`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`
`
`
`STEPHANIE JOHNSON,
`
`
`5709 Delancey Street
`
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19143
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
`HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a
`
`
`CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL,
`701 East Marshall Street
`
`
`West Chester, PA 19380
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3400 Spruce Street
`
`
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19104
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
` CIVIL ACTION
`
`Plaintiff, Stephanie Johnson (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through her attorney, Koller
`
`
`
`Law, LLC, bring this civil matter against University of Pennsylvania Health System d/b/a Chester
`
`County Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant”), for violations of Section 1981 and the Pennsylvania
`
`Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). 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, University of Pennsylvania Health System d/b/a Chester
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04460 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`
`County Hospital is a major multi-hospital health system with a location at 701 East
`
`Marshall Street, West Chester, PA 19380 and with a corporate headquarters located at 3400
`
`Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
`
`4. 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.
`
`5. 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
`
`6. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`7. 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
`
`Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and its progeny.
`
`8. 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.
`
`9. The Court may also maintain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims set forth herein
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04460 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`10. 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 Defendants 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
`
`11. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`12. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies under PHRA.
`
`13. Plaintiff timely filed a Complaint of Discrimination (“Complaint”) with the U.S. Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging race discrimination and
`
`retaliation against Defendant.
`
`14. The Complaint was assigned a Charge Number 530-2020-04450 and was dual filed with
`
`the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
`
`15. The EEOC issued Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights (“Right to Sue”) relative to
`
`the Charge and that Notice is dated June 30, 2021. Plaintiff received the notice by electronic
`
`mail.
`
`16. Prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff notified the EEOC of her intent to proceed with a
`
`lawsuit in federal court.
`
`17. Plaintiff files the instant Complaint within two (2) years of her receipt of her Right to Sue
`
`in this matter.
`
`18. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies as to the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04460 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`
`MATERIAL FACTS
`
`19. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`20. Plaintiff is an African-American female.
`
`21. In November 2019, Defendant hired Plaintiff as a part-time Security Officer.
`
`22. Plaintiff was well qualified for her position and performed well.
`
`23. In the spring of 2020, Defendant changed Plaintiff’s schedule to per diem due to the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`24. In the spring of 2020, Walter Vieira (Hispanic), Director, offered extra hours to
`
`Plaintiff’s department.
`
`25. Mr. Vieira asked in a group meeting if anyone would like to work these extra shifts.
`
`26. Plaintiff volunteered but Mr. Vieira ignored Plaintiff and turned to her Caucasian, male
`
`co-workers and directly asked them if they wanted the extra shifts.
`
`27. Plaintiff did not say anything to object because she was afraid of retaliation and feared
`
`losing her job.
`
`28. Between spring 2020 and July 2020, Defendant overlooked Plaintiff for any overtime
`
`opportunities despite her willingness to work extra shifts.
`
`29. Defendant gave the extra shifts to Plaintiff’s Caucasian, male co-workers.
`
`30. In a meeting on June 26, 2020, Brian Naylor (Caucasian), Supervisor, and Mr. Vieira
`
`issued Plaintiff three (3) disciplines for minor issues that her Caucasian coworkers were
`
`not disciplined for.
`
`31. Mr. Naylor said that despite there write-ups, he did not want to lose her as an employee
`
`because Defendant needed “my kind” and to the effect that “I knew things because where
`
`my kind was from.”
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04460 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`
`32. Plaintiff asked what Mr. Naylor meant by “my kind,” and he said, “you know what I
`
`mean – diversity.”
`
`33. Plaintiff believed his comments were discriminatory and based on her race.
`
`34. Following this meeting, Plaintiff was very upset and uncomfortable about the
`
`discriminatory comments that Mr. Naylor made and left work early.
`
`35. Plaintiff informed both Mr. Vieira and Mr. Naylor, in person, that she needed to leave
`
`early, and they approved it.
`
`36. On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff informed Mr. Vieira and Mr. Naylor that she was unable to
`
`report to work due to her daughter being ill.
`
`37. Plaintiff proceeded to report Mr. Naylor’s discriminatory comments and inquired about a
`
`change in schedule to Susan Karr (Caucasian), Director of Human Resources, via email,
`
`but she did not respond.
`
`38. On July 25, 2020, Mr. Vieira sent Plaintiff a text message requesting that she return her
`
`uniform to Defendant.
`
`39. On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff sent Mr. Vieira a text message inquiring if she was still
`
`employed, but he did not respond to her.
`
`40. Plaintiff continued to text Mr. Vieira and contact Human Resources to inquire about her
`
`job status, but she did not hear back.
`
`41. On August 6, 2020, Moira Meyreles (Caucasian), Human Resource Representative,
`
`called Plaintiff and informed her that Defendant had mailed her a termination letter
`
`effective July 16, 2020.
`
`42. Defendant terminated Plaintiff the day after she requested a shift change.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04460 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`
`43. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, she witnessed Caucasian Security Officers
`
`reschedule their shifts without issue.
`
`44. Shortly afterwards, Plaintiff received Defendant’s termination letter effective July 16,
`
`2020.
`
`45. It is Plaintiff’s position that she was discriminated against due to her race and retaliated
`
`against for reporting the aforementioned discrimination.
`
`COUNT I – RACE DISCRIMINATION
`SECTION 1981
`
`46. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`47. Plaintiff is African-American.
`
`48. Plaintiff was well qualified to perform the job for which she was hired.
`
`49. Plaintiff suffered adverse job actions, including, but not limited to, termination.
`
`50. Similarly situated people outside of Plaintiff’s protected class were treated more
`
`favorably than Plaintiff.
`
`51. Circumstances exist related to the above cited adverse employment actions that give rise
`
`to an inference of discrimination.
`
`52. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of race.
`
`53. No legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons exist for the above cited adverse employment
`
`action that Plaintiff suffered.
`
`54. The reasons cited by Defendant for the above cited adverse employment action that
`
`Plaintiff suffered are pretext for discrimination.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the damages set forth in the Prayer for Relief clause of
`
`this Complaint, infra.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04460 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`
`COUNT II – RACE DISCRIMINATION
`PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT
`
`55. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`56. The foregoing conduct by Defendants constitutes unlawful discrimination against
`
`Plaintiff on the basis of her race (African-American).
`
`57. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful race 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
`SECTION 1981
`
`58. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`59. Plaintiff complained about race discrimination.
`
`60. Thereafter, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, including, but
`
`not limited to, termination.
`
`61. There exists a causal connection between Plaintiff’s participation in 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
`
`62. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`63. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by the PHRA when she complained about race
`
`discrimination.
`
`64. Thereafter, Defendants took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, including, but
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04460 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`
`not limited to, termination.
`
`65. There exists a causal connection between Plaintiff’s participation in 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.
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Stephanie Johnson, requests that the Court grant her the
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`following relief against Defendants:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`Compensatory damages;
`
`(b)
`
`Punitive damages;
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`
`
`Liquidated damages;
`
`Emotional pain and suffering;
`
`Reasonable attorneys’ fees;
`
`Recoverable costs;
`
`Pre and post judgment interest;
`
`An allowance to compensate for negative tax consequences;
`
`A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, 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 Section 1981 and the PHRA.
`
`Order Defendants 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 Defendants 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
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04460 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 9 of 9
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`(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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 11, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`KOLLER LAW, LLC
`
`
` By: /s/ David M. Koller
`David M. Koller, Esquire
`2043 Locust Street, Suite 1B
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`215-545-8917
`davidk@kollerlawfirm.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`