PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania man who claimed that illegal age discrimination led to being fired from his job as a law clerk with the Dugan & Associates law firm, has both requested the case go to mediation and filed an amended version of his complaint.
James Russell McGregor of North Versailles filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on March 20 versus Dugan & Associates of Greentree, Mitchell H. Dugan of Mount Lebanon and Heather Chappel of Oakdale.
“In 2014, plaintiff was hired by the Dugan Law Firm as a part-time law clerk. In 2015, the employment became full time, 40 hours per week, hourly rate adjusted annually, with full benefits and overtime paid as necessary to complete duties,” the suit said.
“The employment contract remained in full force and effect until Feb. 23, 2023 when terminated illegally and otherwise not in accordance with, and in violation of, federal and state law, further causing breaches of the contract by defendants. Said conduct was perpetrated by the Dugan Law Firm, Mitch [Dugan] and Heather [Chappel], individually and in concert.”
The suit added the defendants allegedly committed common-law breach of contract and violation of employment protection statutes.
“The conduct of defendants has violated the laws of the USA, including the laws which prohibit employment discrimination based on age. Plaintiff, on Feb. 23, 2023 was 62 years old and in a protected class of U.S. citizens. His title was that of law clerk. On Feb. 23, 2023, defendants hired, employed and/or otherwise engaged Alex, age 25, as a law clerk, immediately thereafter making adverse, and unlawful, employment edicts with respect to plaintiff, which resulted in him involuntarily becoming a non-employee of the Dugan Law Firm under duress,” the suit stated.
“The conduct of defendants was egregious in the extreme, was possibly a violation of Title 18 and consisted of willful misconduct and/or at a minimum, was grossly negligent, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages, has caused plaintiff actual damages of a compensatory nature, the incurrence of counsel fees, consultant fees, pain and suffering et.al, and the plaintiff is entitled to treble damages plus counsel fees, interest and costs, declaratory relief and equitable relief.”
UPDATE
On Aug. 28, the plaintiff filed a demand for mediation, in order to resolve the case in lieu of further court proceedings, and suggested Howard Schulberg, Esq. to serve as the mediator.
• Count I: “Plaintiff demands $10,200, the damages incurred under this count by plaintiff through August 2023.”
• Count II: “Plaintiff demands $30,000 under this count plus since March 1, 2023, plus the cost of health insurance and the 401K contributions due from defendants through August 2023.”
• Count III: “Plaintiff demands $15,000 under this count, the damages incurred through August 2023.”
• Count IV: “Plaintiff demands $213,000 under this count.”
• Count V: “Plaintiff demands $113,000 under this count.”
• Count VI: “Plaintiff demands $75,000 under this count.”
In total, the plaintiff is seeking $456,479.83 (includes record costs), plus the value of employment benefits.
Furthermore, an amended version of the complaint filed on the very same day, Aug. 28, asserted a sixth count for theft of services and property.
“When plaintiff became a full-time employee in 2015…a client matter required weekend work in order to meet a court filing deadline. The deadline was met solely due to the plaintiff working overtime and thereafter, defendants made statements to plaintiff on the next payroll date, which essentially made clear to plaintiff that overtime would not be tolerated and 40 hours per week was what was expected in order for plaintiff to complete the tasks assigned,” the amended version of the complaint stated.
“Defendants’ position, made with the force of an employer giving an employee no choice in the matter, and placing the employee under duress, was patently unreasonable as court deadlines are not easily extended and even if extended, the same amount of work is required to meet the new deadline. From 2015 on, defendant consistently increased plaintiff’s workload while maintaining less and less staff to perform brief writing, new client intakes, research and the like. Soon after 2015, in fact, plaintiff was the only person in the law firm who was writing briefs for Social Security and workers’ compensation matters, and was the only person in the office who was performing potential client intakes. Intakes alone required weekend and evening work, due to the potential clients work or another schedule. Defendants knew of the ‘after-hour intake work and brief writing, yet failed and refused to pay plaintiff overtime as required by law.”
According to McGregor, over a period from 2016 to February 2023, he worked approximately 1,132 hours of unpaid overtime, which he added “can only be ascertained by the business records of defendants, which will be requested in discovery in order to calculate additional damages.”
“Plaintiff suffered damages in the approximate base amount of $25,470, plus counsel fees, interest, penalties as required by state and federal law, and defendants are also liable for all amounts due plaintiff, for their intentional refusal to pay overtime as required by federal and state employment statutes. Defendants’ conduct was tortious in the extreme and constitutes theft of services and property, a tort supporting actions in trespass and also justifying an award of punitive damages,” the amended complaint continued.
For counts of breach of contract, violation of employment statutes, employment discrimination, gross negligence, trespass and theft of services and property, the plaintiff is seeking $456,479.83 (including record costs), plus the value of the employment benefits set as set forth above.
The plaintiff is representing himself in this matter.
The defendants have not yet secured legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-003760
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com