PHILADELPHIA - A former home care worker’s Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit against her employer and coworkers was dismissed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 18.
Alexandra Beer sued Home Care Associates of Philadelphia Inc., Donna Jenkins, Tasha Cooper, Shaquila Benson and Aisha Parker.
Cooper and Parker filed their own motions to dismiss via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and HCA filed a motion to dismiss Beer’s accusations of intentional infliction of emotional distress. U.S District Judge Michael Baylson dismissed the claims against Jenkins and Benson, even though they had not responded.
U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson
Beer was hired by HCA as a home health aide. At the beginning of her employment through the time of her lawsuit, she had Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), which causes issues with heart rate, thinking and blurred vision.
Beer said she suffered harassment and was called names like “retarded” and “too slow.” She said even her supervisors would taunt her about her physical appearance and speech daily in the company of others. While she said she reported the alleged harassment multiple times to Cooper, who was her supervisor, Cooper allegedly replied by saying, “maybe you can’t handle this job.”
After time she started getting fewer cases, having allegedly been told she “[wasn’t] good enough” to get more. Beer said she also suffered sexual discrimination and was consistently humiliated, degraded, victimized, embarrassed, and emotionally distressed.
She complained that the alleged harassment led to loss of income, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life and physical distress. She filed a lawsuit, and a number of the plaintiffs responded with the motions to dismiss that were granted.
Cooper and Parker’s motion to dismiss the discrimination and retaliation claims filed under the ADA was granted.
“It is undisputed that plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for discrimination or retaliation under the ADA against Cooper or Parker," Baylson wrote. "Plaintiff cannot use these claims as some kind of placeholder for the state law claims that she plans to file at an unspecified future date.”
Beer said she was aware Cooper and Parker couldn’t be held responsible for discrimination as individuals but said she couldn’t bring claims via the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance when she initially filed because she had to wait a year after her initial filing, which would be Dec. 10, 2018.
“If plaintiff wishes to allege new and separate causes of action against Cooper and Parker, she will need to file a motion explaining her reasons to do so,” Baylson wrote.
The court also dismissed her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against HCA, Cooper and Parker.