PITTSBURGH – The Pittsburgh School District alleges that there are no substantive claims contained in a lawsuit brought against it by a longtime special education teacher who says she was fired by the district last August, while convalescing from a series of serious ankle injuries she sustained in three separate falls.
Stacy Serenari of Washington County first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 23 versus Pittsburgh School District, of Pittsburgh.
“Plaintiff worked for defendant as a special education teacher for close to 20 years. On or about Dec. 11, 2016, plaintiff fractured her right ankle in a fall at her home and was taken to the hospital. Upon her return from the hospital, plaintiff called Holly Ballard, Arlington Elementary School Principal. The next day, plaintiff went to an orthopedist and texted Ballard to provide her with an update,” the suit said.
“Ballard instructed plaintiff to check with Joy Porter, School Secretary, regarding paperwork for medical leave. Plaintiff faxed defendant a request for leave of absence completed by her doctor. Plaintiff’s request advised that she would need to remain out of work for approximately six weeks, beginning on Dec. 11, 2016, and pending plaintiff’s progress at her next orthopedist appointment.”
Serenari’s suit labeled her as a disabled female, and the injury impacted her major life activities including but not limited to walking and standing.
“In early January 2017, Ballard emailed plaintiff and advised that she would be able to work from home as she recovered. A short time later, after receiving permission from Ballard, plaintiff stopped by her classroom and picked up papers to grade. On or about Jan. 31, 2017, plaintiff’s doctor faxed return-to-work paperwork to defendant, advising that plaintiff would be able to return to work on Feb. 2, 2017 and would need to wear a protective boot,” per the suit.
“On or about Feb. 1, 2017, Annie Reckhouse, Workforce Management Specialist, called plaintiff and informed her that she was not allowed to return to work in a protective boot, despite the fact that wearing a boot in the workplace would be a reasonable accommodation that would not create an undue burden on defendant.
Since the school did not permit Serenari to return to work with a boot, she scheduled ankle surgery for April 2017 and remained out from work for the rest of the 2016-2017 school year.
Just before returning for the 2017-2018 school year, Serenari fell and re-injured her right ankle. After another leave of absence, Serenari returned on Jan. 9, 2018, but fell for a third time in May 2018, this time injuring her left ankle.
Despite this third fall, Serenari worked the entirety of the 2018-2019 school year. Doctors recommended surgery on her left ankle, which she scheduled for June 2019, after the school year ended.
“Following her surgery plaintiff took an approved medical leave to attend to her disabilities. Throughout her leave plaintiff remained in contact with defendant and provided updates on her disability,” the suit stated.
“As the start of the 2020-2021 school year approached, due to her disability in August 2020, defendant forced plaintiff to separate her employment. Plaintiff has been damaged by defendant’s illegal conduct. Plaintiff has had to retain the services of undersigned counsel and has agreed to pay said counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
UPDATE
The District filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint on March 1, for failure to state a claim.
“This lawsuit was preceded by an administrative complaint (charge) filed with the EEOC on Dec. 28, 2017. The charge set forth allegations that defendant failed to reasonably accommodate her in 2017. The EEOC’s investigation concluded no later than December 2019 when it issued a determination. Plaintiff does not claim to have filed any amended, supplemental or additional charges with the EEOC or PHRC. The factual allegations in the complaint also relate only to 2017 and are consistent with the scope of the charge,” the dismissal motion stated.
“In contrast, the complaint fails to set forth any factual matter indicating the possibility of employer liability in 2018, 2019 or 2020. The only statement suggesting a claim for the 2018-2020 time period, which is conclusory and unsupported by any factual matter, is that ‘due to her disability in August 2020, defendant forced plaintiff to separate her employment.”
The district counters that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is “a prerequisite to filing suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act”, and the plaintiff’s ADA and PHRA claims should be dismissed as they relate to any matter arising after 2017.
“Plaintiff does not allege to have exhausted her remedies for any claim other than the ADA accommodation issues pertaining to 2017 (and concurrent retaliation claim for the same time period). Plaintiff fails to identify facts that would suggest a basis for employer liability in 2018, 2019 or 2020. Moreover, her separation occurred more than two years after the charge was filed and six months after the EEOC investigation concluded,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim with respect to the termination of her employment or any other (unidentified) matter outside of the exhausted 2017 charge. Plaintiff’s request for back pay and benefits, front pay, or any other damages associated with a wrongful termination claim should be dismissed. As a matter of law, plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive (exemplary) damages or liquidated damages under the ADA or PHRA.”
For counts of disability-based discrimination and retaliation in violation of both the ADA and PHRA, the plaintiff is seeking back wages and back benefits found to be due and owing at the time of trial, front pay, compensatory damages, emotional distress damages in an amount to be proved at trial, punitive damages, liquidated damages and pre-judgment interest thereon, costs and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees (including expert fees), any other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Gary Martoccio of Spielberger Law Group, in Tampa, Fla.
The defendant is represented by Brian P. Gabriel of Campbell Durrant and Ira Weiss of Weiss Burkardt Kramer, both in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01994
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com