`AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED
`
`65. Plaintiff incorporates all the above paragraphs as if they were set forth at length herein.
`
`66. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by ADA when she requested reasonable
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`
`accommodations.
`
`67. Thereafter, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, including, but
`
`not limited to, termination.
`
`68. There exists a causal connection between Plaintiff’s participation of the protected activity
`
`and the adverse employment action.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the damages set forth in the Prayer for Relief clause of
`
`this Complaint, infra.
`
`
`COUNT IV – RETALIATION
`PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT
`
`69. Plaintiff incorporates all the above paragraphs as if they were set forth at length herein.
`
`70. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by the PHRA when she requested reasonable
`
`accommodations.
`
`71. Thereafter, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, including, but
`
`not limited to, termination.
`
`72. There exists a causal connection between Plaintiff’s participation of the protected activity
`
`and the adverse employment action.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the damages set forth in the Prayer for Relief clause of
`
`this Complaint, infra.
`
`COUNT V – INTERFERENCE
`FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT, FMLA 29 USCA §2615(b) et. seq.
`
`73. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`74. The FMLA declares it “unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the
`
`exercise of or the attempt to exercise” any right provided by the FMLA. 29 U.S.C.
`
`2615(a)(1).
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`
`75. At all times material, Defendant knew, or should have known, of Plaintiff’s need for FMLA
`
`leave in order to care for her own serious medical conditions.
`
`76. Plaintiff gave Defendant proper notice of her own qualifying serious health conditions
`
`under the FMLA.
`
`77. Plaintiff was entitled to benefits under the FMLA.
`
`78. Plaintiff attempted to exercise hher FMLA rights.
`
`79. Defendant unlawfully prevented Plaintiff from obtaining those benefits.
`
`80. Defendant acted in bad faith by interfering with Plaintiff’s application for FMLA leave.
`
`81. Defendant knowingly, intentionally, willfully and/or recklessly acted in disregard of the
`
`duty to grant Plaintiff’s FMLA-related request for leave.
`
`82. Defendant’s aforementioned actions violate 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) of the Family and
`
`Medical Leave Act in that the employer cannot “interfere with, restrain, or deny the
`
`exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under” any right provided by the
`
`FMLA. 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1)
`
`83. As a result of Defendant’s discrimination, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions
`
`causing her harm.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Trudy Holloway, requests that the Court grant her the relief
`
`against Defendant set forth in the Prayer for Relief clause, infra.
`
`COUNT VI – RETALIATION
`FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT, FMLA 29 USCA §2615(b) et. seq.
`
`1. The foregoing paragraphs incorporated by reference herein as if the same were set forth at
`
`length.
`
`2. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(A) and 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C), Plaintiff was eligible
`
`for Family and Medical Leave Act Leave.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`
`3. At all times material, Defendant knew, or should have known, of Plaintiff’s need for FMLA
`
`leave in order to care for her own serious medical conditions.
`
`4. Plaintiff gave Defendant sufficient information to allow it to understand that she needed
`
`leave for FMLA-qualifying reasons.
`
`5. Plaintiff was entitled to benefits under the FMLA.
`
`6. Plaintiff attempted to exercise her FMLA rights.
`
`7. Defendant’s motivation for terminating Plaintiff was connected causally to Plaintiff’s
`
`attempt to exercise her FMLA rights.
`
`8. Defendant has acted in bad faith by retaliating against Plaintiff in violation of the FMLA.
`
`9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discharge of Plaintiff, Plaintiff is and was
`
`deprived of economic and non-economic benefits including, but not limited to lost wages,
`
`pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, loss of fringe benefits, disruption of her
`
`personal life and loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of life.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the damages set forth in the Prayer for Relief clause of this
`
`Complaint, infra.
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Trudy Holloway, requests that the Court grant her the following
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`relief against Defendant:
`
`(a)
`
`Compensatory damages;
`
`(b)
`
`Punitive damages;
`
`
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`Liquidated damages;
`
`Emotional pain and suffering;
`
`Reasonable attorneys’ fees;
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 12 of 13
`
`Recoverable costs;
`
`Pre and post judgment interest;
`
`An allowance to compensate for negative tax consequences;
`
`A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its directors, officers, employees,
`agents, successors, heirs and assigns, and all persons in active concert or
`participation with it, from engaging in, ratifying, or refusing to correct, employment
`practices which discriminate in violation of the ADA, the PHRA and the FMLA.
`
`Order Defendant to institute and implement, and for its employees, to attend and/or
`otherwise participate in, training programs, policies, practices and programs which
`provide equal employment opportunities;
`
`Order Defendant to remove and expunge, or to cause to be removed and expunged,
`all negative, discriminatory, and/or defamatory memoranda and documentation
`from Plaintiff’s record of employment, including, but not limited, the pre-textual
`reasons cited for its adverse actions, disciplines, and termination; and
`
`Awarding extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law,
`equity and the federal statutory provisions sued hereunder, pursuant to Rules 64 and
`65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`
`(l)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Demand is hereby made for a trial by jury as to all issues.
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the above matter in controversy
`
`is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration proceeding,
`
`nor at the present time is any other action or arbitration proceeding contemplated.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-03205 Document 1 Filed 07/19/21 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`KOLLER LAW, LLC
`
`
` By: /s/ David M. Koller
`David M. Koller, Esquire (90119)
`2043 Locust Street, Suite 1B
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`215-545-8917
`davidk@kollerlawfirm.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`13
`
`