Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`CINDY LEONE
`344 Black Hills Drive
`Latrobe, PA 15650
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BEACON HEALTH OPTIONS OF
`PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
`520 Pleasant Valley Road
`Trafford, PA 15085
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`No.: 2:21-cv-1826
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, Cindy Leone (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), by and through her
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby avers as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff has initiated this action to redress violations by Beacon Health Options of
`
`Pennsylvania, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”) of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended
`
`(“ADA” - 42 USC §§ 12101 et. seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA” – 29
`
`U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”- 29 USC § 2601), and the
`
`Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”).1 Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated by
`
`Defendant, and she suffered damages more fully described/sought herein.
`
`1 Plaintiff’s claims under the PHRA are referenced herein for notice purposes. She is required to wait 1 full year
`before initiating a lawsuit from date of dual-filing with the EEOC. Plaintiff must however file her lawsuit in advance
`of same because of the date of issuance of her federal right-to-sue-letter under the ADA. Plaintiff’s PHRA claims
`however will mirror identically her federal claims under the ADA.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`2.
`
`This Court has 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 laws. There lies supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-
`
`law claims because they arise out of the same common nucleus of operative facts as Plaintiff’s
`
`federal claims asserted herein.
`
`3.
`
`This Court may properly assert personal jurisdiction over Defendant because its
`
`contacts with this state and this judicial district are sufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction over
`
`Defendant to comply with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, satisfying the
`
`standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
`
`310 (1945), and its progeny.
`
`4.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1392(b)(1) and (b)(2), venue is properly laid in this district
`
`because Defendant is deemed to reside where it is subjected to personal jurisdiction, rendering
`
`Defendant a resident of the Western District of Pennsylvania.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is proceeding herein (in part) under the ADA and the ADEA after properly
`
`exhausting all administrative remedies with respect to such claims by timely filing a Charge of
`
`Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and by filing the
`
`instant lawsuit within ninety (90) days of receiving a notice of dismissal and/or right to sue letter
`
`from the EEOC
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
`
`full.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff is an adult individual, with an address set forth in the caption.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`8.
`
`Beacon Health Options of Pennsylvania, Inc. (formerly Value Behavioral Health of
`
`Pennsylvania, Inc.) is a managed behavioral health organization that provides best-in-class
`
`behavioral health solutions for regional and specialty health plans; employers and labor
`
`organizations; and federal, state, and local governments, with a facility located at the above-
`
`captioned address.
`
`9.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Defendant acted by and through its agents, servants
`
`and employees, each of whom acted at all times relevant herein in the course and scope of their
`
`employment with and for Defendant.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`10.
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
`
`full.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff is a 61-year-old female.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff was employed with Respondents for 21 years, as an Outpatient Treatment
`
`Reporting Screener, until her unlawful termination (discussed further infra) on or about January
`
`21, 2021.
`
`13.
`
`At the time of her termination, Plaintiff was primarily supervised by Clinical
`
`Supervisor, Bille Jo Saccol (hereinafter “Saccol”).
`
`14.
`
`Throughout her long tenure with Defendant, Plaintiff was a hard-working employee
`
`who performed her job well.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff has and continues to suffer from several disabilities, including but not
`
`limited to anxiety and depression, which were diagnosed after her mother’s death in or about early
`
`2020.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`16.
`
`As a result of her aforesaid disabilities, Plaintiff suffered from sleeplessness,
`
`fatigue, panic, and feelings of hopelessness, which (at times) limited her ability to perform some
`
`daily life activities, including but not limited to sleeping, concentrating, and working (among other
`
`daily life activities).
`
`17.
`
`Despite her aforementioned health conditions and limitations, Plaintiff was still
`
`able to perform the essential duties of her job well with Defendant; however, Plaintiff did require
`
`reasonable medical accommodations at times (discussed further infra).
`
`18.
`
`For example, Plaintiff requested and was approved for an approximate 2-to-3-
`
`month medical leave until on or about August 10, 2020.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff returned to work on or about August 10, 2020, on a part-time basis at the
`
`recommendation of her doctor, 2 days per week, 8 hours per day.
`
`20.
`
`Following Plaintiff’s return to work, however, Saccol immediately started picking
`
`on Plaintiff, criticizing her work, informing her that her work was too slow, and assigning a greater
`
`workload than Plaintiff had before her leave.
`
`21.
`
`On or about October 6, 2020, Plaintiff began to increase her workload (at her
`
`doctor’s recommendations) to 3 days per week, 8 hours per day, but the harassing and abusive
`
`behavior by Saccol continued, prompting Plaintiff to request the reasonable accommodation of a
`
`slightly less workload as she eased back into her duties as a result of her health conditions.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff provided reasonable accommodation paperwork from her doctor regarding
`
`her aforesaid request for a lightly less workload, on or about October 13, 2020. However,
`
`Plaintiff’s request was outright denied without Defendant first engaging in the interactive process
`
`or providing any legitimate reason as to why.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`23.
`
`Instead, in or about early November of 2020, Plaintiff was provided with a written
`
`warning, requiring her to perform an unreasonable amount of job duties/expectations (particularly
`
`since she was only working 3 days per week to accommodate her health conditions as per her
`
`doctor), including providing her with a quota of 20-25 inquiries per day on top of her other duties
`
`(including returning all phone calls daily, covering co-workers that were out, etc.).
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff then had a meeting with Saccol and HR, wherein she complained that she
`
`was being singled out and targeted because of her serious health conditions and that she felt that
`
`she was also being pushed out because she had worked for Defendant for approximately 21 years.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff again requested the accommodation of the ability to do slightly less
`
`inquiries per day, but her request was denied without reason or further discussion, even though
`
`Plaintiff pointed out that her doctor had indicated on her paperwork that her limitations were
`
`temporary in nature, and that she could be back to full-time and/or improved within 4-6 weeks.
`
`26.
`
`Following the meeting with Saccol and HR, Plaintiff received a follow-up email,
`
`which had been altered to include that she was now required to do 20-25 complex inquiries or up
`
`to 60 less complex inquiries per day. Plaintiff emailed Saccol and HR about the discrepancy in
`
`the number of inquiries and the altered higher quota, but she did not receive a response.
`
`27.
`
`In or about mid-November of 2020, Plaintiff requested the ability to bid for and/or
`
`transfer to another position within Defendant consistent with her doctor’s recommended
`
`accommodations; however, she was advised by management that was not permitted to bid or seek
`
`a transfer because she had received a disciplinary action (see paragraph 23, supra) within the last
`
`6 months.
`
`28.
`
`Thereafter, on or about January 14, 2021, Plaintiff emailed Saccol and HR,
`
`informing them that she continued to improve, was feeling better, and her doctor had approved her
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`to return to work full-time. However, before she was allowed to return to work full-time, Plaintiff
`
`was abruptly terminated on or about January 21, 2021, for allegedly failing to meet performance
`
`expectations.
`
`29.
`
`In addition to the disability discrimination, retaliation, and Defendant’s failure to
`
`properly accommodate her health conditions, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that she was
`
`also terminated due to her advanced age.
`
`30.
`
`During the latter part of her tenure and leading up to her termination, Plaintiff began
`
`to notice that Defendant’s management, including but not limited to Saccol, appeared to be
`
`targeting older employees for termination or discipline, favoring younger employees and
`
`exhibiting discriminatory animus toward Plaintiff and other older employees because of their
`
`advanced age.
`
`31.
`
`For example, unlike Defendant’s younger employees, prior to Plaintiff’s medical
`
`leave, Saccol had begun to implement time studies regarding inquiries/calls but seemed to focus
`
`mostly on Plaintiff and other older employees.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff also heard Saccol discussing with another employer whether Plaintiff “was
`
`as fast as she used to be” – a clear reference to Plaintiff’s age.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff had always only received good reviews (including a “meets expectations”
`
`review shortly before her medical leave) and had never been disciplined in the years leading up to
`
`her medical leave and retaliatory termination.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that she was terminated because of (1) her
`
`known and/or perceived disabilities; (2) her record of impairment; (3) her requested
`
`accommodations; (4) her expressed concerns of unfair treatment due to her aforesaid health
`
`conditions and requests for accommodations; and/or (5) Defendant’s failure to properly
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`accommodate her disabilities (as set forth supra); as well as (4) her advanced age; and (5) her
`
`expressed concerns of unfair treatment as a result of her age and disabilities.
`
`COUNT I
`Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as Amended (“ADA”)
`([1] Actual/Perceived/Record of Disability Discrimination; [2] Retaliation;
`[3] Hostile Work Environment; and [4] Failure to Accommodate)
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
`
`35.
`
`full.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff suffered from qualifying health conditions under the ADA which affected
`
`her ability (at times) to perform some daily life activities.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff kept Defendant’s management informed of her serious health conditions
`
`and need for medical treatment throughout her tenure with Defendant.
`
`38.
`
`Despite Plaintiff’s aforementioned health conditions and limitations, she was still
`
`able to perform the duties of her job well with Defendant; however, Plaintiff did require reasonable
`
`medical accommodations at times.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations from Defendant, including but not
`
`limited to a medical leave to care for and treat her aforesaid health conditions and a temporary
`
`reduction in the amount of inquiries she was required to perform each day.
`
`40. While Defendant did grant some of Plaintiff’s accommodations, i.e., medical leave,
`
`Defendant refused to provide Plaintiff other accommodations, i.e., a temporary reduction in the
`
`amount of inquiries she was required to perform each day, without providing her with a logical or
`
`legitimate reason as to why and also failing to engage in any interactive process with her.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff was terminated from Defendant on or about January 21, 2021, shortly after
`
`requesting and/or utilizing reasonable medical accommodations.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that she was subjected to a hostile work
`
`environment, issued pretextual discipline, and terminated by Defendant due to (1) her known
`
`and/or perceived disabilities; (2) her record of impairment; (3) her requested accommodations;
`
`and/or (4) Defendant’s failure to properly accommodate Plaintiff (set forth supra).
`
`43.
`
`These actions as aforesaid constitute violations of the ADA.
`
`COUNT II
`Violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
`([1] Retaliation & [2] Interference)
`
`44.
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
`
`
`
`full.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff was an eligible employee under the definitional terms of the FMLA, 29
`
`U.S.C. § 2611(a)(i)(ii).
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff requested leave from Defendant, her employer, with whom she had been
`
`employed for at least twelve months pursuant to the requirements of 29 U.S.C.A § 2611(2)(i).
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff had at least 1,250 hours of service with Defendant during her last full year
`
`of employment.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant is engaged in an industry affecting commerce and employs fifty (50) or
`
`more employees for each working day during each of the twenty (20) or more calendar work weeks
`
`in the current or proceeding calendar year, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A § 2611(4)(A)(i).
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff was entitled to receive leave pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A § 2612 (a)(1) for a
`
`total of twelve (12) work weeks of leave on a block or intermittent basis.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff was terminated in close proximity to her request for/utilization of block
`
`FMLA leave to care for and treat her serious health conditions.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`51.
`
`Defendant committed interference and retaliation violations of the FMLA by: (1)
`
`terminating Plaintiff for requesting and/or exercising her FMLA rights and/or for taking FMLA-
`
`qualifying leave; (2) considering Plaintiff’s FMLA leave needs in making the decision to terminate
`
`her; (3) terminating Plaintiff to intimidate her and/or prevent her from taking FMLA-qualifying
`
`leave in the future; and/or (4) engaging in conduct which discouraged Plaintiff from exercising her
`
`FMLA rights and which would discourage, dissuade and/or chill a reasonable person’s desire to
`
`request and/or take FMLA leave.
`
`52.
`
`These actions as aforesaid constitute violations of the FMLA.
`
`COUNT III
`Violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)
`([1] Age Discrimination; [2] Hostile Work Environment; and [3] Retaliation)
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
`
`53.
`
`full.
`
`54.
`
`During her over 20-year tenure with Defendant, Plaintiff had no history of
`
`significant discipline.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff was treated disparately with respect to policies and termination contrary to
`
`individuals younger than her.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff objected to the aforementioned instances of age discrimination and
`
`disparate treatment by Defendant’s management, but her concerns were ignored, and Defendant’s
`
`management continued to subject her to hostility, animosity, and disparate treatment because of
`
`her advanced age.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff was abruptly terminated on or about January 21, 2021.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`58.
`
`Upon information and belief, after Plaintiff was terminated, her work for Defendant
`
`was performed by a younger, less experienced individuals who does not possess the level of
`
`qualifications and seniority Plaintiff had obtained working with Defendant.
`
`59.
`
`Therefore, Plaintiff believes and avers her termination that she was really
`
`terminated because of her advanced age.
`
`60.
`
`These actions as aforesaid constitute unlawful age discrimination and retaliation
`
`under the ADEA.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter an Order providing that:
`
`A.
`
`Defendant is to promulgate and adhere to a policy prohibiting discrimination and
`
`retaliation in the future against any employee(s);
`
`B.
`
`Defendant is to compensate Plaintiff, reimburse Plaintiff, and make Plaintiff whole
`
`for any and all pay and benefits Plaintiff would have received had it not been for Defendant’s
`
`illegal actions, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, salary, pay increases, bonuses,
`
`insurance, benefits, training, promotions, reinstatement and seniority;
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff is to be awarded punitive and/or liquidated damages, as permitted by
`
`applicable law, in an amount believed by the Court or trier of fact to be appropriate to punish
`
`Defendant for its willful, deliberate, malicious and outrageous conduct and to deter Defendant or
`
`other employers from engaging in such misconduct in the future;
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff is to be accorded other equitable and legal relief as the Court deems just,
`
`proper and appropriate (including but not limited to damages for emotional distress, pain, suffering
`
`and humiliation); and
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiff is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees as provided by applicable federal and state law.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01826-JFC Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`F.
`
`Plaintiff is to be given a jury trial as demanded in the caption of this Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 16, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KARPF, KARPF & CERUTTI, P.C.
`
`_______________________________
`Ari R. Karpf, Esq.
`3331 Street Rd.
`Two Greenwood Square, Suite 128
`Bensalem, PA 19020
`(215) 639-0801
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`