SCRANTON – A rehabilitation facility has denied allegations that it fired a transgender medical aide as retaliation for his reporting of harassment he says that he received from his co-workers.
John Doe first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on April 9 versus Ridgeview Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, Ridgeview Healthcare Operating, LLC and Ridgeview Healthcare & Rehab Center of Shenandoah, Pa.
“Plaintiff was employed by defendants, Ridgeview Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, Ridgeview Healthcare Operating LLC and/or Ridgeview Healthcare & Rehab Center, located at 200 Pennsylvania Ave., Shenandoah, PA 17976, as a hospitality aide. Plaintiff began employment with defendants on or about January 2024. Plaintiff is transgender. Plaintiff’s preferred pronouns are he, him and his,” the suit said.
“During plaintiff’s employment, plaintiff was outed beyond an extent he felt comfortable in the workplace. Plaintiff's transgender status was revealed without plaintiff’s agreement to Brittany LNU and Beth LNU. On or about Feb. 23, 2024, Brittany LNU, co-employee, stated to plaintiff that the ‘rumor on the street’ was that ‘there are questions being asked around 2nd floor’ but ‘I don't know how to ask the question,’ or words to that effect. Plaintiff asked, ‘What do you want to know?’ Brittany LNU then stated that ‘there are questions whether you're a girl or a boy,’ ‘Not that I care either way but which one is it?’, or words to that effect.”
The suit added the subject of the plaintiff’s gender identity was a discussion topic among his co-workers.
“Brittany LNU stated that Donna, Maggie and Beth were asking about plaintiff’s gender identity. Brittany LNU then asked, ‘Does your wife know?’ Plaintiff stated, ‘Yes, she does, that we have been married for a while now, and she knew me before I started my transition’, or words to that effect. Brittany LNU then asked, ‘Have you had the surgeries done?’ Plaintiff stated he had not and Brittany LNU replied, ‘If you did, I would ask if I could see it because that’s just me and I’m curious like that,’ or words to that effect. On or about Feb. 24, 2024, plaintiff reported the conduct to the Human Resources department. Plaintiff wrote a statement for the HR department. Plaintiff was sent home for the day, and then the following day, plaintiff was removed from 2nd Floor. Defendants disadvantaged the harassee,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff recollects that he rewrote the statement at one point. Plaintiff recollects that one of the residents asked plaintiff if he was gay, or words to that effect. Plaintiff also recollects that a resident asked plaintiff to marry the resident and divorce his wife, or words to that effect. On account of the complaint filed by plaintiff, defendants scheduled a staff code-of-conduct training including anti-discrimination training, anti-harassment training and training on giving respect to everyone, for Thursday, March 14, 2024. However, the day before, on Wednesday, March 13, 2024, defendants wrongfully terminated plaintiff based on his sex, gender identity, gender stereotyping and in retaliation for plaintiff’s protected conduct/activity.”
The suit said that the defendants discriminated against the plaintiff based on his gender identity, during the tenure of the plaintiff’s employment.
UPDATE
On June 7, the defendants filed a partial answer to the complaint, which generally denied the plaintiff’s substantive allegations and claims and provided several counter-arguments to those claims.
“It is admitted that plaintiff went home following his complaint to Human Resources. After investigation, Ridgeview lacks information and knowledge concerning whether plaintiff was ‘removed from 2nd Floor.’ The same is therefore denied. It is specifically denied that plaintiff was ‘disadvantaged’ in work assignments,” the answer added.
“It is admitted that a training was scheduled for March 14, 2024. It is specifically denied that the complaint filed by plaintiff was the sole reason for the training. Ridgeview strictly denies it terminated plaintiff based on any improper reason. By way of further answer, Ridgeview terminated plaintiff for legitimate, lawful reasons.”
The answer also contained seven affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint in each count thereof fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel, waiver and/or laches. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, by plaintiff’s failure to mitigate any damages he may have sustained. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by plaintiff’s failure to identify any similarly-situated employees. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Ridgeview’s decisions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Ridgeview is not liable for liquidated or punitive damages,” the defenses read.
For counts of hostile work environment/harassment, wrongful termination and retaliatory discharge/termination in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and wrongful discharge/termination and failure to accommodate disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the plaintiff is seeking individually, jointly and severally, damages in excess of $150,000, which will fully and fairly compensate plaintiff for any and all back and front pay, overtime, benefits, bonuses, commissions, and promotions he would have received; compensatory damages for pain and suffering, mental distress, and emotional distress; punitive damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys’ fees; costs of suit; and equitable/injunctive relief requiring defendants to provide a neutral employment reference for plaintiff, to conduct sensitivity training for all of defendants’ employees, and such other and further relief that this Court deems just, proper and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Angela D. Giampolo and Justin F. Robinette of Giampolo Law Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Jeffrey S. Stewart of White & Williams, in Center Valley.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:24-cv-00597
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com