HARRISBURG – An Adams County man formerly employed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources says he was discriminated against for his asthma and mental health conditions and later fired – while his former employer contends he had taken an unauthorized absence.
Mark Allen Stahl of Biglerville first filed suit in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas on May 7 versus the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the AFSCME District Council 89, both of Harrisburg.
“In or about May 2007, defendant DCNR hired plaintiff as a seasonal, semi-skilled laborer. At the time of his termination, he was a Maintenance Repairman. Mr. Stahl is a disabled adult. Mr. Stahl’s disabilities are asthma, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Stahl’s disabilities substantially limit his ability to walk long distances, breathe chemicals, walk hills, dig holes, rake and work in stressful environments,” the suit stated.
“In May 2021, Mr. Stahl made DCNR aware of his post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Stahl took medical leave from May 19, 2021 until July 6, 2021. In March 2022, Mr. Stahl made DCNR aware of his asthma and he again took medical leave from March 29, 2022, until Oct. 5, 2022. On Sept. 26, 2022, Mr. Stahl submitted several reasonable accommodation requests for his disabilities to DCNR’s Equal Opportunity Specialist, Martin Kearney.”
The suit continued that Mr. Stahl’s first accommodation request included having his wife, who worked with him, assist him with his work responsibilities because of his asthma – and furthermore, the plaintiff requested the use of a respirator, because the fumes that he was exposed to from the burning of diesel fuel were triggering his asthma.
However, this accommodation requested was denied by DCNR. After DCNR failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Stahl, he advised his union, AFSCME, that he wanted to file a grievance, but the union did not follow through on filing one.
“Mr. Stahl further requested to be relocated to another work location, due to the fact that his work environment was hostile because he was facing bullying and intimidation, which was triggering his post-traumatic stress disorder. On Sept. 30, 2022, Mr. Kearney denied Mr. Stahl’s reasonable accommodation request. DCNR failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Stahl. After DCNR failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Stahl, he again advised his union, AFSCME, that he wanted to file a grievance. AFSCME failed to file a grievance for Mr. Stahl. Over a 12-month period, AFSCME failed to file grievances for Mr. Stahl on several occasions,” the suit said.
“AFSCME’s failure to file grievances for Mr. Stahl caused the stress and hostility in his workplace to escalate which ended up exacerbating his PTSD and led to the termination of Mr. Stahl’s employment. On Oct. 5, 2022, Mr. Kearney advised Mr. Stahl, that leave was no longer available to him after Sept. 25, 2022. On or about Oct. 5, 2022, defendant’s Human Resources terminated Mr. Stahl’s employment, but did not provide a reason. Prior to his termination, the only communication that plaintiff received from DCNR was that he was to advise defendants when he could return to work. In or about March of 2023, the plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. On March 22, 2024, the PHRC issued a one-year letter advising plaintiff of his right to bring an action in Pennsylvania state court.”
UPDATE
In a June 14 answer to the case, the DCNR asserted that Stahl was unbeknownst of termination or the circumstances through which it resulted.
“It is denied that plaintiff was not provided a reason for the termination. Specifically, plaintiff was terminated due to a result of his unauthorized, unapproved absence from work from Sept. 26, 2022, through Oct. 3, 2022. Plaintiff was informed of such in a letter,” the answer stated, in part.
The answer also provided new matter on the DCNR’s behalf.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff’s own conduct or the conduct of third parties caused any injuries or damages that plaintiff may have suffered. All decisions and actions taken with respect to plaintiff’s employment with defendant were made for legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons. The answering defendant was at all times acting in good faith and in an objectively reasonable manner and did not violate any clearly established federal right of plaintiff. Therefore, the answering defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and/or qualified good faith immunity from civil damage,” the new matter stated.
“The answering defendant was at all times acting pursuant to duties required or authorized by statute or regulation and therefore said acts were within the discretion granted to the answering defendant by statute or statutorily authorized by regulations. The answering defendant is entitled to sovereign immunity under both state and federal law. The answering defendant reserves the right to amend this pleading as needed or necessary.”
For counts of violating the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act through disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, interest, delay damages and any other further relief this Court deems just, proper and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Mary E. Lemieux-Fillery of the Law Offices of Eric A. Shore, in Philadelphia.
Defendant DCNR is represented by Christine Einerson of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Harrisburg.
Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas case 2024-CV-03366
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com