PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh law firm says it fired a data specialist in its employ for legitimate reasons, and not for the reason he claimed, which was discrimination connected to a diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Frank Krastman initially filed suit Jan. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, against law firm K&L Gates.
Krastman, who was employed as a data specialist, claims his employment was terminated in March 2019, subsequent to a period in which there was retaliation, discrimination and harassment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The plaintiff claimed problems began after he revealed his condition in November 2018, and told his employer that his disability was “aggravated because of the noise in the office work environment.” He said that he asked to be able “to work from home from time to time,” but this was refused.
Over the coming months, the complaint alleged his hours were limited, with no opportunity of overtime, that he received unflattering work reviews where previously there were none, and he was the only employee to be ordered to hand in daily work reports.
Krastman also claimed he was given “impossible” daily work tasks.
On March 4, 2019, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated for allegedly “falsifying” information in one of his daily work reports.
However, on March 26, counsel for K&L Gates filed an answer to Krastman’s complaint, in which it countered with a full denial of Krastman’s allegations.
“[Associate Director of Marketing, Eileen] Kinney-Mallin and/or [Associate Director of Human Resources, Chris] Wilson met multiple times with Krastman as part of an on-going effort to help him succeed at the firm, and during those meetings Kinney-Mallin would express legitimate concerns about Krastman’s work and productivity,” the answer read.
“It is admitted that Kinney-Mallin, as a coaching device, asked Krastman to provide short reports detailing what work he had done, an idea to which Krastman was receptive. Any inference that these reports required significant detail is denied. By way of further answer, the reports were short e-mails listing in very general terms the work Krastman had done and should have taken no more than a few minutes to complete.”
Additionally, K&L Gates cited 15 affirmative defenses in its answer, among them:
• The complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
• K&L terminated plaintiff’s employment or took other allegedly adverse employment actions for legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reasons entirely unrelated to plaintiff’s alleged disabilities or his request for accommodation;
• Plaintiff did not engage in any protected activity prior to being terminated; and
• To the extent plaintiff seeks damages or makes a claim on account of alleged physical and/or emotional injury or distress arising from his employment, plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is provided by Workers' Compensation.
The law firm further requested that the action be dismissed, or that judgment be entered in its favor, thereby dismissing it from this action, that it be awarded costs associated with this lawsuit, including attorneys’ fees and that it be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff is seeking judgment in his favor, including back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by Michael J. Bruzzese of the Law Office of Michael J. Bruzzese, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Michael A. Pavlick of K&L Gates, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00124
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com