Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-8918.3atintj k- C u*z?'t'5-e'5 Itcljgvay LVl G v4 ? jw ? 4-i (? u} t ZG? 1 1)5. Z a ?l u?,?? 5 p ? 16-e 69-891fS YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO THE TELEPHONE OR THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 Brian K. Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 Vs. Class 8 Shops 7044 Carlisle Pike Carlisle, Pa 17015 No: 6 - 991 Complaint Pursuant to section 12 (c) of the Pennsylvania Hunan Relations Act, 43 section 962 (c) 1) Brian K. Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 2) Class 8 Shops 7044 Carlisle Pike Carlisle, Pa 17015 3) Violating a disabled employee's right to accommodation. ??i ,a, JL L4"L? Brian K. Chalmers 12 (31 t0?/ T Ta.00 O.asfl a t?? PP FtLFD-~;t=riCE {~~ TF~E f';?^~~~~;niC~TA~Y Brian K. Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane 1Q(0 ~'~$ _5 Pit 2~ Q ( Carlisle, Pa 17015 (717) 422-5487 G~~LE~w~^,-e.~`~ ~,,i,~~' .~,~NiY FE~i~ti~SY~~,~ A fJ,~ No. 09-8918 Vs. Civil Class 8 Shops 7044 Carlisle Pike Cazlisle, Pa 17015 (717) 697-8352 Motion to compel Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission to comply with a subpoena received January 12, 2010. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission complied with a subpoena in part. All evidence relating to complaint # 200601019 was not received. P.H.R.C. investigator Paul Kanner cited the Americans with Disabilities Act improperly in his findings. EEOC a request for accommodation need not be in writing only mention disability and job duty. Tom Cazbonaro admitted in unemployment testimony that while trying to assign a road service breakdown to claimant all he remembers is claimant talking about was his diabetic condition, (Schmidt v. Safeway Inc, 1994) A job application need not have a disability written on it as it is not a confidential file. Any member of management may look over an application. Ignored the laws that disqualified a disabled individual automatically from performing emergency breakdowns, that being the operation of a motor vehicle commercially FMCSA 391.41 (b) (3). The legal division dismissed the case based on lack of factual evidence. Submissions by respondent of claimant's time card proved that claimant was unavailable to do the alleged emergency breakdown he was not at work on the date it allegedly occurred. Factual evidence to support this dismissal that is missing from the files sent is that of employer's burden of proof to prove job requirement. FMCSA 391.51 (b) (1) Job application filed in accordance with FMCSA 391.21 for a driving position signed by applicant. Copy received not filed in compliance. (b) (2} a copy of the motor vehicle record received from each State showing valid drivers license was held to hire applicant. Prior 3 yrs Massachusetts, Pennsylvania (b) (4) a certificate relating to violations of motor vehicle laws and ordinances, Accidents and moving violations. (b) (7) (i) the medical examiners certificate as required or a legible copy of certificate FMCSA 391.41. Claimant has the physically disqualifying disability of Diabetes Mellitus requiring Insulin for control (b) (3) employer submitted to Paul Kanner the medical evaluation form that required Tom Cazbonazo to assign emergency breakdowns to the other mechanics in shop automatically. Tom Batz, Jesse Clepper, Randy Richcreek, or Will Allison all hired before Mr. Chalmers. Signed work schedule for Mr. Chalmers has Monday 1:30 -12:00 Tue-Fri. start time of 5:00-1:00 at time of hire. Job application has notation that work schedule was M-F 4:30- 1:00 at time of hire. Witness statement from Randy Richcreek respondent's night shift manager was ignored by the legal division and the investigator in this matter. Witnessed by Mr. Richcreek was a short conversation between claimant and respondent in regards to Mr. Chalmers medical condition and the specific job duty of emergency breakdowns. Respondent fired claimant upon request and claimant never refused to do the call. Schmidt v. Safeway, Inc., (19994) job duty and non primary job duty mentioned need not mention A.D.A. or "accommodation." Statements filed by Tom Cazbonaro from three of his employee's have no bearing on this case as they were not present on June 5, 2006 when Tom Cazbonazo interviewed claimant and only state what Tom Cazbonazo told them at time of hire. They were not present on August 3, 2006 to witness unfounded allegations by respondent to refusal of job duty. Tom Batz's statement that he informed claimant on June 12, 2006 that emergency breakdowns were a required job duty substantiates claimant that it was added to his job duties and did not inform him on June 5, 2006 as he said in answers to complaint page 2, # 11. Class 8 Shops owner Tom Cazbonaro has filed false statements knowingly to PHRC and every one has been proven by claimant. From not being available to do the call, claimant was not at work time cazd for August 3, 2006 submitted. Mr. Cazbonazo stated in answers to complaint that he was never informed of claimant's Diabetes, submitted doctor confirmation making accommodation automatic for claimant. Randy Richcreeks not a supervisor, Signed by Tom Cazbonazo Apri17, 2006 Night shift manager. Statements from employee's that witnessed no insubordination from claimant on August 3, 2006 should have been ignored as they only relate to what respondent Tom Cazbonaro told them and aze not factual evidence to prove requirement of job duty. If there is no factual evidence required by law for respondent to have hired claimant to perform emergency breakdowns in this case for a driving position a statement that PHRC dismissed this case in err will suffice. In conclusion the factual evidence submitted by employer that he received doctor's confirmation regarding claimant's disability of Diabetes Mellitus requiring Insulin for control dated June 12, 2006 making the need of accommodation automatic for the added job duty of emergency breakdowns for Class 8 Shops to assign them to the other 4 mechanics hired before claimant FMCSA 391.41 (b) (3) and ignoring the time cazd showing claimant was not at work on the day incident allegedly occurred the dismissal of this complaint was in err. ~~~~ ~~5 Brian K. Chalmers CoMrsorrwEALT$ of PENNSYLVAMA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND File I3o, ~ {7 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUIi~:NT$ OR T'ffiNGS FOR DISCOVERY PITRSIIArPI` TO RULE 4009.22 TO• ~~ G~ ~`' ~ ~ ~ yr 1~ 1~% ~• ~ 1-`4 L• t,'~i F~ fN ~;.t11_.:~-? i 1.c = G~1 ~~~~~21~~2 ~ ~~ ~G:y~~ (ivasoe of Person as• Faaity) Wilhite twenty pA} days after service of this snbpoeoa, you are ordered by the court to pmdnce the fallowing as thiaga: +`'~ ~t_ ~~l~~tif~~ `~ ~ ~j (•'-`'1I lit ~ ~ t~~-= i L~ t'-+~~..-~~1:.,~j ~) t/ You mry delivrr air mo'11ag~ie ou< ~ docimomis ar produce things regnestod by ehia subpoena, together with tha of oom~imx, so the party mat~g this segoest at the addceas lisped above. Yon have the tight tD aeek is advmx the reaaaoable ~ of ptepatmg the copies or pt+odoea~ the if yon ~ >A pmduoe the docatmeota ar requIIed by shin subpoaos within sweaty (2p} days aftet• its service, the patty strrigg this sttbpoeaa try seek a coact o~rdet• g you to cotog-Y witFt it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PELLSON: NAME: ~~ Czl L:{.tri~.. ~ ~ l-Lc.~ (. c?.~ ADDRESS. ~. t t', L+ Lc<' ~"~7 ~ `-mot irk a s~-~1~. [ "'~y~~ TELEPHONE: ''` ~ . SUPRffivtE COURT ID ti ATTORNEY FOR: ~~12-3t -0 ~ -Seal ofthe Cant BY 0 Pmt}toa ivil~ ~~ ~~~~ .. ac~o % ~- !~ USPS -Track & Confirm Page 1 of 1 unr~nsr~srFs l'OST/~L SERVJCE~ Gov't Services areers Privacy Pdicv No FEAR Act EEO Oata FOIA Track 8 Confine FAQs Track & Confirm Se~ri~h Ressi[ts LabeUReoeipt Number. ?305 1580 0001 6853 x569 ___.._.__ __._.. _ _. _ ---.___ .. Service(s):8lpnaWntCorAlrn~sRion° Track&Eonfirm __. _ ___. Sfatus: Delivered Erliar LabellReot~t PNunber. Your item was delivered at 5:47 AM on January 12, 2010 in HARRISBURG. PA 17105 fo 44 WUMAN RELATIONS .The 8em was - signedfor by MSMITH. ~~ = Detarled Results: ` DeYvered,.Nrnwry 12, 2010, 8~it7 am, HARRItlieURO, PA 1T105 ' I~201 4:25 am, HARRIS9~L~6, pA~ 17'107 ~ ' Prorensd tlrrougb f3prt FadBly. Jarwary 06, 2010,12:08 am, 80UTf•IEA8TERN, PA 153fiS1 N~+tification Options Track $ Confirm by email Get current event won or updates for your iism sent tD you or otlrera by eme6. r„~ .. ___ Proof of Delivery Verify who signed for Your Neat by email. fax. or mail. ~;~,> its Me Customer Service Forms Copyright© 2009 USPS. Ail Rights Reserved. ~~I~I Si In Terms of Use Business Customer Gateway U.S. Postal Service'" ~lglteture CorMrmatlon~` Re~ript ~ Poafape atnd tifprle4me CatHnnetlon fees nppt be paid bNore rragMrp. ~ Ar6cte 7tbc (Tyno~bs oanKtleMd 2 umi IYwMt7r { ~lir~. ~~ _ . . 0 ~~ 0 a _ Poebnerk ~~ ~ ~ ,~ _ ~~ - ,~., hY y ^' '. ~ ttftn•~/4~rlri.s~Frw.1 c+wsi »awn n.~.../q'1~(TT..4..~..,.aR7..L/L.a~ T ~L_7T__ ___'___ ~ _ PO`?AL QISi~OYB~ ~ tt~s Fdr IrpuUtex aaoeee intenret weeb see at or tt 1 x-1811 tr6lirdtue~atLh t~etay-Wt aewio. Ilerpereel []parrrlpe ttwMeN peroel ~~ Chairperson STEPHEN A. GLASSMAN Vice Chairperson. RAQUEL O. YIENGST Secn3t~y DANIEL D. YUN Assistant Secrataiy REV. OR. TAMES EARL GARMON, SR Executive Director HOMER C. FIAYD COMMONWEALTH of PENtVSYLVANIA Human Relations Commission 301 Chestnut, Suite 300 HarHsblag, PA s7ios-z7o2 (717) 787-44so voice (717) 787-4087 TTY www phrc.state.pa.us January 12, 2010 Commissioners ISMAEL ARCELAY M. 70EL BOLSTEIN 7. WNYATT MONDESIRE S. KWEILIN NASSAR GERALD S. ROBINSON SYLVIA A. WATERS DANIEL L WOODALL, 7R Brian K. Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane _Carlisie, PA 97015 __ ____ _ _______ __--__ ___ RE: Brian Chalmers v. Class 8 Shops, LLC PHRC Case No. 200601019 Dear Brian K Chalmers: I am in receipt of the subpoena for case file materials Dated December 31, 2009, you recently served in the above-referenced matter, Please be advised that 1 have requested that the case file in question be retrieved from the Commonwealth's record center where our closed case files are maintained. The case file, when received, will be forwarded to the Legal Division in our Harrisburg Regional Office for review and appropriate disposition. Questions regarding compliance with the subpoena may be addressed to ~Iliam Feweil, Assistant Chief Counsel in the Harrisburg office. Mr. Feweil may be reached at (717) 787 9786 should you have questions. __ _ -- _ _ _ Sincerel - Y Y~~r r~, - Christopher Burro Legal Assistant 1 e-• William ~vu~ell Accict~n4 f'I~ief /'`n~~ncel BRIAN K. CHALMERS, PLAINTIFF V. CLASS 8 SHOPS, DEFENDANT AND NOW, this IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 09-8918 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT ~~~~ day of June, 2010, the court having previously found that the record was devoid of any indication that the defendant, Class 8 Shops, was property served with a copy of the complaint, and because that continues to be the case, the court takes no action on plaintiff's March 9, 2010 filing which purports to be a motion for the production of documents pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4009.22. By the Court, Brian K. Chalmers, Pro se 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, PA 17015 /Class 8 Shops 7044 Carlisle Pike Carlisle, PA 17015 sal ~~2$~r~ Albert H. Mas and, J. n N a ~.:~ .. ,, _> ~ ~~ ~- cA .:,,~. , , ~, :. !. ~. :, Brian K Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. OF THFILED-OFFICE OTARY 2011 AUG 22 IM 2: 01 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Tom Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops 316 E. Meadow Dr. Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 kwscl-? Complaint County of Cumberland Court of Common Pleas Civil Term No. 09-8- "I$ This complaint is being brought against Tom Carbonaro pursuant to section 12 (c) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 section 962 (c) in conjunction with Pa code 67 83.5 (a) (1) for refusing to accommodate a disabled employee automatically and amended to include knowingly submitting falsified evidence under 18 P.A.C.S. Paragraph TO'M- relating to unworn falsification to authorities. 4t-C6- dj-'J?? Brian K Chalmers Brian Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. Tom Carbonaro, Owner Class 8 Shops 316 F. Meadow Drive Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Certificate of Service No. 09-8918 Civil Term I Brian Chalmers certify that on this the 22 day of August, 2011 have sent via certified mail an amended copy of the original complaint to Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops with an attached signature card for return. Q.-g A?Qp 461 County of Cumberland Court of Common Pleas Brian Chalmers w Brian Chalmers County of Cumberland 71 Cherry Lane Court of Common Pleas Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops No. 09-8918 316 E. Meadow Drive Civil Term Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 w CTl !`+ I c=) cz) 1 Y° Motion for Summary Judgment -0 -BCD 5` Motion for summary judgment for complaint 09-8918, See Penn center house, Inc. v. Hoffmann, 520 Pa. 171, 553 A.2d 900 (1989) in compliance with Title 231 Pa code 1035.3(1) Defendant has been less than credible with his statements and evidence. (2) Factual evidence from Defendant has never submitted to identify driving duties Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Labor and Industry Rules 31.21, 31.22 and 39.315 or the Pa rules of Transportation 231.84. (1) Defendant received a dismissal of a complaint with PHRC whose investigator ignored, falsified evidence, lies and the factual evidence that proved this and the laws to have identified job duty. (a) Defendant's answers to complaint were that Plaintiff never informed him of his disability before any driving duties were assigned, Defendant provided physical examination report dated and signed by a licensed physician prior to any driving duties. Transcript of testimony from unemployment answer to a question Defendant admitted Plaintiff informed him of his disability prior to any road service. (b) The answers to complaint Defendant alleged that Plaintiff only mentioned his Diabetes casually and only in passing, Defendant's testimony of unemployment transcript an alleged twenty minute discussion about weather he would do a road service call "all I remember is Plaintiff talking about was his Diabetic condition." Schmidt v. Safeway Inc, 1994 a request for a reasonable accommodation was made. (c) Respondents answer to complaint Randy Richcreek was not Plaintiffs supervisor, memorandum of understanding signed by Defendant Randy Richcreek was hired as night shift supervisor. (d) Defendant's answers to complaint; Plaintiff was the only one hired to work second shift, memorandum of understanding Randy Richcreek work schedule was for second shift signed by Defendant. (e) Defendant's answers to complaint; Complainant was 3rd full time mechanic hired, Respondent submitted 3 statements from mechanics hired before Claimant and Claimant submitted Randy Richcreeks memorandum of understanding and 1 other mechanic who chose not to be involved hired before Claimant. Claimant was 6th mechanic hired. -?s _ i `7? (f) Defendant submitted Plaintiffs job application and in upper left corner are notations that Claimant was hired on June 5, 2006 to work Monday through Friday 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.; The Defendant submitted a signed work schedule and time cards that proved this falsification of evidence proving Plaintiff's work schedule of M. 1:30 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. and T-F 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. PHRC investigator and legal division ignored the falsified notation that also identified road service and drop lots. (g) Defendant alleged that Plaintiff refused to perform a road service call and therefore tendered his resignation on Thursday August 3, 2006; Defendant submitted Plaintiffs time card for this day proving Plaintiff was not at work to refuse any job duty or participate in an alleged conversation, ignored by PHRC. (h) Defendants answer to complaint; Plaintiff did not ask to discuss his Diabetic condition, Witness statement from Plaintiffs supervisor Plaintiff made first request to him August 1, 2006, When Plaintiff tried to discuss road service and his diabetes to inform Defendant of a low blood sugar reaction Defendant immediately fired him on the spot, respondents transcript of testimony see (b), enforcement guidance for requesting a reasonable accommodation #3 the request need not be in writing Schmidt V. Safeway Inc, (1994) need not mention ADA or accommodation only mention disability and job duty Defendant acknowledged a request of accommodation was made. (2) As a matter of law when federal law is stricter in nature it supersedes state law. Federal law for an applicant applying for a driving position must complete an application listing the motor vehicle violations and accidents for the three years prior to the dated and signed application, Claimants application did not list his infractions for 2004 F.M.C.S.A. 3 91.21 (b)(7)(8) ignored by PHRC investigator and legal division. Federal law requires that an employer keep a driver qualification file on any and all drivers F.M.C.S.A 391.51 subsection (b) must include (b)(1) the driver's application filled out in accordance with F.M.C.S.A 391.21, (b)(4) motor vehicle record from each state driving agency to the annual driver record inquiry pursuant to 391.25(a) each state for 3 yrs prior to dated and signed application (b)(7)(i) a copy of medical examiners certificate of physical qualification, (b)(7)(iii) A letter that a medically disqualified individual was issued a medical waiver. Pa's rules of Labor & Industry Rules 31.21 section d of this rule 31.22 section 5 of this rule and Transportation rule 231.84 require the same information be kept on file. Plaintiff informed Defendant pursuant to the enforcement guidance of the ADA when he became aware a work place barrier might be present at Class 8 Shops when Defendant asked him about drop lot locations that he was medically disqualified from operating motor vehicles for commercial purposes because of his disability of Diabetes Mellitus requiring Insulin for Control pursuant to the RL&1 Rule 31.21 section (b)(2), verbally. Defendant did not request medical confirmation of applicant's disability that is not obvious and disqualifies Plaintiff from obtaining a certificate of physical qualification for him to operate or being required to operate a motor vehicle for commercial purposes. The defendant hired Plaintiff as an in house mechanic to work with a second shift mechanic who was working alone because of safety issues. Defendant after being informed of a medically disqualifying disability did not inquire of Plaintiff if he held a license or inquire from Penn DOT if Plaintiff's license was valid to require even test drives pursuant to Pa RL&I 31.22 section 5 of this rule. On June 12, 2006 the Plaintiff provided a physical examination report that listed the protected medically disqualifying disability and medications used and did not provide a copy of a physical qualification certificate signed by a license physician to the Defendant to be kept in Plaintiffs employment file pursuant to RL&I 31.21 section d of this rule. Pursuant to Pa's RCP Rule 1035.3(1)(2) Defendant has refused to comply with a court ordered subpoena for the factual evidence he is required to hold on any and all drivers in Pa because he can not comply with the subpoena. Defendant knows he could not hire Plaintiff as a driver without knowing if he held a valid drivers license nor require an employee who is medically disqualified from obtaining a certificate of physical qualification and having a copy on file to operate motor vehicles for commercial purposes he was required to accommodate the Plaintiff automatically by the ADA to assign emergency breakdowns, road service work to only those mechanics he knew to be physically qualified pursuant to Pa's Rules of Labor & Industry31.21 section d of this Rule. This Motion of Summary Judgment is hereby requested by the Plaintiff because Defendant is not able to prove job requirement because of a disability and an employee made falsified notations on the Plaintiffs application regarding work schedule and job duties after Plaintiff was fired for making a request of an accommodation that was automatic and should never have had to be made and should never have made it past PHRC. PHRC also received a subpoena for the same evidence and has failed to comply because it does not exist. Ut.- 04W,41?7 Brian Chalmers Brian Chalmers, Pro se 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 PHRC 301 Chestnut Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg, Pa 17105-3145 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Brian Chalmers i File Nm 09-8918 VS. Thomas CarbonKv . Ddbndmt SUBPORNA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 469.22 TO: Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops (Name of Prison or Entity) Within twaly (20) days a$ex ae rvice ofWs subpoena, you are crap P by the court to produce the following documents or things: Brian Chalmers oompiele physical exaeoiobm repot you nc=vW Jme 12, 2006 Brian Chalmers drner hirlory repots from 2 stales Brian Cis physkW quirficaflm oesfificale sued by ho®eed physician Letkr eonfinuft Bdan Chalmers was isa wd a medreai waiver Proofof undo hardbip clatm0d to PMC:. Brian Qahreas driver appficW= iiat®g moving vidadoos and aocddmts cited in M4 at 316 E. Meadow Dr., Mechanicsburg Pa 17055 (Addnw) You may deliver or mail hlgible copies of the documem or produce things rued by this subpoena, togeshw with the oextl mft of compTianc% to then party msung this regncat at the address listed above. You have the 0& to seek in advance the reasonable cod of prq>ariM the copies or prodtcting the things sought. If you fail to p *d= the doctunents or things required by this subpoeml widen twenty (20) days after its service, the party sexving this mbpoema may seeds a court order eompOkS you to comply with ik THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Win CMIuas ADDRM: n ams Lam carr>iraa 17015 TELEPHONE: ml-ca stye SUPREME COURT ID1I ATTORNEY FOR: Date: ^? l ' Seal ofiha Court BY THE CO 7 ) ProthonolaZy, tyiv0 Division ?h' Brian Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops 316 F. Meadow Drive Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Certificate of Delivery County of Cumberland Court of Common Pleas Civil Term No. 09-891 R I Brian Chalmers sent on this 6d' day of September 2011 to Thomas Carbonaro an original copy of a subpoena via certified mail for documents that and employer is required to hold on any and all drivers he hires in accordance with state and federal code F.M.C.S.A 391.51 and State code 34 section 31.22 (a) (5), and 34 section 39.315 because of complications of a disability that could disqualify the claimant from obtaining a Pa drivers license, Pa. code 67 section 83.5 (a) (1). And the complete physical examination report that Thomas Carbonaro claims to have sent to PHRC investigator. r , Brian Chalmers Brian Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops 316 F. Meadow Drive Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Affidavit of Pa RCP 405 County of Cumberland Court of Common Pleas No. 09-8918 Civil Term On Sept 6, 2011 a subpoena pursuant to RCP 4009.22 was issued and sent to Thomas Carbonaro by certified mail which he refused delivery of on Sept 7, 2011. Pursuant to RCP 405 the subpoena was mailed on Sept 20, 2011 by ordinary mail and was not returned within fifteen (15) days of mailing. Brian Chalmers . . . M (r Li U Q' to m m m a ti ?.?.? m Cl .? 0 Lr o m .?.. o MI. a N J Ui v? S" :? ? err p r? r tai 24 t r ` O n a o I w O a ` oak ? 080 l--3t- 2WW ,i mMai nr-so- "ewr?ti o ` n W .? x H U z m r c a r g a P d- i j O L w O 0 O C7 w N ki w Ul w co .0 J Hal o g Ia 0 E3 Ii li P t? I? Q F k ? p ?o ?0 BRIAN K. CHALMERS, PLAINTIFF V. CLASS 8 SHOPS, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 09-8918 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of October, 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiff's latest motion to compel, which was filed on October 7, 2011, that seeks to compel the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) to comply with a subpoena, and the court having previously determined that PHRC has fully complied with Plaintiffs previous subpoena, and that PHRC has no other documents in its files that are responsive, this motion to compel is DENIED. By the Court, Albert . Masland, J. Brian K. Chalmers, Pro se 17 Cherry Lane Carlisle, PA 17015 PHRC tG" 00P o ??fl t'r1 {fir., O _r n"T" , Suite 300 301 Chestnut Street I '~ - rT :?o j:? , ` Harrisburg, PA 17105-3145 :saa =;c mar= Brian K Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. Tom Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops 316 E Meadow Dr. Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Motion of Complaint County of Cumberland Court of Common Pleas Civil Term 09-8918 c C= rnw rnw N C- =--n Zrn 2 r ?'" x .- "Orn C: q C ? -tp -4 ° Zp 3 C:) Q c 1) Now here comes Brian Chalmers, plaintiff, 71 Cherry Lane, Carlisle Pa 17015 2) Tom Carbonaro, defendant, owner Class 8 Shops, 316 E. Meadow Dr., Mechanicsburg Pa 17055. 3) The Defendant was informed of the Plaintiffs disability and complications that could prevent Plaintiff from obtaining or keeping a drivers license and never asked Plaintiff if he held one or make inquiries to Penn DOT if Plaintiff had a valid license. (11) 4) Plaintiff who is a highly skilled diesel mechanic applied for the diesel mechanics position that did not include driving duties Defendant advertised in the Patriot news. Driving duties not being required of the job duty Defendant did not verify with Penn Dot if applicant met the qualifications to require Plaintiff to test drive vehicles, section (5) of this rule valid permit/license. (2) 5) The Defendant was informed of Plaintiffs disability when a work place barrier became present. The Defendant being an employer who requires mechanics to operate motor vehicles for commercial purposes is fully aware that the Plaintiff could not be hired to perform emergency breakdowns in everyday business practices because of a disability section (b)(2) of this rule. (3) 6) Defendant after being informed of the medically disqualifying protected disability from being required to operate a motor vehicle for commercial purposes discussed the needs of an accommodation with the Plaintiff and did not request medical confirmation of a disability that is not obvious in accordance with the enforcement guidance of the ADA for requesting an accommodation. (1) r 7) Defendant as an employer who requires the operation of motor vehicles for test drives and emergency breakdowns knows full well in everyday business practices he can not require driving duties of an employee unless they hold a license section 5 of this rule. (2) 8) On June 12, 2006 the Defendant received a physical examination from a licensed physician that he required that identified that emergency breakdowns was a job duty that Plaintiff could not perform safely because of complications of a disability. The enforcement guidance of the ADA. (1) 9) Defendant needing Plaintiffs vast experience in tractor repair added emergency breakdowns, road service to Plaintiffs work duties after receiving medical confirmation that Plaintiff could not perform the job duty safely because of a disability. (5) 10) The Defendant in everyday business practices is required to assign emergency breakdowns, road service to employees that he knows to be physically qualified only section (d) of this rule. (3) 11) Plaintiff being the most qualified mechanic employed by Defendant was targeted by him to perform emergency breakdowns, road service after received medical confirmation that Plaintiff had a medically disqualifying disability and was not issued a physical qualification certificate in his files section (d) of this Rule. (3) 12) Defendant alleges on Thursday August 3, 2006 that Plaintiff refused to do an emergency breakdown when he was not at work. The Plaintiff upon showing up for work became aware of the emergency breakdown which he had every right to refuse because he was not certified to be required by Defendant to do it. (9) 13) Defendant could not have required Plaintiff to perform the emergency breakdown on August 3, 2006 there was no recovery equipment available on the service vehicle. (10) 14) Defendant could not require any employee to perform an alleged 2°d road service call second service vehicle had been put out of service with faulty brakes by 2 mechanics after inspections were performed. (8) 15) Tom Carbonaro has continually submitted falsified evidence and made untrue statements to authorities about Mr. Chalmers. (6) In conclusion Defendant knowingly violated the rights of a disabled employee. The Defendant having been notified of a disability and complications there of during interview that could prevent Plaintiff from obtaining a drivers license did not inquire if he held one. Adding road service after receiving medical confirmation that Plaintiff was medically disqualified from being required to perform the job duty pursuant to section (b)(2) of this rule and not having obtained a copy of a physical qualification certificate pursuant to section (d) of this rule could not require Plaintiff to perform road service because of a disability. (3) (1) The Americans with Disabilities Act, 1991 (2) Pa Rules of Labor and Industry Rule 31.22 (3) Pa Rules of Labor and Industry Rule 31.21 (4) Pennsylvania Human Relations Act 43, 4 employees or more an employer is required to accommodate a disabled employee. (5) Pa Rules of Labor and Industry Rule 39.315 (6) Schmidt v. Safeway Inc., 1994 an employee who needs to request an accommodation need not mention ADA or accommodation and only use plain English and mention job duty and disability. (7) 18 P.A.C.S 18 Paragraph 4904. (8) 67 Pa code 175.64 (4) relating to brake linings contact with rotors. (9) Section 609 of the federal clean air act, enacted August 13, 1992 (10) Montreal Protocol, enacted November 15, 1995 all automotive refrigerant including 134A must be recovered. (11) Pennsylvania rules of transportation 83.5 (1) unstable diabetes. Brian K. Chalmers Brian Chalmers, Pro se 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops 316 E. Meadow Drive Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Brian K Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. County of Cumberland Court of Common Pleas Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops Civil Term 316 E. Meadow Dr. No. 09-8918 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Cumberland County Local Rule 208.3 208.3(a) the honorable James Gardner Collins in the appeal of an unemployment referee's decision that I refused to perform work for Class 8 Shops. The appeal in this matter was based on the fact that the referee continually cut me off when my rights as a disabled worker were cited in accordance with the enforcement guidance of the ADA. Pursuant to Pa's rules of Labor and Industry Rules 31.21(b)(2) and 31.22(5) Employer failed to produce any evidence that Claimant was physically qualified or licensed to be required by Respondent to perform road service calls. Plaintiffs time card proved claimant was not at work to refuse any job duty as Defendant stated in his termination letter. The Honorable James Gardner Collins erred in his ruling stating Plaintiff just did not want to do the call, Plaintiff was not at work. 2083(a) In August 2006 a complaint was sworn out with Pennsylvania's Human Relation Commission #200601019. The investigator dismissed this complaint ignoring law Pursuant to state and federal law. Pursuant to Pa rules of L&I 31.21(a) and federal law FMCSA 391.51(a) an employer can not require an employee who has not been certified by a licensed physician to perform road service. Pa Rules of L&I 31.21(d) must keep a copy of physical qualification certificate signed by a licensed physician on file at primary business; FMCSA 391.51(b) must keep on file (b7) a copy of physical qualification certificate signed by licensed physician. Defendant did not show that Plaintiff had been certified by a licensed physician as physically qualified to require him to perform road service, laws cited and ignored in complaint 1) The Plaintiff in this matter has a long established clinical diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus requiring Insulin for control which automatically medically disqualifies him from accepting jobs that require the operation of a motor vehicle to perform road service under state and federal law, Pa RL&I 31.21(b)(2) and F.M.C.S.A 391.41(b)(3). 2) The Plaintiff went beyond what is required under the enforcement guidance of the ADA for requesting a reasonable accommodation when a work place barrier became apparent. Investigator found Defendant had every reason to know of Plaintiff's disability after receiving physical exam from him. Finding by investigator did not know or have reason to know of need of accommodation ignoring state Pa rules of L&I 31.21(a) that Defendant could not require this job duty pursuant to 31.21(b)(2) because of identified disability, ignored was FMCSA 391.41(a) Defendant could not require it (b)(3) because of identified disability. 3) Pursuant to Pa's rules of L&I 31.22 an employer can not require an employee to operate a motor vehicle on a public way unless he meets minimum qualifications (5) a valid license, ignored by PHRC FMCSA 391.51(a) an employer must have on file (b2) proof from each state of a valid license for 3 years prior to date on application 4) The Defendant must keep on file proof that an employee meets state requirements pursuant to Pa Rules of L&I 31.22(5) that an employee holds a valid permit/license before requiring an employee to operate any motor vehicle on a public way, no factual evidence provided by Defendant, F.M.C.S.A. 391.51.(a),(b)(2) ignored by PHRC. 5) PHRC identified receiving physical examination and medical evaluation from Defendant identifying Diabetes Mellitus requiring Insulin for control which is a disability which medically disqualifies Defendant from requiring road service be performed by Plaintiff in everyday business practices Pa Rules of Labor and Industry 31.2 1 (a)(b)(2) and identified the medical evaluation which identified the job duty as one plaintiff could not perform safely because of a disability as not in writing. Ignored FMCSA 391(a),(b)(3) and medical evaluation. 6) PHRC finding of investigation; Defendant identified practices with falsified evidence, Defendant provided factual evidence proving falsification of evidence signed by Plaintiff, ignored by PHRC. 6) Defendant claims Plaintiff refused to perform a road service call on Thursday August 3, 2006 and time card provided by Defendant proved Plaintiff was not at work, ignored by PHRC. 7) PHRC finding of fact Plaintiff was only Yd mechanic hired based on Defendants verbal claim factual evidence from 4 mechanics hired before Plaintiff was ignored. 8) PHRC finding of fact Plaintiff was only mechanic hired for second shift Defendants verbal claim, factual evidence signed by Defendant Plaintiff was not the only mechanic hired for second shift, ignored by PHRC. 9) Paul Kanner's finding of fact; Defendant identified practices. Pursuant to Pa's rules of L&I 31.22(5) Defendant failed to prove it was required of Plaintiff to perform road service, ignored FMCSA 391.51(a) &(b)(2) no proof of a valid license being held by Plaintiff. 10) Paul Kanner ignored this complaint and dismissed it in err. Findings of the investigation are based on Defendants say so and not the factual evidence or the laws including the ADA. Factual evidence provided by the Defendant proved the Defendant was less than credible, submitted falsified evidence and ignored state and federal law requiring Defendant to accommodate the Plaintiff automatically pursuant to Pa rules of L&I 31.21(a) &(b)(2) and FMCSA 391.41(a) &(b)(3) because of a disability. Defendant showed no proof that Plaintiff had been certified as physically qualified by a licensed physician to require road service pursuant to section (d) of Pa rule of L&I 31.21 and FMCSA 391.51(b7) which was ignored. In conclusion complaint #200601019 pursuant to the ADA this complaint should never have been dismissed pursuant to Pa rules of L&I 31.21(b)(2) and FMCSA 391.41(b)(3) the Defendant knew that the Plaintiff could not be required to perform road service because of a disability pursuant to section (a) of these rules, unlawful discrimination proven and ignored on say so of Defendant and not the factual evidence that proved the automatic need of accommodation provided by Defendant the written laws were ignored by Paul Kanner and the Legal Division of PHRC. Brian K Chalmers Brian Chalmers, Pro se 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops 316 E. Meadow Drive Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Brian K Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. Thomas R. Carbonaro 316 E. Meadow Dr. Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Claim for Relief In Accordance with Pa. RCP 1001(b) (1) County of Cumberland Court of Common Pleas Civil Term 09-8918 Brian Chalmers was hired as a diesel mechanic by Tom Carbonaro at$14.00 an hour because Mr. Chalmers license was invalid. Tom Carbonaro broke the terms of the verbal contract and added road service after receiving medical confirmation that Brian Chalmers was medically disqualified from being required to operate motor vehicles, F.M.V.S.A. 391.41 (b) (3) (10), Pa code 67 section 83.5 (a) (1). Lost wages 1016 hrs Court costs Subpoena's Evidence cost from PHRC to date Certified Mail to date Mail for second mailing of subpoena Total $14,224.00 $92.00 $12.00 $33.95 $162.78 .44 $14,5; 5t.1?7 4?.? A Brian K Chalmers Brian K Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. County of Cumberland Court of Common Pleas Tom Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops Civil Term 316 E. Meadow Dr. No. 09-8918 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 C Cs x Z3 -CO -'r- z a .„ r- :U - <a )> -t, r p fooComplaint .?, This complaint is being brought against Tom Carbonaro pursuant to section 12 (c) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 section 962 (c) in conjunction with Pa code 67 83.5 (a) (1) for refusing to accommodate a disabled employee automatically and amended to include knowingly submitting falsified evidence under 18 P.A.C.S. Paragraph 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Brian K Chalmers Brian Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops 316 E. Meadow Drive Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Verification Court of Common Pleas County of Cumberland 09-8918 Civil Term I hereby verify that the statements contained in this response are true and correct of my personal knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. paragraph 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. 1) In January and June of 2010 certificates of delivery were dropped off in person at the prothonotories office and not recorded properly for unknown reasons for the original complaint filed on the 31" day of Dec 2009. 2) On the 3 day of Dec. 2009 a subpoena was issued to P.H.R.C. to produce all the evidence from the complaint # 200601019 which they failed to do. A motion to compel was ordered by Judge Albert H. Masland on March 0 of 2010 compelling P.H.R.C. to produce the missing evidence that identified job duty and the physical examination report Defendant supplied to P.H.R.C. based on the employment laws cited. P.H.R.C. failed to respond in any way to Plaintiff for over a year. 3) An amended complaint with certificate of delivery in compliance with RCP 403 was filed with prothonotory on August 22, 2011 the amended complaint was added along with original complaint certificate of service, amended certificate of delivery was not for unknown reasons. A motion to Compel was denied because of this filing error. 4) It is my belief that Judge Albert H. Masland is biased against a disabled person. P.H.R.C. who did not apply the employment laws dismissed the complaint # 200601419 in error and the same laws are being ignored by Judge Masland in his continued refusal to compel P.H.R.C. and Defendant to produce factual evidence pursuant to F.M.C.S.A 391.51 which identified job duty and the physical examination report P.H.R.C. acknowledges receiving from the Defendant. P.H.R.C. Assistant Chief Counsel for PHRC has verified that pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. paragraph 4904 that all evidence was returned when it was not and that a copy of the response was mailed to Plaintiff when it was not. 5) Pursuant to Pa Rules of labor and industry 31.21(b)(2) and Federal law enacted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 391.41(b)(3) pursuant to Section A of this rule Defendant knew he could not hire Claimant to perform this job duty in everyday business practices for any employer and the Defendant who provided PHRC with a physical exam which they failed to return pursuant to an issued subpoena. Unlawful discrimination has been proven with factual evidence from the Defendant, physical exam identifying medically disqualifying disability of diabetes mellitus requiring insulin for control an automatic need of accommodation pursuant to Pa Rules of Labor & Industry 31.21(a) employer knew he could not require this job duty of Plaintiff because of a disability pursuant to section (b)(2) of this rule and FMCSA 391.41(a) pursuant to section(b)(3)of this rule identified with Defendants own evidence laws returned under subpoena, ignored during investigation and appeal by legal division. 6) The findings of the investigation are based on falsified statements and evidence submitted by Defendant and not the factual evidence. All false statements and falsified were proven with Defendants factual evidence. 7) The Plaintiffs right to an automatic accommodation pursuant to the ADA in accordance with state and federal law for a specific job duty in everyday business practices have been proven time and time again because Plaintiff's disability medically disqualifies him from being required to perform it and Defendant provided the physical exam identifying the medically disqualifying disability. Defendant has produced no factual evidence to identify Plaintiff was required to perform driving duties of any kind, job application, valid license, physical qualification certificate, medical waiver. 8) Plaintiff is not a lawyer but having been in the automotive field for almost 30 years is very aware that he can not accept road service jobs because of his disability and notifies all employers of his disability, pursuant to the enforcement guidance for requesting a reasonable accommodation' which is not obvious when a work place barrier presents itself. The Defendant was informed during interview and received medical confirmation of the medically disqualifying disability before hiring Plaintiff as a mechanic, The Defendant received medical confirmation on Plaintiff's first day of the medically disqualifying disability without asking for it. Claimant should never have had to stand up for his right to accommodation Defendant received it from licensed physician, finding of fact. Brian Chalmers Brian Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. Tom Carbonaro, Owner Class 8 Shops 316 E. Meadow Drive Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 , MkPSk, i) Cov r v4 W ?= Certificate of Service No. 09-8918 Civil Term I Brian Chalmers certify that on this the 22 day of August, 2011 have sent via certified mail an amended copy of the original complaint to Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops with an attached signature card for return. C -off r? ac z County of Cumberland Court of Common Pleas N -+v s c? Brian Chalmers rnF= .a m, C) o :? C), -c Brian Chalmers 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, Pa 17015 V. =1LLJ--OFf I C : o" ?Hi E aR0T1`9N0 !ri 2012 MAR -2 PH 12: "U CUMBERLAND COUNT PENNSYLVANIA Thomas Carbonaro, owner Class 8 Shops 316 E. Meadow Drive Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 ? M ???jLI) Verification Court of Common Pleas County of Cumberland 09-8918 Civil Term I hereby verify that the statements contained in this response are true and correct of my personal knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. paragraph 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. 1) On June 5, 2006 I Brian Chalmers applied for a Diesel mechanics position and was interviewed by the Defendant. When the work place barrier became know the Defendant was informed by self pursuant to the enforcement guidance of the ADA that I was medically disqualified from being hired for driving duties pursuant to Pa Rules of transportation 83.5(a) and the Defendant did not ask or ensure himself I held a valid unsuspended license in any state pursuant to Pa Rules of labor and Industry 31.22(5) to require any driving duties of myself. 2) In January and June of 2010 certificates of delivery were dropped off in person at the prothonotories office and not recorded properly for unknown reasons for the original complaint filed on the 31" day of Dec 2009. 3) On the 31" day of Dec. 2009 a subpoena was issued to P.H.R.C. to produce all the evidence from the complaint # 200601019 which they failed to do. A motion to compel was ordered by Judge Albert H. Masland on March 4th of 2010 compelling P.H.R.C. to produce the missing evidence that identified job duty and the physical examination report Defendant supplied to P.H.R.C. based on the employment laws cited. P.H.R.C. failed to respond in any way to Plaintiff for over a year. 4) An amended complaint with certificate of delivery in compliance with RCP 403 was filed with prothonotory on August 22, 2011 the amended complaint was added along with original complaint certificate of service, amended certificate of delivery was not for unknown reasons. A motion to Compel was denied because of this filing error. A second certificate of service was delivered after motion to compel was denied and as of March 1, 2012 was still not entered into electronic files. 5) It is my belief that Judge Albert H. Masland is biased against a disabled person. P.H.R.C. who did not apply the employment laws dismissed the complaint # 200601019 in error and the same laws are being ignored by Judge Masland in his continued refusal to compel P.H.R.C. and Defendant to produce factual evidence pursuant to F.M.C.S.A 391.51 which identified job duty and the physical examination report P.H.R.C. acknowledges receiving from the Defendant. P.H.R.C. Assistant Chief Counsel for PHRC has verified that pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. paragraph 4904 that all evidence was returned when it was not and that a copy of the response was mailed to Plaintiff when it was not. The factual evidence returned has no factual evidence that Plaintiff held a valid license to be required by any employer to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to Pa Rules of labor and Industry 31.22(5) and Dr.'s evaluation pursuant to Pa Rules of Transportation 83.5(a) that Claimant was medically disqualified from obtaining a license was ignored. 6) Pursuant to Pa Rules of labor and industry 31.21(b)(2) and Federal law enacted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 391.41(b)(3) pursuant to Section A of these rules Defendant knew he could not hire Claimant to perform road service duties in everyday business practices because of a disability. The Defendant who provided PHRC with a physical exam which they failed to return pursuant to an issued subpoena. Unlawful discrimination has been proven with factual evidence from the Defendant, physical exam identifying medically disqualifying disability of diabetes mellitus requiring insulin for control an automatic need of accommodation pursuant to Pa Rules of Labor & Industry 31.21(a) employer knew he could not require this job duty of Plaintiff because of a disability pursuant to section (b)(2) of this rule and FMC SA 391.41(a) pursuant to section(b)(3)of this rule identified with Defendants own evidence laws returned under subpoena, ignored during investigation and appeal by legal division. 7) The findings of the investigation are based on the say so, falsified statements and evidence submitted by Defendant and not the factual evidence that prove findings on the investigation incorrect. Statements and falsified evidence were proven with Defendants factual evidence and Pa's rules of Labor and Industry. 8) The Plaintiffs right to an automatic accommodation pursuant to the ADA in accordance with state and federal law for a specific job duty in everyday business practices have been proven time and time again because Plaintiff's disability medically disqualifies him from being required to perform it and Defendant provided the physical exam identifying the medically disqualifying disability and no proof of a valid license or physical qualification certificate to require job duty of Claimant pursuant to Pa Rules of Labor and industry 31.21(d) and 31.22(5). Defendant has produced no factual evidence to identify Plaintiff was required to perform driving duties of any kind, job application, valid license, physical qualification certificate, medical waiver pursuant to F.M.C.S.A. 391.51. 9) Plaintiff is not a lawyer but having been in the automotive field for almost 30 years is very aware that he can not accept road service jobs because of his disability and notifies all employers of his disability, pursuant to the enforcement guidance for requesting a reasonable accommodation, which is not obvious when this work place barrier presents itself. The Defendant was informed during interview and received medical confirmation of the medically disqualifying disability before hiring Plaintiff as a mechanic, The Defendant received medical confirmation on Plaintiff's first day of the medically disqualifying disability pursuant to Pa rules of Labor and Industry 31.21(b2) without asking for it. Claimant should never have had to stand up for his right to accommodation after Defendant received Medical confirmation of disqualifying disability from a licensed physician, finding of fact. 10) Pa's R.C.P. as I understand them have been followed to the letter PHRC has filed false statements with the Court of Common Pleas in the County of Cumberland as no factual evidence was returned pursuant to Pa's Rules of Labor and Industry to Identify driving duties, valid license see 31.22(5), the operation of motor vehicles commercially, Physical qualification certificate see 31.21(d), or physical examination report, Identified in findings of the investigation by Paul Kanner page 4 finding 5.1. Brian Chalmers BRIAN K. CHALMERS, PLAINTIFF V. CLASS 8 SHOPS, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 09-8918 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of May, 2012, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of our order dated November 10, 2011, demonstrates that the Plaintiff did not effect proper service of the Defendant pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 400, and therefore the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. By the Court, Albert H. Maslan , J. -- Brian K. Chalmers, Pro se 71 Cherry Lane Carlisle, PA 17015 ?mas Carbonaro 316 E. Meadow Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 :saa -711 Ga 75 R7