PITTSBURGH – A technical writer working for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center alleges he was subject to discrimination on the basis of his age and his taking medical leave to recover from both a surgery and an unrelated fall, prior to be terminated by the hospital.
Francis Nellis filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 19 versus UPMC. Both parties are of Pittsburgh.
“Mr. Francis Nellis first began working for UPMC in 2018 as a contractor in the job position of technical writer-CRP IT. UPMC then asked him to convert from being a contractor to a full-time employee, which he had accepted, and his status changed on or about Aug. 10, 2020. The plaintiff had not received an evaluation at this point, but obviously the defendant was extremely pleased with his performance as a technical writer to have offered him the full-time position on the core systems technical writing team. His first performance evaluation was for the period of Jan. 1, 2021 through Dec. 31, 2021, and he was recognized as a good performer to superior performer. While working for the defendant, the plaintiff had a history of excellent work performance and no reprimands, prior to his last manager,” the suit states.
“In June of 2022, the core systems technical writing team was transferred to a manager named Lisa Westwood. The plaintiff asserts that his new manager, Ms. Westwood, had an expressed interest in hiring younger individuals. In or around July of 2022, the plaintiff began working with Ms. Westwood as his immediate supervisor. He was in a group with four other individuals, all in their 40’s or older. He advised her when this began that he had a pre-arranged surgery taking place on July 5, 2022. He did in fact take leave to get that surgery and was unable to work until about mid-July of 2022. After the plaintiff returned to work, two of his colleagues, both in their 50’s and 60’s, resigned their positions within that department due to Ms. Westwood’s antics.”
The suit provides that almost as soon as he began working with his new supervisor, he began to suffer comments such as, “Are you sure this is something that you still want to do?”, and would also receive comments like, “You are being forgetful”, and “You are slurring your words.”
“Also, upon his return, the plaintiff began to experience what he describes as hyper-vigilant and hypercritical attention to the way in which he performed his job responsibilities. The plaintiff felt that he was being singled out in this respect, as he was not aware of any other coworkers being addressed for their mannerisms. Having received these comments, the plaintiff did advise Ms. Westwood that he was diagnosed with sleep apnea and was in the process of securing a CPAP machine to aid in his ability to sleep throughout the night. On or about Aug. 29, 2022, the plaintiff met with Leonard Stein, a former manager of his, and complained of the treatment from Ms. Westwood and asked for advice. Mr. Stein recommended that the plaintiff’s issues be reported to Ms. Westwood’s mangers, Angela Carman and Kristy Walczak. On or about Aug. 31, 2022, the plaintiff met with Ms. Carman and Ms. Walczak and though they acknowledged his concerns, nothing changed after the meeting,” the suit says.
“In November of 2022, the plaintiff suffered an injury where he slipped and fell, causing him to spend some time at a rehab facility and be on medical leave for about two weeks. Shortly after he returned to work, his immediate supervisor placed him on a performance improvement plan (PIP), indicating that if he did not meet the vague guidelines of the plan he would be terminated. The PIP was dated Dec. 15, 2022. Among certain allegations in the PIP were that the plaintiff was unprofessional and argumentative. This was directly contradicted by feedback provided to the plaintiff in his annual evaluation from another member of the management team on or about Dec. 8, 2021. Among other positive comments, Ms. Amber Emery indicated, ‘Frank works well with his team members. He is friendly and enjoys learning about others. He is a great addition to the documentation team.’ These comments about observations made during the transitioning of his team are a direct contradiction of the allegations made by Ms. Westwood in the PIP.”
The plaintiff maintains that all of these factors point to the fact that the expressed reasons for his termination were pre-textual, and that the actual reason for his termination was his age, medical conditions, and use of leave.
“In the ‘areas of improvement’ section of the PIP is a directive to ‘speak clearly.’ Not only does this suggest his manager was mocking his speech impediment, but it was a criticism that was not an issue for at least two other persons evaluating him during the relevant time period. The plaintiff was terminated on Jan. 30, 2023. The plaintiff believes these actions are discriminatory and retaliatory on behalf of the employer and seeks redress of his rights,” the suit says.
For count of age discrimination, disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Family Medical Leave Act and hostile work environment, the plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent further violations of the above laws, the implementation of training programs, policies, and practices and programs designed to ensure the defendant provides proper leave and does not retaliate and/or interfere with those who engage in statutorily-protected activity, back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, compensate him for lost benefits, and all other affirmative legal and equitable relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practice, compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and other legal expenses, the removal and expunging of all negative, discriminatory and/or defamatory memorandum or other documentation from the plaintiff’s record of employment and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate and just.
The plaintiff is represented by Sean Alan Casey in Pittsburgh.
The defendant has not yet retained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-00596
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com