PITTSBURGH – E-retail giant Amazon has petitioned to remove litigation filed by one of its former employees for harassment and disability-related discrimination to a Pennsylvania federal court, citing federal question jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship and the amount of damages in question.
Clair Wingertsahn Jr. of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on July 6 versus Amazon.com, of Crafton.
The suit began that the plaintiff filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, prior to bringing the instant case.
Wingertsahn was hired by Amazon as a pick-off person at their facility in Crafton in August 2018. Prior to and through his employment with Amazon, the plaintiff suffered from cardiovascular medical conditions which affected his heart and lungs and made it difficult to stand or walk for extended periods of time.
The plaintiff informed Amazon of his medical issues, stated he would require a reasonable accommodation and would provide any medical documentation the company needed to verify his account. Amazon agreed to accommodate him according to the level of ability Wingertsahn’s conditions allowed him to possess, he said.
When the opportunities arose to be trained as a forklift operator or to be a truck unloader, the plaintiff expressed interest in both roles, as he felt they would be ideal for his limited physical ability.
“Amazon rejected plaintiff’s requests for these positions, which he believed were requests for a reasonable accommodation due to Amazon’s representation at the time he was hired. Plaintiff requested these positions several times and each time his requests were either ignored or denied,” the suit stated.
“In the capacity of the pick-off position, plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation of being provided with a conveyor belt. Amazon routinely provided other employees with a conveyor belt to assist in his duties as a pick-off person. Yet, plaintiff’s requests for this accommodation was routinely rejected.”
When Wingertsahn was provided with a conveyor belt, he said he was held to a more stringent standard than other employees who were also over the age of 40 and not disabled. This resulted in him receiving written and verbal reprimands for mistakes made by other employees or for the speed in which he completed his duties.
These events caused the plaintiff to report the discrimination he experienced to Amazon’s internal ethics hotline, explaining he was being treated differently as a result of his age and disabilities as compared to his co-workers, and being denied access to and/or being granted reasonable accommodations for his conditions. Despite these reports, Wingertsahn said no corrective actions were taken and the ethics hotline was done away with.
Instead, the plaintiff asserted the company terminated him on May 15, 2019, for the reasons of his age of 66 years old, disability and requesting a reasonable accommodation.
“If plaintiff had been provided his requested reasonable accommodation, plaintiff would have been able to perform his job duties to the full extent required and expected by Amazon,” the suit said.
UPDATE
Amazon filed a notice of removal on Aug. 5, in order for the case to be removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
“Plaintiff alleges claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, federal question jurisdiction exists over plaintiff’s claims because the resolution of the claims will require adjudication of disputed questions of federal law,” the removal notice stated.
“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (non-federal) claim because it arises out of the same operative facts as plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and ADEA and ‘form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”
Amazon also pointed to other criteria as necessitating the removal of the action.
“Upon information and belief, plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania, and defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Washington. As such, complete diversity of citizenship exists between all parties under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). While defendant denies plaintiff’s factual allegations and denies that plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks in his complaint, it is clear that that amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,” the notice states.
For counts of retaliation and disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgments that the conduct complained of violated the legislation above and damages in excess of $35,000, plus pre-judgment interest on any back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, such other relief as may be just and proper and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by David M. Kobylinski and Peter T. Kobylinski of Praetorian Law Group, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Andrew J. Barber and Christopher K. of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-007380
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com