Reinhold v. Cnty. of York
| Decision Date | 31 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | NO. 1:11-CV-605,1:11-CV-605 |
| Parties | BARBARA E. REINHOLD and KENNETH REINHOLD v. COUNTY OF YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, BONNIE JULIUS VICTORIA A. MASEK THERESE R. SCOTT DIANE L. CHANTILES BILLA R. JAMISON JOHN DOE DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION, YORK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Docs. 33, 35)
Barbara Reinhold and her husband, Kenneth Reinhold, filed this employment-related suit in the York County Court of Common Pleas on March 24, 2011. Named as defendants in the original complaint were the County of York, Pennsylvania; Victoria A. Masek, Director of York County Domestic Relations; Therese R. Scott, Domestic Relations Supervisor; Diane L. Chantiles, Assistant Director of York County Domestic Relations; and Billa R. Jamison, Domestic Relations Supervisor (collectively, "York Defendants") and Bonnie Julius, York County Deputy Court Administrator. The York Defendants (all defendants but Julius) removed the suit to this court on March 31, 2011 (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs filedan amended complaint on November 30, 2011 which added the Domestic Relations Section of the York County Court of Common Pleas (DRS) as a defendant. (Doc. 29).1
Barbara Reinhold's claims include violation of her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654; the Americans with Disabilities Act, ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, ("PHRA"), 43 P. S. §§ 951-963; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, et seq., as well as state law claims. Kenneth Reinhold brings one claim for loss of consortium (Count XIV). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 and 1367.
Before the court are motions to dismiss filed by the defendants.2 , 3 Themotions have been referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation and are now ripe for disposition.4
For purposes of this analysis, plaintiffs' factual averments will be accepted as true and are construed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend as follows:
Barbara Reinhold was employed by York County Domestic Relations from January 22, 1996 until September 14, 2009. (Doc. 29 ¶ 10). On January 5, 2009, Reinhold was admitted to the hospital for a urinary tract infection, diabetes, renal lithiasis and dysuria. (Id.). On January 6, 2009, Chantiles, Reinhold's supervisor, contacted Julius, a deputy court administrator, and Jamison, also a domestic relations supervisor, to advise that plaintiff had been given FMLA paperwork and that she had available FMLA leave time. (Id. ¶ 12). Plaintiff returned to work on or about January 12, 2009, and Julius acknowledged receiving a physician's certification and confirmed that Reinhold was eligible for FMLA. (Id. ¶ 15-16).Reinhold's annual 12-week FMLA leave period renewed on February 21, 2009 (Id., ¶ 14, 17). ) Reinhold underwent a medical procedure on April 28-29, 2009.
On May 29, 2009, Therese Scott, a domestic relations supervisor, contacted Julius, Jamison, Chantiles and Victoria Masek, another domestic relations supervisor, regarding Reinhold's need for FMLA regarding a urology issue. (Id. ¶ 21). Scott informed Reinhold that she needed to provide a physician's note linking her medical issue to the prior FMLA issue(s). (Id.). On June 2, 2009, Scott and Jamison exchanged emails regarding Reinhold's FMLA needs and whether it required a new claim to be opened or if the prior claim should be reopened. (Id. 23).
On July 20, 2009, Reinhold provided a note from her urologist, Howard Mirskey, M.D., who released her to return to work on July 21, 2009. (Id. ¶ 24). On July 22, 2009, Masek sent an email to Scott, Julius, Jamison and Chantiles concerning Reinhold's ongoing medical issues. (Id. ¶ 25). The email stated that Reinhold "comes to work feeling terrible and has a constant need to use the restroom," and acknowledged that Reinhold's physician stated she should be excused to use the restroom as needed as she will need to make frequent trips there. (Id. ¶ 26, 27; Doc. 29, Ex. 8). The email referenced Reinhold's discussion with her supervisor that she goes to the bathroom every half hour forapproximately 10 minutes and further stated Masek found it "difficult to accommodate someone to this degree for a variety of reasons." (Id. ¶ 28).
Reinhold alleges that the defendants began to systematically seek to remove her from her job by engaging in the following activities:
(Id. ¶ 29 A-E, I). Jamison informed Masek that Julius wanted to know how much time Reinhold was away from her desk, as Reinhold had indicated it was only for 1-2 minutes at a time. (Id. ¶ 29 G). Additionally, Julius and other supervisors directed Reinhold's co-workers to monitor her by performing smell checks, which consisted of walking by her desk 15-20 times per day to smell her. (Id. ¶ 29 J).
Reinhold also alleges that she was denied her requested accommodation to check her blood sugar levels while at work. (Id. ¶ 29 K). Additionally, on August 9, 2009, Reinhold states that she was suffering a serious headache and closed her eyes to alleviate the pain but that several individuals approached herand harassed her, claiming she was sleeping on the job. (Id. ¶ 29 L). As a result of this incident, Reinhold received a one-day suspension. (Id. ¶ 29 M). Reinhold alleges that, in seeking an opportunity to fire her, the defendants continued to monitor her about the drowsiness she experienced from her medication. (Id. ¶ 29 N). Reinhold maintains that, although Masek advised her to pick up her retirement paperwork on August 17, 2009, she refused to retire. (Id. ¶ 29 O, P). After another incident of resting her eyes, Reinhold was again accused of sleeping on the job and given a three-day suspension as well as being required to sign a "Last Chance Agreement." (Id. ¶ 29 P).
Reinhold avers that she was consistently told that her requests for accommodations and medical leave would not be approved and that she had used up too much leave time. (Id. ¶ 29 Q). On September 9, 2009, Reinhold was taken to the emergency room from work. (Id. ¶ 29 R). Reinhold maintains that this hospital trip was due to significant emotional distress from work as well as her diabetic condition. (Id. ¶ 29 S). Upon her return to work on September 14, 2009, Masek and Scott terminated Reinhold for allegedly sleeping on the job on September 8, 2009. (Id. ¶ 29 T).
On or about the date she was terminated, Reinhold alleges that supervisors and/or other employees conducted a search of her desk, without consent, seizingpersonal papers, Union notebooks, and other personal items which were never returned. (Id. ¶ 30). She pursued the union grievance process and subsequently filed an application with the PHRC, which claimed it was two weeks late. (Id. ¶ 31). The PHRC forwarded Reinhold's information to the EEOC which, by letter dated March 1, 2011, informed her it would not be filing a charge because it had determined that she was discharged for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. (Id. ¶¶ 32, 33). The letter also invited Reinhold to contact the EEOC to discuss the matter further. (Id. ¶ 33). Reinhold called Rudolph White, the EEOC investigator, on two occasions, but her phone calls were not returned. (Id. 34, 35). Reinhold alleges that White also failed to respond to a letter and, as a result, she filed the present action believing that the March 1, 2011 letter from the EEOC may have commenced the statute of limitations period. (Id. ¶ 36; Doc. 1).
A follow-up letter to the EEOC dated June 7, 2011 as to the status of the EEOC charge resulted in a return correspondence indicating that the EEOC would file a charge, which it sent to Reinhold for review.5 (Id. ¶ 38). The PHRC subsequently notified Reinhold on September 26, 2011 that the EEOC would be handling her case in accordance with a sharing agreement. (Id. ¶ 40). The EEOC informed Reinhold that the Department of Justice would handle the matter. (Id. ¶41). The DOJ issued a right to sue letter to Reinhold on October 26, 2011. (Id. ¶ 42) .
Reinhold thereafter filed the amended complaint on November 30, 2011. (Doc. 29). The amended complaint brings 14 counts against defendants:6
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of claims that fail to assert a basis upon which relief can be granted. When considering a motion to dismiss, the court must "accept all [of plaintiff's] factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)). See also Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial