Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-6149COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: L t 1Y?p?(??g? iJ MDJNams: Nan. Tewwrr: ( AMOLINT DATE PAID FILING COSTS $ POSTAGE $ SERVICE COSTS $ CONSTABLE ED. $ TOTAL $ CIVIL COMPLAINT PIAMTiFF: NAME and ADDRE" ?L?v4,t5t, -pp; vs. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRM r(ZIV?N '??? ? 33j L-.? A6U-T ??? ? 17 Iq 17 tot -zZ34? J Docket Not.: Date Filed-aft Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 206 sets forth those costs recoverable by the prevailing party. TO THE DEFENDANT: The above named plaintiff(s) asks judgment agakW you for fogsthar With costa upon the following claim (Civil fines must Include citation of the dftAft or ordNramw vtolaisdk ? Er, ?s,{ L ,r aq lul,q o Imo( QIVtl 46 ? ? $ bled ?ucQ IN va?? 2 11ENtA !Ty I q 1401,4s W om i4is (Za-ovv ion`s 4CT u3 i--t ta=b Trc>(4 rz6WEST,y 9 '4 Pt A LILT ej kA L44 IA -1 I, otl P-6-F654(, T`n -P Plc ? ' uj9g4L K(fT -rl "T-'LE' 3q 315 , 2 & N) 1, J Ql Ao C u AwgIZS verify that the facts ad forth In this oow*IeW an lane eel eaeaart I*** best of my knowledge, Information, and belief. This staten d Is made subject to the penalties of 8sctloa dMi of the C*m Code (10 PA. C.S. 14M) miaiad to unworn fataNicatlon to authorities. qa?? ejAmi" (sin or PleloW or Audwrbwd Aanti Pleinwe Attorney: Telephone: ( Address: -7L C 4Ar; i/Li2Y 1_1,q IF YOU INTEND TO EWER A DEFENSE TO TtMS CST, YOU SHIO" SO NOTIFY THil3 OFFICE I MIEDIATELY AT THE ABOVE TELEPEtOW DER. YOU WJST APPEAR AT THE LiC A Darr A Rrre OL+!`CGF6r t°?f « G,FF?• F ? `.yF. JUDGMENT MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY DEFM? !_T !f a^ !• _ ^S?'srr ?n =! fh-- !R!.^.mfiff vhf-l- :Mfhir, r^arsi ? -! fs?!rrr! :t!,-. :rricl.'srlsr?n trsr! :xfi3r?l? erner irrit-rrrs d: -; ;t os 41 033, i Anno vosi rrrw;{ fi3F it t.r: f:r rsrr>#=sirs! forrn )I !hrSf; r r: ?b t s,! ?v (5i ri: v_ [3E'.Ef iE t' Eft( -' .4e' F61 the (iE'. mill S _ ... :.. .. .mss. _ s sn •rr w•r t.1w_ ww.+wsvrwvw.d.riiww 0 .+r?w wwwwsa i?v iR?w RRw siw w'.s1 sT .xaTet`-7 .Tij - 404 4% rV;'r_05. fI lc-a%$ contact The maardrhrial Di%ir;ui ` ourn aY Uric- an3nvR address X) tL CIG r 119 _J PL (7t- C.. r tv 0 C:) C"7 ---s to na -1 MM Fn C.S. Postal Service Delivery CwflimaWR t Page 1 of 1 Postage and Delivery Cmtfi melon fees must be paid before croft D"1- .01 q q ? ArJScle SerttTa po W compkbdme?arl n [ f ' r r] G u cI rri C? rr O M 0 Home I Help I tc , this reeeipL Forl"ITIMM Track & Conf nn PoH r c Acmes irrtemet web she at wwwwSPSCom orcaii 1-800-2221811 MMOMPIMALUSE010) Rprioft 6AaY°Serlrice PS norm 182. May 2M rffwKmn Moir pared k, I 0 b000 4994 8717 .. '1"- "? - o Enter Label/Receipt Numl oYour item was delivered at 10:44 AM on November 2, 2007 01 ? in LANCASTER, PA 17603. rt Track & Confirm by email Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email. I o i Site Map Contact Vs Forms Gov't Services Johs P_r_riacy Policy Terms of Use National & premier Accoun" Copyright@ 1999-2007 USPS. All Rights Reserved.. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA ??? ?? S?rZJcc? file://C:\Documents and SetffiW Brtice\My Documents\USPS - Track & Confirm.htm 11/6/2007 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: t%,?tJ Mo1Nur*: Hon. Addwts: tom: ( ) 61- laV? CIVIL. C PLAINT PLAIMFF: NAIEwA AWRM r?taiw C 1A0't* A0e-j rl vs. DEFMDANT: RAW and ADDRESS r -,3 Gigt? OAK ??1 Wby12KEf ?T ? ib? ?t F?°'2. 190rb' ?Z toy -x23£ ?__ J Docket No.: 111111 Dais Filed: AMDIMT DATE PAID FLING COSTS $ POSTAGE $ ! 1 SERVICE COSTS $ CONSTABLE ED. $ TOTAL $ / i Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 206 sets fbrth those costs recoverable by " prevailing party. A I C UC= -n oil -7M jt ?J M Ltiti TO THE DEFENDANT: The above named plaintiff(s) asks nt against you for fogatim WM costs upon the following claim (Civil fines mutt include eltation of the dlabfle or ordinance vlokled): L a 4? r ?yErl s ,r Iu Q 11 1 S i4 `? a Yl?lf?? t - k 2 t K4 - ? 5 ? L V ''' J E`ak? s W awl ails CLa.-t Lv`rsC-T L43 i-f tLt-'t? Fdfz 1^Z, ik,ci pn4; e Awbmmo D xm an P"04 A MA 6ffF w Cbyi'b rr is n `r a A-t Td$ btiT j r??A~t 7? ?t5 i? ? ?? v?ttg2.t? -?1t?13 ? C) ? I.t>+') -? Irt ?t? '?l?+f?`t.h u.?zgc,? 1`?1; iD ?r b? Cf1! ?c N ri-t iRc t t e b c*?;xe-LO, Card c 29Yt --r) YILE? '3q 31j, 2 69 40) li - RI P11 c u lAw 6a's verify that the facts set fom In this complaint ate true and eoree3 to the best of my knowledge, Information, d belief. This statement is made subject to the penaltles of Section 4804 of #a Crimes Code (78 PA. C.S. 4804) related to u0swort falsification to skuthoritWe. PtantffPs (WwAww of Pk*wUff orAuWarbml Me* Attorney: Address: -7i,°i kt2?L? L t/2 Telephone: ( ) 0 aT 'til.; INTEND TO FUTER A OEFE#ISI= Tf3 TM CORIn-AM, YOU tiflOtS,D SO NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY AT THE ASow Trmao ?m m fine-rp. YL-uj mu-ST APPEAR AT THIS uEh t?Ekfr- F qtr, €:n`-*rM- r ,:r"t tp ,.# , JUDC 4ENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU RAY DEFfi! tt T :: r. arc;; E i.,. ; rF y„E...t; ;4 ;,,,j.al.:» r• »a.. r t.x._? ._i..,.r2"""^'S _T..E . ..., f r ..y .. s. ... , .. ? ;i 2; S.";tf ' ? Me it £i£,:i -,Y'y; ?- E }h;,<, ;rj' i)F!;C iS-h` tint-` f.-`.f19 E?I "ot fho..;?virjo ... f. _.qn 8 ce k'st Si':1?g. FDSi?2E- >Ci6jli.?ye t >s I:?3 EStc?.Ti. L:2 ii E....E v-:r1 Fc ue it c•••• ••• ••:• 3Ls£i?t' ?C13 T@5S c~;; wT a Co Brian K. Chalmers 71 Cherry In Carlisle, Pa. 17015 (717) 766-3901 VS. Referee Brian Parr Lancaster UC Service Center 60 West Walnut Street Lancaster, Pa 17,603-3015 'M`0`0 V ICON Z. o uq z -Uc This suit is being filed in accordance with Pennsylvania Code Under Title 34 319.2 (a) (6) For the sum of $50.000.00 for disqualifying a disabled employee for standing up for his rights for a reasonable accommodation for a Medical Condition and the illegal operation of a Commercial Motor Vehicle required by employer. Claimant needed to prove five things during referee hearing 1) Employer lied that he was not informed of claimant's diabetic condition until shortly before firing. Employer admitted this lie after confronted with non D.O.T. new hire physical employer set up that he new of disqualifying disability prior to any road service work. 2) That employer lied that claimant was only one hired to work second shill. Employer confirmed this lie when he confirmed that Randy Richcreek had just clocked in for work on August 3rd, 2006. 3) Employer refused to discuss non primary job function and disqualifying disability. Employer admitted all he remembered was claimant talking about was his diabetes while trying to give claimant another illegal act.. 4) That employer required illegal acts be performed by claimant. Confirmed when employer said all his mechanics where required to perform road service as claimant is medically disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle making this an illegal act employer could not have hired claimant to perform. 5) Claimant needed to prove this request was done on his personal time. Confirmed with employee's time card, introduced by employer, showing he had not clocked in. Other facts of case not considered 1) Employer lied about claimant worked second shift to take care of a family member as all of claimants family lives in Massachusetts and claimant had never discussed family with employer. 2) Referee Parr kept cutting off claimants answers as to why claimant can not perform the operation of a commercial motor vehicle 3) Referee Parr refused to accept the Americans with disabilities act and commercial motor vehicle law proving illegal act into evidence. (pg 16 of transcript) 4) Claimant confirmed his testimony that he could not perform road service with doctors confirmation of medical problems that could not be brought back under control by physician that jeopardized public safety 5) Claimant confirmed testimony that he did not need a doctor's restriction with Pennsylvania's Commercial motor vehicle laws refused by referee ignored by U.C.B.R. 6) Transcript of testimony Shows referee Parr cutting off claimants answers on more than one occasion 7) Transcript of testimony shows Referee Parr refusing to accept laws into evidence 8) Employer did not prove undo hardship in order to fire employee as reassignment of job duties does not qualify as undo hardship and employer admitted other employees were on the clock and in the building 9) Employer changed testimony from all he remembered was claimant talking about his diabetes (pg 10) to Claimants diabetes was never an issue.(pg 18) 10) As there was no evidence that claimant had a driver's license by either side it was not proven that part of claimant's job duties included the operation of a motor vehicle 11) Employer never showed claimants employment file for Commercial motor Vehicle drivers required Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 391.51 Because of A long established medical diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitis Insulin Dependency and employee was not a licensed driver by the State of Pennsylvania prior to September 23, 1995. Claimant could not have accepted Job Pennsylvania's Commercial Motor Vehicle safety requirements 231.84. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 391.41 and 391.64 Claimant is not eligible to receive a medical waiver in order to hold a D.O.T. medical card required to operate Commercial Motor Vehicles. Knowing full well that claimant was Medically disqualified and employer admitted to knowing of disqualifying disability prior to hire as proven with the non D.O.T. physical which employer set up and employers admission that he knew of disqualifying disability before requiring claimant to operate a commercial motor vehicle. Employer knew this was a job function that claimant could not perform as diabetes insulin dependant was clearly listed. As claimant offered this law into evidence to Referee Brian Parr and it was refused into evidence by said referee and forwarded to U.C.B.R and was refused as it was refused into evidence by referee Parr they up held Referee determination As claimant has diabetes Mellitis insulin dependant and requires a strict eating regimen And taking of Injectable Medications and Blood glucose Checks in order to control blood sugar levels and as the illegal operation of a Commercial Motor Vehicle was not the claimant's primaryjob function under Pennsylvania's Human Relations Act 43, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Title 5 claimant has every right to request a reasonable accommodation at any time during employment once it has been established that said job duties interfered with care and maintenance of disability which was proven with employers own evidence as it interfered with strict eating regime, timely Glucose Checks and taking of Medications in order to control claimant's blood sugar. Under Pennsylvania's Human relations Act 43, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Title 5, once employer admitted that on the day in question employee tried to discuss Diabetic condition with employer and road service work, Employer must prove undo hardship and as reassignment of job duties does not constitute undo hardship employer had no reason to fire employee for standing up for his rights, As three other employees were available to perform road service. These laws were also refused into evidence by Referee Parr and refused by U.C.B.R. As Referee Parr refused them into evidence. Refer to transcript of testimony page 16 As employer did not provide the required records for a Commercial Motor vehicle employee that employer must keep in accordance with federal law that all states must follow as they supersede state law. These laws are set forth by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Employer never showed the required driver qualification file. This must contain driver's application, filled out by driver in accordance with F.M.C.S.A. 391.21. The medical examiners certificate of his physical qualifications to drive Commercial Motor Vehicles F.M.C.S.A.391.43 A medical waiver of a physical disqualification F.M.C.S.A 391.49 A copy of the response by each state agency concerning a drivers driving record pursuant to F.M.C.S.A 391.23 i.e. did claimant have a valid drivers license. Is claimant insurable to operate commercial motor vehicles? Americans with Disabilities Act title S; requesting a reasonable accommodation, an accommodation may be requested at any time during employment for non primary job function that interferes with care and maintenance of disability even if not needed prior to hiring. Employer confirmed primary job function as in house mechanic. Americans with Disabilities Act; requesting a reasonable accommodation, a request for accommodation only need be put in plain English mentioning job function and disability and need not mention accommodation or A.D.A. Title 34 319.2 (a) (6) an employer can not fire an employee for standing up for his rights. 1) The illegal operation of a commercial motor vehicle, by a medically disqualified individual. 2) The need for an accommodation to control blood sugar levels due to illegal acts employer required that interfered with strict eating regime claimant must follow. Claimant tried to discuss this matter with employer because of the commercial motor vehicle laws prior to Diabetes becoming a factor and employer ignored claimant and threatened claimant with firing if not performed confirmed when claimant stood up to employer to report low blood sugar reaction and was fired, claimant never refused to do the call even though he had every right as it is an illegal act employer can not require. Conclusion As claimant is medically disqualified under state and federal commercial motor vehicle laws because of diabetes mellitus insulin controlled he does not require a medical restriction from a doctor, Claimant could not have accepted this job offer. As employer could not have hired claimant to perform this job aspect and told several lies as to circumstances regarding claimants disability and admitted requiring illegal acts and refusing to accommodate the claimants disability. And as Referee Brian Parr refused the laws into evidence that showed the illegal acts and claimant's right to an accommodation labor and industry has discriminated against the rights of this disabled worker in Pennsylvania. As there was no evidence that Claimant had a valid driver's license referee's decision should not have disqualified claimant and U.C.B.R. should have over turned referee's decision. Section 35.134 implements section 503 of the A.D.A U.S. Airways, Inc v. Barnet 535 U.S. 122S ct 1516 Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp 154F 3d 685, 684 School board of Nassau county v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987) Schmidt v. Safeway Inc., 864 F. Supp. 991, 997, 3 AD Cas. Cf. Masterson v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., Nos.98-6126, 98-6025, 1998 WL 856143 Siefken v. Arlington Heights, 65 F.3d 664, 666,4 AD Cas (BNA) 1441, 1442 Enforcement guidance: reasonable accommodation and undo hardship. Do requests for reasonable accommodation need to be in writing? No Does undo Hardship include reassignment of job duties? No Brian K. Chalmers t ? rn 0 0.01 f, Brian K. Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa. 17015 Vs. Referee Brian Parr UC Service Center 60 W. Walnut Street Lancaster, Pa 17603-3015 2007-6149 Amendment in accordance with Cumberland County rule 208.3 (a) (2) As I am not a lawyer and mistakenly stated that the laws were evidence throughout the appeal process in the illegal firing of a disabled employee who requested an accommodation for his insulin dependant diabetes and the illegal operation of a commercial motor vehicle based on the disability. And as the claimant did not realize at that time that a doctor's restriction through the new hire non D.O.T. physical was put on claimant as employer set up the physical employer could not have hired claimant for road service work. As claimant can not operate a commercial motor vehicle in Pa legally As claimant submitted this law to U.C.B.R. as referee Parr refused to look at this law and the laws under the Americans With Disabilities Act and a disabled persons right to an accommodation at any time during employment for a non primary job function, and as once the employer admitted that the claimant tried to discuss his diabetes and the non primary job function the burden of proof automatically to prove undo hardship. As it was an illegal act employer could not require of the claimant to perform based on his disability undo hardship could not be proven by employer. As claimant is not a lawyer and filed upon receipt of U.C.B.R. findings ignoring the laws that referee Parr refused to look at. Claimant filed with the and in brief pointed out all the lies that employer made during the referees hearing and the fact it was never proven that claimant had a drivers license affirmed the findings of referee Brian Barr in this matter. This affirmation was made by Judge James Gardner Collins on the 3`d day of March, 2007 As claimant is not a lawyer and did not file in accordance with appellate procedure to be heard in the supreme court of Pennsylvania. There was no judge's order from Supreme Court and motion was denied. 208.3(a)(9) Council for U.C.B.R. cited laws on new evidence being presented after Referee hearing and Also ignored the state commercial motor vehicle law and the laws under the Americans with disabilities Act that referee Parr refused to look at when offered after employer admitted to violating the rights of the claimant and his disability. Findings affirmed by Teresa H. DeLeo Assistant council for U.C.B.R. to deny benefits. Brian K Chalmers FILE)--?',,. ?t"E ? a NTIAPY OF THE Ofn, ,F',_,r q":. VIJ 2GG9 APR 24 AN 1 ! : 4 5 BRIAN K. CHALMERS, Plaintiff V. BRIAN PARR, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-6149 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28`h day of April, 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiff's "Motion To Complaint," and Plaintiff's "Amendment in accordance with Cumberland County rule 208.3(a)(2)," and these filing being incomprehensible in terms of the action which Plaintiff expects the court to take at this preliminary stage of the pleadings, the motion, as amended, is dismissed. .i Brian K. Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro Se ...,?Brian Parr UC Service Center 60 W. Walnut Street Lancaster, PA 17603-3015 Defendant, pro Se :rc Cor t ES Y)'L`db ??k.. WYP-qle?q ,,,-W7L BY THE COURT, r I J. esley Oler, r., J. r'u,t 14 6z zld*q Roz