PITTSBURGH – A Butler probation officer says that he was discriminated against by his superiors when he sought to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, for work-related stress and anxiety that he was suffering.
Shawn Yount filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 11 versus Butler County. All parties are of Butler.
“Plaintiff began working for defendant as a probation officer for the Butler County Office of Adult Probation in August 2009. In this role, plaintiff was responsible for field supervision of formerly incarcerated individuals. Plaintiff received high rankings on job-related tests and performance reviews, and he was an extremely productive member of the department. Throughout his tenure, he worked with the Butler County Drug Task Force, and he was well liked by the Adult Probation staff, the county detectives and other members of local law enforcement,” the suit says.
“In March 2020, members of the Office of Adult Probation were informed that several officers would be laid off indefinitely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff, as a result, took a voluntary furlough from his position with defendant. In late April 2020, the furloughed probation officers were called back into work in different waves. Upon his return to work, plaintiff was informed about a change to the structure of the department. Under the new guidelines, officers were no longer permitted to work with their regular partners; rather, a new schedule was created which matched each officer with varying partners on different days.”
The plaintiff explained that on several occasions, he was scheduled to work with individual employees of the department with whom he was not comfortable working alongside – such as one individual who forfeited his right to carry a firearm and another partner who had received absolutely no training, including mandatory basic training – leading him to be concerned for his safety, and suffer work-related stress and anxiety.
Because he continued to experience serious work-related stress, the suit says the plaintiff reached out to Chief County Probation Officer Doug Ritson to express his frustration and his desire to potentially resign.
As a result, Mr. Ritson suggested that the plaintiff consider taking medical leave to get a break from the high stress of the job. Specifically, Ritson stated to plaintiff, “You may want to consider using more of your sick time.”
In response to Ritson’s instruction, plaintiff reached out to his physician, Dr. Michael Trotta, for further treatment related to his increased anxiety. During his evaluation, Dr. Trotta stated that the plaintiff should take time off of work to adjust to new anxiety medication and to cope with his underlying stress.
Though Yount was approved for FMLA leave by the U.S. Department of Labor, and he scheduled himself to take 30 days of such leave, he said that Ritson accused him of taking medical leave in order to work at a side business that he owned, which the plaintiff said was untrue.
“County officials then requested that plaintiff participate in an independent medical examination, which was scheduled to take place in a conference room at a hotel located in Upper St. Clair, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 50 miles from defendant’s headquarters. Plaintiff was uncomfortable with notion of driving approximately 50 miles to meet a physician in a hotel conference room. Additionally, he had already received approval from Dr. Trotta to take leave, as well as authorization to use FMLA from the U.S. Department of Labor. As a result, plaintiff declined to attend the IME,” the suit states.
“In a further effort to harass plaintiff during his leave, court administrator, Candice Graff, contacted him and told him that he was abusing sick leave. She said that they would discuss the future of his employment upon his return. This caused plaintiff great anxiety — the very reason for his use of protected leave. After taking with his wife, doctor, and therapist, plaintiff decided to resign amid the persistent harassment that he faced. In June 2020, plaintiff requested to use his vacation time through July 2020 and to resign at the conclusion of that time. Defendant refused and sent plaintiff a notice that he was terminated as of July 1, 2020. Plaintiff turned in all of his equipment and was never compensated for his vacation time.”
For counts of disability discrimination and retaliation through violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Family Medical Leave Act, the plaintiff is seeking lost back pay resulting from defendant’s constructive discharge of plaintiff, lost front pay continuing into the future for defendant’s unlawful conduct, compensatory damages, including emotional damages and humiliation, punitive damages to punish defendant’s conduct and to deter similar future conduct, costs for bringing this action, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and continuing interest and any other relief that this Court deems necessary and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Prabhu Narahari of Manes & Narahari, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant has not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01063
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com