PHILADELPHIA – A vet technician who suffers from several mental health-related conditions says her employer created a hostile work environment by refusing to accommodate her medical issues and later terminating her.
Kristina Cianfrani-Newton of Bensalem filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 23 versus Veterinary Specialty & Emergency Center Levittown of Levittown, Blue Pearl Veterinary Partners, LLC of Tampa, Fla. and Mars, Inc. (doing business as “Mars Petcare”) of McLean, Va.
“Plaintiff was employed by defendants from in or about August of 2015 until her unlawful termination on or about Feb. 2, 2020. Plaintiff worked as an Emergency Veterinary Tech near the end of her employment at defendant Center located at 301 Veterans Highway, Levittown, PA 19056, and was supervised by Deb Blades (Nurse/Facility Manager) and Kathy Amato (plaintiff’s immediate supervisor). Throughout her employment with defendants, plaintiff was a hard-working employee who performed her job well,” the suit states.
“Plaintiff is a 47-year-old female, and has and continues to suffer from long-term disabilities, such as depression, anxiety, depressive bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, a severe cinnamon allergy and others. As a result of her aforesaid health conditions, plaintiff (at times) is limited in her ability to perform some daily life activities including breathing, working, and sleeping. Despite her aforesaid health conditions and limitations, plaintiff was able to perform the duties of her job well with defendants, however, she did need reasonable medical accommodations at times.”
Cianfrani-Newton took approved medical leave under the FMLA for her own personal health conditions in the summer of 2019 and returning in late August of 2019, stemming from an earlier incident whereat a doctor screamed and threatened her in the workplace which caused a flared-up in her health conditions.
“Before plaintiff’s FMLA approved leave, plaintiff worked the day shift with hours from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. in cardiology, in part due to the medications plaintiff took for her aforesaid disabilities/health conditions,” per the suit.
“Upon returning post-medical leave, defendants refused to reinstatement plaintiff to the same or similar shift and instead, placed her in emergency services and changed her shift over plaintiff’s objection(s), whereat plaintiff then had to work from 2 p.m. until 2 a.m. or from 4 p.m. until 4 a.m. in violation of state and federal discrimination laws.”
According to the plaintiff, the defendants “have a history of intolerance due to employees’ health problems, but same drastically heightened during plaintiff’s last months of employment as she was subjected to hostility, pre-textual discipline due to her disabilities and ultimately terminated after experiencing significant discrimination.”
Cianfrani-Newton added she was subjected to verbal harassment over her anxiety and had her work ethic questioned by colleagues, prior to her being terminated.
“Plaintiff was then terminated for allegedly abandoning patients in the ICU: (a) Despite that the alleged issue was weeks before her actual termination; (b) That plaintiff did nothing wrong as she is not assigned or supposed to get coverage for her short breaks; and (c) Others constantly fail to stay in the ICU and are never counseled or terminated,” according to the lawsuit.
“Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that she was terminated from defendants because of: (1) Her known and/or perceived health problems; (2) Her record of impairment; (3) Her requested accommodations; and/or (4) Defendants’ failure to properly accommodate her.”
For counts of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act, the plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief:
• Defendants are to be prohibited from continuing to maintain their illegal policy, practice or custom of discriminating/retaliating against employees and are to be ordered to promulgate an effective policy against such unlawful acts and to adhere thereto;
• Defendants are to compensate plaintiff, reimburse plaintiff and make plaintiff whole for any and all pay and benefits Plaintiff would have received had it not been for Defendants’ illegal actions, including but not limited to past lost earnings, future lost earnings, salary, pay increases, bonuses, medical and other benefits, training, promotions, pension, and seniority. Plaintiff should be accorded those benefits illegally withheld from the date she first suffered retaliation/discrimination at the hands of Defendants until the date of verdict;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded punitive damages, as permitted by applicable law(s) alleged asserted herein, in an amount believed by the Court or trier of fact to be appropriate to punish Defendants for their willful, deliberate, malicious and outrageous conduct and to deter Defendants or other employers from engaging in such misconduct in the future;
• Plaintiff is to be accorded any and all other equitable and legal relief as the Court deems just, proper and appropriate including for emotional distress;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal fees as provided by applicable federal and state law;
• Any verdict in favor of Plaintiff is to be molded by the Court to maximize the financial recovery available to Plaintiff in light of the caps on certain damages set forth in applicable federal law; and
• Plaintiff’s claims are to receive a trial by jury to the extent allowed by applicable law. Plaintiff has also endorsed this demand on the caption of this Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).
The plaintiff is represented by David Korsen and Ari Risson Karpf of Karpf Karpf & Cerutti, in Bensalem.
The defendant has not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-05297
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com