Recently filed lawsuits in Pennsylvania courts include a religious discrimination lawsuit against the University of Pittsburgh, plus another suit against a York construction company.
#1 – Richard Shafer v. University of Pittsburgh – Religious Discrimination
University IT employee says he was discriminated against and fired
This case is brought by Richard Shafer, a longtime Information Technology employee of the University of Pittsburgh from April 2014 to August 2023.
“Mr. Shafer worked for defendant’s Information Technology (IT) department from April 2014 to August 2023. His most recent title was Endpoint Analyst. Mr. Shafer received positive performance evaluations throughout his employment and met all expectations. Throughout his employment, Mr. Shafer was assigned to perform IT services for various departments throughout the University as reorganizations occurred and as different needs arose in various departments. Beginning in or around 2016 and continuing for the remainder of his employment, Mr. Shafer was assigned to Health Sciences departments for 60% to 80% of his assigned effort. Defendant’s School of Medicine departments use ‘wet labs’ to conduct research on animals, including monkeys, mice, rats, other small animals, goats and other animals. Mr. Shafer had, and continues to have, religious objections to the types of animal research and testing that defendant undertook in its wet labs. Mr. Shafer follows Native American religious beliefs. He regularly attends ceremonies in both Lakota and Navajo traditions. He also trained as an herbalist in a school called Well of Indigenous Wisdom. The broad system of Native American religious beliefs is sometimes referred to as the ‘Red Road.’ Animal research is incompatible with Mr. Shafer’s religious beliefs that animals are sacred and should not be treated in the way that medical research treats them,” the suit says.
“In or around 2018, Mr. Shafer informed his manager, Frank McAtee, that he would like a different assignment outside the medical research field. Mr. McAtee stated that he would work with Mr. Shafer to find him another assignment. However, defendant never provided Mr. Shafer a new assignment. In 2021, Mr. Shafer was assigned to assist in opening a new lab within the defendant’s School of Medicine’s Ophthalmology department. There, an Ophthalmology researcher showed Mr. Shafer a research monkey who was covered in blood and had permanent implants in his head. The researcher shared with Mr. Shafer that the monkey was 7 or 8 years old. This was the same age as Mr. Shafer’s daughter at the time. Mr. Shafer was deeply disturbed by the experience of seeing the condition of the research monkey, which conflicted with his religious belief about the sanctity of animals. Mr. Shafer then told Mr. McAtee that he was uncomfortable with animal research, [to which] Mr. McAtee agreed to find Mr. Shafer a new assignment.”
After the following two years passed with no such new assignment, Shafer was offered a transfer to a newly-created Health Sciences IT Department at the university. But when Shafer refused this transfer, due to his religious beliefs, he says the university terminated his employment.
The suit seeks lost wages, reinstatement, lost benefits, compensatory damages, an order to reasonably accommodate plaintiff’s religious beliefs should the plaintiff be reinstated, attorney’s fees, costs and further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Insurance company says construction company’s negligence damaged funeral home
This case is brought by Cincinnati Insurance Company (as subrogee of Beck Funeral Home & Cremation Service, Inc.) v. Crawford Construction of CPA, LLC.
“In late October 2023, Beck Funeral hired Crawford Construction to remodel two bathrooms on the top floor of the commercial property/funeral home located at 175 North Main Street, Spring Grove. When the remodel job was completed, at the final inspection, Beck Funeral discovered construction dust and dirt throughout both bathrooms and requested Crawford Construction perform a final cleaning. Crawford Construction agreed to perform a final cleaning and sent an individual to Beck Funeral’s commercial property to perform that cleaning. Crawford Construction’s employee/contractor used construction rags/wipes to perform the final cleaning of the two bathrooms. Instead of disposing of the used construction rags/wipes in the trash, Crawford Construction’s employee/contractor flushed the used construction rags/wipes down the toilets in the remodeled bathrooms. On or about Jan. 12, 2024, Beck Funeral experienced a sewer backup in the embalming room/basement area of the commercial property located at 175 N. Main Street, Spring Grove,” the suit states.
“This sewer backup caused damage to the cabinetry in the embalming room/basement area. Beck Funeral hired a plumber to investigate the cause of the sewer backup. On three separate dates, Jan. 12, 2024, Feb. 2, 2024 and Feb. 6, 2024, the plumber discovered construction rags/wipes had blocked the sewer line in numerous areas from the house trap upstream to the two toilets in the remodeled bathrooms. As a direct and proximate result of the construction rags/wipes being flushed down the toilets instead of being discarded in the trash, Beck Funeral’s building required cleaning, plumbing repairs and cabinet replacement in the amount of $19,375. Pursuant to the aforementioned policy of insurance, Cincinnati Insurance paid $19,375 for the cleaning, plumbing repairs and cabinet replacement. This amount includes Beck Funeral’s $1,000 policy deductible. Pursuant to the aforementioned policy, Cincinnati Insurance is subrogated to Beck Funeral for this loss.”
The suit seeks judgment and monetary damages of $19,375, plus interest and costs of suit.
Man alleges unlawful detainment and excessive force by SEPTA police
This case is brought by Kevin Garnes, who alleges he was the target of unlawful detention and excessive force, by members of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)’s police department.
“On March 1, 2024, plaintiff Kevin Games, entered the SEPTA Market-Frankford Line subway train station at Tioga Street, to travel to Center City, Philadelphia. He was approached by two SEPTA police officers, defendants Pratt and Zippata (first names not known) who asked where he was going. Plaintiff replied that he was traveling downtown. At that point, the defendant officers demanded identification, but when plaintiff did not immediately provide identification, the defendant officers threw him to the ground, handcuffed him and pepper-sprayed him directly into his eyes. The defendant officers physically restrained plaintiff, accusing him of criminal conduct at the Allegheny Street SEPTA station; these assertions were without legal foundation,” the suit says.
“The defendant officers had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain, question, frisk, or search plaintiff, and they had no legitimate grounds to use force in this unlawful stop and investigation. As a result of the conduct of the individual defendants and of defendant SEPTA’s failure to train, supervise and discipline SEPTA police officers, plaintiff suffered physical pain and suffering and emotional trauma. Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, to hold the defendants accountable for the violations of his constitutional rights.”
The suit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs and such other and further relief as may appear just and appropriate.
CFPB alleges credit card company deceived its customers
This case is brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau against Reliant Holdings, Inc. and its CEO, Robert Kane.
“Reliant, under the direction of its founder, owner and CEO Robert Kane, targeted financially-vulnerable, sub-prime consumers with advertisements that promised a credit card with a specified credit limit (often $500) that required no credit check. While defendants’ advertisements appeared to offer consumers a general-purpose credit card, in reality, Reliant charged consumers substantial mandatory fees to access a membership program that included (1) a credit card that could be used only to make purchases from Reliant’s Horizon Outlet, an online store selling a paltry, rotating selection of often overpriced or off-brand goods, and (2) ancillary products, like a prescription card and roadside assistance, that had limited value and were rarely used by consumers. Because of defendants’ deceptive conduct and the extremely limited utility of Reliant’s products, most customers quickly dropped out of the membership program without using either Reliant’s credit card or any ancillary products, thereby paying fees to Reliant and receiving nothing of value in return. For example, between at least 2017 and 2021, only 6% of consumers ever used their cards and only 1-3% of customers used an ancillary product,” the suit states.
“In addition to deceiving consumers into paying for a nearly useless product, Reliant also has charged consumers fees well in excess of the legally allowed limits. For some consumer, the mandatory fees cost up to 60% of the consumer’s credit limit, an amount that violated the Truth in Lending Act. Reliant has also made it unreasonably difficult for consumers to cancel their memberships and obtain refunds. Despite promises that it would take ‘less than a minute’ to receive a full refund, Reliant routinely made consumers endure a series of offers for discounted pricing and third-party products. And even after consumers survived this gauntlet, Reliant refused to provide full refunds unless consumers threatened to seek relief from their banks or the Better Business Bureau.”
The suit seeks injunctive relief, monetary relief and the imposition of civil penalties on the defendants.
#5 – Sean Lally v. Westmoreland County – Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Caseworker with disability alleges discrimination and wrongful termination
This case is brought by Sean Lally against Westmoreland County, for whom he worked for just one month earlier this year in the Children’s Bureau of the Human Services Department – before, he says, he was unjustly terminated because of his disability. Lally previously suffered the amputation of his left leg, wears a prosthetic and uses a crutch to be able to walk.
Lally described discriminatory behavior allegedly made against him by his Supervisor, Kim Harmon, including, but far from limited to, not showing the plaintiff around the office and introducing him to staff members, or provide the plaintiff with a computer and cell phone and assistance in setting up employee accounts, like she did with similarly-situated new hires.
“It was obvious that the plaintiff has a prosthetic because it is much narrower than his right leg. Therefore, it is noticeable even when the plaintiff does not wear shorts. Further, the prosthetic sometimes makes a squeaking or creaking noise as the ‘joints’ bend. Harmon constantly stared at his left pant leg when she was around him, which made the plaintiff feel very uncomfortable. On or about March 25, 2024, Harmon asked the plaintiff, ‘When are you going to walk normally again?’ That comment, together with Harmon’s treatment of him led the plaintiff to the conclusion that Harmon had a stereotypical belief that an amputee could not perform work like non-disabled individuals,” the suit says.
“Shortly after that encounter, the plaintiff requested that he be assigned another supervisor. He spoke to [Treatment Manager Nick] Purnell about his request. The plaintiff told Purnell that he was not getting the proper training under Harmon and that she exhibited a bias against him. Purnell seemed genuinely concerned. He told the plaintiff, ‘let’s give it another month and if things don’t change by then, we’ll take another look at it.’ As of approximately April 1, 2024, the plaintiff was still reading manuals at his desk during the day. He had only gone into the field one time, with Lorenzo. He did not yet have any cases assigned to him.”
After subsequently suffering an asthma attack and receiving medical treatment for that attack in April, Lally added he was terminated on April 19, under the pretext that he worked while out sick – which he says was not true, because he had not worked on his sick day and could not have, since he didn’t have any cases yet assigned to him.
The suit seeks judgment be entered in his favor and against the defendant, and that the defendant be required to provide all appropriate remedies under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, including attorney’s fees and costs.
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com