Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
John R. Hancock
Plaintiff,
C.A. No.
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Pennsylvania State University,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. John R. Hancock brings this civil rights action against his former employer,
Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”). The action is brought pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., as well as
pursuant to Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, on the grounds
that Penn State failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Hancock’s disability, and
terminated Mr. Hancock on the basis of his disability or perceived disability and in
("EEOC") mailed Mr. Hancock a Notice of Right to Sue. A copy of the Notice of Right to
Sue is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. Mr. Hancock has filed suit within 90
the violations alleged in the Complaint occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
PARTIES
offices at 120 South Burrowes Street, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16801, which is in
this District. Penn State employs over fifteen employees and is a recipient of federal
funding.
BACKGROUND
7. Penn State hired John R. Hancock in 1993. Mr. Hancock worked for Penn
State in the position of Maintenance Worker Utility Grade 9 for nine years, from July
1995 through May 5, 2004, when Penn State terminated his employment.
8. In Fall of 2003, Mr. Hancock was diagnosed with terminal illness due to
9. From the Fall of 2003 to the time of his termination, Mr. Hancock’s medical
condition progressively worsened. During this period, Mr. Hancock’s illness impaired
his major life activities, including his ability to walk and lift, his control over his bodily
functions, and his short-term memory. It has also affected his equilibrium and impaired
his ability to eat a normal diet and caused him to suffer from extreme fatigue.
10. Since early November 2003, Penn State has been aware of Mr. Hancock’s
medical condition. At that time, Mr. Hancock’s wife advised his then-direct supervisor,
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ Document 1 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 3 of 7
Mark Bigelow, as well as Human Resource Coordinator Susan Rutan, of Mr. Hancock’s
illness.
11. In the Winter of 2004, despite knowledge of Mr. Hancock’s disability, Penn
State required Mr. Hancock to perform more taxing duties than he had previously
performed. Previously, three employees had been assigned the task of cleaning the
power plant area; Penn State now required Mr. Hancock and a seventy-year old co-
worker to clean the entire area. At one point, for a span of ten to fourteen days,
Mr. Hancock was required to clean the entire plant himself. In addition, at the same
time, Penn State significantly increased the surface area that Mr. Hancock was required
to clean.
12. Mr. Hancock sought reasonable accommodation for his qualified disability.
On or about January 11, 2004, Mr. Hancock discussed such accommodations with his
supervisor, Mark Bigelow. Mr. Bigelow’s sole offer of an accommodation was a transfer
to a lower level position with decreased pay. The very next day, January 12, 2004, Mr.
Hancock agreed to accept the lower-paying position. However, Penn State failed to
13. On March 1, 2004, Mr. Bigelow pressured Mr. Hancock to apply for leave
under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and told Mr. Hancock that the earliest
Penn State could provide any accommodation was the end of 2004. Moreover, Mr.
Bigelow told Mr. Hancock that he must continue to perform all of the physically
demanding activities of his current position until that time and emphasized that Mr.
Hancock would be required to operate the floor scrubber which Mr. Bigelow stated
would likely hit Mr. Hancock directly in the liver and cause painful internal bleeding.
Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ Document 1 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 4 of 7
14. Mr. Hancock refused to apply for FMLA leave and continued to perform
his job despite his disability. However, workers in the power plant increasingly
undermined his work by placing hostile notes in his locker and by deliberately making
him redo his work, by, for example, putting fresh wax beneath objects on the floor,
which when removed would expose the area that needed to be buffed. Mr. Hancock
15. In late April, Eileen Long, a new supervisor was assigned to Mr.
Hancock’s area. Ms. Long made a practice of continually criticizing Mr. Hancock and
asking whether he could do certain types of work, such as snow shoveling or floor
waxing, jobs that Mr. Hancock had problems performing because of his disability.
However, Ms. Long failed to provide Mr. Hancock with the accommodation he had been
16. Ms. Long was aware that Mr. Hancock had a disability, requested
Supervisor Eileen Long, and Manager of Human Resources Susan Rutan informed Mr.
18. On May 17, 2004, Penn State sent Mr. Hancock a letter confirming the
19. Penn State terminated Mr. Hancock on account of his disability and his
continued requests for reasonable accommodation. The Defendant’s alleged reason for
20. Subsequent to his dismissal, Plaintiff filed timely charges with the Equal
21. On July 11, 2005, Plaintiff was sent a right-to-sue letter by the EEOC.
22. As a result of the discharge, Plaintiff has lost his income and has had to
buy replacement medical insurance necessary for treating his terminal condition.
CAUSES OF ACTION
24. John Hancock is a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA
25. Penn State is an "employer" and a "covered entity" under the ADA.
25. Prior to the termination of his employment, John Hancock was qualified for
26. Penn State violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under the ADA because it did not
qualified individual with a disability. Such accommodation would not have imposed an
violation of the ADA due to his disability and or his perceived disability, and in retaliation
28. Mr. Hancock has been damaged by Penn State’s violation of the ADA
because he has been without a job since May 5, 2004, because the manner in which
Penn State terminated his employment effectively precluded him from finding alternative
employment; because he has been denied access to certain benefits to which he was
entitled under Penn State’s employee benefit plan or plans; and because he has
30. Penn State’s actions violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, because, as alleged above in Count I, Penn
State violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under the ADA, and because Penn State is a
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, as those terms are defined in
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff John Hancock asks the
court to:
b. find and declare that Penn State violated the ADA, and the
d. award Mr. Hancock such back pay, front pay, and employment
benefits and all other emoluments of employment as if the discharge had not occurred;
reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness costs, and such other relief as the Court
g. find for Mr. Hancock and against Penn State on all counts of this
Complaint; and
h. order such other and further relief as may be deemed just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted,