`
`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
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`MONICA ALVAREZ
`6 Thomas Drive
`East Berlin, PA 17316
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY d/b/a
`CAMPBELL’S SNACKS
`
`1350 York Street, P.O. Box 6917
`Hanover, PA 17331
`
`
`
`1 Campbell Place
`Camden, NJ 08103
`Defendant.
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
` CIVIL ACTION
`
`Plaintiff, Monica Alvarez (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through her attorney, Koller
`
`Law, LLC, bring this civil matter against Campbell Soup Company d/b/a Campbell’s Snacks
`
`(hereinafter “Defendant”), for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as
`
`amended (“ADA”), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) wrongful discharge in
`
`violation of public policy and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as amended (“FMLA”).
`
`In support thereof, Plaintiff avers as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`
`2. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing at the above captioned address.
`
`3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Campbell Soup Company d/b/a Campbell’s Snacks
`
`is a processed food and snack company with a location at 1350 York Street, P.O. Box 6917,
`
`Hanover, PA 17331 and with a corporate headquarters located at 1 Campbell Place,
`
`Camden, NJ 08103.
`
`4. 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.
`
`5. At all times material hereto, 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.
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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 Americans with Disabilities Act
`
`of 1990, as amended and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
`
`15. Plaintiff timely filed a Complaint of Discrimination (“Complaint”) with the U.S. Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging disability discrimination
`
`against Defendant.
`
`16. The Complaint was assigned a Charge Number of 530-2020-05078 and was dual filed with
`
`the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`
`17. The EEOC issued Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights (“Right to Sue”) relative to
`
`the Charge and that Notice is dated May 21, 2021. Plaintiff received the notice by
`
`electronic mail.
`
`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 his 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 April 11, 2005, Defendant hired Plaintiff in the position of Packer.
`
`23. Plaintiff was well qualified for her position and performed well.
`
`24. Defendant promoted Plaintiff to Machine Operator followed by Packaging Technician.
`
`25. Plaintiff was well qualified for her position and performed well.
`
`26. On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff’s mother, who Plaintiff lives with, was treated at Gettysburg
`
`Hospital for a variety of health issues that she suffers from.
`
`27. Plaintiff’s sister-in-law took Plaintiff’s mother to Gettysburg Hospital for treatment.
`
`28. Plaintiff’s mother was given a COVID-19 test by the treating physician as a
`
`precautionary measure.
`
`29. However, the treating physician stated that Plaintiff’s mother most likely did not have
`
`COVID-19 due to the results of her CT scan.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`
`30. On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff reported to work at Defendant and answered “No” on the Pre-
`
`screening Questions #2 and #4, which asked respectively, “In the last 14 days have you
`
`come into close contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19?” and
`
`“Have you or any member of your household had respiratory symptoms (coughing,
`
`sneezing, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, persistent pain or pressure in the
`
`chest), joint aches, loss of sense or smell or taste, and/or a fever within the last 72 hours
`
`(3 days), excluding the following known medical conditions: Asthma & seasonal
`
`allergies?”
`
`31. Plaintiff’s mother had not tested positive for COVID-19 and she was suffering from body
`
`aches, which were a symptom not listed on Defendant’s Pre-screening questionnaire.
`
`32. Plaintiff answered this questionnaire truthfully.
`
`33. In addition, Plaintiff did not have any contact with her mother on May 12, 2020.
`
`34. On May 13, 2020, Plaintiff did not report work, as she took a personal day to take care of
`
`her grandmother.
`
`35. That afternoon, Plaintiff’s mother’s COVID-19 test came back positive.
`
`36. Plaintiff immediately called Becky Emlet, Human Resource Plant Regional Lead, and left
`
`a message informing her about Plaintiff’s mother’s positive COVID-19 test.
`
`37. Plaintiff then proceeded to call Ashley LNU, Human Resource Representative, and
`
`notified her of her mother’s positive COVID-19 test.
`
`38. Ashley informed Plaintiff that she would be quarantined for 14 days before she could
`
`return to work at Defendant.
`
`39. Shortly afterwards, Ms. Emlet returned Plaintiff’s call and informed her that she was with
`
`Julie LNU, Safety Manager.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`
`40. Plaintiff explained the situation of her mother’s positive COVID-19 test and that she did
`
`not have contact with her mother since May 10, 2020.
`
`41. Ms. Emlet proceeded to reprimand Plaintiff for reporting to work on May 12, 2020 and
`
`accused her of lying on the pre-screening questionnaire.
`
`42. Plaintiff answered the pre-screening questionnaire truthfully and explained this to Ms.
`
`Emlet.
`
`43. Later that day on May 13, 2020, Plaintiff was tested for COVID-19 at Gettysburg
`
`Hospital.
`
`44. The next day on May 14, 2020, Ms. Emlet called Plaintiff and inquired if she had any
`
`symptoms and had undergone a COVID-19 test.
`
`45. Plaintiff informed Ms. Emlet that she did not have any symptoms and that she had taken
`
`a COVID-19 test the day before.
`
`46. Plaintiff also notified Ms. Emlet that her mother was quarantined in her room.
`
`47. On May 16, 2020, Plaintiff was notified that she tested positive for COVID-19.
`
`48. Plaintiff immediately notified Ms. Emlet of her positive test results via email.
`
`49. On May 22, 2020, Ms. Emlet called Plaintiff and accused her of not informing Defendant
`
`that she lived with her mother and grandmother.
`
`50. Plaintiff told Ms. Emlet that she had previously informed her of this.
`
`51. Ms. Emlet informed Plaintiff that she would be able to get Plaintiff back to work at
`
`Defendant the following week.
`
`52. However, Ms. Emlet did not contact Plaintiff about her return to work as she had stated.
`
`53. Plaintiff called Ms. Emlet multiple times and left voice messages for her, but she did not
`
`return Plaintiff’s calls.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`
`54. On June 3, 2020, Ms. Emlet called Plaintiff and terminated her for allegedly not
`
`answering the pre-screening questionnaire correctly.
`
`55. It is Plaintiff’s position that she was discrimination against due to her disability
`
`(“COVID-19”) in violation of the ADA. Defendant regarded Plaintiff as disabled and
`
`terminated her because of that in violation of the ADA and PHRA.
`
`COUNT I – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
`AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED
`
`56. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`57. Plaintiff is a “qualified individual with a disability” as that term is defined under the
`
`ADA because Plaintiff has, or had at all time 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.
`
`58. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the job.
`
`59. Plaintiff was subject to an adverse employment action, including, but not limited to
`
`termination.
`
`60. Defendant regarded Plaintiff as disabled and terminated her because of that.
`
`61. Circumstances indicated that Plaintiff’s disabilities were the reason for the adverse
`
`employment action.
`
`62. Defendant did not have a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating Plaintiff.
`
`63. Plaintiff’s disabilities motivated Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff.
`
`64. The purported reason for Defendant’s decision is pretextual.
`
`65. Others similarly situated but outside of Plaintiff’s protected class were treated more
`
`favorably.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`
`66. 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
`
`67. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`68. Plaintiff is a “qualified individual with a disability” as that term is defined under the
`
`PHRA because Plaintiff has, or had at all time 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.
`
`69. Plaintiff has disabilities that substantially limit major life activities.
`
`70. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the job.
`
`71. Plaintiff was subject to an adverse employment action, including, but not limited to
`
`termination.
`
`72. Defendant regarded Plaintiff as disabled and terminated her because of that.
`
`73. Circumstances indicated that Plaintiff’s disabilities were the reason for the adverse
`
`employment action.
`
`74. Defendant did not have a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating Plaintiff.
`
`75. Plaintiff’s disabilities motivated Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff.
`
`76. The purported reason for Defendant’s decision is pretextual.
`
`77. Others similarly situated but outside of Plaintiff’s protected class were treated more
`
`favorably.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`
`78. 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 – WRONGFUL TERMINATION
`
`79. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`80. Plaintiff was an at-will employee with Defendant.
`
`81. Although Pennsylvania adheres to the at-will employment doctrine, an employee may
`
`bring a cause of action for termination “where the termination implicates a clear mandate
`
`of public policy.” Weaver v. Harpster, 975 A.2d 555, 563 (Pa. 2009).
`
`82. Defendant terminated Plaintiff during the COVID-19 pandemic for acquiring COVID-19.
`
`83. This is a violation of the at-will employment doctrine in Pennsylvania as it implicated a
`
`clear mandate of public policy against terminating an employee for acquiring COVID-19.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the damages set forth in the Prayer for Relief clause of
`
`this Complaint, infra.
`
`COUNT IV – INTERFERENCE
`FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT, FMLA 29 USCA §2615(b) et. seq.
`
`84. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth more fully at length herein.
`
`85. 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).
`
`86. 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 condition.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`
`87. Plaintiff gave Defendant proper notice of her own qualifying serious health condition
`
`under the FMLA.
`
`88. Defendant, at all times, was aware of Plaintiff’s serious health condition.
`
`89. Plaintiff was entitled to benefits under the FMLA.
`
`90. Defendant acted in bad faith by failing to inform Plaintiff of her rights under FMLA.
`
`91. Defendant unlawfully prevented Plaintiff from obtaining those benefits.
`
`92. Defendant acted in bad faith by interfering with Plaintiff’s ability to apply for FMLA.
`
`93. Defendant knowingly, intentionally, willfully and/or recklessly acted in disregard of the
`
`duty to allow Plaintiff FMLA-related leave for her own serious medical condition.
`
`94. 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)
`
`95. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions
`
`causing her harm.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the damages set forth in the Prayer for Relief clause of
`
`this Complaint, infra.
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Monica Alvarez, requests that the Court grant her the following
`
`relief against Defendant:
`
`
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Compensatory damages;
`
`Punitive damages;
`
`Liquidated damages;
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 11 of 12
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`(l)
`
`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 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 and the PHRA.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01441-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/19/21 Page 12 of 12
`
`Date: August 19, 2021
`
` By:
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`KOLLER LAW, LLC
`
`/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
`
`12
`
`