civil cover sheet case 2:17-cv-05041-rbs document … · this form, approved by the ... citizen of...

JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4

of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC ’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation

Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV

’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts

’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes

Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration

Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition

’ 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

’ 1 OriginalProceeding

’ 2 Removed fromState Court

’ 3 Remanded fromAppellate Court

’ 4 Reinstated orReopened

’ 5 Transferred fromAnother District(specify)

’ 6 MultidistrictLitigation -Transfer

’ 8 Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 2:17-cv-05041-RBS Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 of 46

Bates.CLaw

PATRICIA GINDHART and DANA DUDEK

Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

DECHERT LLP

Bates.CLaw

Philadelphia

Bates.CLaw

Philadelphia

Bates.CLaw

Rahul Munshi, Esquire (215.545.7676) Console Mattiacci Law, LLC 1525 Locust Street, 9th Floor, Philadelphia,PA 19102, [email protected]

Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

29 U.S.C. §621, et seq. (“ADEA, 43 P.S. §951, et seq. (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. §951, et seq. (“PFPO”), 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”)

Bates.CLaw

11/8/17

Bates.CLaw

in excess of $75,000.00

Bates.CLaw

Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendat for unlawful discrimiatnon in connection with their age and sex.

Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

November 9, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA — DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose ofassignment to appropriate calendar.

Address of Plaintiff:

Address of Defendant: Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction:

(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space) Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock?

(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a)) Yes9 No9

Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? Yes9 No9RELATED CASE, IF ANY:

Case Number: Judge Date Terminated:

Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:

1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

Yes9 No92. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

Yes9 No93. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously

terminated action in this court? Yes9 No9

4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?

Yes9 No9

CIVIL: (Place U in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)

A. Federal Question Cases: B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:

1. 9 Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts 1. 9 Insurance Contract and Other Contracts

2. 9 FELA 2. 9 Airplane Personal Injury

3. 9 Jones Act-Personal Injury 3. 9 Assault, Defamation

4. 9 Antitrust 4. 9 Marine Personal Injury

5. 9 Patent 5. 9 Motor Vehicle Personal Injury

6. 9 Labor-Management Relations 6. 9 Other Personal Injury (Please specify)

7. 9 Civil Rights 7. 9 Products Liability

8. 9 Habeas Corpus 8. 9 Products Liability — Asbestos

9. 9 Securities Act(s) Cases 9. 9 All other Diversity Cases

10. 9 Social Security Review Cases (Please specify)

11. 9 All other Federal Question Cases

(Please specify)

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION(Check Appropriate Category)

I, , counsel of record do hereby certify:

9 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of

$150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs;

9 Relief other than monetary damages is sought.

DATE:

Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.#

NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.

I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court

except as noted above.

DATE:

Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.#

CIV. 609 (5/2012)


Bates.CLaw

Philadelphia, PA 191114, Upland, PA 19015

Bates.CLaw

2929 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104

Bates.CLaw

2929 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

Rahul Munshi

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

117

Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

307548

Bates.CLaw

307548

Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

November 9, 2017

Bates.CLaw

November 9, 2017

Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

Rahul Munshi

Bates.CLaw

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM

: CIVIL ACTION:

v. ::: NO.

In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel forplaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time offiling the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverseside of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding saiddesignation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve onthe plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the trackto which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.

SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:

(a) Habeas Corpus – Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through § 2255. ( )

(b) Social Security – Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Healthand Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. ( )

(c) Arbitration – Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. ( )

(d) Asbestos – Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage fromexposure to asbestos. ( )

(e) Special Management – Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that arecommonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management bythe court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of specialmanagement cases.) ( )

(f) Standard Management – Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks. ( )

Date Attorney-at-law Attorney for

Telephone FAX Number E-Mail Address

(Civ. 660) 10/02


Bates.CLaw


Bates.CLaw

DECHERT LLP

Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

x

Bates.CLaw

11/7/17

Bates.CLaw


Bates.CLaw

215-545-7676

Bates.CLaw

215-814-8920

Bates.CLaw

[email protected]

Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

November 9, 2017

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

________________________________ : PATRICIA GINDHART : Philadelphia, PA 191114 : CIVIL ACTION NO. : and : : DANA DUDEK : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Upland, PA 19015 : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : DECHERT LLP : Cira Center : 2929 Arch Street : Philadelphia, PA 19104 : : Defendant. : ________________________________ :

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, Patricia Gindhart (“Gindhart”) and Dana Dudek (“Dudek”), bring this action

against their former employer, Defendant Dechert LLP (“Dechert”). Both long-term employees

of Defendant, Plaintiffs were suddenly terminated on October 5, 2016 while several younger

and/or male comparators were retained. Further, Plaintiff Gindhart’s termination came on the

heels of several complaints she raised with Defendant that she was being discriminated against

because of her age and/or her sex. By way of example, Plaintiff Gindhart complained about a

culture of bias against older and/or female employees at Defendant, which included a supervisor

calling long-term female employees “cows” and the encouragement of a “boys club” that

resulted in beneficial treatment for certain younger, male employees of Defendant.


2

Plaintiffs were discriminated against because of their age in violation of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §621, et seq. (“ADEA”), the

Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, as amended, 43 P.S. §951, et seq. (“PHRA”), and the

Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, as amended, 43 P.S. §951, et seq. (“PFPO”). Plaintiffs

were further discriminated against because of their sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), the PHRA, and the

PFPO. Plaintiff Gindhart was also retaliated against by Defendant for complaining of age and/or

sex discrimination in the workplace in violation of the above federal, state, and local statutes.

Plaintiffs seek all damages, including economic loss, compensatory, liquidated, and

punitive damages, and all other relief under applicable federal, state, and local law as this Court

deems appropriate. Plaintiffs are joining in this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a) because

they were both victims of Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination and/or retaliation,

and their claims involve common questions of fact and law.

II. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Gindhart is a female individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania.

2. Plaintiff Gindhart is currently fifty-eight (58) years old and was fifty-seven (57)

years old at the time Defendant terminated her employment in October 2016.

3. Plaintiff Dudek is a female individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania.

4. Plaintiff Dudek is currently fifty-five (55) years old and was fifty-four (54) years

old at the time Defendant terminated her employment in October 2016.

5. Defendant Dechert, an international law firm, is a Pennsylvania limited liability


3

partnership with a principal place of business located at the Cira Center, 2929 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19104.

6. Defendant is engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce and, at all

relevant times, has regularly conducted business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

7. At all times material hereto, Defendant has acted as an “employer” within the

meaning of the statutes which form the basis of this matter.

8. At all times material hereto, Defendant employed more than twenty (20)

individuals.

9. At all times material hereto, Defendant acted by and through its authorized agents,

servants, workmen, and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment

with Defendant and in furtherance of Defendant’s business.

10. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs were “employees” of Defendant within the

meaning of the statutes which form the basis of this matter.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. The causes of action which form the basis of this matter arise under the ADEA,

Title VII, the PHRA and the PFPO.

12. The District Court has jurisdiction over Count I (ADEA) and Count V (ADEA)

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §626(c) and 28 U.S.C. §1331.

13. The District Court has jurisdiction over Count II (Title VII) and Count VI (Title

VII) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5 and 28 U.S.C. §1331.

14. The District Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count III (PHRA) and

Count VII (PHRA) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

15. The District Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count IV (PFPO) and


4

Count VIII (PFPO) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

16. Venue is proper in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within this District.

17. On or about November 8, 2016, Plaintiff Dudek filed a Charge of Discrimination

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), complaining of acts of

discrimination and retaliation alleged herein. This Charge was cross-filed with the Pennsylvania

Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”). Attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked as

Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Dudek’s EEOC Charge of Discrimination.

18. On or about September 29, 2017, the EEOC issued to Plaintiff Dudek a Notice of

Right to Sue. Attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct

copy of Plaintiff Dudek’s notice from the EEOC.

19. On or about November 8, 2016, Plaintiff Gindhart filed a Charge of

Discrimination with the EEOC, complaining of acts of discrimination and retaliation alleged

herein. This Charge was cross-filed with the PHRC. Attached hereto, incorporated herein and

marked as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Gindhart’s EEOC Charge of

Discrimination.

20. On or about August 14, 2017, the EEOC issued to Plaintiff Gindhart a Notice of

Right to Sue. Attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct

copy of Plaintiff Gindhart’s notice from the EEOC.

21. Plaintiffs have fully complied with all administrative prerequisites for the

commencement of this action.


5

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Plaintiff Gindhart’s Employment History with Defendant

22. Plaintiff Gindhart was hired by Defendant on or around November 9, 19871 as a

Payroll Coordinator in Defendant’s Payroll Department.

23. Plaintiff Gindhart was later promoted several times, including to Payroll Manager

and to Human Resources (“HR”)/Payroll Systems Manager in 1999.

24. Starting in early 2008 in her role as HR/Payroll Systems Manager, Plaintiff

Gindhart reported to Anthony Licata (male/40s2), Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) from 2008 to

July 2013 and later Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) until 2014.

25. In the Fall of 2008, Plaintiff Gindhart began reporting to Corey Smith (male/40s),

Director of Global Financial Operations from 2008 to 2013 and current CFO since July 2013.

26. In or around September 2014, Plaintiff Gindhart’s title changed to Senior Payroll

Manager.

27. Plaintiff Gindhart worked as Senior Payroll Manager until Defendant terminated

her employment in October 2016.

28. From around April 2016 until her termination in October 2016, Plaintiff Gindhart

reported to Jose Vidal (male/30s), Director of Financial Operations.

29. Throughout her nearly thirty (30) years of employment with Defendant, Plaintiff

Gindhart consistently demonstrated high-level performance and dedication to Defendant.

30. By way of example, on or around February 19, 2008, Plaintiff Gindhart met with

Defendant’s then-COO, Michael van Kralingen (male/60s), and later that day HR gave Plaintiff

Gindhart a memo stating that she would be eligible for a performance bonus of up to 15% of her

1 Dates contained herein are approximates. 2 Ages contained herein are approximates.


6

salary based on her reviews and accomplishments.

31. Defendant terminated Plaintiff Gindhart’s employment without warning on

October 5, 2016 at age fifty-seven (57).

32. Plaintiff Gindhart and Plaintiff Dudek – who was also terminated on that date –

were the two (2) oldest female employees in Defendant’s Payroll Department and were the only

individuals terminated by Defendant on October 5, 2016.

B. Plaintiff Dudek’s Employment History with Defendant

33. Plaintiff Dudek was hired by Defendant on or around January 2, 1990 as Payroll

Coordinator in Defendant’s Payroll Department.

34. Plaintiff Dudek was later promoted to Payroll Supervisor and then to Payroll

Manager.

35. Plaintiff Dudek worked as a Payroll Manager at Defendant until Defendant

terminated her employment in October 2016.

36. Plaintiff Dudek reported directly to Plaintiff Gindhart, Senior Payroll Manager.

37. As set forth above, at the time of the termination of Plaintiff Dudek’s employment

in October 2016, her supervisor (Plaintiff Gindhart) reported to Mr. Vidal.

38. Throughout her over twenty-five (25) years of employment with Defendant,

Plaintiff Dudek consistently demonstrated high-level performance and dedication to Defendant.

39. By way of example, Plaintiff Dudek received bonuses and positive performance

reviews for the majority of her long employment with Defendant.

40. Defendant terminated Plaintiff Dudek’s employment without warning on October

5, 2016 at age fifty-four (54).

41. Plaintiff Dudek and Plaintiff Gindhart – who was also terminated on that date –


7

were the two (2) oldest female employees in Defendant’s Payroll Department and were the only

individuals terminated by Defendant on October 5, 2016.

C. Defendant’s Culture of Bias Against Older and/or Female Employees

1. Plaintiff Gindhart’s Complaints About the Conduct and Comments of Former CFO and COO Anthony Licata

42. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff Gindhart complained internally that

Defendant’s comments and conduct evidenced a bias against female and/or older employees.

43. For example, during then-CFO/COO Licata’s monthly meetings with Plaintiff

Gindhart and his other direct reports, he referred to long-term female employees as “cows” on

several occasions.

44. Then-CFO/COO Licata commented about the amount of vacation long-term

female employees received, and stated that such employees only remained at Defendant because

they could not get a job anywhere else.

45. Plaintiff Gindhart complained to then-CFO/COO Licata, current CFO Smith, and

Director of HR Mary Ann Christ that such comments were discriminatory based on age, and that

she was offended by the comments.

46. Plaintiff Gindhart further complained that then-CFO/COO Licata appeared to

dislike long-term female employees and older employees.

47. HR Director Christ told Plaintiff Gindhart on several occasions that she was

aware of then-CFO/COO Licata’s comments.3

48. Current CFO Smith responded by either shrugging his shoulders or stating that

then-CFO/COO Licata did not always handle things in the most professional way. 3 Defendant terminated HR Director Christ’s employment shortly after Licata became COO in 2013. HR Director Christ is female and was around sixty-five (65) years old when she was terminated.


8

49. No action was taken against then-CFO/COO Licata for his age-based comments.

50. On another occasion, then-CFO/COO Licata stated that employees of Defendant’s

all-female HR Department were “idiots” and did not know what they were doing.

51. Plaintiff complained to HR Director Christ about his comments on the HR

Department but no action was taken.

52. In the Fall of 2008, then-CFO/COO Licata came to Plaintiff Gindhart’s office and

directly told her that long-term female employees only stay at Defendant because they cannot get

a job anywhere else.

53. Plaintiff Gindhart understood his reference to “long-term employees” to mean

older employees.

54. Plaintiff Gindhart told then-CFO/COO Licata that his comment bothered her since

she was one of the employees that he was talking about.

2. Plaintiff Gindhart’s Complaints About the Conduct and Comments of Current CFO Corey Smith

55. In Fall 2008, then-CFO/COO Licata informed Plaintiff Gindhart that she would

now be reporting to then-Director of Finance and current CFO Smith.

56. During Plaintiff Gindhart’s annual review in both 2009 and 2010, current CFO

Smith informed her that if he had a choice of giving a bonus to an employee who was close to

ending their career or an employee who was just beginning their career, he would always give it

to the younger employee.

57. In 2010, Plaintiff Gindhart told current CFO Smith that she did not believe it was

legal for him to give bonuses only to the younger employees and not to the older employees.

58. Plaintiff Gindhart complained to HR Director Christ about what CFO Smith told

her about giving bonuses to younger employees over older employees, and that she did not


9

receive a bonus on several occasions even though her performance merited it.

59. Current CFO Smith’s administrative assistant, Pamela Long, later told Plaintiff

Gindhart that Smith had made similar comments to her about giving bonus payments to younger

employees and not to older employees.

3. CFO Smith Instructs Plaintiff Gindhart to Lower the Performance Rating of Plaintiff Dudek, an Older Female Employee of Defendant

60. In 2009, Plaintiff Dudek reported to Plaintiff Gindhart, who reported to then-

Director of Finance and current CFO Smith, who reported to then-CFO Licata.

61. Around this time, Plaintiff Dudek began receiving negative performance reviews,

even though her performance did not merit a low score.

62. Plaintiff Gindhart initially gave Plaintiff Dudek positive reviews, but was then

instructed by current CFO Smith to lower the reviews – even though Plaintiff Gindhart was

Plaintiff Dudek’s direct supervisor and knew the rating that Plaintiff Dudek deserved.

63. Although he was not Plaintiff Dudek’s direct supervisor, current CFO Smith

became very critical of Plaintiff Dudek’s work.

64. Younger and/or male employees were not subjected to the same criticism by

current CFO Smith for their work, even though they failed to perform as instructed.

65. Also in or around 2010, then-CFO Licata began blaming Plaintiff Dudek for

anything that went wrong in the Payroll Department. When junior members of the department

made mistakes, then-CFO Licata blamed Plaintiff Dudek, even if she had nothing to do with the

problem.

66. In or around early 2010, Plaintiff Gindhart complained to then-CFO Licata that he

was wrongly blaming Plaintiff Dudek for various mistakes for which she was not responsible.

67. Plaintiff Gindhart told then-CFO Licata that she disagreed with him and that


10

Plaintiff Dudek should not be demoted or reprimanded. In response, he then informed Plaintiff

Gindhart that the Payroll Department would begin to report directly to Smith, effective February

11, 2010, instead of to Plaintiff Gindhart. This reporting structure lasted until July 26, 2010.

68. Plaintiff Gindhart complained often to current CFO Smith and HR Director Christ

about how then-CFO/COO Licata made it difficult for her to manage her department because he

would cause salary and other issues between her employees. He would also say untrue things

about Plaintiff Dudek and her performance.

69. HR Director Christ admitted to Plaintiff Gindhart on several occasions that she

would not challenge then-CFO/COO Licata.

4. Defendant’s Preferential Treatment of Younger and/or Male Employees 70. At Defendant, a group of male employees in their 20s and 30s are known as the

“boys club.” These males have been given job promotions – a change in job title and a pay

increase – where their job responsibilities did not change and the positions to which they were

promoted were not posted.

71. Some of these males were even given manager titles despite the fact that they did

not manage any employees.

72. These male employees were afforded greater pay increases and merit bonus

payments over female employees.

73. On several occasions from 2013 through 2016, Plaintiff Gindhart complained to

current CFO Smith, HR Director Christ, and manager James O’Reilly (male/30s) about the

preferential treatment these males received, but no action was taken.

74. The “boys club” ran a fantasy football league during work hours and held the

draft in one of Defendant’s conference rooms.


11

75. Then-CFO/COO Licata and current CFO Smith took part in the fantasy football

league, and participated in other sports gambling activities, including March Madness and the

Super Bowl.

76. The “boys club” activities were permitted to continue despite being disruptive to

the work environment. Yet, female employees in the Payroll Department were not permitted to

sell Tupperware, Girl Scout Cookies, or baskets.

77. The “boys club” congregated in the area of the Finance Department that was

directly next to the Payroll Department. During work hours, these males would be loud, bounce

tennis balls off the wall, and throw footballs around the office.

78. On one occasion, Mr. Vidal threw a bottle of water that sprayed water on a female

employee.

79. Plaintiff Gindhart complained to Mr. O’Reilly who told her that maybe the guys

were just “blowing off steam.” No action was taken against the male employees in the “boys

club.”

80. At Defendant, it was understood that, in order for an employee to receive a bonus,

the department had to take on something new or do something beneficial for Defendant. In

approximately 2009, the employees of the Payroll Department made system changes that

benefited Defendant; however, the Payroll Department did not receive bonuses.

81. Instead, a department that was composed primarily of younger, male employees

in the boys’ club received a bonus even though they did not do anything out of the ordinary that

year.

82. On several occasions, Plaintiff Gindhart complained that younger employees

received preferential treatment and unwarranted salary increases over more senior workers.


12

83. For example, one of the young, female employees in Defendant’s Payroll

Department, April Yackobovitz (female/20s), would often wear revealing clothing, and males at

Defendant would intentionally walk by her while she was filing. Although Ms. Yackobovitz had

a lower job level than Kimberly Forline (female/36), who was out on maternity leave at the time

in 2009, current CFO Smith increased Ms. Yackobovitz’s annual salary to more than what Ms.

Forline received.

84. Plaintiff Gindhart complained to current CFO Smith, asking whether Ms.

Yackobovitz got a raise because she was “younger and cuter” than Ms. Forline.

85. Then-CFO/COO Licata later informed Plaintiff Gindhart that when Ms. Forline

returned from maternity leave, Plaintiff Gindhart was to tell Ms. Forline that if she complained

about Ms. Yackobovitz’s pay increase, Ms. Forline would be terminated.

86. Plaintiff Gindhart complained to HR Director Christ and Deputy Director of HR

Consuelo Lamphere of this issue, but no action was taken.

87. Defendant often promoted and/or hired less-qualified males into positions instead

of more experienced, older and/or female employees.

88. For example, in July 2011 current CFO Smith recommended William Steele

(male/30s), from the Accounts Payable Department, to fill an open Payroll Supervisor position.

89. Mr. Steele had no payroll experience, and was not qualified for the position, but

current CFO Smith started Mr. Steele at a salary of $50,000 annually.

90. Ms. Forline had more payroll experience than Mr. Steele and would be training

Mr. Steele, but she was making under $37,000 annually.

91. Plaintiff Gindhart complained to current CFO Smith, HR Director Christ, and

Deputy Director of HR Lamphere about the pay disparity, but no action was taken.


13

5. Plaintiff Gindhart Complains in 2016 That She is Being Discriminated Against Because of Her Age and/or Sex

92. Mr. Vidal was promoted to the Director of Financial Operations position in or

around March 2016 after the departure of Mr. O’Reilly. Before his promotion, Mr. Vidal and

Plaintiff Gindhart were both Managers in different financial departments.

93. Plaintiff Gindhart has longer experience in the Payroll Department of Defendant,

more experience managing employees, and a longer tenure at Defendant than Mr. Vidal, but Mr.

Vidal was given this position.

94. Other female employees, including Elaine Wry (female/40s) and Nicole

Bergamesco (female/30s), also had more experience and education than Mr. Vidal, but were not

given this promotion.

95. In or around July or August 2016 – a few months before Defendant terminated

Plaintiff Gindhart’s employment – Plaintiff Gindhart complained to HR about how Mr. Vidal

was treating her differently than how he treated younger and/or male employees.

96. For example, when Mr. Vidal should have been coming to Plaintiff Gindhart, or

Plaintiff Dudek, directly with questions or instructions, he would bypass them to address the

matters with the younger employees in the Payroll Department instead.

97. Mr. Vidal reprimanded Plaintiff Gindhart about her schedule; however, he did not

reprimand his male direct reports about their schedules.

98. At a meeting with HR, Deputy Director of HR Lamphere told Mr. Vidal and

Plaintiff Gindhart that they needed to learn how to get along, and no further action was taken to

remedy the situation.


14

D. Discriminatory and/or Retaliatory Terminations of Plaintiffs

1. Plaintiff Gindhart

99. On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff Gindhart was called into a meeting with Mr. Vidal

and Director of HR Regina Fico.

100. At the October 5, 2016 meeting, Mr. Vidal and Ms. Fico stated that Defendant is

terminating Plaintiff Gindhart’s employment because Defendant was outsourcing her position.

101. Plaintiff Gindhart was not given any warning that Defendant would be

terminating her employment after nearly thirty (30) years of service.

102. Plaintiff Gindhart later learned that Plaintiff Dudek was also terminated on that

same day; despite being Plaintiff Dudek’s direct supervisor, Plaintiff Gindhart was provided no

notice about Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff Dudek’s position.

103. Plaintiff Gindhart and Plaintiff Dudek were the only employees that Defendant

terminated on October 5, 2016.

104. Defendant did not provide Plaintiff Gindhart with any explanation, including the

selection criteria, as to why she and Plaintiff Dudek were terminated while younger and/or male

comparators were retained.

105. At the same time, Defendant retained all other younger and/or male employees

that directly and indirectly reported to Mr. Vidal, including:

a. Matt Correll (male/40) – Accounts Payable Manager;

b. Lisa Gargani (female/35) – Financial Operations Manager;

c. Kate McGuigan (female/36) – Manager of Financial Operations;

d. Matt Brolly (male/40) – Billings and Collections Manager;

e. Kimberly Forline (female/36) – Payroll Coordinator; and


15

f. Christine Rode (female/28) – Department Assistant.

106. Plaintiff Gindhart was qualified to do the responsibilities of any and all of these

above individuals.

107. The reasons given to Plaintiff Gindhart for her termination are a pretext for

discrimination and retaliation.

108. Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff Gindhart’s employment because of

“outsourcing” came shortly after Defendant stated that it outsourced its Word Processing

Department; the majority of the employees Defendant terminated in this process were long-term

female employees.

109. The termination of Plaintiff Gindhart’s employment was discriminatory and in

retaliation for her complaints of sex and/or age discrimination.

110. Plaintiff Gindhart’s age was a motivating and/or determinative factor in

Defendant’s discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff Gindhart and in the termination of Plaintiff

Gindhart.

111. Plaintiff Gindhart’s sex was a motivating and/or determinative factor in

Defendant’s discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff Gindhart and in the termination of Plaintiff

Gindhart.

112. Plaintiff Gindhart engaged in protected activity by complaining of age and/or sex

discrimination.

113. Plaintiff Gindhart’s complaining of discrimination was a motivating and/or

determinative factor in Defendant’s discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of Plaintiff

Gindhart, including the termination of her employment.

114. The retaliatory actions taken against Plaintiff Gindhart after she complained of


16

discriminatory conduct would have discouraged a reasonable employee from complaining of

discrimination.

115. Defendant has failed to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-

retaliatory reason for Plaintiff Gindhart’s termination.

116. As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct of

Defendant, Plaintiff Gindhart has in the past incurred, and may in the future incur, a loss of

earnings and/or earning capacity, loss of benefits, pain and suffering, embarrassment,

humiliation, loss of self-esteem, mental anguish, and loss of life’s pleasures, the full extent of

which is not known at this time.

117. The intentional conduct of Defendant, as set forth above, was willful, outrageous

under the circumstances, was done by and with knowledge of upper management, and warrants

the imposition of punitive and liquidated damages against Defendant.

2. Plaintiff Dudek

118. On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff Dudek was called into a meeting with Mr. Vidal and

Director of HR Fico.

119. At the October 5, 2016 meeting, Mr. Vidal and Ms. Fico stated that Defendant is

terminating Plaintiff Dudek’s employment because Defendant was restructuring the Payroll

Department and outsourcing her position.

120. Plaintiff Dudek was not given any warning that Defendant would be terminating

her employment after over twenty-five (25) years of service.

121. Defendant did not provide Plaintiff Dudek with any explanation, including the

selection criteria, as to why she was terminated while younger and/or male comparators were

retained.


17

122. At the same time, Defendant retained all other younger employees that had

reported to Plaintiff Gindhart, including:

a. Kimberly Forline (female/36) – Payroll Coordinator; and

b. Christine Rode (female/28) – Department Assistant.

123. Plaintiff Dudek was qualified to do the responsibilities of any and all of these

above individuals.

124. Plaintiff Gindhart and Plaintiff Dudek were the only employees that Defendant

terminated on October 5, 2016.

125. Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff Dudek’s employment because of

“outsourcing” came shortly after Defendant stated that it outsourced its Word Processing

Department; the majority of the employees Defendant terminated in this process were long-term

female employees.

126. The reasons given to Plaintiff Dudek for her termination are a pretext for

discrimination.

127. Plaintiff Dudek’s age was a motivating and/or determinative factor in Defendant’s

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff Dudek and in the termination of Plaintiff Dudek.

128. Plaintiff Dudek’s sex was a motivating and/or determinative factor in Defendant’s

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff Dudek and in the termination of Plaintiff Dudek.

129. Defendant has failed to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for

Plaintiff Dudek’s termination.

130. As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory conduct of Defendant,

Plaintiff Dudek has in the past incurred, and may in the future incur, a loss of earnings and/or

earning capacity, loss of benefits, pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of self-


18

esteem, mental anguish, and loss of life’s pleasures, the full extent of which is not known at this

time.

131. The intentional conduct of Defendant, as set forth above, was willful, outrageous

under the circumstances, was done by and with knowledge of upper management, and warrants

the imposition of punitive and liquidated damages against Defendant.

COUNT I – ADEA PLAINTIFF GINDHART v. DEFENDANT

132. Plaintiff Gindhart incorporates herein by reference paragraph 1 through 131

above, as if set forth herein in their entirety.

133. Plaintiff Gindhart’s age was a substantial and/or determinative factor in

connection with Defendant’s treatment of her.

134. Plaintiff Gindhart’s complaints of age discrimination were a substantial and/or

determinative factor in connection with Defendant’s treatment of her.

135. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination and retaliation against

Plaintiff Gindhart, Defendant has violated the ADEA.

136. Said violations were willful and warrant the imposition of liquidated damages.

137. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of the ADEA, Plaintiff

Gindhart has suffered the damages and losses set forth herein and has incurred attorneys’ fees

and costs.

138. Plaintiff Gindhart is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury

and monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory and retaliatory acts unless and

until this Court grants the relief requested herein.

139. No previous application has been made for the relief requested herein.


19

COUNT II – TITLE VII PLAINTIFF GINDHART v. DEFENDANT

140. Plaintiff Gindhart incorporates herein by reference paragraph 1 through 139


141. Plaintiff Gindhart’s sex was a substantial, motivating, and/or determinative factor

in connection with Defendant’s treatment of her.

142. Plaintiff Gindhart’s complaints of sex discrimination were a substantial and/or

determinative factor in connection with Defendant’s treatment of her.

143. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination and retaliation against

Plaintiff Gindhart, Defendant has violated Title VII.

144. Said violations were willful and intentional and warrant the imposition of punitive

damages.

145. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of Title VII, Plaintiff

Gindhart has suffered the damages and losses set forth herein and has incurred attorneys’ fees

and costs.





COUNT III – PHRA PLAINTIFF GINDHART v. DEFENDANT

148. Plaintiff Gindhart incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 147


149. Plaintiff Gindhart’s age was a substantial, motivating, and/or determinative factor


20




151. Plaintiff Gindhart’s complaints of age and/or sex discrimination were a

substantial, motivating, and/or determinative factor in connection with Defendant’s treatment of

her.

152. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination and retaliation, Defendant has

violated the PHRA.

153. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of the PHRA, Plaintiff

Gindhart has sustained the injuries, damages, and losses set forth herein and has incurred

attorneys’ fees and costs.





COUNT IV – PFPO PLAINTIFF GINDHART v. DEFENDANT

156. Plaintiff Gindhart incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 155


157. Plaintiff Gindhart’s age was a substantial, motivating, and/or determinative factor




159. Plaintiff Gindhart’s complaints of age and/or sex discrimination were a


21

substantial, motivating, and/or determinative factor in connection with Defendant’s treatment of

her.

160. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination and retaliation, Defendant has

violated the PFPO.

161. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of the PFPO, Plaintiff

Gindhart has sustained the injuries, damages, and losses set forth herein and has incurred

attorneys’ fees and costs.





COUNT V – ADEA PLAINTIFF DUDEK v. DEFENDANT

164. Plaintiff Dudek incorporates herein by reference paragraph 1 through 163 above,

as if set forth herein in their entirety.

165. Plaintiff Dudek’s age was a substantial and/or determinative factor in connection

with Defendant’s treatment of her.

166. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination against Plaintiff Dudek,

Defendant has violated the ADEA.

167. Said violations were willful and warrant the imposition of liquidated damages.

168. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of the ADEA, Plaintiff

Dudek has suffered the damages and losses set forth herein and has incurred attorneys’ fees and

costs.

169. Plaintiff Dudek is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and


22

monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory and retaliatory acts unless and until

this Court grants the relief requested herein.


COUNT VI – TITLE VII PLAINTIFF DUDEK v. DEFENDANT

171. Plaintiff Dudek incorporates herein by reference paragraph 1 through 170 above,


172. Plaintiff Dudek’s sex was a substantial, motivating, and/or determinative factor


173. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination against Plaintiff Dudek,

Defendant has violated Title VII.

174. Said violations were willful and intentional and warrant the imposition of punitive

damages.

175. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of Title VII, Plaintiff

Dudek has suffered the damages and losses set forth herein and has incurred attorneys’ fees and

costs.





COUNT VII – PHRA PLAINTIFF DUDEK v. DEFENDANT

178. Plaintiff Dudek incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 177 above,



23

179. Plaintiff Dudek’s age was a substantial, motivating, and/or determinative factor


180. Plaintiff Dudek’s sex was a substantial, motivating, and/or determinative factor in


181. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination, Defendant has violated the

PHRA.

182. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of the PHRA, Plaintiff

Dudek has sustained the injuries, damages, and losses set forth herein and has incurred attorneys’

fees and costs.





COUNT VIII– PFPO PLAINTIFF DUDEK v. DEFENDANT

185. Plaintiff Dudek incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 184 above,


186. Plaintiff Dudek’s age was a substantial, motivating, and/or determinative factor in


187. Plaintiff Dudek’s sex was a substantial, motivating, and/or determinative factor


188. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination, Defendant has violated the

PFPO.

189. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of the PFPO, Plaintiff


24

Dudek has sustained the injuries, damages, and losses set forth herein and has incurred attorneys’

fees and costs.





RELIEF SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF GINDHART

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Gindhart seeks damages and legal and equitable relief in

connection with Defendant’s improper conduct, and specifically prays that this Court grant the

following relief to Plaintiff Gindhart by:

(a) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of the ADEA;

(b) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of Title VII;

(c) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of the PHRA;

(d) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of the PFPO;

(e) enjoining and permanently restraining the violations alleged herein;

(f) entering judgment against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff Gindhart in an amount to be

determined;

(g) awarding compensatory damages to make Plaintiff Gindhart whole for all lost earnings,

earning capacity and benefits, past and future, which Plaintiff Gindhart has suffered or

may suffer as a result of Defendant’s improper conduct;

(h) awarding compensatory damages to Plaintiff Gindhart for past and future pain and

suffering, emotional upset, mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of life’s pleasures,

which Plaintiff Gindhart has suffered or may suffer as a result of Defendant’s improper


25

conduct;

(i) awarding liquidated damages to Plaintiff Gindhart under the ADEA;

(j) awarding punitive damages to Plaintiff Gindhart under Title VII and the PFPO;

(k) awarding Plaintiff Gindhart such other damages as are appropriate under the ADEA, Title

VII, the PHRA, and the PFPO;

(l) awarding Plaintiff Gindhart the costs of suit, expert fees and other disbursements, and

reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

(m) granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper, or equitable

including other equitable and injunctive relief providing restitution for past violations and

preventing future violations.

RELIEF SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF DUDEK

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dudek seeks damages and legal and equitable relief in

connection with Defendant’s improper conduct, and specifically prays that this Court grant the

following relief to Plaintiff Dudek by:

(a) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of the ADEA;

(b) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of Title VII;

(c) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of the PHRA;

(d) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of the PFPO;

(e) enjoining and permanently restraining the violations alleged herein;

(f) entering judgment against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff Dudek in an amount to be

determined;

(g) awarding compensatory damages to make Plaintiff Dudek whole for all lost earnings,

earning capacity and benefits, past and future, which Plaintiff Dudek has suffered or may


26

suffer as a result of Defendant’s improper conduct;

(h) awarding compensatory damages to Plaintiff Dudek for past and future pain and

suffering, emotional upset, mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of life’s pleasures,

which Plaintiff Dudek has suffered or may suffer as a result of Defendant’s improper

conduct;

(i) awarding liquidated damages to Plaintiff Dudek under the ADEA;

(j) awarding punitive damages to Plaintiff Dudek under Title VII and the PFPO;

(k) awarding Plaintiff Dudek such other damages as are appropriate under the ADEA, Title

VII, the PHRA, and the PFPO;

(l) awarding Plaintiff Dudek the costs of suit, expert fees and other disbursements, and

reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

(m) granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper, or equitable

including other equitable and injunctive relief providing restitution for past violations and

preventing future violations.

CONSOLE MATTIACCI LAW, LLC

Dated: November 9, 2017 By: ____________________________ Stephen G. Console

Laura C. Mattiacci Rahul Munshi

1525 Locust St., Ninth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 545-7676 (215) 814-8920 (fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Patricia Gindhart and Dana Dudek


Exhibit 1



Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

Exhibit 2



Bates.CLaw

Exhibit 3



Bates.CLaw

Bates.CLaw

Exhibit 4



Bates.CLaw

civil cover sheet case 2:17-cv-05041-rbs document … · this form, approved by the ... citizen of...

Documents