m

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 17

~"v"'

JP

\5-6J-eo1;lo

CIVIL COVERSHEET

The 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; eilcept as
provided 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 fof the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

r~s

DEFENDANTS

Susan Friedland

Harcum College

(b) County of Residence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTJF.

NOTE:

(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Num\t;[J

(JN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE T'
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

Michael Murphy, Esq., Murphy Law Group, LL~ Penn Center,

Suite 1803, 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19103,
267-273-1054

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

CJ l

Q:

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

0 2 U.S. Government
Defendant

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in on} BJxfor Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
0 I

Federal Question
(US. Govemment Not a Party)

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item IIJ)

Citizen of Another State

DEF
CJ 1

and One Box for fJefetdant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
dJ
0 4
of Business In This State
]

0 2

Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State

0 5

0 3

CJ

Foreign Nation

0 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT(Placean "X"inOneBoxOnlyJ

~13''1i~!~~~:&0Nfr~a'"~~.~ii!l~lk~'.liil'~~1r0R!ES!fi'~,-it.-,~lii!lifonw11R1VUmEN~li~l!JM(!J~~r~@a)llER!S\llW11tfl'ES~l!l'~1l
0 110 Insurance
PERSONAL INJURY
PERSONAL INJURY
0 625 Drug Related Seizure
0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
CJ 375 False c1..uh.
0 120 Marine
0 310 Airplane
0 365 Personal Injwy of Property 21USC881
0 423 Withdrawal
0 400 State Reaphordonment
0 130 Miller Act
0 315 Airplane Product
Product Liability
0 690 Other
28 USC 157
0 410 Antitrust .I
0 140 Negotiable Instrument
Liability
0 367 Health Care/
0 430 Banks andB g
0 150 Recovery of Overpayment CJ 320 Assault, Libel &
Phannaceutical
0 450 Commerc~

lct

& Enforcement of Judgment

CJ 151 Medicare Act
0 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loaus
(Excludes Veteraus)
0 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
0 160 Stockholders' Suits
0 1900therContract
0 195 Contract Product Liability
0 196 Franchise

Slander
CJ 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
0 340 Marine
0 345 Marine Product
Liability
0 350 Motor Vehicle
0 355 Motor Vehicle
ProductLiability
0 360 Other Personal
Iniurv

Personal Injury
Product Liability
0 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
0 370 Other Fraud
0 371 Truth in Lending
0 3800therPersonal
Property Damage
0 385 Property Damage
Product Liability

l11~8!R'.EAil!l'iFR0PER\
CJ
0
CJ
0
CJ
0

210 Land Condemnation

220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

0 Other Civil Rights

1 Voting
2 Employment
3 Housing/
Accommodations
CJ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
O 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
0 448 Education

CJ 460 Deportation
0 470 Racketeer;inJ:luenced and
Corrupt ofsanlzations

0 710 Fair Labor Standards

Act

0 720 Labor/Management
Relations

0 740 Railway Labor Act

0 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
0 790 Other Labor Litigation
0 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

0 510 Motions to Vacate

Sentence
0 530 General
0 535 Death Penalty
Other:
CJ 540 Mandamus & Other
0 550 Civil Rights
0 555 Prison Condition
0 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

0
CJ
0
0
0

861 RIA (1395ff)

862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864SSIDTitleXVI
865 RSI (405(g))

0 480 Consuruerprellit
0 490 Cable/Sat
0 850 Securities/Commodities/

rv I
I

Exchang.!!
890 Other Stattito,Y Actions
891Agricultuia!A'cts
893 EnviromnentaI Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
i
0 896 Arbitration
', '~lll:&xilSf!llrS.'l!!l!iil 0 899 Administriltiv Procedure
0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
Act/Revie~ o~Appeal of
or Defendant)
Agency D<icis1on
0 871 IRS-Third Party
0 950 Constitutionallty of
26 use 7609
State Stau;b
1

0
0
0
0

l
I

mt~6'~lil@ .

0 462 Naturalization Application

CJ 465 Other Immigration

Actions

'I

V.,ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

)!(

Original
Proceeding

0 2 Removed from
State Court

0 3

Remanded from
Appellate Court

0 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

0 5 Transferred from
Another District

0 6 Multidistrict
Litigation

(specify)

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

LJ

Age discrimination in employment under the ADEA; interference and retaliation under the FMLA.

IBnef descnpt10n of cause:

VI CAUSE OF ACTION A~EA, 29 U.S.C. 621, et seg.; FMLA 29 U.S.C. 2601, et seg.

0 CHECK IF TIIlS lS A CLASS ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDERRULE23,F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IFANY

CHECK YES only if def'dl\led in c~m~laint:

JURYDEMAND:
~Iles
ljJljl"o

DEMAND$

DOCKET NUMBER

c ~ 11
T

r~rr.
.

DATE

12/21/2015

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT#

2015

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG.JUDGE

11

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 17

'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

t>Ji_ -

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

assignment to appropriate calendar. \.'.;JI

""""""''"""tiff

,VANIA- DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpJse of

15

8644 Trumbauer Drive, Wyndmoor, PA 19038

AddressofDefimdant:

6 7 2~

.;:oi

750 MontgDmeryAyenue. Bryn Mawr. PA 19010

PlaceofAccident,IncidentorTransaction:

750 Montgomery Avenue, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010

II
J

(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~ more of its stock?I
(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.l(a))

YesD /oOC '

Yeso I

Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities?

RELATED CASE, IF ANY:
Case Number:

Judge

NoM

lI

Date Terminated:

I
.

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?

YesD
No!X
2. 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?
YesD
No!X
3. 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
YesD

terminated action in this court?

NolX

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

YesD
CNIL: (Place ~
A

No'X_

in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)

B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:

Federal Question Cases:

1. o Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts

l. o Insurance Contract and Other Contracts

2.

2. o Airplane Personal Injury

FELA

3. o Jones Act-Personal Injury

3. o Assault, Defamation

4. o Antitrust

4. o Marine Personal Injury

5. o Patent

5. o Motor Vehicle Personal Injury

abor-Management Relations

6. o Other Personal Injury (Please specify)

.K. ivil Rights

7. o Products Liability

o Habeas Corpus

8. o Products Liability- Asbestos

9.

9. o All other Diversity Cases

Securities Act(s) Cases

10. o Social Security Review Cases

(Please specify)

11. o All other Federal Question Cases

(Please specify)_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION

l'J;

(Check Appropriate Category)

~chael Murphy

, counsel of record do hereby certify:

,t 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
0.00 exclusive of interest and costs;
.elief other than monetary damages is sought.
DATE:

December 21, 2015

91262

Michael Mu

Attorney-at-Law
Attorney l.D.#
NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.

except as noted above.

DATE:

91262

December 21, 2015

Attorney-at-Law

CN. 609 (5/2012)

of

Attorney l.D.#

DEC 21[ 12015

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 17

... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM

CIVIL ACTION

Susan Friedland
v.

:
~

Harcum College

15

012;

NO.

.I

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

op

SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:

j)

(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 Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.

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

p
I)

(d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
exposure to asbestos.

I)

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

( I)

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

December 21, 2015

Date
267-273-1054

Telephone

Michael Murphy
Attorney-at-law
215-525-0210

FAX Number

Plaintiff Susan Friedland

Attorney for
-----r--1 -

r - - - , ----r - - l - - - - - - - - -

E-Mail Address

~r!com

(Civ. 660) 10/02

DEC 211 12015

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 17

MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC

ATTORNEYSAT LAW
Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Office: 215.375.0961or267.273.1054
Fax:
215.525.0210
Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
Michael Murphy, Esquire
Michael Groh, Esquire
Erica E. Kane, Esquire
Megan L. Davis, Esquire

~~

(Admitted in PA and NJ)

672

(Admitted in PA, NJ, and NY)

(Admitted in PA and NJ)
(Admitted in PA)

December 21, 2015

Via Hand-Delivery
Clerk of Court
United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street, Room 2609
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797

Re:

Susan Friedland v. Harcum College

Dear Sir/Madam,
Enclosed, for filing with respect to the above-referenced matter, please find an original and
three copies of the Plaintiff's Civil Action Complaint, a Civil Cover Sheet, and a check made
payable to Clerk, United States District Court, in the amount of $400.00. Please time-stamp the
extra copy of the Complaint and return it to me in the self-addressed envelope I have enclosed. A
PDF copy of the Complaint has been saved on the enclosed disk.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

MM/jw

T~ you
.(/ ~

....___.......
1

for your assistance .

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 5 of 17

s~msopug

(nt?m ~!uo.1p;;,p t?!A) pUt?1p;;,d Ut?sns

=~~

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 6 of 17

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

11 [!)

SUSAN FRIEDLAND
8644 Trumbauer Drive
Wyndmoor, PA 19038

Civil Action No. - - - - - - JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff,
v.

\Fil\ED

HARCUM COLLEGE
750 Montgomery Avenue
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
Defendant.

COMPLAINT- CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff Susan Friedland ("Plaintiff'), by and through her undersigned attorney, for her
Complaint against Defendant Harcum College ("Defendant"), alleges as follows:
1.

Plaintiff initiates this action to redress violations by Defendant of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq. and the Family and
Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. 2601, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
violated the ADEA by passing her over for a promotion in favor of a significantly-younger
individual who did not meet the minimum requirements for the position, and by terminating her
employment because of her age. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant violated the FMLA by
terminating her employment in retaliation for exercising her rights to protected family leave
under the FMLA.
PARTIES
2.

Plaintiff Susan Friedland is an adult American citizen who currently resides at

8644 Trumbauer Drive, Wyndmoor, PA 19038.

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 7 of 17

3.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Harcum College is a not-for-profit

educational institution registered under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and
organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal
place of operation at 750 Montgomery Avenue, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.

Paragraphs 1 through 3 are hereby incorporated by reference as though the same

were fully set forth at length herein.

5.

On or about June 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"), which was duallyfiled with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (the "PHRC"), thereby satisfying the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b) and (e). Plaintiff's EEOC Charge was docketed as Charge
No. 530-2015-03273. Plaintiff's EEOC Charge was filed within one hundred and eighty (180)
days after the unlawful employment practice.
6.

More than sixty (60) days have elapsed since Plaintiff filed her Charge with the

7.

On or about December 21, 2015, within the relevant statutory timeline, Plaintiff

EEOC.

filed the instant matter.

8.

Plaintiff has therefore exhausted her administrative remedies and has complied

with all conditions precedent to maintaining this action.

9.

This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq. and the Family and Medical Leave Act
("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 8 of 17

10.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343

and 1331, as it is a civil rights action arising under the laws of the United States.
1L

The venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), as the parties reside

in this judicial district and the events giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district.
FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS

12.

Paragraphs 1 through 11 are hereby incorporated by reference as though the same

were fully set forth at length herein.

13.

On or about February 18, 2008, Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant

as Director of Foundations and Grants.

14.

Throughout the course of her employment, Plaintiff performed her job well,

receiving positive performance reviews, and no discipline.

15.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant has employed

in excess of three hundred (300) individuals.

FACTS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF'S ADEA CLAIMS

16.

Paragraphs 1through15 are hereby incorporated by reference as though the same

were fully set forth at length herein.

17.

Plaintiff was born on April 27, 1954 and is currently sixty-one (61) years of age.

18.

In or around February 2014, a vacancy opened in the position of Assistant Vice

President of Academic Affairs.

19.

Plaintiff was asked to interview a handful of candidates and submit her

recommendations for the job to the Vice President of Academic Affairs, Julia Ingersoll ("Ms.
Ingersoll").

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 9 of 17

20.

After several months passed without the selection of a suitable candidate, Ms.

Ingersoll asked Plaintiff to recommend another candidate for the position.

21.

Plaintiff responded by requesting permission to apply for the position herself, and

was told, "We'll talk."

22.

Plaintiff also expressed her interest in interviewing for the position of Assistant

Vice President of Academic Affairs to John Jay DeTemple ("Mr. DeTemple"), President of
Harcum College, a few days later, telling him about her conversation with Ms. Ingersoll.
23.

Mr. DeTemple responded by telling Plaintiff that he would "think about it."

24.

Approximately one week later, Plaintiff also expressed her interest in

interviewing for the position to her new supervisor, Susan Barrett ("Ms. Barrett"), the Vice
President of Advancement.
25.

However, despite her repeated requests to be considered for the position, as well

as her over twelve (12) years of experience in writing educational grant proposals, Plaintiff was
never even granted an interview for the job.
26.

To the contrary, Plaintiff was informed by email, on or around February 2, 2015,

that a new Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs had been hired.
27.

Defendant selected a substantially younger woman, who was, upon information

and belief, in her early thirties (30s) and significantly less qualified for the position in question.
28.

Indeed, upon information and belief, the ultimate selectee did not even meet the

minimum qualifications for the position in question, having no applicable work experience
(including, but not limited to, experience working in higher education or with grant-writing) and
no graduate or other high educational degree.

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 10 of 17

29.

In or around February 2015, Plaintiff was required, along with several other

departmental leaders, to submit the annual goal statement for her department.
30.

While Susan Barrett ("Ms. Barrett"), Vice President of Advancement, made

minimal changes, if any, to the goal statements submitted by Plaintiff's younger colleagues,
including Melissa Samango (aged approximately 40) and Stephanie Tapper (aged approximately
28), and did not even require Kathleen Ellsmore (aged approximately 42) to submit an annual
goal statement, she erased Plaintiff's statement in its entirety and rewrote Plaintiffs
departmental goals without her input.
31.

Ms. Barrett is approximately ten (10) years younger than Plaintiff.

32.

Among the changes Ms. Barrett unilaterally made to Plaintiff's goal statement

was to require Plaintiff to acquire five (5) new educational grants per month beginning in
February 2015.
33.

Ms. Barrett refused to discuss the feasibility of the five grant per month goal with

Plaintiff despite Plaintiff's repeated requests.

34.

On or around April 15, 2015, Plaintiff was terminated for reasons which were

clearly pretextual.
35.

Plaintiff was discharged because of her age, and thus was discriminated against

by Defendant because of her age in the terms and conditions of her employment.
36.

It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff was treated in the manner

discussed herein solely because of her age.

37.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was subsequently replaced by a

substantially-younger woman (aged in her 30s).

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 11 of 17

38.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff's younger replacement was not required to

submit at least five (5) grant proposals each month.

39.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was subjected to different standards of

performance evaluation and discipline than younger, similarly-situated coworkers.

40.

As a direct result of Defendant's discriminatory actions, Plaintiff has suffered

economic damage, including, but not limited to, loss of income, benefits, and damage to her
reputation.
41.

The unlawful and willful violation of Defendant constitutes unlawful age

discrimination against Plaintiff in violation of the ADEA.

FACTS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF'S FMLA CLAIMS

42.

Paragraphs 1 through 41 are hereby incorporated by reference as though the same

were fully set forth at length herein.

43.

Defendant employed in excess of fifty (50) employees in its Bryn Mawr, PA

location, which was Plaintiff's worksite, or within a seventy-five (75) mile radius thereof, in
twenty (20) or more workweeks in both 2015 and 2014, and at all other times during the course
of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant.
44.

On or about February 19, 2015, Plaintiff notified Ms. Barrett that her father had

been seriously injured in a fall.

45.

Plaintiff was forced to miss work from February 23, 2015 to February 26, 2015 in

order to care for her father's serious health condition.

46.

On or around March 2, 2015, Plaintiff notified Ms. Barrett of her need for

approximately three (3) weeks of family leave to care for her father starting March 9, 2015.

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 12 of 17

47.

Despite Plaintiff's request for leave starting March 9, 2015, Ms. Barrett

subsequently scheduled a meeting specifically for the presentation of Plaintiff's departmental

plan before Mr. DeTemple on March 24, 2015, right in the middle of her intended leave of
absence for an FMLA-qualifying reason.
48.

Plaintiff was thus forced to postpone her intended family leave to March 26,

49.

On or around March 12, 2015, upon the recommendation of a co-worker, Plaintiff

2015.

notified Defendant's Human Resources Department of her need for family leave and specifically
requested FMLA paperwork.
50.

Plaintiff was forced to go out on leave on March 26, 2015, after her father's

health condition seriously deteriorated.

51.

On or around March 29, 2015, Plaintiff's father's physician faxed completed

FMLA paperwork to Defendant.

52.

Plaintiff returned to work on April 8, 2015, following her father's passing.

53.

On or around April 10, 2015, Plaintiff emailed Ms. Barrett regarding her work

plan, requesting clarification and guidance.

54.

On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff received an email from the president's office

indicating that Ms. Barrett's version of Plaintiff's work plan was being submitted to the Board.
Upon information and belief, Ms. Barrett's version of the plan required Plaintiff to have
submitted five (5) grant proposals in March 2015, with no adjustment for Plaintiff having missed
over a week of work for FMLA-qualifying reasons.

55.

When Plaintiff attempted to discuss the feasibility of the work plan with Ms.

Barrett, including her fear that the plan, as written, would likely result in her termination, as well

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 13 of 17

as the apparent communication issues they had been experiencing, Ms. Barrett terminated
Plaintiff's appointment for pretextual reasons, citing Plaintiff's alleged "insubordination"
56.

Plaintiff's father indisputably had a serious health condition as defined under the

FMLA, and Plaintiff was therefore entitled to leave under the FMLA to care for her father's
serious health condition.
57.

As a result of Defendant's unlawful interference with Plaintiff's rights under the

FMLA, Plaintiff was unable to care for her ailing ninety-one (91) year old father during the final
weeks of his life.
58.

Defendant violated the provisions of the FMLA by terminating Plaintiff's

employment in retaliation for exercising her rights under the FMLA.

59.

Defendant violated the FMLA by terminating Plaintiff for opposing unlawful

conduct under the FMLA, including Defendant's failure to adjust Plaintiff's goals for March
2015 to reflect her absence for FMLA qualifying reasons.
60.

Defendant violated the FMLA by failing to notify Plaintiff of her eligibility for

protected leave under the FMLA within five (5) days oflearning of her entitlement to leave as
prescribed under the FMLA regulations.
61.

Plaintiff has, because of Defendant's wrongful termination of Plaintiff's

employment, struggled to obtain other employment.

62.

As a result of Defendant's deliberate, willful, malicious, and unlawful actions,

Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of employment, promotion
benefits, earnings and earnings potential, loss of potential bonuses, and other economic damages.

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 14 of 17

COUNT I
AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT
29 U.S.C. 621. ET SEQ.
AGE DISCRIMINATION
63.

Paragraphs 1 through 62 are hereby incorporated by reference as though the same

were fully set forth at length herein.

64.

Defendant violated the ADEA in that Defendant unlawfully and illegally

discrimination against Plaintiff on account of her age, being sixty (60) years old at the time of the
unlawful discrimination, and being over forty (40) years old.
65.

Defendant acted with malice and with reckless indifference to Plaintiffs civil

rights and emotion and physical wellbeing.

66.

Because of Defendant's unlawful acts, Plaintiff suffered damages in the form of,

inter alia, loss of past and future wages and compensation, loss of reputation and standing the
professional community, personal humiliation, embarrassment, and loss oflife's enjoyment.
67.

As a result of Defendant's deliberate, unlawful, and malicious actions as set forth

above, Plaintiff has suffered loss of employment, promotion benefits, earnings and earnings
potential, and loss of other significant economic benefits.
WHEREFORE, as a result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff
respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant and grant
her the maximum relief allowed by law, including, but not limited to:
a)

Back pay, front pay, loss of health and retirement benefits, raises, and bonuses in

an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars
($150,000.00);
b)

Liquidated damages;

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 15 of 17

c)

Plaintiff's costs, disbursements, and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting this

d)

Pre-judgment interest in an appropriate amount; and

e)

Such other and further relief as is just and equitable under the circumstances.

action;

COUNT II
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
29 U.S.C. 2601, ET SEQ.
INTERFERENCE AND RETALIATION

68.

Paragraphs 1 through 67 are hereby incorporated by reference as though the same

were fully set forth at length herein.

69.

Plaintiff was an eligible employee under the FMLA and was entitled to twelve

(12) weeks of unpaid leave to care for her father's serious health condition.
70.

Defendant willfully violated the FMLA by: (a) terminating Plaintiff in retaliation

for her requests for family leave for an FMLA-qualifying condition; (b) failing to notify Plaintiff
of her rights to protected family leave under the FMLA within the timeframe specified by the
FMLA; (c) substantially delaying Plaintiff's family leave without reason; (d) failing to revise its
performance expectations for Plaintiff to account for the time missed by Plaintiff while she was
out on FMLA leave and/or for FMLA-qualifying reasons known to Defendant; and (e)
terminating Plaintiff in retaliation for her opposition to unlawful conduct under the FMLA.
71.

The aforementioned actions constitute both interference and retaliation violations

oftheFMLA.
72.

Plaintiff has, because of Defendant's wrongful termination of her employment,

struggled to obtain other employment and suffered significant wage losses and loss of potential
raises and/or bonuses.

10

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 16 of 17

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in her
favor and against Defendant and grant the maximum relief allowed by law, including, but not
limited to:
a)

Back wages, front pay, loss of health benefits, and raises in an amount to be

determined at trial, but no less than $150,000.00;

b)

Liquidated damages;

c)

Plaintiff's costs, disbursements, and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting this

d)

Pre-judgment interest in an appropriate amount; and

e)

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable under the

action;

circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,

MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC

By:
~dlta~sq.

Michael Groh, Esq.

Erica Kane, Esq.
Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
TEL: (267) 273-1054
FAX: (215) 525-0210
murphy@phillvemp1ovmentlawver.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: December 21, 2015

11

Case 2:15-cv-06725-JP Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 17 of 17

DEMAND TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

The Defendant is hereby demanded to preserve all physical and electronic information
pertaining in any way to Plaintiff's employment, to her potential claims and her claims to
damages, to any defenses to same, including, but not limited to electronic data storage,
employment files, files, memos, job descriptions, text messages, e-mails, spreadsheets, images,
cache memory, payroll records, paystubs, time records, timesheets, and any other information
and/or data which may be relevant to any claim or defense in this litigation.

12