PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania man and laborer for U.S. Steel asserts that the company discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, falsely charged him with fraudulent receipt of disability benefits and then fired him.
Ricardo Vazquez of Glassport filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 18 versus United States Steel Corporation, of Pittsburgh.
“Plaintiff is an adult, disabled, Hispanic male, who is married and who is over 47 years of age. On or about Oct.7, 2005, plaintiff commenced his employment with defendant in the role of ‘laborer,’ reporting to defendant’s facility located at 400 State Street, Clairton, Pennsylvania 15025, where he established a record of success in various departments. Prior to suffering discrimination, plaintiff last worked for defendant on a full-time basis, Monday through Friday, 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., and earned a regular wage of $23.67. Plaintiff regularly worked overtime and was paid 150% of his regular rate. As set forth above, in 2011, plaintiff was diagnosed with the sarcoidosis disability. As set forth above, in 2016, plaintiff sustained the injury disability,” the suit states.
“Despite the surgical procedures, plaintiff continued to suffer a permanent reduced range of motion in his arm due to the injury disability. As a result of the injury disability, plaintiff requested an accommodation and defendant granted the requested accommodation, placing plaintiff on ‘permanent light duty’ in 2017 which included driving trucks, cutting grass and avoiding ladders. In 2022, plaintiff was diagnosed with neuropathy, a chronic condition related to plaintiff’s sarcoidosis disability that targets the nerves in his feet and substantially impairs his walking. The symptoms related to plaintiff’s neuropathy worsened in February 2023. In April of 2020, defendant targeted and suspended employees with serious health issues, including plaintiff, under the guise of COVID-19 layoffs.”
The suit continues that the suspension was unpaid and effectively revoked plaintiff’s accommodation.
In August of 2021, suspended employees were called back to work, contingent on them passing a physical. A nurse practitioner, representing defendant, examined plaintiff and declared that he could not return to work with medical restrictions of any kind, even with the accommodation – but the plaintiff disagreed and requested that he return to work with his prior accommodation.
“Defendant refused plaintiff’s request to return to work with his accommodation and refused to reinstate him. Plaintiff was not terminated, but indefinitely suspended without pay. Instead of accommodating plaintiff, defendant’s medical staff instructed plaintiff to file for ‘Sick and Accident,’ short term disability insurance, which would provide him with 65% of his wages. Plaintiff applied for and began receiving benefits from the S&A in August of 2021, with his pulmonary physician verifying his claim monthly and advising the carrier, Broadspire Insurance. In November of 2022, plaintiff assisted a friend with cancer by doing some painting on his house. At the time, plaintiff’s physician encouraged plaintiff to stay as mobile and active as possible. It is believed and averred that someone shot a video of plaintiff painting,” the suit says.
“On or about Nov. 18, 2022, defendant contacted plaintiff and served him with a five-day suspension. The United Steelworkers and union representative, Chris Carpenter, filed a grievance on plaintiff’s behalf. In December of 2022, defendant terminated plaintiff during the Step 1 grievance process after replaying a video of plaintiff painting and claimed that he was in ‘Fraudulent receipt of benefits and misrepresenting a physical condition.’ The reason offered by defendant in support of discharge remains a pretext for disability discrimination because plaintiff is undeniably disabled under the meaning of the ADA, was at all times forthcoming and truthful with defendant about his disabilities, was following his doctor’s recommendation, and painting for a friend is not an activity that ever involved an accommodation. Defendant’s treatment of disabled persons was inconsistent. By way of example, defendant Caucasian employee of defendant, Tony Foster was younger than plaintiff and also on S&A leave while recovering from knee surgery. Defendant did not investigate Mr. Foster, challenge the validity of his disability, nor issue discipline to him after he was witnessed driving his personal vehicle. Broadspire Insurance ceased providing benefits to plaintiff in November of 2022, not as a result of his termination of employment, but due to the conclusion of a two-year benefit term.”
For counts of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 through disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation for engaging in protected activity, and violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through race discrimination, the plaintiff is seeking judgment that the defendant violated the above laws, compensatory damages, including but not limited to past and future pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, including suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of life, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial and in an amount sufficient to deter defendant from engaging in future conduct of a similar nature, equitable relief in form of back pay and front pay, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiff incurred in the prosecution of this suit and/or pre-judgment and continuing interest as calculated by the Court.
The plaintiff is represented by Erik M. Yurkovich of The Workers’ Rights Law Group, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant has not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-00589
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com