PHILADELPHIA – A paralegal of nine-and-a-half years with a prominent Philadelphia plaintiffs’ law firm alleges her former employer disclosed her COVID-19 vaccination status to a legal news publication, in violation of the confidentiality provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Desiree Purvenas-Hayes of Mickleton, N.J. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 22 versus Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, of Philadelphia.
“Plaintiff was employed as a litigation paralegal for respondents from January of 2012 through July 29, 2021. During her employment, defendant required plaintiff to provide it with certain confidential medical information, including her COVID-19 vaccination status, in response to a medical inquiry from defendant,” the suit says.
“Plaintiff provided the foregoing information as required by defendant. The foregoing information was specifically solicited by defendant and would not have been provided by plaintiff but for that fact.”
The suit adds that on June 7, 2022, after leaving the defendant firm’s employ, Purvenas-Hayes filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where she sought to recover unpaid overtime compensation.
“On or about June 12 or June 13, 2022, Robert Mongeluzzi, an agent and employee of defendant, made statements regarding the foregoing confidential medical information to The Legal Intelligencer (a Philadelphia legal newspaper read by over 14,000 members of the legal community daily),” the suit states.
“Mongeluzzi stated that plaintiff was not vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus, and was one of two employees of defendant who allegedly refused the vaccination. The Legal Intelligencer reported the foregoing statements to the Philadelphia legal community on June 13, 2022, causing plaintiff tangible injury, including significant embarrassment, emotional distress, and pain and suffering.”
The plaintiff claims that the aforementioned disclosure of confidential medical information by the defendant was in direct violation of the confidentiality requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that it was not protected by any of the three exemptions set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act, allowing limited disclosure for the purpose of: (a) Informing supervisors of necessary restrictions or accommodations; (b) First aid or emergency treatment or (c) Response to government inquiries.
For a count of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the plaintiff is seeking actual damages, as well as damages for the pain, suffering, and humiliation caused by the actions and/or inactions of defendant, punitive damages, all other legal, equitable or injunctive relief as the Court deems just and proper, costs and expenses of this action, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Wayne A. Ely in Richboro.
The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-02403
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com