PHILADELPHIA – A veterinary care technician who alleged her former employer and others refused to make accommodations for her mental health-related conditions, before terminating her, has settled her litigation.
Kristina Cianfrani-Newton of Bensalem first 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 stated.
“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.”
The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Jan. 4, denying that they had knowledge and demanding proof of the plaintiff’s various health conditions, and asserting numerous affirmative defenses to the case.
“The allegation that plaintiff’s alleged depression, anxiety, depressive bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, severe cinnamon allergy and other medical conditions constitute disabilities, is a conclusion of law to which no response is required,” the answer stated, in part.
“To the extent a response is required, said allegations are denied. Admitted that plaintiff was diagnosed as having a severe cinnamon allergy. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to plaintiff’s other medical conditions, therefore said allegations are denied. Strict proof at the time of trial, to the extent admissible, is demanded.”
Among the numerous affirmative defenses presented were the following:
• Plaintiff’s complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendants fails to state a claim for which relief could be granted and fails to state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to an award of general damages, special damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest or attorney’s fees and costs;
• Plaintiff’s claims are barred because she failed to mitigate or reasonably attempt to mitigate her damages, if any, as required by law;
• Without admitting that any improper motive played a role, BluePearl Vet, LLC would have made the same decision even if the alleged improper motive did play a role. BluePearl, Vet LLC terminated plaintiff due to gross misconduct, and would have terminated her even if any alleged improper motive did play a role, which defendants deny;
• BluePearl Vet, LLC treated plaintiff the same as similarly-situated employees and its standard is job-related and consistent with business necessity goals.
UPDATE
On March 31, the docket announced that a settlement teleconference had been set for April 28 before U.S. Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge.
After the conference took place, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Anita B. Brody ordered the very same day that the case had been settled. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the agreement of counsel without costs,” the order stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Andrew Olcese, David Korsen and Ari Risson Karpf of Karpf Karpf & Cerutti, in Bensalem.
The defendants were represented by Kimberly J. Overbaugh and Thomas R. Davies of Harmon & Davies, in Lancaster.
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