Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 12
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`EVERETT “CHAD” CHAMBERLAIN, :
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`No.:
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`HEARTLAND PHARMACY OF
`PA LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`This is an action for an award of damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
`
`attorneys’ fees and other relief on behalf of Plaintiff, Everett “Chad” Chamberlain
`
`(hereinafter “Plaintiff”). Plaintiff is an employee of Heartland Pharmacy of PA LLC
`
`(hereinafter “Heartland Pharmacy”) in Allentown, Pennsylvania, who has been harmed
`
`by disability-based discrimination and retaliatory practices, as well as other improper
`
`conduct by Heartland Pharmacy.
`
`This action is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991 (“Title
`
`VII”), as amended, Title 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act
`
`(“ADA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq..
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. The jurisdiction and venue of this Court is invoked in this District pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 as arising under the laws of the United States, and in particular
`
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991 (“Title VII”), as amended, Title
`
`42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), as
`
`amended, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq..
`
`2. All conditions precedent to the institution of this suit have been fulfilled.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`EVERETT “CHAD” CHAMBERLAIN, :
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`No.:
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`HEARTLAND PHARMACY OF
`PA LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`This is an action for an award of damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
`
`attorneys’ fees and other relief on behalf of Plaintiff, Everett “Chad” Chamberlain
`
`(hereinafter “Plaintiff”). Plaintiff is an employee of Heartland Pharmacy of PA LLC
`
`(hereinafter “Heartland Pharmacy”) in Allentown, Pennsylvania, who has been harmed
`
`by disability-based discrimination and retaliatory practices, as well as other improper
`
`conduct by Heartland Pharmacy.
`
`This action is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991 (“Title
`
`VII”), as amended, Title 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act
`
`(“ADA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq..
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. The jurisdiction and venue of this Court is invoked in this District pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 as arising under the laws of the United States, and in particular
`
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991 (“Title VII”), as amended, Title
`
`42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), as
`
`amended, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq..
`
`2. All conditions precedent to the institution of this suit have been fulfilled.
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 12
`
`3. Plaintiff has invoked the procedure set forth in the ADA. On or about January
`
`10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
`
`Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which was
`
`jointly filed with the
`
`Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”), against Heartland
`
`Pharmacy alleging, inter alia, disability-based employment discrimination and
`
`retaliation. On August 28, 2020, a Notice of Right to Sue was issued by the
`
`EEOC.
`
`4. This action has been filed within ninety (90) days of receipt of said Notice.
`
`III. PARTIES
`
`5. Plaintiff is a 50-year-old male citizen and resident of the State of New Jersey.
`
`Plaintiff at all times relevant herein was employed by Heartland Pharmacy.
`
`6. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an “employee” as defined by the ADA,
`
`42 U.S.C. § 12111(4), and is subject to the provisions of this Act.
`
`7. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was a “person” as defined the ADA, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 12111(7), and is subject to the provisions of said Act.
`
`8. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was “disabled” as defined by the ADA, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 12102(1), and is subject to the provisions of said Act.
`
`9. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was a “qualified individual” as defined by
`
`the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8), and is subject to the provisions of said Act.
`
`10. Heartland Pharmacy is a corporation organized and doing business under the
`
`laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with registered offices and a
`
`principle place of business at 7010 Snowdrift Road, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
`
`11. At all times relevant herein, Heartland Pharmacy was an “employer” as defined
`
`by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), and is subject to the provisions of said Act.
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 3 of 12
`
`12. At all times relevant herein, Heartland Pharmacy was a “person” as defined by
`
`the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), and is subject to the provisions of said Act.
`
`13. At all times relevant hereto, Heartland Pharmacy acted by and/or failed to act
`
`by and through the conduct of its officers, managers, agents and employees, all
`
`acting within the scope and course of their employment.
`
`14. Heartland Pharmacy has, acting
`
`through
`
`its agents, servants and
`
`representatives, on more than one occasion, met with Plaintiff, and has heard
`
`allegations from Plaintiff of disability-based harassment, disability-based
`
`discrimination, and retaliation.
`
`15. At all relevant times herein, Heartland Pharmacy knew, or had reason to know,
`
`of the actions and inaction alleged herein and/or has personally participated in
`
`some of said actions and is ultimately responsible for same.
`
`IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`16. Plaintiff is a 50-year-old male employee hired by Heartland Pharmacy on or
`
`about August 21, 2006 as an Operations Manager.
`
`24. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was qualified for his position and
`
`performed his job duties in a proper and competent manner.
`
`25. After Executive Director Nick Roman (hereinafter “Roman”) left his position,
`
`Plaintiff was made the sole manager of Defendant’s Allentown facility. The
`
`Allentown facility was one of Defendant’s most profitable locations.
`
`26. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff’s supervisors were Lisa Cowell, General
`
`Manager (hereinafter “Cowell”), Ann King, Human Resources Director,
`
`(hereinafter “King”) and Sharon Bombrys (hereinafter “Bombrys”), Regional
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 4 of 12
`
`Inventory/Purchasing Manager.
`
`27. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability
`
`as defined under the ADA.
`
`28. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff had been diagnosed with a serious medical
`
`condition, namely depression, which substantially impaired on or more major
`
`life activities, which included difficulty handling stress and emotions.
`
`29. Rather than provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation under the
`
`ADA, Defendant engaged in a course of discriminatory and/or conduct in an
`
`effort to diminish and impede his work performance and force him out of his
`
`employment.
`
`30. Early in Plaintiff’s employment, Bombras made unwanted advances toward
`
`Plaintiff, making it clear that she wanted to be in a relationship with Plaintiff.
`
`31. Plaintiff rejected Bombrys’ advances and made it clear to Bombrys that her
`
`advances were unwelcome.
`
`32. In response to Plaintiff’s rejections of her constant advances, Bombrys
`
`commented to Plaintiff that she was “very close” to Cowell and “could have
`
`[Plaintiff] fired one day.”
`
`33. Indeed, Cowell admitted to being aware the Bombrys had displayed a pattern
`
`of sexual harassment and improper conduct with her male subordinates,
`
`having told Plaintiff "Sharon is getting in trouble again chasing around one of
`
`her male technicians."
`
`34. Despite fact that Heartland has a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment,
`
`which requires termination for substantiated, allegations, Bombrys was never
`
`disciplined in any way except that her office was moved.
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 5 of 12
`
`35. In addition, Cowell also told Plaintiff that Bombrys was “partying too much
`
`with young subordinate employees while on company visits to the Heartland
`
`Illinois location.”
`
`36. Following the birth of Plaintiff’s daughter, on October 19, 2018, Cowell and
`
`King began to subject Plaintiff to hyper-criticism and hyper-scrutiny and
`
`subjected Plaintiff to numerous events of gender (male) harassment and
`
`discrimination at the urging of Bombrys in retaliation for Plaintiff’s prior
`
`rejection of her amorous advances.
`
`37. For example in Fall 2018 Bombrys falsely reported to Cowell that Plaintiff’s
`
`facility were missing narcotics from an inventory she performed without
`
`making any investigation.
`
`38. When the matter was eventually investigated, Bombrys was forced to admit
`
`that there was nothing missing.
`
`39. On several occasions, when making site visits to Plaintiff’s pharmacy,
`
`Bombrys would take some of Plaintiff’s employees out to dinner and foment
`
`dissension by speaking poorly about how Plaintiff ran the pharmacy.
`
`40. As pertinent to this matter, Bombrys and Plaintiff’s immediate subordinate,
`
`Sharon Fahs, combined to create a pretext for the termination of Plaintiff’s
`
`employment so that Fahs could be promoted into Plaintiff’s position.
`
`41. Plaintiff made several complaints to Cowell, which characteristically fell on
`
`deaf ears where Bombrys was concerned.
`
`42. Cowell herself also engaged in inappropriate conduct because of Plaintiff’s sex.
`
`43. Knowing that Plaintiff was going through a custody dispute with the mother of
`
`his infant daughter, frequently asked very personal questions of Plaintiff, and
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 6 of 12
`
`made insulting comments to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to:
`
`a. telling Plaintiff that there were “easier ways to have a baby than with
`
`a crazy person;”
`
`b. telling Plaintiff that his ability to travel was limited because of his
`
`child and custody dispute; and
`
`c. telling Plaintiff that he was “too stressed.”
`
`44. In or around April 2019, Plaintiff raised concerns with Cowell regarding
`
`Defendant’s Allentown
`
`locations purchasing/inventory and packaging
`
`departments.
`
`45. In response to Plaintiff’s concerns, Cowell sent Bombrys to “help.”
`
`46. On or about May 22, 2019, Cowell placed Plaintiff on a performance
`
`improvement plan (“PIP”). This despite the fact the Plaintiff had been
`
`Defendant’s sole manager at the Allentown facility.
`
`47. The PIP was retaliatory and pretextual in that it alleged, among other things:
`
`a. that Bombrys “discovered” operational issues at the Allentown
`
`location;
`
`b. there had been “no evidence of improvement.”
`
`48. In or around mid to late June, 2019, King visited the Allentown facility and took
`
`Plaintiff out to dinner at which time Plaintiff reported Cowell’s comment
`
`regarding “easier ways to have a baby.”
`
`49. King did not respond or take any remedial action regarding Cowell’s
`
`aforementioned conduct, but, instead told Plaintiff that he should “go on
`
`Tinder” and “hook up”—as she claimed she did in her divorce—because it would
`
`“make [Plaintiff] feel better.”
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 7 of 12
`
`50. On or about July 15, 2019, less than 60 days after being placed on PIP, Plaintiff
`
`was informed that Defendant “needed to move on” and Plaintiff was presented
`
`with a termination letter.
`
`51. The letter, authored by Cowell, stated that
`
`a. the Allentown facility was in a “state of crisis”; and
`
`b. there had been no improvement on Plaintiff’s PIP.
`
`52. After the termination of Plaintiff’s employment, Fahs was promoted to replace
`
`Plaintiff, as planned by Bombrys and Fahs, and facilitated by Cowell and King.
`
`53. Plaintiff was treated in a different and disparate manner with regard to
`
`workplace standards than other employees.
`
`54. Heartland Pharmacy was responsible and liable for the conduct of its
`
`principals, employees, and agents for subjecting Plaintiff to a discriminatory
`
`employment and work environment, and for failing to protect Plaintiff from
`
`unlawful conduct.
`
`55. As a direct result of the hostile and antagonistic conduct by Heartland
`
`Pharmacy’s supervisory employees, Plaintiff was deprived of his employment.
`
`56. As a direct result of Heartland Pharmacy’s conduct, Plaintiff has been
`
`irrevocably damaged.
`
`57. As a direct result of Heartland Pharmacy’s above-stated conduct, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered ongoing back-pay and front-pay losses.
`
`58. As a direct result of Heartland Pharmacy’s above-stated conduct, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered and continues to suffer emotional, psychological, and physical distress
`
`and humiliation.
`
`59. As a direct result of Heartland Pharmacy’s above-stated conduct, Plaintiff’s
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 8 of 12
`
`career, professional and job opportunities have been impaired and damaged
`
`and he has suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity.
`
`
`COUNT I
`PLAINTIFF v. HEARTLAND PHARMACY
`VIOLATION OF THE ADA
`
`60. Paragraphs 1 through 51, inclusive, are incorporated by reference as if fully set
`
`forth at length herein.
`
`61. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was disabled, had a record of a disability,
`
`and was regarded as and/or perceived as disabled by Heartland Pharmacy.
`
`62. Plaintiff was able to perform all of the essential functions of his position with
`
`or without accommodation.
`
`63. By reason of the conduct set forth above, Heartland Pharmacy intentionally,
`
`knowingly, and purposefully violated the ADA by invidiously discriminating
`
`against the qualified Plaintiff who had a disability.
`
`64. By its actions and inactions through its agents, servants, and representatives,
`
`Heartland Pharmacy created, maintained, and permitted to be maintained a
`
`work environment, which was hostile to persons such as Plaintiff who have a
`
`record of or are perceived as having a disability.
`
`65. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s disability and/or request for accommodation,
`
`Heartland Pharmacy terminated Plaintiff.
`
`66. Heartland Pharmacy’s aforesaid actions were outrageous, egregious,
`
`malicious, intentional, willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s
`
`rights.
`
`COUNT II
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 9 of 12
`
`PLAINTIFF v. HEARTLAND PHARMACY
`RETALIATION UNDER THE ADA
`
`67. Paragraphs 1 through 58 inclusive, are incorporated by reference as if fully set
`
`forth at length herein.
`
`68. By the acts complained of, Heartland Pharmacy has retaliated against Plaintiff
`
`for exercising his rights under the ADA, namely requesting and/or using leave
`
`or a reasonable accommodation, in violation of the ADA.
`
`69. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and
`
`monetary damages as a result of Heartland Pharmacy ’s retaliatory practices
`
`unless and until this Court grants relief.
`
`COUNT III
`PLAINTIFF v. HEARTLAND PHARMACY
`VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
`and 1991
`
`70. Paragraphs 1 through 61 inclusive, are incorporated by reference as if fully set
`
`forth at length herein.
`
`71. Based on the foregoing, the Defendant has engaged in unlawful practices in
`
`violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991, as amended, and
`
`Title 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.. The said unlawful practices for which
`
`Defendant is liable to Plaintiff include, but are no limited to, fostering a
`
`gender and sex hostile and offensive work environment; and retaliating
`
`against him because of his expressed reporting, complaining of and
`
`opposition to highly unwelcome and offensive conduct in the work place;
`
`subjecting him to more onerous working conditions and treating him in a
`
`disparate manner.
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 10 of 12
`
`72. As a direct result of the aforesaid unlawful discriminatory employment
`
`practices engaged in by Defendant in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
`
`Act of 1964 and 1991, as amended, and Title 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.,
`
`Plaintiff sustained and suffered severe and great economic and compensatory
`
`damages, including severe emotional and psychological distress and
`
`humiliation, loss of self-esteem, loss of future earning power, plus back pay,
`
`front pay, and interest due thereon.
`
`COUNT IV
`PLAINTIFF v. HEARTLAND PHARMACY
`RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII
`
`73. Paragraphs 1 through 64 inclusive, are incorporated by reference as if fully set
`
`forth at length herein.
`
`74. By the acts complained of, Defendant has retaliated against Plaintiff for
`
`exercising his rights under Title VII in violation of Title VII.
`
`75. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and
`
`monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s retaliatory practice unless and
`
`until this Court grants relief.
`
`V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`89. Paragraphs 1 through 67 inclusive, are incorporated by reference as if fully set
`
`forth at length herein.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to enter judgment in his favor and
`
`against Heartland Pharmacy and requests that this Court:
`
`(a) Exercise jurisdiction over his claims;
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 11 of 12
`
`(b) Award traditional tort remedies such as compensatory damages, pain and
`
`suffering, physical and emotional distress, economic loss, time loss, and
`
`severe emotional trauma;
`
`(c) Issue declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the above-described
`
`practices to be unlawful, and enjoining their past and continued effects;
`
`(d) Order Heartland Pharmacy compensate Plaintiff with a rate of pay and
`
`other benefits and emoluments to employment to which she would have
`
`been entitled had he not been subject to unlawful discrimination and/or
`
`retaliation;
`
`(e) Order Heartland Pharmacy compensate Plaintiff with an award of front pay,
`
`if appropriate;
`
`(f) Order Heartland Pharmacy compensate Plaintiff for the wages and other
`
`benefits and emoluments of employment lost, because of their unlawful
`
`conducts;
`
`(g) Order Heartland Pharmacy pay to Plaintiff compensatory damages for
`
`future pecuniary losses, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss
`
`of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses as allowable;
`
`(h) Order Heartland Pharmacy pay to Plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interest,
`
`costs of suit and attorney and expert witness fees as allowed by law; and
`
`(i) The Court award such other relief as is deemed just and proper.
`
`VI. JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury.
`
`HAHALIS & KOUNOUPIS, P.C.
`
`By:__/s/ George S. Kounoupis ____
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05644-JLS Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 12 of 12
`
`Dated: November 12, 2020
`
` GEORGE S. KOUNOUPIS, ESQUIRE
` 20 East Broad Street
` Bethlehem, PA 18018
` (610) 865-2608
` Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
