PHILADELPHIA – A former Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia employee of nearly 10 years who alleged she was unlawfully terminated in 2021, as retaliation by the hospital after she requested an accommodation of her anxiety disorder, recently settled her claims.
Ashanti Dillard of Bryn Mawr first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 29, 2022 versus Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
“Plaintiff worked for defendant from on or about Nov. 14, 2011 through on or about Nov. 9, 2021, the date of her unlawful termination. Plaintiff was hired in the position of Accounts Receivable Representative. In September 2012, defendant promoted plaintiff to Billing Specialist. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was well-qualified for her job and performed her job duties in a satisfactory manner,” the suit said.
“By way of background, plaintiff suffers from Situational Anxiety Disorder which is a disability as that term is defined by the ADA and PHRA in that it substantially limits or limited one or more of her major life activities, including, but not limited to, sleeping, eating and interacting with others. In or about mid-March of 2020, defendant required that plaintiff and her colleagues work remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, plaintiff continued to perform the essential functions of her position while working remotely. On or about May 7, 2021, defendant announced that it would begin scheduling employees to return to the office beginning on June 1, 2021.”
The suit added that due to her disability, Dillard was not medically able to return to work in accordance with the defendant’s schedule and apprised Aldo DiDomenico, Director of Revenue Cycle and Finance, of that point and requested that the hospital accommodate her disability. However, DiDomenico flatly denied Dillard’s accommodation request.
As a result of DiDomenico’s failure to accommodate her disability, Dillard again conveyed her request to Heather Davis, Senior Human Resource Business Partner, and specifically inquired as to whether she could continue working remotely as a reasonable accommodation for her disability.
Davis initially informed Dillard that she could use scheduled Paid Time Off for her scheduled in-office days, which the plaintiff passed along to DiDomenico.
Yet, Davis reversed course and told Dillard that she could not use her scheduled PTO and that her only option was to utilize unscheduled PTO every time she was required to report to the office, thereby subjecting her to disciplinary action.
This led Dillard to submit her request for reasonable accommodation to the defendant’s Occupational Health department on or about June 18, 2021 and included documentation from her treating physician. On June 30, 2021, DiDomenico and Davis denied Dillard’s accommodation request without any explanation.
“Significantly, it would not have been an undue hardship for plaintiff to continue working remotely and nondisabled Billing Specialists, including, but not limited to, Geraldine Adams, were permitted to continue working remotely. Based on defendant’s failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to accommodate her disability, plaintiff was forced to commence a medical leave of absence on or about July 14, 2021. On or about Oct. 6, 2021, plaintiff returned to work at defendant. Upon plaintiff’s return to work, DiDomenico and Mary Anne Della Santa, Division Manager of Billing Operations, subjected her to discrimination and retaliation based on her disability and need for an accommodation,” the suit stated.
“By way of example, DiDomenico and Della Santa subjected plaintiff to unwarranted criticism of her work product and spoke to her in a rude and dismissive manner. By way of further example, on or about Nov. 4, 2021, Della Santa issued plaintiff a disciplinary warning due to her attendance. On or about Nov. 9, 2021, defendant abruptly terminated plaintiff’s employment, allegedly because she had failed to abide by defendant’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. However, plaintiff had submitted a religious exemption form and thus was not required to be vaccinated.”
The defendant denied Dillard’s account of her firing in an Oct. 31, 2022 answer to the suit, instead countering that on Nov. 3, 2021, she was issued a Disciplinary Action Report related to her attendance – and that “due to her failure to follow CHOP’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccine requirement, her position with CHOP was terminated on Nov. 9, 2021.”
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. If plaintiff suffered any damages or losses, such damages and losses were caused in whole or in part by plaintiff’s own acts, omissions and/or conduct of parties other than defendant’s, about which defendant had no prior knowledge and for which defendant is not legally responsible. Defendant has not deprived plaintiff of any rights protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act or any other federal or state law. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages, if any. Defendant took all reasonable steps necessary under the ADA and PHRA to accommodate plaintiff’s disability, if any,” in affirmative defenses which accompanied the answer.
“Defendant did not discriminate against plaintiff on the basis of a real or perceived medical condition. Plaintiff was treated the same as all other similarly situated employees at all times. Defendant has not engaged in any discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to plaintiff’s rights. Therefore, as a matter of law, plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages based on the allegations and claims asserted herein. Plaintiff’s termination was wholly unrelated to any related medical condition, or any alleged disability from which she suffered. Plaintiff’s requested accommodations would have imposed an undue hardship on CHOP. Plaintiff’s termination was due to her failure to follow CHOP’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement.”
UPDATE
On July 27, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Chad F. Kenney explained that the case had been settled amicably. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. A letter from plaintiff counsel with the same update had been provided to Kenney, prior to his final order.
“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,” Kenney said.
The plaintiff was represented by David M. Koller and Jordan D. Santo of Koller Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendant was represented by Jessica Rickabaugh and Joe H. Tucker Jr. of Tucker Law, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-03445
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com