Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.3 Page 1 of 11
`
`Andrew W. Stavros (8615)
`STAVROS LAW P.C.
`8915 South 700 East, Suite 202
`Sandy, Utah 84070
`Tel: (801) 758-7604
`Fax: (801) 893-3573
`andy@stavroslaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`(JURY DEMAND)
`
`Case No. 2:24-cv-00288-DBB
`
`
`Judge: David B. Barlow
`
`
`
`
`EDWARD J. BENTLEY III, an individual,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`ELWOOD STAFFING SERVICES, INC.,
`an Indiana corporation,
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Edward J. Bentley III (“Plaintiff” or “Bentley”), by and through his counsel,
`
`brings this complaint against Defendant Elwood Staffing Services, Inc. pursuant to the
`
`Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §112101 et seq. (“ADA”) and the Age
`
`Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.(“ADA”) and for causes
`
`of action against Defendant, alleges the following.
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. Bentley is an individual who, at all times relevant to this complaint, resided in
`
`Utah County, Utah.
`
`2. Elwood Staffing Services, Inc. (“Elwood” or “Defendant”) is an Indiana corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 4111 Central Avenue PO Box 1024 Columbus, IN 47202.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.4 Page 2 of 11
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Elwood had offices in Utah including in Utah County, and regularly
`
`conducted business within Utah, including within this District.
`
`3. At all times relevant to this complaint, Elwood was an employer (or covered entity)
`
`within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(5).
`
`4. At all times relevant to this complaint, Bentley was an employee of Defendant within
`
`the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(4).
`
`5. Jurisdiction is properly before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(4). This Court
`
`also has jurisdiction pursuant the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117.
`
`6. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) insofar as the claims
`
`arose in Utah County, Utah, and Elwood employed Bentley in Utah County.
`
`7. Bentley filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Utah Labor Commission,
`
`Antidiscrimination and Labor Division (“UALD”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity
`
`Commission (“EEOC”) on May 27, 2023 alleging discrimination and related claims and received
`
`a Notice of Right to Sue (“NRTS”) from the EEOC dated January 23, 2024 for such charge.
`
`Accordingly, Bentley has exhausted and administrative prerequisites to filing this action.
`
`8. This action is filed within ninety (90) days of Bentley’s receipt of the NRTS from the
`
`EEOC.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`9. Bentley suffers from several disabilities that substantially limit major life
`
`activities and that require that he use mitigating measure to reduce the effects of his disabilities.
`
`On occasion, he also requires accommodations to perform certain functions and tasks.
`
`10. Bentley was disabled during his employment with Elwood in that he arthritis,
`
`ankylosing spondylosis (an autoimmune disease), anxiety, depression, PTSD, Reiter’s Syndrome,
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.5 Page 3 of 11
`
`Chronic Progressive Asthma, Reactive Airway Disease, fibromyalgia, and Long COVID.
`
`11. Bentley’s disabilities substantially limited his major life activities, such as hearing,
`
`seeing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual
`
`tasks, caring
`
`for himself,
`
`communicating, and major bodily functions, including his immune system and neurological,
`
`respiratory, circulatory, and musculoskeletal systems.
`
`12. Bentley’s boss, and numerous other employees knew of Bentley’s disabilities, the
`
`limitations they placed upon him, and the accommodations he needed to perform his job duties,
`
`because he either told them about the disabilities and/or provided information from his health care
`
`providers about his disabilities when he requested accommodations during his employment.
`
`13. Elwood is in the business of providing staffing for various types of businesses across
`
`the United States, including in Utah.
`
`14. Bentley was hired by Elwood to work as a Staffing Recruiter in or about October,
`
`2017 at its Spanish Fork, Utah branch.
`
`15. Bentley excelled in this role with Elwood and was promoted to Branch Manager of
`
`Elwood’s Provo, Utah office July, 2018, where he was responsible for managing the branch and
`
`overseeing employees who worked for him.
`
`16. Elwood ultimately closed its Provo, Utah branch because of its inability to become
`
`profitable, and transferred Bentley back to the Spanish Fork, Utah branch to become its Branch
`
`Manager in 2020, shortly before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns, which
`
`resulted in a halt of economic activity that did not recover until well into 2021.
`
`17. Bentley was then transferred to Elwood’s Orem, Utah branch in October, 2021 to work
`
`as its Branch Manager, so that his boss could place another employee in his position.
`
`18. Bentley continued to work for Elwood at its Orem, Utah branch until his termination
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.6 Page 4 of 11
`
`in April, 2023.
`
`18. Prior to his termination of employment, Bentley was not disciplined for performance
`
`or any other issue, including in accordance with Elwood’s standard practices and policies and
`
`procedures.
`
`19. Rather, Bentley received multiple raises and awards for his performance throughout
`
`his tenure with Elwood.
`
`20. Bentley only received one performance evaluation that communicated in any manner
`
`that his performance was below expectation in September, 2021. However, during this time period
`
`Bentley grew the branch and received recognition for his performance by being included in the
`
`“Chairman’ Club” for 2020 and 2021 for exceptional branch and branch manager performance.
`
`21. Bentley also received raises for his performance during this same period. However,
`
`his boss wanted to place a female employee in Bentley’s position, so Bentley was moved to the
`
`Orem branch, which had a history of problems and significant turnover of previous branch
`
`managers and other employees.
`
`22. During his employment with Elwood, Bentley asked for numerous accommodations
`
`for his disabilities, including in the months immediately prior to his termination in April, 2023.
`
`23. These accommodation requests included, among other things, using his cane while at
`
`work, working from home, including during times he was at increased exposure to COVID,
`
`wearing protective sunglasses when exposed to sunlight, using a facemask, and taking time off
`
`from work.
`
`24. For example, during 2022 and 2023 Bentley requested to work from home due to his
`
`disabilities on January 4, 2022, January 10, 2022, October 4, 2022, February 21, 2023, March 6,
`
`2023, and provided doctor’s notes and other medical information supporting the requests to
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.7 Page 5 of 11
`
`Elwood.
`
`25. Because Bentley used a cane often when walking, Bentley’s boss and others would
`
`often mock him for appearing old and feeble or would request that he not use his cane when around
`
`customers. These comments occurred after Bentley started using a cane in 2018 up to the time that
`
`he was terminated.
`
`26. Throughout most of his employment, Bentley was also teased and mocked by his boss
`
`and others for using a face mask while at work and asked not to use a mask around customers.
`
`These comments occurred initiated around the COVID-19 pandemic and continued up to the time
`
`that Bentley was terminated whenever he needed to wear a mask for protection.
`
`27. Bentley was also discouraged by his boss from allowing staffing employees to request
`
`accommodation, and threated about hiring employees who might need ADA accommodations.
`
`This conduct occurred throughout Bentley’s employment.
`
`28. Because of his disability, Bentley lost his voice on multiple occasions throughout his
`
`employment, including in 2022 and 2023, due to autoimmune reactions to infectious diseases and
`
`his boss would not allow Bentley to visit clients with a mask or when his voice was weak because
`
`he “sounded” or “looked sick” and would scare clients, even though a majority of his clients
`
`required masks on the production floor due to OSHA or other similar regulations.
`
`29. On or about October 6, 2022, Bentley’s boss asked him if he could perform the essential
`
`functions of his job, and Bentley stated he could perform all the essential functions.
`
`30. B e t w e e n February 21, 2023 and February 23 2023 Bentley requested to work from
`
`home due to severe autoimmune response and his request was denied.
`
`31. Between March 6, 2023 and Mar 10, 2023 Bentley contracted a lung infection due to a
`
`severe autoimmune response. As a result, he requested remote work temporarily. His request was
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.8 Page 6 of 11
`
`denied and forced to use PTO and then was subsequently forced to attend meetings for a client,
`
`despite his request to work from home temporarily due to medical reasons associated with his
`
`disabilities.
`
`3 2. On April 12, 2023, Bentley’s boss told him that his disability kept him from the office
`
`too much and told Bentley that as a result he would be transferred to the Price, Utah office.
`
`3 3. Bentley immediately reported his boss’s statement and previous conduct to Elwood’s
`
`HR on April 12 and 13, 2023. Specifically, he informed Elwood that he felt he was being harassed,
`
`discriminated against, and retaliated against because of his disability and age.
`
`3 4 . B entley first talked with Elwood’s HR Department on April 12, 2023, and he wrote
`
`to the HR Department on April 13, 2023, stating: “Per our phone conversation yesterday at
`
`3:49PM, I have reported that my direct supervisor, Brady Lynn, has been creating a hostile work
`
`environment and [I] was being discriminated against over the past year and a half to two years.”
`
`35. Bentley’s employment was terminated the following day, April 14, 2023, and he was
`
`subsequently replaced by a non-disabled employee who required no accommodations.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
` (Violation of the ADA – Disability Discrimination)
`
`36. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`
`
`37. At all times relevant hereto, Bentley was an employee of Elwood as defined in
`
`§ 12111(4) of the ADA.
`
`
`
` 38. At all times relevant hereto, Elwood was a covered entity as defined in § 12111(5) and
`
`§12112(b).
`
`
`
` 39. Bentley was disabled within the meaning of the ADA in that he had a disability, a
`
`record of a disability and/or was regarded as having a disability that substantially limited major life
`
`activities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.9 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
` 40. The major life activities limited by Bentley’s disability included, among other things,
`
`operation of his major bodily functions, as well as the ability to work and to walk, ambulate and
`
`perform other major life activities, as noted more fully above.
`
`
`
`41. At all times relevant hereto, Bentley was qualified to perform the essential functions of
`
`his job and did in fact perform the essential functions of his job with Elwood with or without
`
`accommodations.
`
`
`
`42. The ADA prohibits discrimination against an individual because of disability, a record
`
`of a disability or being regarded as disabled.
`
`
`
`43. Elwood knew Bentley was disabled when it was informed of Bentley’s disability and his
`
`need for an accommodations throughout his employment.
`
`
`
`44. Elwood denied Bentley’s reasonable accommodation requests, made negative comments
`
`concerning his disabilities and needed accommodations, and ultimately fired Bentley because of
`
`his disability, record of disability, and/or regarded disability.
`
`
`
`45. Elwood has provided shifting explanations for its decision to fire Bentley, and treated
`
`Bentley differently than comparable employees with similar positions with respect to the duties,
`
`terms and conditions of his employment. Additionally, Elwood’s explanations for Bentley’s
`
`termination are also demonstrable false and pretextual.
`
`
`
`46. As a result, Bentley is entitled to back pay, together with any bonuses, overtime, benefits,
`
`raises, profit sharing, promotions and other employment related compensation he missed because
`
`of Elwood’s unlawful termination, as well as reinstatement, or in lieu of reinstatement, front pay.
`
`
`
`47. Because of Elwood’s actions, Bentley is also entitled to recover compensatory damages,
`
`in an amount to be proven at trial, including non-pecuniary losses for emotional distress, pain and
`
`suffering and humiliation, in an amount determined by the trier of fact, plus attorney fees and costs
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.10 Page 8 of 11
`
`incurred in bringing this action.
`
`
`
`48. Elwood’s conduct toward Bentley was willful and malicious and manifested a knowing
`
`and reckless indifference toward, and disregard of, Bentley’s interests and rights, entitling Bentley
`
`to an award of punitive damages in an amount determined by the trier of fact.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of the ADA – Retaliation)
`
`49. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`50. The ADA imposes upon employers an obligation not to retaliate against employees who
`
`
`
`
`
`
`engage in protected activity.
`
`
`
`51. Bentley engaged in protected activity by requesting reasonable accommodations and
`
`complaining about disability discrimination, harassment and retaliation as set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`52. Elwood terminated Bentley because of his protected activities.
`
`53. Elwood’s actions have directly and proximately caused Bentley substantial past and
`
`future economic loss, including lost wages, including back pay and front pay, and all lost benefits
`
`and compensation, in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`
`
`54. Because of Elwood’s actions, Bentley is also entitled to recover compensatory damages,
`
`in an amount to be proven at trial, including non-pecuniary losses for emotional distress, pain and
`
`suffering and humiliation, in an amount determined by the trier of fact, plus attorney fees and costs
`
`incurred in bringing this action.
`
`
`
`55. Elwood’s actions were taken with malice and were wanton, reckless and in knowing
`
`disregard of Bentley’s federally protected legal rights and, as such, Elwood is liable for punitive
`
`damages in an amount determined by the trier of fact.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of the ADA – Hostile Work Environment)
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.11 Page 9 of 11
`
`56. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`57. Bentley was subject to unwelcome and unwanted conduct because of his disabilities,
`
`as more fully set forth above.
`
`58. The harassment of Bentley was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and
`
`conditions of his employment, creating a hostile work environment.
`
`59. Because the harassment was by Bentley’s boss, Elwood is liable to Bentley pursuant
`
`to the doctrine of respondeat superior. Alternatively, Elwood is liable because of its negligence in
`
`allowing the harassment of Bentley to occur and failing to act to stop the harassment, despite
`
`having actual or constructive knowledge of such harassment.
`
`60. Bentley was damaged by the hostile work environment in which he worked by the
`
`general damages, consequential damages, pain and suffering, and emotional distress suffered by
`
`him, and by the special damages incurred by him, including loss of wages, benefits and other
`
`perquisites of employment.
`
`61. Elwood’s conduct toward Bentley was willful and malicious and manifested a knowing
`
`and reckless indifference toward, and disregard of, Bentley’s interests and rights.
`
`62. Because of Elwood’s willful and malicious conduct, or knowing and reckless
`
`indifference, in discriminating against Bentley based upon his disability, record of disability or
`
`regarding him as disabled, Bentley is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be
`
`proved at trial.
`
`63. Bentley is also entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
`
`ringing this action, and such other relief as is available under the law.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of ADA – Failure to Accommodate)
`
`64. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.12 Page 10 of 11
`
`65. Elwood knew that Bentley had a disability and as such had an obligation to engage
`
`in the interactive process with him to try to find a reasonable accommodation for his disability that
`
`might allow him to continue to work and eventually perform his full duties as a paramedic and
`
`firefighter.
`
`66. Elwood failed to engage in such an interactive process and failed to provide Bentley
`
`with any sort of a reasonable accommodation despite his requests, including denying requests for
`
`reassignment without any explanation.
`
`67. By failing to engage in the interactive process or provide Bentley with a reasonable
`
`accommodation, and instead insisting that he return only when he could perform the job without
`
`an accommodation, Elwood violated 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A).
`
`68. Elwood’s action and inaction directly and proximately caused Bentley to suffer
`
`substantial past and future economic losses, including lost wages, damage to his career and
`
`professional reputation. Elwood’s violation of the ADA has also directly and proximately caused
`
`Bentley to suffer humiliation, pain, suffering and emotional distress.
`
`69. Bentley seeks recovery of his pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in an amount
`
`to be determined at trial.
`
`70. Bentley also seeks recovery of his reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.
`
`71. Elwood’s conduct towards Bentley was willful and malicious and manifested
`
`knowing and reckless indifference toward, and disregard of, Bentley’s interests and rights and his
`
`desire for continued employment, entitling him to an award of punitive damages in an amount to
`
`be proven at trial.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Bentley requests trial by jury on issues so triable to jury pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00288-DBB Document 2 Filed 04/19/24 PageID.13 Page 11 of 11
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Bentley prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`1. For judgment in Bentley’s favor and against Defendant for all causes of action set forth
`
`above;
`
`2. For an award of all back pay and benefits lost by Bentley as a result of Elwood’s
`
`violations of the ADA, in an amount established by the trier of fact.
`
`3. For an order reinstating Bentley to his former position, or in lieu reinstatement, an order
`
`of front pay;
`
`4. For an order awarding Bentley compensatory damages, including damages for
`
`emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation and damage to his reputation and career and
`
`earning capacity, in an amount to be determined at trial;
`
`5. For an order awarding Bentley pre- and post-judgment interest as applicable;
`
`6. For an order awarding Bentley attorney's fees and costs of suit, including expert witness
`
`fees, as allowed by law;
`
`7. For an order awarding punitive damages, as applicable; and
`
`8. For an order awarding such further and additional legal or equitable relief as the Court
`
`deems appropriate.
`
`DATED this 19th day of April, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew W. Stavros
`/s/
`Andrew W. Stavros
`STAVROS LAW P.C.
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`11
`
`