PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia law firm has denied allegations from one of its former employees, a Florida man, in failing to accommodate his psychological medical conditions and terminated him in violation of both state and federal law.
Joseph Keslar of Gulfport, Fla. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 15 versus Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, of Philadelphia.
“On or about Oct. 19, 2019, defendant hired plaintiff as a Manager of Library and Research Technology, working out of defendant’s Philadelphia, Pennsylvania location as captioned above. At all times material hereto, plaintiff is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, an anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder, for which plaintiff was prescribed therapy and medication to manage these conditions. Beginning in March of 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of defendant’s employees, including plaintiff, began working from home full-time. During this time, plaintiff discovered that while working from home, the symptoms of his diagnosed medical conditions were lessened to such an extent that plaintiff no longer required medication. During this time, plaintiff performed his job duties excellently while working from home,” the suit said.
“In or around April of 2022, defendant required its employees to return to working in the office. Plaintiff advised defendant’s supervisor, Kathleen Coon, that because of his medical conditions, he did not feel comfortable returning to the office. Ms. Coon told plaintiff to ‘try it for two weeks.’ Plaintiff agreed and returned to work physically in defendant’s office for approximately two weeks. However, due to the return to in person work, plaintiff experienced a return of all of the prior symptoms of his mental health conditions. Plaintiff discussed this with his psychiatrist, who advised that plaintiff should return to working from home full-time.”
The suit added that the plaintiff made a request to defendant’s Human Relations Department for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to be allowed to work from home as he had been for two years with no issue – in response, the defendant allowed the plaintiff to continue to work from home, while they reviewed his accommodation request and made a decision.
“In August of 2022, defendant advised plaintiff that they would not grant his accommodation request, stating defendant needed plaintiff to be physically present in the library in the event that a lawyer had a question, a situation that plaintiff rarely encountered even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, as the library was on another floor and was rarely visited. Plaintiff then filed for a Family Medical Leave Act leave, as his psychiatrist would not clear him to return to working physically in defendant’s office at that time. Plaintiff advised defendant that his psychiatrist would not certify his return to work if he was going to be required to return to the office. As such, plaintiff remained on leave and applied for short-term disability,” the suit stated.
“Accordingly, as plaintiff’s physician would not certify his return to work in defendant’s office, and defendant was unwilling to allow plaintiff to continue working from home, plaintiff’s employment was terminated on or about Feb. 13, 2023. Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff’s disability. Defendants failed to meaningfully engage in an interactive process towards the development of a reasonable accommodation for plaintiff’s disability. At all times material hereto, defendants were hostile to plaintiff’s diagnosed medical conditions and terminated him as a result of that animus.”
UPDATE
On Feb. 19, the defendant answered the complaint and denied that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, with respect to the plaintiff.
“MMWR engaged in an interactive process with plaintiff, offered accommodations that plaintiff rejected, allowed plaintiff to work remotely for several months while discussing possible accommodations, and granted plaintiff’s requests for leaves of absence. By way of further answer, on Aug. 9, 2022, plaintiff submitted an FMLA Certification form completed by his health care provider. The FMLA Certification form requested ‘intermittent leave to allow for attendance at healthcare appointments during business hours,” the answer stated, in part.
“Plaintiff submitted a request for family or medical leave of absence, dated Aug. 8, 2022, which stated that plaintiff was ‘unable to perform the essential functions of’ his job on a full-time basis and an FMLA Certification form dated Aug. 15, 2022, stating that plaintiff was ‘unable to work due to a flare-up of symptoms related to his conditions.’ Admitted that plaintiff began FMLA leave and applied for short term disability. By way of further answer, plaintiff’s employment terminated after approval for long-term disability.
The answer also contributed 14 affirmative defenses.
“The complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches, and unclean hands. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because all actions of defendant were proper, privileged, justified, and undertaken in good faith. Defendant’s actions or inactions were not the proximate, legal, or substantial cause of any damages, injury or loss suffered by plaintiff, the existence of which is denied. If plaintiff suffered any damages or losses, such damages or losses were caused in whole or in part by his own acts, omissions, or conduct. In addition, if any damages have resulted for which MMWR is held liable, plaintiff failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate his damages. Plaintiff’s claims for relief are limited by the statutory limitations on damages,” the defenses stated.
“Any claims for punitive damages are barred because the alleged acts, occurrences, or omissions as alleged in the complaint fail to rise to the level required to sustain an award of punitive damages, do not evidence a malicious or reckless intent to deny plaintiff his rights, and are not wanton or willful actions by MMWR. Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages are barred by applicable statutes, and plaintiff has not alleged facts to support a claim for punitive damages. MMWR acted at all times in good faith and for legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. MMWR did not violate any duty to, or right of, plaintiff. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover some or all of the damages alleged. Plaintiff’s requested accommodations would have posed an undue hardship on defendant, and plaintiff refused to engage in the interactive process with defendant.”
For counts of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, including but not limited to, back pay, front pay, past lost wages, future lost wages. Lost pay increases, lost pay incentives, lost opportunity, lost benefits, lost future earning capacity, injury to reputation, mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering, punitive damages, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, interest, delay damages and any other further relief this Court deems just proper and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Graham F. Baird of the Law Offices of Eric A. Shore, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by William K. Kennedy of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-04513
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com