PITTSBURGH – According to a federal judge, a former Amazon employee has settled his harassment and disability-related discrimination claims against the company.
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.
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.
Nearly two months later, on Oct. 1, Amazon filed an answer to Wingertsahn’s lawsuit, in denying his claims and bringing forth a large number of affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Each and every action taken by defendant with regard to plaintiff’s employment was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons. Plaintiff’s claimed damages are barred to the extent that plaintiff has mitigated, or failed to mitigate, his alleged damages. Any claim for punitive damages is barred because, at all relevant times, defendant made good-faith efforts to comply with all applicable statutes and laws,” per Amazon’s answer.
“Any claim for punitive damages under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act is also barred because such damages are not available under the PHRA. Defendant cannot be liable for punitive damages because it has not engaged in any conduct of a reckless, malicious, or egregious nature. Assuming for the sake of argument (while vigorously denying) that defendant engaged in any unlawful conduct in connection with plaintiff’s employment, defendant would have engaged in the same course of conduct based on legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons.”
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge David S. Cercone explained in a Nov. 13 order that a settlement had been reached and was nearly finalized.
“It appearing that a settlement has been reached as to all aspects of plaintiff's complaint and the only remaining matter is the submission of a stipulation for settlement and discontinuance; Therefore, with no further action being required by the court at this time, the following order is entered. It is ordered that the Clerk of Court mark the above case closed,” Cercone said.
“Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as a final dismissal or disposition of this case and should further proceedings in it become necessary, any party may initiate the appropriate course of action in the same manner as if this order had not been entered. Jurisdiction is retained over the completion and enforcement of the settlement agreement.”
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 Alex Perilstein, Andrew J. Barber and Christopher K. Ramsey of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01167
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-007380
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com