The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-1286 FX . " "'"' <~'=' ,,- - ',", -" " "' "l--' ,,<'d.." "" c' .." "" ',,- '" ' "'__ ,,~:"~,'-<' ",,'0 C', ,","-' ",-, "',:"',>~~,,,,""",~ ,m,__'""" '~ '~",,',..,"~,;~', ""iP." " Scott M. Pollins, Esquire Pa. Identification No. 76334 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, P A 19002 (2l5) 699-5388 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHN DOE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. Ol-l286 SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN Defendants PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW, this day of ,2001, upon consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Defendants' Preliminary Objections are OVERRULED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall answer Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of notice of the Court's Order. BY THE COURT: J. , 'M'_ ~ ~ ' "^,,,, "' "'. ~ ,~, '", ' ,-,,"", ~ 't@ PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CAPTION OF CASE: JOHN DOE Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN, Defendants No. 01-1286 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1. State matter to be argued: Preliminary Objections of Defendants to Counts IV through VI of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Scott M. Pollins, Esq. Address: 1620 Schoolhouse Lane LowerGwynedd,PA 19002 (b) for defendant: Todd B. Narvol, Esq. Address: 305 N. Front Street, P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: July 25, 2001 Dated: "/11/0 \ -J-w .&Il/-- Attorney for Defendants . , '.' ~-,->" ~" - ~r . --, d ^, " ~" "' ""',"""""",, ',,'~" ~,,,. ""> ,"'" ~'-'-"';'.',,"", ",,-,,:' ',,' "-,- --k~',".""'",-" '~ ,: ' , ;;;:,,~: .- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following: Scott M. Pollins, Esquire 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, PA 19002 Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP by Date: 'jul 0 I -Jw~ - Todd B. Narvol, J.D. No. 42136 305 N. Front Street POB 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108-0999 I. ,~ c,~".~,,",,,,';',~,,"-~~, _, ,~~ ~d' " k:.d!iiii "u~J~~m:~~fij~&W~ '.' ,;.,.'.;",", ,",',--- "., ~ _",J "- ",,'," () C, .,--" C - ~;: (..... ""0 en (~;: ITlf" :;;';:: , Z:.T' :?.::r-- .., (I) ,)?~ N .- ::,";) ,) , ......:::,.<~ CJ ;<c; "TJ ,. 'C. I, ~8 C.:J t5 / (,.,:") en ;J;>c .. =-' Z VI J> ::! ::0 c:> -< f5 ~ " ';'" J, ' - ~ ,',.,. ,,'",,' - '--" "' -,,-,' , - o"d'. "'"", ""'J'";;~~''+''' ,,,,,,,,,,':<"'o,,ii,~"'''',-,- "~<i-.::.J""'wN" ,;;--,~, ~~"",~~,,,''''' '.,'.'" =.~ .J:,"; . ,. . . . Scott M. Pollins, Esquire Pa. Identification No. 76334 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, P A 19002 (215) 699-5388 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHN DOE Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. Ol-1286 SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRlMMER and DON MOTTERN Defendants CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Scott M. Pollins, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, John Doe, certifies that: 1. I spoke with Todd B. Narvol, Esquire, attorney for Defendants on June 25, 2001 and he agreed to waive the twenty (20) day notice requirement of Rule 4009.22 regarding service of a subpoena on the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC"). 2. Mr. Narvol further stated he had no objection to the subpoena so long as he received a copy of the subpoena, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A". 3. On June 25, 200l, I sent Mr. Narvol a copy ofthe subpoena. A copy of my June 25, 2001 letter to Mr. Narvol confirming the above and enclosing the subpoena is attached as Exhibit "B". 4. The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena attached to this certificate and sent to Mr. Narvol. Date: ~~~/Ol 9i!mf/ Attorney for Plaintiff, John Doe J' h ""j-. ,~'^ ,.1 '", '. I ~',:~' '. 0" ''.'='''--< , "W. -, ~.,"",',' -,~'~'_''',' ~^,',~" '~ ,",,,,,,,-,,'= --"''''''''Cl''--'-",''V>',''''.''''. . , . T COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND JDhh Doe v 5hcr+fer TrucKI"nq) 'IVlc aVid CherrIes lh'vvil'iAef': QnJ DOl? 4otte'fl'\ : SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANTTO RULE 4009.22 -In H/cht[[!( /..(. 'Smd:4, E~Ylte - /tSs/st-71lttC4/e-,f &'cll1se/-- PeVJns1flI/Ct~}714 ---TrUf~;;Re(t!l;~f71 e,-N"'/1..-{!;iallle of Person or Entity}------------ , " "1 v,I S SlOP! Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following jocuments or things: _('gl11rid_e.J;~_~e .f7'{e (P'f !'I/C?/tJg{ljpfl'OHfoh/o. V SJl!lf{er TIVPK;o/}JTI1Cy _____Pfigs~_Dod{etN~_J~5 06 ~_______ File No,QL=--'2_-r€_(~LV'IL__ 2;~ji~Q_~c ~_~l h~y-;-~-;;;-T:~_~r!I' . (JUl8 ~d dL P A _J1-ho~----~== (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena. together 'flith the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBP9,:NA WAf> ISpSUED AT THE_REQ~EST OF THE FOllOWING PERSON: ~'ame 5,,)1-/11. tJt!lh8, E<;;~e ..._,~. ~-_..- -~, -~ --,.------ Ilddress __It;:~ o.';;.:'c}1 0".1 t,o ljSle _'=-t!..!!._~________ __ ___l_q~"Jer G'WfI nt2 cki PI} 11 eJ.q <~ T3lephone: __& (!?) G ftf::__ [; ~'? 8' ~____________ Supreme Court 10 #9-(; 3 s 'f ._~----~,---~.,-----~-- Attorney For:__l!/ CIA ttjYf-.:.Ji; htLj)CJe____ Date BY THE COURT: (JM-)k)' L12 Prothonotary _~I A .. \~ -...;J.Q'f-.::2. or)J_______~n... g " P. Seal of the Court (Eff. 7/97) ~ ~ ~,- ,~ ',"--,,',~ ",~-~" ";.." ""' "" "" ",,, ,,,,',,"- "~'~"^'--"";;;,;,~"""~""'''<'~~'-' """",<~." ,~., '~".-., ",,,~", '. , Scott M. Pollins, Esquire Pa. Identification No. 76334 l620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, PA 19002 (215) 699-5388 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHN DOE Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-l286 SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN Defendants CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Scott M. Pollins, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, John Doe, certifies that: I. I spoke with Todd B. Narvol, Esquire, attorney for Defendants on June 25, 2001 and he agreed to waive the twenty (20) day notice requirement of Rule 4009.22 regarding service of a subpoena on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. 2. Mr. Narvol further stated he had no objection to the subpoena so long as he received a copy of the subpoena, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A". 3. On June 25, 200l, I sent Mr. Narvol a copy of the subpoena. A copy of my June 25, 200lletter to Mr. Narvol confirming the above and enclosing the subpoena is attached as Exhibit "B". 4. The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena attached to this certificate and sent to Mr. Narvol. Scott M. Pollins, Esqui Attorney for Plaintiff, John Doe Date: ~ - "~ .. h',.",-, ';1,,,,,.," .F'~+ ,', '~', j'~" , J .'" ,,j,! o-"=i'"=" '",~"~~'_hl.--,;-' ",~,... h~'t""", - - ~,.o ''''';'''-"'' ""'~''';'''''--''''.'".'--'';--",,- ,'....'-'-"',,', ',,-,, '1"1. " COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND 7;;,1)/) pde v st/4f1er 7}?.-((!l~rMc. 4h.cf c~t,tt'~.f, f'S' mrnm't,r qnc/ D(;'1-1 NtJffel'l7 SUBPOENA TO PHODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANTTO RULE 4009.22 I) f:i:::!-f~if?h~~~"1tt!;i;~e:::;=~~~:J;;*f,;"w Wiillin twonly (20) days allor sorvico of this subpoon'h, you am oldemd by the court to produce the followin() rlocr,rnonlTi or thin[Js: ... ~mpk:ke...alJi'!'...{}/t'&~{...6jJf2t'ef.LilLtJ,jd':..<li::::qt[.:.I/:tLr;:o;..,tb(jfLtld {r/!..iOt~""~I1t?/?:?0ir~'-?:~~J111l!b;;y~tt}'!!'~!:'f~~/J.~~Gr_11.~~~':_~.i ,tcft'cA.rre I.. ~qlJ'/f'r:t~r/(OCS'!'fI(..Lif:B~r:;.fi:::'lq:Zs,Jfkc~~l1.el~f1~~..~1~{ft!c~~~1y~3 ill .. (IJrx.tf......?)(;I;,,(;j1()({~0.11e'[ ~~f?(~~~lcfc./!lftlC!O'./?).. ......... ....__. FileNo. O/-/;2&>f,{}~j,/II (Address) You Illay delivor or rnaillegible copies of the (jocurnents or produce things requosted by this subpoena, together >'v'lh the cortiticato of cornplianco, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right 10 srwl< in advance the reasonable cost ot preparing tho copies or producing the things sought II/ou tail to produce the docurnents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, II) party sorvinq this s~lt)poena rnay seek a court order cornpelling you to comply with it. It liS mJ BPOEN::J:{Sf{GU ED Af THE R~QUEST OF THE FOl.LOWING PERSON I'J, 11110 .m..........;?<.......m....~......Polb.lJ~t..E~'iC(r~. ,\rldress: . ...J'Gaa?(~o~LhQyJ~...~~m......_. tower 0UA.I Mdd (>4 l1CXJ::l .. ... .... ... ................. ....."'...:(1.................._'./....................._..............'-' ..-. 'r',!()pllon()) (.8g;J.f'1f.=.?~.:?::r-:",... . ."'....... :;1. prorne CourllD /I. ",.!:€:~!!!.'f:.._....._...._......_ 1\1 orney lor 1?/tllb-t(Y~{;'Jt?!Jr].f};>r:::.__ Ud". ~l,4jk....~6~~:;;~~c;;~';i.-'. BY THE COURT: ~ '~~~n1r~l;~i;~~;~i~;I"'" /J .. .2.",..~...7_-..... ~. _c--- ..._'_,_...''_..~ DLL~...-", Deputy (Eff.lml) -.. - l'. ,-1 " "~ - ,~ _~. .'" ,l"^<" ,'y ;,' . ,",,~ ,,--, -','.!" ,;~" --,',;,,'1' ,~;;",' ",,' .,,'," ',; j',' ,,~"" '=".:"=~';j;/,.c;o,,,~-;,'\'';;,':.k,,,i;'': ~ kj('J &}': Scott M. Pollins, Esquire Pa. Identification No. 76334 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, P A 19002 (215) 699-5388 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHN DOE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-1286 SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN Defendants PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO COUNTS IV THROUGH VI OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, John Doe, by his attorney, Scott M. Pollins, Esquire, responds to Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Counts IV through VI of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in accordance with the numbering thereof and states as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. By way of further response, the results of Plaintiff's unemployment compensation proceeding are irrelevant to the Court's consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objections. ~,. "i", ,.-' ,,-"':':',1" ""'"~''' ,'" _ '; 7. Admitted. By way of further response, the results of Plaintiff's unemployment compensation proceeding are irrelevant to the Court's consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objections. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. Neither the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) nor the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) "dismissed" Plaintiff's complaints. By way of further response, any actions taken by the EEOC or the PHRC regarding Plaintiffs complaints are irrelevant to the Court's consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objections. 10. Admitted. ll. Denied as stated. Counts IV -VI of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint constitute a writing and speak for themselves. Defendants' characterization thereof is denied. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is required under the Pa.R.Civ.P. 14. Denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is required under the Pa,R.Civ.P. By way of further response, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint pleads acts of discrimination that are unrelated to Plaintiff's employment at Shaffer Trucking, Inc., and which, making favorable inferences, could be regarded as outrageous. Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim should not be dismissed because it is either unrelated to Plaintiff's claims for employment discrimination or is a function ofthe particularly abusive manner in which the discrimination was 2 1" Jj , "'," '-'" ,,',,"-'," -;-'~ "'0' ~', ,,,;, __~-. =;~ ' , '~--~,',," "'';'"'1 ,.,,<~ "";^",~" ",;' ',' I?,'.,;^ "'. ,,~~ ,-,'.< ,. ,-h, '0"" "., ,_ "'. '.~' ,"v", "_"",'~"H" '-' ~ accomplished. Jackson v. Local Union 542. International Union-Operating Engineers, 2000 Westlaw 1048459 (E.D.Pa. 2000). 15. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pa.R.Civ.P. By offurther response, see Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff' s Response to Defendants' Preliminary Objections. 16. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required under the i~ I' ii' Pa.R.Civ.P. 17. Denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is required under the :;; ~~ I " i Pa.R.Civ.P. By of further response, when considered in the light most favorable to him, ;j Plaintiff's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be dismissed. Preliminary objections should be sustained only in cases that are clear and from doubt. ~; 11 I; Harrisburg School District v. Hickok, 762 A.2d 398 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000). Defendants intentionally avoided having any physical contact with Plaintiff, purposely and repeatedly sent him on truck delivery runs that prevented him from going to doctor's appointments despite Defendants previously knowing Plaintiff had those doctor's appointments and improperly sabotaged his ability to secure new employment by intentionally misrepresenting his driving history and requesting all potential employers to contact Shaffer Trucking, Inc. about Plaintiff. 3 .,1 '.', ,,'"= I "'.'~ 'n .,liT. '->-"I"~';, "_ ,,",, '''''"'' !,.~;... '",."-' ,'~', "Jr_,", "'< ;.", ~ '''' ,.J'~ .,;.", -""",,,-"10-,,,",' "",< ''''--~, """t(.'"",,' ~'"",^' '^-'.~,",,',~I-- ,';~;;;j-,,< ~~"r.l.' l8. Denied. Plaintiffs claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be dismissed because when considered in the light most favorable to him, the facts alleged in support of that claim are sufficiently extreme and outrageous, unrelated to Plaintiff's employment discrimination claim or a function of the particularly abusive manner in which Plaintiff was terminated. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court overrule , ";: Defendants Preliminary Objections to Counts IV - VI of Plaintiff' s Second Amended i: ~: Complaint and Order Defendants to Answer Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ", ;{, :' c: , ,~ , F' within twenty (20) days of notice of the Court's Order. By: i: i" , Scott M. Polli , Pa. Id. No. 76334 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, P A 19002 (215) 699-5388 Attorney for Plaintiff, John Doe Date: ~~ 4 "~ , '..+A__'~~,",', -0 , ," ~.." U"'" ~,--<"' "' ,,, __ "~, ",". ~,<>, ^' , , ~""'-""'--"~"-->' , ""'='1" CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott M. Pollins, Esquire, attorney for John Doe, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Counts IV - VI of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint by first class mail postage prepaid upon counsel for defendants at: Todd B. Narvol, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108-0999 By: Scott M. Pollins, Esqui e Date:~ 5 , ..I' _ ",0'"".~ _~. '""',"~" "~,,,,,,,",',,,.0 ,__",^''''.'-' "",-,~ """",',":,0_ < . " " ~ ,~ =. ~- "~'_.' --">, , ~,"""' ,,,,"-~,'i,f, 1 " Scott M. Pollins, Esquire Pa. Identification No. 76334 l620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, P A 19002 (215) 699-5388 Attorney for Plaintiff , , i JOHN DOE Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-1286 SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN Defendants AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT I, Scott M. Pollins, Esquire, duly depose and state: 1. I represent Plaintiff, John Doe, in this action. 2. On May 26,2001, I mailed by first class U.S. mail postage prepaid a copy of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint to counsel for Defendants at Todd B. Narvol, Esquire, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, 305 N. Front Street; Harrisburg, PA l7l08. 3. A true and correct copy of the May 26,2001 cover letter is attached as Exhibit "A". Respectfully submitted, '5 Scott M. Pol illS, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, John Doe By: Date: ~ -", , " ".u' ","__" - .~_"" ^, 'I" '; 'd" _'.~~"" ..,;--< .cd ,.-.ii-'L' '1', ."," ,,'. ,0<< - ,,-,~-"',";,,<" ""',"",X.Jili "".,,;,,"-' " . .. ,.......'"-~- /-~" SCOTT M. f>OLLlNS Attorney at Law Member PA, NJ and MD Bar 1620 Schoolhouse Lane L()w,~r Ciwyncdd, PA 19002 I:,IH' I I: SM Pi'ci)NelcurricLcorn Phone: (215) 699.5388 Fax: (215) 699.2337 May 26, 200 I Todd n, Narvol, Esquirc Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLI' :105 North Front Street P.o, Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108 HE: .John Hoe v. ShatTer Trucking, .Charles l'rimmer and DOli Mottern Cumberland County Court of Common I'leas- Civil Action No. 0.1-1286 Dear Todd: Enclosed please find a Sccond Amended Complaint for thc abow-captloned mallcL The original was senl to the Court today. Thank you. /""''''''''''" """'~-"_n,,",~ S!I}!i,c~ely yours, . (') ..' / ~"... ,.. , 'I . \ ,0/ B: (-~::. ,',:: .,,' . / "";,~"*'~"::_..,",,",. "rn^"~-"",_".~.."._, Y . ". ?",J/. . -t'.,......m......',.".,.., _._----_._...._~ - SCOTT M. POLlJNS SMP/dim Lncl. "' ,,,,,,n__~~d"',' 111 """'~"""""'-'-- '_~~~,'" .',>'i_~ IJ,LI'h"i".IIl.ID. !Imm.l[~. T~U'M!)U,.," ,,It.,,. ',.'..~..""." "" , .., ,/,- " ,,-," ',',-I' ':;"'< -- '- ,:,;~>:,,;,; (') ~? "'TJ\ '" S~~~ \::, 2'- CO ..< 1/ ~';, >'C::. '.,',""#"'""", .,. . '",'" to " .. ("~"1; ,- t:':: r-- c;~, .-") C;-? ::::\ :< ~,) ,.0 ~ '" ,,' , ~~ , j , ~ r , , , j' _ --.4~ ",""<,r.' .",~, , ~ . . ~ , , JOHN DOE, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. Ol-1286 CRIMINAL CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MATTERN, Defendants IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS. J.J. ORDER AND NOW, this Z..,' day of August, 2001, the preliminary objection ofthe defendants to the plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is OVERRULED. BY THE COURT, Scott M. Pollins, Esquire For the Plaintiff -Ad. Todd B. Narvol, Esquire F or the Defendants )~ ~~ 9.J.7-0/ Q-. :rlm ~ '" < ': '~~~~~~b!!i~~00illi~~~6w~mdit~';"'" -~ " '<:j;jc""~~;m.Lt!LCl,,,Jtjt~,,,~ ~,"~ ',L~ _~ " ;,' c_,_"""', ,"'" ,,,?,.,,,",.' 1.1/'\ I\.. {'<'-I '~"I . -. I ' , ,"1\ ,;\:),liI'I-'d , I ~\r,'"',(",,_ ,-::,' '.,' 'L.J ,\.L,;::, ,',) "",,-I'II,',-,,',''-'''''n,-, ,'. -," ,"'~~:--JI'~\ IV 2,':!:5 ":" [2 Bil~ 10 1\8\:'-::; :i ::;u '~, ~> I, _~ " C' " j WI' ,~ l .._~,., .' ;'j,.~. .1 .. . I ,~'... ." L _'.', ~'"'. ,"~"~ -"" ,,~o"'--, "'"''"'~"''''''"~ -"".-p",:-- .=~, ~, "f t JOHN DOE, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 01-l286 CRIMINAL CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MATTERN, Defendants IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS. J.J. OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are defendants' preliminary objections to plaintiff's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant, Shaffer Trucking, Inc (Shaffer), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is in the business of commercial trucking. According to the second amended complaint, Shaffer employed the plaintiff, John Doe,l in the capacity of truck driver from June 8, 1998 through March 9, 1999. Doe claims that, although he was a good and loyal worker, he was terminated on March 9, 1999, because he is mv positive. Doe has filed suit against Shaffer and two supervisory employees (Trimmer and Mottern) for employment discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. Section 951 et seq. and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is with respect to this latter count that the defendants have filed preliminary objections. Doe's complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants directed extreme and outrageous conduct towards him including: (a) treating Doe in a repugnant, offensive and 1 While not his real name, the plaintiff receives this appellation in order to protect his privacy. - " d_ "~~ "Jl1~.~"';'\~ . 01-1286 CIVIL abusive manner; (b) intentionally avoiding any physical contact with Doe; (c) intentionally and repeatedly sending Doe on jobs that prevented him from attending numerous doctor's appointments despite Doe providing prior notice of those doctor's appointments; and (d) intentionally misrepresenting Doe's driving history and thereby intentionally harming his ability to secure new employment. It is further asserted that these actions were intended to cause and did, in fact, cause Doe extreme emotional distress with physical effects. Preliminary objections resulting in the dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in cases that are clear and free from doubt. Bower v. Bower, 53l Pa. 54, 57, 611 A.2d 181, 182 (1992). "To sustain preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, it must appear with certainty that, upon the facts averred, the law will not permit recovery by the plaintiff." Schott v. Westinghouse Elec. Corn., 436 Pa. 279, 291, 259 A.2d 443,449 (1969). Intentional infliction of emotional distress is outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress. Restatement (Second) of Torts S 46 (1965). "One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm." Restatement (Second) of Torts S 46(l) (1965). "It is the conduct that must be outrageous, not the reaction to that conduct, to support an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress." 19 Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Employment and Labor Relations S 1:134 (1994). It is alsQ said that conduct surrounding employment termination generally does not reach the level of outrageousness needed to satisfy a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. As a preliminary matter, it is for the court to decide ifthe defendant's conduct is so outrageous as to permit recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cox v. Kevstone 2 . - ,"' ~"""', > " __ ,0 ~" -.'~" '"' lr Ol-1286 CIVIL . Carbon Co., 861 F.2d 390,395 (3'd Cir. 1988). Pennsylvania courts have been cautious to allow recovery for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and only if the conduct is extreme and clearly outrageous will a claim be allowed. Hov v. Angelone, 554 Pa. 134, 151,720 A.2d 745,753 (Pa. 1998). In Hov v. Angelone the court held that certain acts of sexual harassment, including sexual propositioning and the telling of off-color jokes, while offensive and unacceptable, was not such extremely outrageous conduct as would permit a claim for the intention infliction of emotion distress. Id. at l53, 720 A.2d at 755. The court said that, in order to support such a claim, "the conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society." Id. at 15l, 720 A.2d at 754 (quoting Buczek v. First National Bank of Mifflintown, 366 Pa.Super. 551, 558, 531 A.2d 1122, ll25 (1987)). The court went on to conclude, among other things, that sexual harassment alone does not normally arise to the level of outrageousness to make out a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress absent some sort of retaliatory behavior against the employee. Id. at 153, 720 A.2d 755 citing Bowersox v. P.H. Gladfelter Co. 677 F.Supp. 307, 312 (M.D. Pa. 1988). In Cox v. Kevstone Carbon Co., 861 F.2d 390, 396 (3'd Cir. 1988) the plaintiff had filed a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress against his employer who fired him when he returned to work after undergoing heart surgery. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant maliciously fired him so that he could not obtain employee benefits. The court opined, examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, that the conduct was not so outrageous as to satisfy the emotional distress claim. Id. at 396. The court stated that: "While 3 ,'< ~'~, 01-1286 CIVIL , loss of employment is unfortunate and unquestionably causes hardship, often severe, it is a common event" and cannot provide a basis for recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 395 (quoting Brieck v. Harbison-Walker Refractories, 624 F.Supp. 363, 367 (W.D.Pa. 1985), rev'd on other grounds, 822 F.2d 52 (3d Cir. 1987)). Likewise, the court in Doe v. Kohn Nast and Graf, P.C. held that there was no basis for an emotional distress claim even though an employer discharges an employee for an improper reason. Doe v. Kohn Nast and Graf. P.C., 862 F.Supp. 1310, 1329 (E.D.Pa. 1994). In Doe v. Kohn the defendant stopped speaking to and avoided physical contact with the plaintiff after discovering that the plaintiff had HIV. The defendant did not renew the plaintiff's contract of employment, disseminated false and defamatory information to conceal his discriminatory purpose, took steps to force the plaintiff to voluntarily leave the firm, and then abruptly terminated him and threatened to physically remove him from the premises of the firm. Id. at 1329. The court reasoned that these actions, while perhaps proving an improper discharge, did not amount to the outrageous conduct needed for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. In Banvas v. Lower Bucks Hospital, 238 Pa.Super. 122,437 A.2d 1236 (l98l), however, a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress was allowed. In that case, one Thomas Lavin was admitted to the emergency room of the Lower Bucks Hospital complaining of injuries which resulted from an altercation with the plaintiff, Joseph A. Banyas, III. According to the complaint, Mr. Lavin died during surgery as a result of the negligence of hospital personnel. Again, according to the complaint, the defendant hospital personnel knowingly prepared records indicating that Mr. Lavin's death was due solely to the injuries inflicted upon him by Mr. 4 01-1286 CIVIL Banyas. As a result of the wrongful preparation of records, Banyas was charged with crimes including third degree murder. The Superior Court held that the intentional misstatements in the medical records supported a mental distress claim. In Bartanus v. Lis, 332 Pa.Super. 48, 480 A.2d ll78 (1984) the Superior Court found that the trial court had erred in dismissing a count of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lower court had sustained a demurrer in a case in which the defendants, consisting of the plaintiff's sister and brother-in-law and their daughter, enticed and persuaded the plaintiff's son to stay away from his father, the plaintiff. The Superior Court said: As recognized by our Supreme Court in Papieves v. Lawrence, supra, the intentional infliction of emotional distress is an evolving tort and its scope has not yet been clearly dermed. 437 Pa. at 378,263 A.2d at 121. However, under the principles set forth in those authorities upholding it, we believe that if appellees did engage in the conduct described in the complaint in this case, they could be held liable for emotional and mental distress suffered by appellant. The complaint alleges intentional misrepresentations made to an adolescent by his aunt and uncle concerning the morals and behavior of his father. The actions outlined in the complaint may be of the extreme and outrageous nature contemplated by Comment d to RESTATEMENT S 46. Accepting appellant's version of the facts as true, as we must at this time, it appears that appellees intentionally manipulated appellant's son in a manner "peculiarly calculated" to cause appellant serious mental or emotional distress. Id If appellees did act intentionally, there need not be a showing that they were aware of the natural and probable consequences of their actions. Rather, it is enough that appellant was substantially certain to suffer severe mental or emotional distress as a result of their alleged tortious [332 Pa.Super. 62] conduct. (emphasis supplied) 5 , , "~" < '-,-- ' , ~. >- .-. [i\)' Ir " '. 01-1286 CIVIL Id. at 1185. In this case, the defendant's conduct included harsh treatment of Doe, intentionally avoiding physical contact with him and preventing him from attending doctor's appointments by sending him on assignments. These actions, standing alone, would perhaps be insufficient to support a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint, however, goes on to allege that the defendants misrepresented Doe's driving history in order to harm his ability to secure new employment. It is alleged that, not only was the misrepresentation intentional, but it was expressly designed to cause emotional distress. We cannot say, at least at this stage of the proceedings, that, on the facts averred, no recovery is possible. ORDER AND NOW, this 2-;" day of August, 2001, the preliminary objection of the defendants to the plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is OVERRULED. BY THE COURT, Scott M. Pollins, Esquire For the Plaintiff -^~'A;J 7A. Hess, J. Todd B. Narvol, Esquire For the Defendants :rlm 6 ,',_".,,"' J",C;,_. . . -", '~ .." ~., ,___ 0=__ ''',~ ~ , " "~!."',"C: . - James K Thomas, II, Esquire Identification Number: 15613 Todd B. Narvol, Esquire Identification Number: 42136 Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 171 08-0999 (717) 237-7100 JOHN DOE Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN, Defendants No. 01-1286 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW To: Plaintiff c/o Scott M. Pollins, Esquire 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, PA 19002 NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days of service hereof or the relief requested may be entered against you. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: 9( III " ) BY:~~ Todd B. Narvo1 J.D. No. 42136 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108 ~,' ,', =--~ "',; . - James K. Thomas, II, Esquire Identification Number: 15613 Todd B. Narvol, Esquire Identification Number: 42136 Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7100 JOHN DOE Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. SHAFFER TRUCKlNG, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN, Defendants No. Ol-1286 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, Defendants Shaffer Trucking, Inc., Charles Trimmer and Don Mottern, by and through their attorneys, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, file this Answer & New Matter in response to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and in support thereof aver the following: 1. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters averred in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Seconded Amended Complaint, and proof thereof is demanded. 2-3. Admitted. 4. Denied as stated. Generally speaking, Shaffer does act by and through its employees, agents, workers, officers, and representatives who are acting within the course and scope of their employment and authority, when those employees, agents, workers, officers and representatives are acting within the course and scope of their employment and authority. To the extent that Plaintiff in this case alleges wrongdoing on the part of Shaffer and the individual Defendants, such wrongdoing is strictly denied, and therefore, it is not germane to discuss < .= ,,' ,.,." ~~,,^,J , '",' ~, ~" '~.. ~-,"," <'. '~. ~ w~" ."',];'> :1,1 ,;,' whether such alleged actions were committed within the course and scope of the employees' employment and authority. The alleged wrongdoing never occurred. 5. Denied as stated. Defendant Trimmer is an adult individual, who, in early 1999, was employed by Shaffer as a fleet manager, and who had supervisory authority over Plaintiff. 6. Denied as stated. Admitted that Defendant Mottern was employed in early 1999 by Shaffer as a Safety Director. COUNT I-Alle!!ed Disabilitv Emolovment Discrimination Doe v. Shaffer 7. Defendants incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs 1 through 6 of this Answer and New Matter. 8. Admitted that on or about June 8, 1998, Shaffer hired Plaintiff as a truck driver. 9. Denied that Plaintiff "worked in a loyal and satisfactory manner, consistently performing at or above the level of his co-workers." To the contrary, Plaintiff performed his job in an unsatisfactory manner. I O. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a believe as to the truth of the matters averred in Paragraph lO of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and proof thereof is demanded. 11. Denied that "a certain individual or certain individuals employed by Shaffer became aWare that [Plaintiff] was inflicted with HIV." 12. Admitted that Shaffer fired Plaintiff on or about March 9, 1999. Denied that Plaintiff's termination had anything to do with his alleged medical condition. z ,,^~. , q'~ ~ ,. '"," '-,"= "~'_ u ", , o ,~< "__ "~ __ "_' ~~~,~,~ W."" C'_" _, ,"_, , ,0 _"" ~ '~ ~ 13. Denied that "Shaffer's actions in terminating [Plaintiffs] employment were unjust, without privilege, unlawful, solely intended to cause injury to [Plaintiff] and violated the public policy ofthe Commonwealth ofPeunsylvania." 14. Denied that Shaffer terminated Plaintiff because of Plaint iff's alleged medical condition. 15. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph I 5 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and proof thereof is demanded. As previously stated, Defendants were unaware of Plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and did not fire him as a result of that condition or any perceived inability on the part of the Plaintiff to perform his job duties as a result of the alleged medical condition. l6. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e), and denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. 17. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor, together with all applicable Court costs and attorney's fees. COUNT II-Allel!ed Disabilitv Emulovment Discrimination Doe v. Trimmer 18. Defendants incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the averments and denials contained in Paragraphs I through l7 of this Answer and New Matter. 19. Denied that Defendant Trimmer "aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or caused the unlawful discriminatory termination of [Plaintiff]" and denied that he "obstructed or prevented Shaffer from complying with the provisions ofthe Pennsylvania Human Relations 3 ~ --,- r." Act, and/or. . . attempted directly or indirectly to discriminate against [Plaintiff] because of his disability." Denied further pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). To the contrary, Defendant Trimmer was unaware of Plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and denied that Plaintiff's alleged medical condition had anything to do with his termination from employment by Shaffer. 20. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e), and denied as a conclusion oflaw to which not response is required. 21. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor, together with all applicable Court costs, and attorney's fees. COUNT III-Allel!ed Disability EmDlovment Discrimination Doev. Mottern 22. Defendants incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the averments and denials contained in Paragraphs I through 21 of this Answer & New Matter. 23. Denied that Defendant Mottern "aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or caused the unlawful discriminatory termination of [Plaintiff]" and denied that he "obstructed or prevented Shaffer from complying with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and/or. . . attempted, directly or indirectly to discrimination against [Plaintiff] because of his disability." Denied further pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). To the contrary, Defendant Mottern was unaware of Plaintiff's alleged medical condition. Moreover, Plaintiff's termination from employment by Shaffer had nothing to do with his alleged medical condition. 24. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029( e), and denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 25. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 4 ~ ~"', " ',',' ~,<~^ ^~, '- ".'~" "'~~"m'.~_..~=_~ ^'~, ".^~, -r=" ~,--",' ~,."" ~- - '''''''''^N-' \. < , '~'.~i WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor, together with all applicable Court costs, and attorney's fees. COUNT IV-Alle2ed Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Doe v. Shaffer 26. Defendants incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the averments and denials contained in Paragraphs I through 25 of this Answer and New Matter. 27. Denied as stated. See Paragraph 4 of this Answer and New Matter, which Paragraph is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 28. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). More particularly, denied that Shaffer engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct direct toward [Plaintift]." (a) Denied that Shaffer treated Plaintiff in a repugnant, offensive and abusive manner; (b) Denied that Shaffer intentionally avoided physical contact with Plaintiff; (c) Denied that Shaffer intentionally, knowingly, purposefully and repeatedly sent Plaintiff onjobs that prevented him from attending numerous doctors appointments, despite Plaintiff providing prior notice of those doctor's appointments; and (d) Denied that Shaffer intentionally misrepresented Plaintiff's driving history to DAC Services through the unwarranted use of the terms "excessive complaints" and "personal contact requested" and thereby intentionally harming Plaintiff's ability to secure new employment. To the contrary, neither Shaffer nor the individual Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's alleged medical condition, nor did they treat Plaintiff in any particular way as a result of such alleged medical condition, and they did not misrepn;sent Plaintiff's driving history. ~ :;~i'>'-;" ;';"': ;~,~H5~~;;r~t,~;;it\?;::;',0!ii: --",- _',','_,~~'~,' ,;.,,,'~''',"'''~,,c.,~_,;'' 1 ,'~',~ ,~:::. ~:.,' ';'"'", , , ,'<,:" ~ ':.' 29. Denied that Shaffer intended its actions to cause Plaintiff to suffer extreme emotional distress. 30. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 31. Denied pursuantto Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant's demand judgment in their favor, together with all applicable Court costs. COUNT V-Allel!:ed Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Doe v. Trimmer 32. Defendants incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the averments and denials contained in Paragraphs 1 through 3l of this Answer and New Matter. 33. Denied that Defendant Trimmer engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct directed towards [Plaintiff!." (a) Denied that Trimmer treated Plaintiff in a repugnant, offensive and abusive manner; (b) Denied that Trimmer intentionally avoided physical contact with Plaintiff; (c) Denied that Trimmer intentionally, knowingly, purposefully and repeatedly sent Plaintiff onjobs that prevented him from attending numerous doctors appointments, despite Plaintiff providing prior notice of those doctor's appointments; and (d) Denied that Trimmer intentionally misrepresented Plaintiff's driving history and intentionally harmed Plaintiff's ability to secure new employment. 34. Denied that Defendant Trimmer intended. his actions to cause Plaintiffto suffer extreme emotional distress. 35. Denied pursuantto Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 6 , Co "'~,__,--_ ~n.' , ',,"", ~' '" ',,,. ,,,",~~, !'~"" ", ,",'.' ""0"'" ~""',-"-',--",'",,,,-,",,,,,,~,___~;U""''''''''''','''"' ,~" ';"b,',"'-" ~'^ ' 36. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor, together with all applicable Court costs. COUNT VI-Allel!ed Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Doev. Mottern 37. Defendants incorporate by reference the averments fully set forth herein the averments and denials contained in Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Answer and New Matter. 38. Denied that Defendant Mottern engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct directed toward [Plaintiff]." (a) Denied that Mottern treated Plaintiff in a repugnant offensive and abusive manner; (b) Denied that Mottern intentionally avoided physical contact with Plaintiff; (c) Denied that Mottern intentionally, knowingly, purposefully and repeatedly sent Plaintiff onjobs that prevented him from attending numerous doctors appointments despite Plaintiff providing prior notice of those doctor's appointments; and (d) Denied that Mottern intentionally misrepresented Plaintiff's driving history and thereby intentionally harmed Plaintiff's ability to secure new employment. 39. Denied that Defendant Mottern intended his actions to cause Plaintiff to suffer extreme emotional distress. 40. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.(::iv.P. 1029(e). 41. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor, together with all applicable Court costs. 7 .. ~~ , '," ~,~"' ,'~" u " __~ '"., ,'~"""""'" .' ,,,;.,"~--,,~,,,_,,-,',,,,,,,,,.,,",' ',*""'",',,"-__' ,= , J,;;~ NEW MATTER 42. Defendants incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the averments and denials contained in Paragraphs I through 41. 43. Defendants were unaware of Plaintiff's alleged medical condition. 44. Plaintiff's termination from employment with Shaffer was wholly unrelated to his alleged medical condition. 45. Plaintiff was an at-will employee, and could be terminated without cause under Pennsylvania law. 46. Notwithstanding, Defendant's had good cause-i.e. legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons, unrelated to any discriminatory motives-to terminate Plaintiffs employment, and had every right to do so. 47. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, based upon the decisions of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor's Unemployment Compensation Bureau. 48. Plaintiff s causes of action may be barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. 49. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 50. To the extent that these affirmative defenses may be supported by discovery in this case, Defendant's raise the affirmative defenses of accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, consent, privilege, release and waiver. 5l. Plaintiff's termination from employment by Shaffer was not against public policy and was not motivated by any desire to harm Plaintiff. 8 ",,-- ""',~" ,", 0_ '~' ."'~ """,, """' ~"'__ __ , _",', ;.." __~""""..,"",,"'~;"';.-"""""""""" ~~',~". ' "'.'~,,,,,,,, """~~,,,,;' WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor, together with all applicable Court costs and attorney's fees. Respectfully submitted, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP by 41 Todd B. Narvol, J.D. No. 42136 305 N. Front Street POB 999 Harrisburg, P A l7108-0999 Date: ~ 1171 0 I 9 J~ ,-' - ,'J- ~C'_ ~ ~, ,-'~' >, ""''} U9/1J!U1 l":UO tA,t HI {9" U1H ":P"-12 01 15:37 FRm:THDr1AS THOMAS ~IIAI"rJ:;J( TJ(ut;'JU~~ 717C37710S TO:717 795 0124 l4J uu~ PAGE: 10 VERIFICA t!!lli I, Don Monem, hereby verify that the averments made in the foregoing document are true and correCL I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. CS.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsifIcation to authorities. .::= ~""./ /.$,d!U~tJ/ Date Don Mottern SEP-13-20Bl 1S: 14 7." " , 75S10124 I 95X P.02 ~,~ '" ., ~~== ^ '-, "Th'_'~~__' ..,,--, --"~ "'"--", - """", .,,,- ,"-~,~ "~--,"" -~ ", ,-- .=.~. ","",.'""~-,,, "',H-'~_, '--"':i- " ,j .J,'''., "W~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certifY that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following: Scott M. Pollins, Esquire 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, P A 19002 Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP by ~L~p/,- Apri asper, Secretary 9!t7J 0/ ~,~-,aililidJlfIiiII~.~~.j-f,''''--- " " '.'--' , -'-'~-~ Ill! IL ..., W.. _._. ~f "-Il,;h~,;;">"~'~~' -~-', ,,=__ "~"~.~"',,~",,v_ ,_.'1' '._.,__ "',' ",,,,,-.--,1 . ".~i:i' ~~~ 'l ' ~ :." ~" '" ',--,' .":",,,, ,. , "ii'l-j[lj . J ' ";;, ~~ .-. cO -,~.-. 0 0 0 C -n < -en t:J r;J rq P-I r'"" -0 "--" L: , - Cl 2" - :.::-J -::n ~~ .-J \;~ {)~:.; r=: .." , ""r. --...... .-"k- (5 z '--.: ~~ 2':""n :s:: 'd ()' "..."j ;.::; '-'1 :J> =<! ~.:l" .t-- -< ~;'J U . ~, ,"'-'" ""-. """ ",--<. '" ,-.' ,,~, _ , , ,', '-0.''"'.' ,,-.. "'_'" _" " . Scott M. Pollins, Esquire Pa. Identification No. 76334 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, P A 19002 (215) 699-5388 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHN DOE Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-1286 SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN Defendants PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER Plaintiff, John Doe, by his attorney, Scott M. Pollins, Esquire, hereby replies to Defendants' New Matter to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in accordance with the numbering thereof and states as follows: 42. No answer to an incorporation paragraph is required under the Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure. 43. Denied. Plaintiff denies that Defendants were unaware of his medical condition. 44. Denied. Plaintiff denies that his termination from employment with Shaffer was wholly unrelated to his medical condition. On the contrary, Plaintiff was discriminatorily terminated based on his disability. 45. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions oflaw to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. i " p ~ . .-~ -. -- ",-,~---- '"'-- .. 46. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further response, Defendant's alleged "good cause" to terminate Plaintiff was a pretext for an unlawful discriminatory discrimination. 47. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 48. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 49. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 49 of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. On the contrary, Plaintiff has properly pled a claim upon which relief may be granted. 50. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 51. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions oflaw to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. On the contrary, Plaintiffs termination from employment by Shaffer was against public policy and was motivated by a desire(s) to harm Plaintiff. 2 ~-..~~~>'~ -.~~.. - - -"' , ~_=~.- ~~~"'M' ~__~C"'__,_ '-~"-" _n "'" ',,,",,,"_L=-';;< -,- ".~ -- <' -, ,,' "C "];-- '0\,' "~ . WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John Doe, demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants, Shaffer Trucking, Inc., Charles Trimmer and Don Mottern, in an amount in excess of $25,000.00 together with costs, interest, delay damages, attorney's fees and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. Date: q I ()?((jl Uy.~ Soott M. Polli"", "'qo" - Attorney for Plaintiff 3 . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott M. Pollins, hereby certifY that 1 served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants' New Matter via first class U.S. mail on September 27,2001 upon the following: Todd B. Narvol, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PAl 7108-0999 Scott M. Pollins ~~i!!ig~'"'~"...u._. ,l lilil.lllllWf ~~~,.. k,- ^ ~_,~ ,~~__~~ _H - . ~1mM~!&I_l!ian~~m~- ....:.~~ ,_.,~^'c_'M!f",':'. _,",,,,I',_~'_~__,, _ ,"","' ",,,_~,__,,,L -,.~.~= ",. J"" ~. . - " '-, (") C 0" -ot=:'-::: fTir'~': ~fY ~~~~'. ~(:) ~C) ~{;;~ L. ~ p- . , Q r) ::::-i'l ,,_of ~:i :D --~-~,t3 .'2\~~-, ;;\ii~ '~~rn u ~ ::':'1 -< 'J') '" -0 N CP ~ 0) co " --~=> . ~ . .". '-~"-"''''M-''''''''-' ',", "".,.-...,,-,",,,,--,~~~~-~~, ---"'~_ ,,,__-~:,'Q'''_'~~,~,_'~ ':'- ~~'.:: MAR 122002) JOHN DOE Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN, Defendants No. 01-1286 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER AND NOW, this /3 or day of ",a.ceJ.. , 2002, the Court adopts the following Stipulation as its Order of this date. STIPULATION J. AND NOW, the parties, by and through their attorneys, stipulate to the entry of a confidentiality order by the Court which will provide that: Shaffer Trucking, Inc.'s business documents, which have been provided in discovery to the Plaintiff, will remain confidentiaL The Defendant and his attorney, and his attorney's representatives, and consultants, shall not disseminate these materials at any time to any persons outside the litigation. The documents may be used only for purposes of this litigation, and may be used for no other purpose, including but not limited to sharing these documents with counsel in other cases or with any of Shaffer's competitors. The Defendant, his counsel, his counsel's representatives and any expert consultants shall be bound by this Order. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of this Confidentiality Order, after this case has been resolved and discontinued, and the Court will have the authority to issue sanctions for violations of this Order while litigation is pending and at any time thereafter. ~ ,./Scott M. Po' , squ e 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, PA 19002 Attorney for Plaintiff ~CI~ ~!!i! "31{H- Date Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street, P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108-0999 [~ ~ttorneYsfor Defendants 03 -J5-0:!t p-XS I J i1I~-ii ~1IQ~iJM-_M;"'''--~~~''1ill(- ~itil"-"-":'-'.'ali~~~" ~~ -,," -,-", - , ..~~ 0:;... ; H,,-,IQ\\i{jd \.-l,N '.0 \ \j\v'._ ,~''-'~W-lf'l 'I , ,'""...J ',1.~J~"-~"' '1\ \'0' \_,,,,,-1\ ,,' 1" ,,--,' 1,1\\\\\,.\-_: ,'," . " .~\ i U' I 111 iO,O \l"-{U 70 "J\ \ (},;~n ..',) " "J,1\.O',.\.' ,. /".\ ~.. -,r,1 t -.(.\~l \\,) :"J':~ '"" ill'" .. (") 0 C) C r" <" " -OcC :3\: .~:~ [!11T, ~" z....., zr:-.' I cfj '--f.-_ en ~:~.:_-- - , """e,' ""'-J ;.> z() ::.-L )>0 ;~, "'-. c: ~~) z ~ =< )-,,: r',) ::;:::; ~~ ~ti . - JOHN DOE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. No. 01-1286 Civil CIVIL ACTION -LAW SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN, Defendants ;',t '-. . . .CERt'Ii~ICAtE PREREQUlSltE'TO SI:Ryic;E OF A SUBPOENA PURsuAilitfoRULE .4009.22 ~ ,.;;.~ 'oC """'-,------,_._~~--- 'fl As a prerequisite to service of subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena with copies of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party; 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to th is Certificate; 3. Opposing counsel did not object to the subpoena and waived the 20 days; 4. The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: 6:3 -07- 03 ...~M~ TODD B. NARVOL, ESQUIRE 305 NORTH FRONT STREET - 6TH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717)237-7133 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS o Plaintiff m THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JOHN DOE, v. NO. 01-1286 Civil SHAFFER TRUCKfrm, me. and CHARLES TRIM:MER and DON MOTTERN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants .,',;...:;\::;....;.,.' ..,~,c::....'e:.:~;':X:~,.,i,i~t:(~~~~~~~~~R~~~A~;f.{t~fd~i?-:'..',' ,""c~'.~":'r""""';,' .,..... " "" '':',' "';";"':i-:'C,,'i,;~\,.Lr'l5:c"~O'"VE"''''''R''''Y'''''","""""u" Al"'i;.'i'T' "'T""""R""UL,ffiE''''4'O'''.OQ9' 2'1....'.' ',.' 1:~;,:'r;.::;(:':,," :t '" I " "rV ~ r~ l~ Q ,,:',:'- .:'C~- '-,'",! "(-t'-~'l'''. v" ,,,,,,,'"~~''' "~,"',~ ~,.." ,':t". - '-''''-'.';''.''::''''-'_''::'''',1:';,'''-;'' TO: Counsel and Parties of Record Defendant intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. Ifno objection is made, the subpoenas may be served. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER. LLP Date: D .:(-.:L7 - C3 ~ &r1~v~ -.-------'-'''- - -----'- -.., Todd B. Narvol, Esquire Attorney r.D. # 42136 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 HamsbU):"g, P A 17108-0999 (717) 255-7632 Attorneys for Defendant - ., - ~'" " " ,'^ ~~" "~, ,.",,' ~-' ~,.., '" . . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND JOHN DOE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff NO, 01-1286 Civil v. CIVil ACTION - lAW SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN, Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Glen Moore Truckino. Inc.. c/o Pamela Pierson Perrault. CDS. Vice-President of Safety, 1711 Shearer Drive, Carlisle. PA 17403 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Complete copies of all deposition transcripts in civil or administrative actions involvino Glen Moore Truckinq, Inc, and Michael Marcantonio. either as a party or a witness. at: Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP. 305 N. Front St., P.O. Box 999. Harrisbura, PA 17108 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Todd B. Narvol, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 255-7632 SUPREME COURT 10#: 42136 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants DATE: ?ab 19, ,;)1")6,~ Seal of the Court I Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Divis' '- D~O"'O E 7J;bA~0 "i.'~"' -,~, J ~ .' ~ t '-. , ,--''I 'ci"'~ '" , "' ~ ~'. . y , ^""'"",;,"',',,,'C'" '__, ':'1 '-'_:'> , ";', ',~- .. .,:~ "< "i''':..''','' :':',c,";:;' "/';"'''' ","" '>x; ,~:'/);;M:'~: ;if~~~iI,~~~:\~j;~~!tt!~g;:.. .;\~;;{j~~( ~:,:'i;i'i' ;:, ',' , ""', ",' "", ,>'," :--", ','; ;--,' --.-,:", ", , . ,. ',," ',' '"J__:'",,". ;:~';,':,';,,~i; ::,::Y'''' ",-- ;,:..';,:,'{;'''.' ,,' I, Todd B. Narvol, Esquire of the law firm of THOMAS, THOMAS, & HAFER, LLP do certifY that I served the foregoing document on the following person(s), by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Scott M. Pollins, Esquire 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, P A 19002 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: 6.;;7., -.;z.7- 0-3 ~~~ Todd B. Narvol, Esquire / 6/- /;..p(. ce'RTfF'ICATEOF SERVICE I, TODD B. NARVOL, ESQUIRE of the law firm of THOMAS, THOMAS, & HAFER, LLP do certify that I served the foregoing document on the following person(s), by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Scott M. Pollins, Esquire 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, PA 19002 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: O::s ~ 0 7 - 03 ~1fn1~ TODD B. NARVOL, ESQUIRE ~rrt< ~~Ifli .~iJl.~llit~.. ~ -] "__.wJiM~~~~__ill' ~,- ,,,--w,,",,,,,'__ ~~ - ~L '"",,,., ,_.' ""~- ,~ , C> ~. 4:1n: n\f~ 7"';' Z'- ~. ? ~b J:?C ~ C:J (.,.) -,-,> >, '0, - f::' , "" ~ o ---;--1 --~:,'.~.3 :';:) ,~_~~i~ ")-- '-,-:-..,.('") ~o:)rn ::-:\ 4~ ::i.'. :J1 tv ~ , , . '. _'_C, , A-- , ,__ _ L ",_ ~ ',' ~"'.',; ,- ~',,-~,--' -'~',c- '--'~, '~""""--o,~,,",:,:/ -"",,,~-,~, f_,"';"_ ~' ,,' ',i:"", '""",~'v",' ~;i JOHN DOE Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN, Defendants No. 01-1286 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above cased as settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ~itJiJ; --~ 16 Plaza East Lancaster Avenue Suite 104 Ardmore, PA 19003-2228 (610) 896-9909 Date: rd{dD(a3 JV-,,"', iar"nM~'''_liWJm,_'cO,"'C ~ .-";..;;M........,.,ili~~~<Ii'I1i~,~' J"'__j<.lill' - ,,",'~~, ,~ ';;,,,,,,, "I""""" ,"' _" '", "_, ' ~ ~, ,_ ,_ '." ,"",.,; _-i ~ , ~ " ~ . .g 0 ~ w -U5:: 0 OJ (, :;J ~U..: ----t ('T~j2 zt~' N ~~fi c/), \.0 ;::r;"";' ~o -0 '-'i() )>8 "T -- :Jl: .'''''jj 2: " 90 ~C ~ am ;z; U1 ~ ~ 0 ~ ":,'rT'__.,... ...... """ ...,..,_~"7'" " ." ' , '.'.- . ~ - ,<.,..'".~~:J";;~,,.~.:"ti::':~:\.,{j;;;l~{:11~_;,,~Lp~_.~;~t~;~ .~"~-'."~;.~r.;!~11f~1 _ :'::::'l!!J \ -"'''''''''-'C"",-"", -,'\;',"'''.,"'.:;, JUN 0 42001{jJ . , Scott M. Pollins, Esquire Pa. Identification No. 76334 1620 Schoolhouse Lane Lower Gwynedd, P A 19002 (215) 699-5388 JOHN DOE Attorney for Plaintiff Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-1286 w SHAFFER TRUCKING, INC. and CHARLES TRIMMER and DON MOTTERN Defendants ':-":1 ",{t ..~ . i" '1:' ,', ~2 ,>,' ORDER J G ;, .~ AND NOW, this f? day of ~ ,2001, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the Stipulation to Seal Record previously filed and a copy of which is jf ii i" I' attached to this Order is made an Order of this Court It is further ORDERED and DECREED that all documents filed in the above-captioned matter as of this date shall be sealed, remain confidential and shall be available to only the parties, their counsel and the Court. It is further ORDERED and DECREED that all documents filed in this case from this day forward shall be sealed, remain confidential, be available to only the parties, their counsel and the Court and the caption of this matter is amended to reflect "John Doe" as the name of the plaintiff BY ~J. ~.~ _ \i'ti , ___.'__.'_u____ __," ---, " -. - "- ," " -, .~ "" -~" ~,.. b r