Case 5:20-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 11
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT M. KINITZ,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`CENTRAL ADMIXTURE PHARMACY :
`SERVICES, INC., B. BRAUN MEDICAL:
`INC., B. BRAUN OF AMERICA INC.
`:
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`No.: 20-cv-6013
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`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, Robert M. Kinitz (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). Plaintiff is an
`
`employee of Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. (hereinafter “Central Admixture
`
`Pharmacy Services”) in Allentown, Pennsylvania, who has been harmed by sex discrimination,
`
`sexual orientation harassment, sexual harassment and retaliatory practices as well as other
`
`improper conduct by Central Admixture Pharmacy Services and its agents, servants, and
`
`representatives .
`
`This action is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991 (“Title
`
`VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq..
`
`
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. The original jurisdiction and venue of this Court is invoked in this District pursuant to
`
`Title 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f), 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 1391, 2201, 2202, 1343 and the claim
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT M. KINITZ,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`CENTRAL ADMIXTURE PHARMACY :
`SERVICES, INC., B. BRAUN MEDICAL:
`INC., B. BRAUN OF AMERICA INC.
`:
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`No.: 20-cv-6013
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`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, Robert M. Kinitz (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). Plaintiff is an
`
`employee of Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. (hereinafter “Central Admixture
`
`Pharmacy Services”) in Allentown, Pennsylvania, who has been harmed by sex discrimination,
`
`sexual orientation harassment, sexual harassment and retaliatory practices as well as other
`
`improper conduct by Central Admixture Pharmacy Services and its agents, servants, and
`
`representatives .
`
`This action is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991 (“Title
`
`VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq..
`
`
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. The original jurisdiction and venue of this Court is invoked in this District pursuant to
`
`Title 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f), 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 1391, 2201, 2202, 1343 and the claim
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`is substantively based on Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq..
`
`2. All conditions precedent to the institution of this suit have been fulfilled.
`
`3. On or about December 18, 2019, 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 Central Admixture
`
`Pharmacy Services alleging, inter alia, sex-based employment discrimination, sexual
`
`harassment, and retaliation.
`
`4. On September 2, 2020, a Notice of Right to Sue was issued by the United States Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission.
`
`5. This action has been filed within ninety (90) days of receipt of said Notice.
`
`III. PARTIES
`
`6. Plaintiff is a 31-year-old male citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of
`
`Pennsylvania. Plaintiff at all times relevant herein was employed by Central Admixture
`
`Pharmacy Services.
`
`7. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services is a corporation organized and doing business
`
`under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with registered offices at 824
`
`Twelfth Avenue, Bethlehem, PA and a principle place of business at 6580 Snowdrift
`
`Road, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
`
`8. Upon information and belief Defendant B. Braun Medical Inc. owns pharmacies that are
`
`operated under the name Central Admixture Pharmacy, Inc.
`
`9. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an “employee” as defined by the Title VII, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 2000e, and is protected by the provisions of the Act.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`10. At all times relevant herein, Central Admixture Pharmacy Services was an “employer”
`
`as defined by the Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and is subject to the provisions of the
`
`Act.
`
`11. At all times relevant hereto, Central Admixture Pharmacy Services 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.
`
`12. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services has, acting through its agents, servants and
`
`representatives, on more than one occasion, met with Plaintiff, and has heard allegations
`
`from Plaintiff of sex and gender stereotyping, sexual orientation harassment, gender-
`
`based (male) harassment, sexual orientation discrimination, gender-based (male)
`
`discrimination, and retaliation.
`
`13. At all relevant times herein, Central Admixture Pharmacy Services 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
`
`14. Plaintiff is a 31-year-old male employee hired by Central Admixture Pharmacy Services
`
`on or about July 9, 2018 and worked most recently as an IV Tech 1.
`
`24. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was qualified for his position and performed his
`
`job duties in a proper and competent manner.
`
`25. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff’s supervisors were Gregory D. Smith, Director of
`
`Pharmacy (hereinafter “Smith”), Eric Lee, Senior Pharmacist (hereinafter “Lee”),
`
`Rachel Schwartz, Assistant Director of Pharmacy (hereinafter “Schwartz”), David L.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 4 of 11
`
`Cain, Manufacturing Operational Manager (hereinafter “Cain”), Tamara McEleney,
`
`Supervisor Technical Services (hereinafter “McEleney”), Marc Redding, Senior
`
`Human Resources Business Partner (hereinafter “Redding”), and Juanita A. Harris,
`
`Director of Human Resources (hereinafter “Harris”).
`
`26. Shortly after Plaintiff started as a pharmacy technician trainee, he was subjected to
`
`hyper-scrutiny and hyper-criticism including, but not limited to, adverse actions by
`
`McEleney that Plaintiff behaved “unacceptably” and criticizing his “voice tone.”
`
`27. McEleney stated that he reported Plaintiff for the above actions.
`
`28. Plaintiff was trained for his position by an employee named _________ Finke
`
`(hereinafter “Finke”).
`
`29. During his training, Finke told Plaintiff to bring in a prescription from home as part of
`
`his training
`
`30. Plaintiff complied with Fine’s directive.
`
`31. Finke and then proceeded to make reference to Plaintiff as medication as one used to
`
`prevent HIV.
`
`32. Plaintiff objected to the implied assertion.
`
`33. On or about ________________________ Plaintiff was summoned to meet with Smith
`
`and McEleney to discuss a warning about his conduct.
`
`34. At the above referenced meeting, Plaintiff asked Smith and McEleney whether the
`
`warning was due to his sexual orientation and sex and gender stereotyping because of
`
`Finke’s comments.
`
`35. At the above referenced meeting, Plaintiff acknowledged to Smith that he (Plaintiff) is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 5 of 11
`
`homosexual.
`
`36. At the above referenced meeting, after Plaintiff acknowledged that he was homosexual,
`
`Smith immediately referred Plaintiff to Harris, the Director of Human Resources.
`
`37. On September 6, 2018, Plaintiff subsequently refuted the allegations and assertions in
`
`the above referenced warning in a written statement provided to Harris, the Director of
`
`Human Resources. In that statement, Plaintiff also reported his concerns regarding
`
`being targeted and harassed due to his sexual orientation and sex and gender
`
`stereotyping.
`
`38. Following the above referenced written statement by Plaintiff denying the truth of the
`
`allegations, the “warning” was removed from Plaintiff’s file.
`
`39. In or around November 2018, Travis Kern, a Quality Technician (hereinafter “Kern”),
`
`began blowing kisses at Plaintiff, making penis jokes, and making other offensive and
`
`uninvited sexual comments to Plaintiff.
`
`40. Other employees, encouraged by Kern’s harassment and teasing of Plaintiff, joined in
`
`on the hostile and offensive behavior and comments toward Plaintiff.
`
`41. Plaintiff felt threatened by the behavior of his co-workers.
`
`42. All of the aforementioned occurred without any encouragement from Plaintiff and
`
`repeated requests that the harassment cease.
`
`43. Instead, the teasing and harassment of Plaintiff continued.
`
`44. In an effort to escape the harassing and threatening behavior on the first shift, Plaintiff
`
`transferred from first to second shift.
`
`45. Plaintiff hoped that by changing shifts, Kern’s harassing behavior, as well as the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 6 of 11
`
`discriminatory, harassing, and threatening behavior of others who joined in would
`
`cease. It did not. Rather, it continued and even escalated.
`
`46. Plaintiff ultimately reported Kern’s behavior to Redding and asked for his assistance.
`
`47. Plaintiff also followed up with reporting Kern’s behavior to Harris and asked for her
`
`assistance.
`
`48. Despite his pleas for help, neither Redding nor Kern did anything to help Plaintiff and
`
`no remedial action was taken.
`
`49. Defendant did not take any action which was reasonably calculated to end the harassing
`
`and threatening conduct directed at Plaintiff.
`
`50. In or around April 2019, one of Plaintiff’s co-workers was on vacation and a Quality
`
`Technician named Jay (LNU) (hereinafter “Jay”) was filling in on Plaintiff’s shift.
`
`51. In the course of a conversation, Jay offered Plaintiff Kern’s telephone number, which
`
`Plaintiff refused.
`
`52. On or about May 2, 2019, Redding called Plaintiff and informed Plaintiff that rumors
`
`were circulating that Plaintiff was “willing to pay $50” for Kern’s telephone number.
`
`53. Plaintiff denied the allegations in the above referenced rumors and reported to Redding
`
`that Jay had offered Kern’s telephone number to Plaintiff.
`
`54. On or about May 3,2019, Redding pulled Plaintiff into another meeting, wherein
`
`Redding admonished Plaintiff’s denial and reported that Plaintiff’s version of the above
`
`referenced events was “inconsistent” with the version offered by other employees
`
`interviewed by Redding.
`
`55. On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a statement to Human Resources indicating that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 7 of 11
`
`being pulled into meetings such as these was affecting his work performance and that
`
`this constituted retaliation due to his reports of harassment.
`
`56. The multiple “meetings” to which Plaintiff was summoned were pretextual and
`
`retaliatory.
`
`57. In or about August 21, 2019, Schwartz telephoned Plaintiff, again instructing Plaintiff
`
`to come to a meet, this time with Cain and Lee.
`
`58. Plaintiff was accused of false and pretextual allegations.
`
`59. When Plaintiff arrived in Cain’s office, he was confronted by Cain, Harris, and a
`
`security officer.
`
`60. Plaintiff was immediately informed by Harris that Defendant had concluded its
`
`investigation, and Harris said that this was “not a safe” work environment for Plaintiff
`
`and that Plaintiff was fired.
`
`61. Plaintiff was then escorted out of the building without being permitted to retrieve his
`
`personal belongings.
`
`62. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services 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.
`
`63. As a direct result of the hostile and antagonistic conduct by Central Admixture
`
`Pharmacy Services’ supervisory employees, Plaintiff was deprived of his
`
`employment.
`
`64. As a direct result of Central Admixture Pharmacy Services’ conduct, Plaintiff has been
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 8 of 11
`
`irrevocably damaged.
`
`65. As a direct result of Central Admixture Pharmacy Services’ above-stated conduct,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered ongoing back-pay and front-pay losses.
`
`66. As a direct result of Central Admixture Pharmacy Services’ above-stated conduct,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional, psychological, and physical
`
`distress and humiliation.
`
`67. As a direct result of Central Admixture Pharmacy Services’ above-stated conduct,
`
`Plaintiff’s 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. CENTRAL ADMIXTURE PHARMACY SERVICES
`VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 and 1991
`
`68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 inclusive, are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
`
`at length herein.
`
`69. 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-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`70. 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 II
`PLAINTIFF v. CENTRAL ADMIXTURE PHARMACY SERVICES
`RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII
`
`71. Paragraphs 1 through 70 inclusive, are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
`
`at length herein.
`
`72. By the acts complained of, Defendant has retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising his
`
`rights under Title VII in violation of Title VII.
`
`73. 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 73 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
`
`Central Admixture Pharmacy Services and requests that this Court:
`
`(a) Exercise jurisdiction over his claims;
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`(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 Central Admixture Pharmacy Services 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 Central Admixture Pharmacy Services compensate Plaintiff with an award
`
`of front pay, if appropriate;
`
`(f) Order Central Admixture Pharmacy Services compensate Plaintiff for the wages
`
`and other benefits and emoluments of employment lost, because of their unlawful
`
`conducts;
`
`(g) Order Central Admixture Pharmacy Services 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 Central Admixture Pharmacy Services 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`Dated: November 30, 2020
`
`HAHALIS & KOUNOUPIS, P.C.
`
`By:__/s/ George S. Kounoupis _________
` 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
