Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 25

GJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVNIA

ANDREW FISCHER
1103 Tannerie Run Road
Ambler, PA 19002

Civil Action

Plaintiff

No. 15-cv-

15

2413

v.
PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiff, Andrew Fischer, Prose hereby files the within complaint against
defendant Pepper Hamilton, LLP for violations of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, and in support thereof avers as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

This action for declaratory, injunctive, monetary and other

appropriate relief is brought by Plaintiff, Andrew Fischer, to redress intentional

violations by his employer the Defendant, Pepper Hamilton, LLP, of rights
secured to him by the laws of the United States of America.
2.

This action arises under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. 12101, et seq. (as amended by the provisions of the Americans

1

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 25

With Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008, P.L. 110-325) (collectively, the

"ADA").
JURISDICTION

3.

Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 42 U.S.C.

1211 7, both of which provide for original jurisdiction of Plaintiffs claims

arising under the laws of the United States and over actions to recover
damages and to secure equitable and other relief under the appropriate
governing statute.
4.

Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies and has taken

all other steps necessary to bring this action before this Court, having filed a
timely complaint of disability discrimination in employment with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC Docket No. 530-2014-02140]
and having received the requisite Notice of Right to Sue to bring this action
before this Court. See, Notice of Right to Sue attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
VENUE

5.

All actions complained of herein occurred within the jurisdiction of

this Court and involve a Defendant that is domiciled within its jurisdictional
limits.
6.

Venue is accordingly invoked pursuant to the dictates of 28 U.S.C.

139l(b) and 1391(c).

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 25

PARTIES

7.

Plaintiff, Andrew Fischer ("Plaintiff' or "Fischer"), is an adult

individual who resides at 1103 Tannerie Run Road, Ambler, PA 19002.

8.

Defendant Pepper Hamilton, LLP ("Pepper," "Defendant," or the

"Firm") is a Limited Liability Partnership duly organized under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business located at
3000 Two Logan Square, 18th and Arch Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
9.

Defendant Pepper is an Employer within the definition established

by the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended by the

provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008, P.L.
110-325 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10.

After receiving a Bachelors of Arts degree in Government and Law

from Lafayette College in June 1991 and a Juris Doctor from Villanova
University School of Law in May 1994, Fischer worked first as in-house counsel
at About Time, Inc. until approximately June 1997 then, from June 1997 until
July 2001 as a solo practitioner. From July 2001 until August 2002, Fischer
was an associate at Murland and Nathan, LLC and, from November 2002 until
August 2006, Fischer was again in solo practice and performed contract legal
work.
11.

In August 2006, Fischer was hired by Pepper as a project lawyer

working in Pepper's main office at Two Logan Square, receiving an hourly rate
for hours he worked that could be billed to clients and minimal benefits.
3

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 25

12.

When Fischer was hired by Pepper, the firm's facilities operated

around the clock, seven days per week and, other than having to take one hour
of mandatory break time for every eight hours that they billed, project lawyers
were not limited in the amount of hours they could bill in a day, week, or
month or when during the day they worked.
13.

During this time, Fischer generally arrived at work between 1:00

p.m. and 3:00 p.m. and would work until 12:20 a.m. or later during the work
week and on weekends, which permitted him to bill an average of more than 45
hours per week.
14.

On or about March 2007, Fischer was first told that he needed to

be at work during core business hours, but he was still permitted to work a
flexible schedule, permitting him to bill an average of almost 40 hours per week
during 2007.
15.

In early 2007, Fischer experienced chronic difficulties falling asleep

at night and arising for work in the morning, and on or about October 2007, he
was diagnosed with Delayed Sleep-Phase Disorder, which substantially limits
Fischer in the major life activity of sleeping and is a "disability" as defined in
the ADA.
16.

On or about October 2007 Fischer was notified by his supervisor,

Matthew Hamilton ("Hamilton"), that he needed to be at work during the hours

from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
17.

In response, Fischer notified Hamilton that his late arrivals may be

due to a medical condition and that he was scheduled to see a doctor about it.
4

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 25

18.

On or about August 2008, after it discovered billing fraud

committed by a contract lawyer it had engaged (said contract lawyer having

continued to bill and was paid for approximately 8 months after he stopped
showing-up or working at Pepper), Pepper hired Nadine Overton ("Overton") to
assist Hamilton with reviewing timesheets and personnel issues, and
supervising project lawyers.
19.

On or about August 2008, Fischer was selected by Pepper to be

one of their project lawyers assigned to supervise a team of contract lawyers at

a remote site at Liberty Place ("Liberty Place Location").
20.

For the next approximately 38 months, Fischer did most of his

work for Pepper at the Liberty Place Location.

21.

On or about September 8, 2008, Pepper placed a ten (10) hour cap

on the daily hours a project lawyer could work, unless he or she was working
on a special project that specifically authorized additional hours.
22.

Additionally, as another response to the contract lawyer's billing

fraud, Pepper changed the work hours for contract lawyers and project lawyers,
limiting them to working between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
23.

In December 2008, Mr. Fischer formally notified his direct

supervisor Hamilton of his diagnosis of Delayed Sleep-Phase Disorder, and the

fact that his conditions required a reasonable accommodation regarding the
time he was expected to report to work.

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 25

24.

Hamilton requested that Fischer provide certification from his

doctor of his condition and the need for an accommodation, which certification
Fischer provided.
25.

On or about January 2009, Pepper announced that monthly hours

for project lawyers and contract lawyers would be capped at 200.

26.

On or about March 2009, Fischer provided Pepper with a letter

from his physician certifying his diagnosis of Delayed Sleep Phase Disorder and
his need for a reasonable accommodation.
27.

In March 2009, Pepper granted Fischer the accommodation of

permitting him to report to work later than the normal starting time, but told
Fischer that he would have to end his work day by 7:00 p.m., an
accommodation that, given the Firm's mandatory break time and the
limitations imposed by his disability, did not provide Fischer with the ability to
bill at least 40 hours per week unless he worked seven (7) days a week, and did
not provide Fischer with the ability to bill the number of hours per month the
non-disabled project attorneys billed or the ability to take time off during the
week for things like doctors' appointments as the non-disabled project
attorneys could.
28.

On or about November 2009, Pepper prohibited project attorneys

from performing weekend work except on special projects, further limiting the
number of hours Mr. Fischer could bill per week.
29.

On or about December 7, 2009, Fischer made a written request to

Hamilton that, as an accommodation to his disability, he be permitted to work

6

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 25

until 9:50 p.m. or that he be permitted to work remotely from his home for a
few hours per night so he could have the same billing opportunities as the nondisabled project attorneys.
30.

Hamilton told Fischer orally that he would be permitted to work

past 7 p.m. and Fischer began working until approximately 9:50 p.m.
31.

On or about December 29, 2009, Overton sent Fischer an email

inquiring if he was allowed to work past 7 p.m. as she had not been aware that
Hamilton had authorized Mr. Fischer to do so and Hamilton responded that
Fischer may work up until 8:30 p.m. when necessary.
32.

Because of the limitations imposed by his disability and the further

limitations placed on the hours he could work, Fischer was only able to bill
approximately 29.3 hours per week in 2009 and approximately 30.1 hours per
week in 2010.
33.

On or about January 2011, Brian Cleghorn ("Cleghorn") was

formally introduced to the project team as Overton's replacement (Overton

. having departed Pepper in 2010) in assisting Hamilton with timesheets and
personnel matters, and became an additional supervisor of Fischer.
34.

On or about August 2011, Fischer received his Master of Science

in Biotechnology degree from The Johns Hopkins University, and Fischer (a

registered Patent Attorney) was, therefore, qualified to assist with Pepper's
patent work.
35.

Fischer requested that he be permitted to work with attorneys in

the Intellectual Property ("IP'') Department in addition to his Health Effects

7

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 8 of 25

project work and was put in touch with Raymond Miller ("Miller") an attorney
in the IP Department who worked out of Pepper's Pittsburgh office.
36.

On or about October 19, 2011, the Liberty Place Location closed,

the contract lawyers were dismissed, and the project lawyers (including
Fischer) were instructed to report to Pepper's main facility the next day to
continue working.
37.

On or about October 20, 2011, Cleghorn called Fischer into his

office at Two Logan Square and informed Fischer that he would no longer be
permitted to work past 7 p.m. because Cleghorn didn't want to be "hassled" by
other employees at the Two Logan Square location who would learn that
Fischer was permitted to work past 7 p.m., and then would request similar
permission for themselves.
38. That Fischer was permitted to work past 7:00 p.m. was an open
secret of sorts at the Liberty Place Location but it was generally not known
among the employees at Pepper's main facility.
39.

After Cleghorn again called Mr. Fischer into his office the next day

and again reiterated that Fischer would no longer be permitted to work past 7
p.m., Fischer repeatedly requested an adequate reasonable accommodation,
but was refused.
40.

Throughout this time, Cleghorn repeatedly mocked Fischer and

made deprecating comments about Fischer's disability and his request for an
accommodation.

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 9 of 25

41.

Beginning on or about October 21, 2011, the accommodation

previously granted Fischer was rescinded and he was only permitted to work
until 7 p.m.
42.

In response, Fischer complained to Hamilton that he was being

denied a reasonable accommodation for his disability and informed Hamilton

about Cleghorn's outrageous and unprofessional conduct towards him.
43.

Instead of responding to and remedying the issues Fischer raised,

Hamilton questioned Fischer's formerly recognized disability and refused to

grant any accommodation or address in any way Cleghorn's improper conduct
toward Fischer.
44. Rather than being disciplined for his outrageous and unprofessional
conduct towards Fischer, Cleghorn was instead subsequently promoted.
45.

On or about November 30, 2011, Fischer met with Miller to discuss

Fischer splitting his time between doing project work in the Health Effects
department and working in the IP Department.
46.

At his meeting with Miller, Fischer disclosed his sleep disorder and

his need to work late, to which Miller responded that Fischer's work time needs
could not only be accommodated, they would be a benefit to his work in the IP
Department.
47.

While Miller informed Fischer that he did want Fischer to work

with him, and actually sent Fischer an IP/patent assignment on which to work,
in retaliation for Fischer's repeated requests for a reasonable accommodation

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 10 of 25

and complaint about Cleghorn's improper conduct, Hamilton refused to

approve Miller's request that Fischer do work with the IP Department.
48.

Because of the limitations imposed by his disability and the further

limitations placed on the hours he could work Fischer only billed

approximately 26.4 hours per week in 2011.
49.

On or about February 26, 2012, Fischer's physician, Michael I.

Turk ("Dr. Turk"), certified that Fischer was being treated for Delayed Sleep
Phase Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder NOS, all
conditions that substantially limit Fischer in the major life activity of sleeping
and all of which are "disabilities" as defined in the ADA, and stated that
Fischer required the accommodation of permitting him to arrive at work later
than the normal starting time.
50.

Dr. Turk specifically stated that Fischer was "likely to arrive

between 11:30 am and 1 pm" (which he hoped to adjust upward with "further
adjustments of his medications") and requested that Mr. Fischer be permitted
to work until 9:00 and be permitted to have a meal break during his work day.
51.

Fischer delivered the February 26, 2012 letter from Dr. Turk to

Patricia Woodson ("Woodson"), Pepper's Head of Administration and Human

Resources.
52.

On or about March 13 2012, Fischer emailed Hamilton again

requesting an adequate reasonable accommodation that would give him billing

opportunity parity with his coworkers without disabilities, including the
possibility of billing up to 10 hours a day, capped at 200 per month.
10

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 11 of 25

53.

Hamilton responded that Fischer would now be permitted to work

until 8 p.m. in Health Effects but would not be permitted split his time with the
IP Department, despite the desire of attorneys in the IP Department to have Mr.
Fischer work with them, and that Fischer could continue to arrive late,
provided that he email Cleghorn regarding any arrival after 12 noon.
54.

On or about March 21, 2012, Fischer corresponded with Hamilton,

again requesting a reasonable accommodation that would give him the same
billing opportunities as his co-workers without disabilities, but Hamilton
refused to extend the "accommodation" previously granted any further.
55.

Fischer continued to press Pepper for an accommodation that

would permit him to work the same number of hours other project lawyers
were permitted to work and, in furtherance of that effort, Mr. Fischer met with
Woodson and Lori Brekus, another member of Pepper's Human Resource team
in early April 2012.
56.

After their meeting, Woodson informed Fischer that, given his

doctor's assertion that he was "likely to arrive" between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00
p.m., he would be expected to arrive between those hours and he could work
until 8:00 p.m., taking only a half-hour break instead of the usual 1 hour
mandatory break, and specifically noting that if he arrived between noon and 1
p.m. this schedule would permit him to work between 32.5 and 37.5 hours per
week depending upon his arrival time.
57.

Fischer did not agree that this proposed accommodation gave him

parity with his non-disabled co-workers as the other project lawyers were
11

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 12 of 25

permitted to bill up to 10 hours per day and were given a 12 hour billing
window and a full hour lunch break, but agreed to follow Woodson's guidelines
as his condition allowed to see if his issues were addressed.
58.

On or about April 17, 2012, Fischer also made a formal request to

Nina Gussack, the attorney who headed Pepper's Health Effects department,
was chair of Pepper's Executive Committee, and was on Pepper's diversity
committee, for assistance in obtaining an accommodation that would provide
him with the same billing opportunities as his non-disabled co-workers.
59.

At the same time Mr. Fischer again contacted Woodson, noting

that the accommodation proposed by Pepper was based on the mitigating

effects of medication Mr. Fischer was no longer taking and again requested that
he be permitted to work past 8:00 p.m. as an accommodation to his disability,
or that he be permitted to telecommute for a period of time as at least two of
his non-disabled co-workers had been permitted to do, but neither of these
requests was granted.
60.

Fischer met with Woodson two more times in spring 2012 to again

press for an adequate accommodation that would give him billing opportunity
parity with his non-disabled co-workers, but Woodson told him that he could
not work past 8 p.m. because he needed to be supervised and that Pepper did
not need him to work past 8 p.m.
61.

On or about September 2012, Fischer observed Lorraine Holley

("Holley''), a contract attorney at Pepper whose desk was located about 15 feet
from Fischer's, work past 8 pm.
12

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 13 of 25

62.

On or about September 28, 2012 Holley stated to Fischer that she

was allowed to work as late as she wanted and could work on weekends if she
so chose.
63.

On or about October 5, 2012 Fischer met with Woodson and made

a formal complaint regarding Hamilton's treatment of him, including

Hamilton's refusal to provide an adequate accommodation and his retaliatory
actions in limiting Fischer's hours and prohibiting him from working with the
IP Department.
64.

On or about October 16, 2012, Fischer met with attorney Tracey

Diamond ("Diamond"), another member of Pepper's Human Resource team

regarding his complaint against Hamilton.
65.

On or about November 13, 2012, Fischer provided Diamond

updated medical information from Dr. Turk that confirmed Fischer's disability
and stated that he was unable to arrive at work before noon and his arrival
time at work would "likely be between 12 Noon and 2 pm and would depend on
his current functioning."
66.

On or about November 21, 2012, Fischer met with Diamond and

Woodson, at which time Diamond informed Mr. Fischer that he was granted a
revised accommodation that required Mr. Fischer to arrive between 12 noon
and 2 p.m., even though Dr. Turk's letter stated that 12 noon to 2 p.m. was
only his "likely'' arrival time.

13

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 14 of 25

67.

At that meeting, Diamond refused to address Fischer's complaint

against Hamilton, stating that his complaint was "not corroborated" but
refusing to discuss any details with him.
68.

On or about November 21, 2012, Diamond formally informed

Fischer (via emailed memorandum) that Pepper would adjust the

accommodation offered to Fischer by:
a.

permitting him to arrive at work between Noon and 2:00 p.m. and

work at the office until 8:00 p.m.;

b.

permitting him telecommute for up to two hours per day to make

up for time he missed between noon and 2 p.m.

c.

permitting him to forego meal breaks, but was also permitted to

take one if he chose;

d.

warning him that he was expected to arrive at work no later than

2:00 p.m., unless his absence or tardiness was supported by a doctor's note or
other documentation of the reason for the tardiness or absence; and
e.

warning him that, if he failed to arrive by 2:00 p.m. or provide the

required documentation, he would be "subject to discipline under applicable

Firm policies."
69.

Woodson sought and obtained clarification regarding the

accommodation Fischer needed directly from Fischer's physician, Dr. Turk,

who stated that Fischer might reasonably arrive at Pepper as late as 4 p.m.
because of his disability, but Woodson refused to make any adjustments to his

14

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 15 of 25

approved "accommodation" even to permit him to make up bathroom breaks by

telecommuting an extra .40 hour each night.
70.

In 2012, Fischer only billed approximately 19 hours per week.

71.

In early January 2013, Fischer started a new medication that

prevented him from arriving by 2:00 p.m. and, as required, he informed

Cleghorn of his late arrival and the reason for it by e-mail on January 4, 2013.
72.

On January 7, 2013, Woodson e-mailed Fischer noting his late

arrival the previous work day and demanding that he submit a supporting
doctor's note excusing his tardiness by the end of that week, or his tardiness
would be considered an unexcused tardiness.
73.

On or about January 11, 2013, Fischer obtained a doctor's note

excusing his tardiness for January 4, 2013 and hand-delivered it to Woodson.

74.

Thereafter, Pepper continued to refuse to make any additional

adjustments to the "accommodation" granted to Fischer and, claiming that Dr.

Turk's explanation of his condition and need for accommodation was "vague,"
required Fischer to participate in an Independent Medical Exam ("IME").
75.

During the weekends of January 5-6 and January 12-13, 2013,

project lawyers working on the project to which Fischer was assigned were
specifically granted permission to work on those weekend days so Fischer
worked from 2:45 p.m. on Sunday January 6 to 12:21 a.m. on January 7 and
from 6:50 p.m. on Saturday January 12 to 1:26 a.m. on Sunday January 13.
76.

After she reviewed his time records for those dates, Woodson sent

Fischer a second warning notice on January 24, 2013 informing him that, even
15

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 16 of 25

when permitted to work on weekend days, he was required to adhere to the

between 12 Noon and 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. schedule specified in his
"accommodation."
77.

In the January 24, 2012 warning notice Woodson also instructed

Mr. Fischer that, if he did decide to work on holidays (which was optional at
Pepper), he still was required to arrive at Pepper no later than 2 p.m., a new
requirement that was apparently unique to Mr. Fischer, since his non-disabled
co-workers who chose to work on holidays were free to arrive at work at any
time between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
78.

In response to Woodson's January 24, 2013 warning, Fischer

pointed out that the e-mail authorizing the weekend work specifically stated
that "only the daily and monthly caps apply" and that since he billed less than
10 hours in a day and would bill less than 200 hours for the month, he did not
violate the terms of the weekend work authorization.
79.

Fischer also pointed out that his staying past 8:00 p.m. did not

appear to cause any kind of disruption to the firm, let alone impose an "undue
hardship," and was in fact beneficial to the client in helping to meet a tight
deadline.
80.

Woodson merely replied that Fischer was required to abide by the

accommodation provided and could not work in the office past 8:00 p.m. on
any day on which he worked, including weekends and holidays.

16

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 17 of 25

81.

On or about January 31, 2013, Woodson instructed Fischer to

participate in an Independent Medical Examination by Dr. Sunil Sharma ("Dr.

Sharma"), a sleep specialist, which he did.
82.

The results of the Independent Medical Examination confirmed

Fischer's disability and the need for a modified work schedule to accommodate
that disability.
83.

On March 1, 2013 in a memorandum, Woodson acknowledged Dr.

Sharma's findings but refused to modify the "accommodation" outlined in the

November 21, 2012 Memorandum and went on to warn Fischer about
"unexcused tardiness" and the need to provide a doctor's note if he arrived at
work after 2:00 p.m.
84.

In the March 1, 2013 memorandum, Woodson also, for the first

time, informed Fischer that working a full-time (40 hours per week) schedule
was an "essential function" of his job, even though she had previously asserted
that an accommodation that provided Fischer the opportunity to bill between
32.5 and 37.5 hours per week was "reasonable."
85.

In the March 1, 2013 memorandum, Woodson also, for the first

time, informed Fischer that, on days when he arrived after 12 noon, he was
required to telecommute each night (up to 2 hours, for the time he missed
between 12 noon and 2 p.m.) and threatened "further discipline up to and
including termination from employment" if Fischer arrived at work after 2:00
p.m. and/or failed to maintain full-time hours.

17

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 18 of 25

86.

Fischer responded to the March 1, 2013 warning, pointing out,

inter alia, that he believed the firm's actions in considering any arrival past
2:00 p.m. without a doctor's note as an unexcused tardiness and the new
requirement that he bill at least 40 hours per week were imposed in retaliation
for his request for a reasonable accommodation.
87.

Despite Fischer's complaint of retaliation and his request that

Pepper be more flexible with his work hours, Woodson conveyed to Fischer that
Pepper would continue to consider any arrival after 2:00 p.m. to be an
unexcused tardiness and "a performance problem that could result in
termination of your employment."
88.

Fischer continued through counsel to seek an adjustment to his

"accommodation" that would provide him with the same billing opportunities
as his non-disabled colleagues, but Pepper refused to discuss any adjustments
to his schedule or even explain why more flexible hours would be an undue
hardship to the Firm.
89.

By letter dated June 3, 2013, Pepper terminated Fischer's

employment for failing to "abide by the reasonable accommodation schedule

that was put into place" for him and because of his "continued failure to arrive
at work during the accommodated time for arrival."
90.

In both August 2007 and August 2008, Mr. Fischer received an

annual raise, but following his December 2008 request for accommodation, Mr.
Fischer never received another raise, even though non-disabled project lawyers
received raises.
18

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 19 of 25

91. Like Cleghorn before him, rather than being disciplined for his
outrageous and unprofessional conduct towards Fischer, Hamilton was
subsequently promoted (in Hamilton's case, to Partner in 2014).
92.

As evidenced by the actions described above, Plaintiff has been

discriminated against by the Defendant on the basis of his disability and in

retaliation for his request for a reasonable accommodation in violation of the
ADA.
93.

Defendant Pepper has engaged in a pattern and practice of

refusing to grant reasonable accommodations to its disabled employees and of

retaliating against those employees who do request a reasonable
accommodation.
94.

The actions of Defendant Pepper constituted intentional and

extremely outrageous conduct and Defendant acted recklessly in deliberate

disregard of the high degree of probability that severe emotional distress and
other consequential damages would be suffered by Plaintiff.
95.

As a direct result of the deliberate, unlawful, outrageous and

malicious actions of Defendant Pepper, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

suffer the loss of specific employment opportunities, earnings, bonuses,
benefits and earnings potential.
96.

In addition, as a direct result of the deliberate, unlawful, and

outrageous and malicious actions of Defendant Pepper's management

employees, including but not limited to Matthew Hamilton, Brian Cleghorn and
Patricia Woodson, Plaintiff has also suffered and continues to suffer severe
19

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 20 of 25

emotional distress, anxiety, depression, humiliation, a loss of life's pleasures,

the loss of self-esteem, damage to his professional status and reputation, and a
painful diminution of his ability to provide himself with the earned rewards of
excellence in his chosen profession, and will continue to suffer the same into
the future.
97.

The actions of Defendant Pepper were outrageous and were in

blatant disregard of the rights of Plaintiff as protected under the controlling

statute.

Count I
Defendant Pepper Hamilton, LLP
Violated the Americans With Disabilities Act
{42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.]
98.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 97 above as

though fully set forth herein.

99.

Defendant Pepper Hamilton LLP violated the Americans With

Disabilities Act, 4 2 U.S. C. 12101, et seq., in that its management employees

discriminated against Plaintiff because of his disability and retaliated against
him for requesting a reasonable accommodation, as evidenced by, inter alia:
a.

refusing Plaintiffs request for a reasonable accommodation

to Plaintiff's disability that would provide him with billing opportunity parity
with his non-disabled co-workers;
b.

permitting Hamilton, Cleghorn and other attorneys who

supervised Plaintiff to make denigrating remarks about Plaintiffs disablity;

20

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 21 of 25

c.

knowingly setting requirements as part of the authorized

"accommodation" to his disability that Plaintiffs disability would not permit

him to meet;
d.

imposing restrictions on Plaintiff's work time on approved

weekends and holidays that were not imposed on Pepper's non-disabled project
attorneys;
e.

refusing to permit him to do work with Pepper's IP

Department in retaliation for his repeated requests for a reasonable

accommodation that would give him billing opportunity parity with his nondisabled co-workers;
f.

failing to give Plaintiff any salary increase after he asked for

a reasonable accommodation while giving salary increases to Pepper's nondisabled project attorneys;
g.

arbitrarily imposing "essential functions" of his job that were

not considered to be essential functions before Plaintiff insisted on a

reasonable accommodation that would give him billing opportunity parity with
his non-disabled co-workers; and
h.

terminating his employment for his alleged failure to meet

job standards that were imposed in retaliation for his requests for a reasonable
accommodation that would provide him with billing opportunity parity with his
non-disabled co-workers.

21

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 22 of 25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Andrew Fischer, respectfully requests that this

Court:
{a)

Enter a declaratory judgment that the actions of Defendant Pepper

Hamilton, LLP violated the rights of Plaintiff as secured to him by the

applicable federal statutes;
{b)

Reinstate Plaintiff to a position equivalent to that which he held at

the time of his termination together with appropriate promotions and raises;
{c)

Award to Plaintiff past and future damages for loss of income,

growth opportunities and all benefits denied him due to the improper and
unlawful actions of Defendant;
{d)

Award to Plaintiff damages in compensation for his emotional

distress, humiliation, loss of reputation and status in the community of his

peers, and the loss of his ability to provide himself with the rewards of his
years of excellence in his chosen profession as permitted under the provisions
of the ADA;
{e)

Grant to Plaintiff punitive damages as allowed pursuant to the

{f)

Grant to Plaintiff costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys'

ADA;

fees; and

22

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 23 of 25

(g)

Grant to Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just

and proper under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

By:

rlnlwr'

Andrew Fischer, Prose

1103 Tannerie Run Road
Ambler, PA 19002
(215) 588-7526
Afischer8@juno.com

Dated: May 1, 2015

23

Case 2:15-cv-02413-GJP Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 24 of 25

EXHIBIT A

EEOC Form 161(rev2/17/08)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Case U.S.
2:15-cv-02413-GJP
Document
1 Filed 05/01/15
Page 25 of 25
DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS

To:

From: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Philadelphia District Office
801 Market Street, Suite 1300
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3127

Andrew Fischer
1103 Tannerie Run Road
Ambler, PA 19002

On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity

is CONFIDENTIAL (29CFR1601.7(a))

Charge No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

530-2014-02140

Legal Unit

(215) 440-2828

THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR Tl-IE FOLLOWING REASON:
rhe facts alleged in the charge fail to state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC.
Your allegations did not involve a disability that is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Respondent employs less than the required number of employees or is not otherwise covered by the statues.
Your charge was not timely filed with EEOC.
discrimination to file your charge.
[ X]

In other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged

rhe EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude
that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in
compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been
raised by this charqe.
rhe EEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this
charge.

/ L.

Other (briefly state)

NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS

(See the additional information attached to this form.)

Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only
notk:e of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you. You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under
federal law based on this charge iii federal or state court. Your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS from your receipt of
this Notice; otherwise, your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a state claim
may be different.)
!
Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the
alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years)
before you file suit may not be collectible.
On behalf of the Commission

Enclosure(s)

Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., District Director

Information Sheet

cc:

Pepper Hamilrton
Nancy Abrams, Esquire (For Charging Party)
Patricia Woodson, Director of Administration and HR (for Respondent)

(Date Mailed)