Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-4406 o IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT G. RAHSMAN Village of Five Points 33164 West Chesapeake Street Rehoboth-Lewes, DE 19958-6289 Plaintiff v. /' "0 J~ Docket No. 05-1..(400 ~ Civil Action - Employment Discrimination Jury Trial Demanded DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, INC. 101 Noble Boulevard Carlisle, P A 17013 Defendant NOTICE 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 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlise, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 AVISO US TED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si listed desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y A viso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se Ie advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede pro ceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda 0 cualquier otra reclamacion 0 remedio solicitado por eI demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDlA T AMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME 0 VA Y A A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. EST A OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlise,PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 , ,ew W. Barbin, ire A'(tY~ J.D. 43571 ANDREW W. BARBIN, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-506-4670 DATED: August 26, 2005 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT G. RAHSMAN Village of Five Points 33164 West Chesapeake Street Rehoboth-Lewes, DE 19958-6289 Plaintiff v. Docket No. CO- 'f<fD~ Civil Action - Employment Discrimination Jury Trial Demanded DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, INC, 101 Noble Boulevard Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant COMPLAINT Robert G. Rahsman, by and through counsel, Andrew W. Barbin of Andrew W. Barbin, P.C., 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055, files this Complaint and avers as follows: I. Plaintiff is a 56 year old white male, born March 13, 1949. 2. Plaintiff was employed as a Project Manager with Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. ("Dewberry") at 101 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is a Practicing Hydrogeologist with over 30 years of experience. 4. In May of 2000, Plaintiff was hired by Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. as a Hydrogeologist-Project Manager. 5. On May 31, 2001, a Certificate of Appreciation signed by Gary Neuwerth, President and William Brown, Senior Vice President-Pennsylvania Branch Manager was given to Plaintiff for his service and dedication to the Company, along with a salary increase. 6. In May 2002, Plaintiff received another salary increase. 7. On June 8, 2002, Plaintiff suffered a stroke, which left some paralysis to his right side. 8. On June 14,2002, Plaintiff was moved to Rehab Center of Hershey Medical Center for occupational, physical and speech therapy. 9. Plaintiff was released on July 2,2002 from the hospital, but was unable to drive. He was also required to attend one hour physical therapy, one hour occupational therapy and one hour speech therapy three times a week. 10. During the time that Plaintiff was hospitalized and his convalescence, he met with associates of Dewberry concerning work projects. 11. The time period spanned from June 26, 2002 through September 13, 2002. 12. These meetings were in the field and some were at the Carlisle office. 13. Since Plaintiff could not drive, his wife drove him to these meetings. 14. Plaintiff was not paid for these hours of work. 15. Instead, Plaintiff was credited for "comp time" for these hours upon his return on October I, 2002. 16. In October 2002, William Brown spoke to Plaintiff in the lunchroom about his annual review. 17. At this time, Mr. Brown informed Plaintiff that he was doing a good job, and would be compensated with another salary increase. 18. Between October 2002 and July 30, 2003, Plaintiffs work assignments were restricted by Defendant, so that his total billable hours were decreased. 19. The reduction in billable hours was not due to any lack of capacity or productivity on the part of Plaintiff. 20. Plaintiff was at all times ready, willing and able to perform additional available work. 2 21. On July 30, 2003, without prior notice, William Brown told Plaintiff that as of August 1,2003, he was terminated. 22. From October 2002 to July 30, 2003, Plaintiff was not informed of poor work performance in any respect. 23. At various company meetings, William Brown informed the staff that the Carlisle Branch of Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. was the only office doing as well as in previous years. 24. When William Brown informed Plaintiff that he was being terminated, the alleged basis for the decision was that based upon year end projections, the municipal department in which Plaintiff worked was not doing well, and that there was no need for a hydrogeologist anymore. 25. Plaintiff explained to William Brown that he was able to perform duties for other positions, but Mr. Brown did not respond and made no attempt to assess whether appropriate work was available. 26. Plaintiff was told by William Brown that he could become either a subcontractor or a contract employee; but with no benefits. 27. Plaintiff believes and avers that the true motive for the termination was to avoid health benefit expenses in light of his age and the stroke he had suffered. 28. In order to mitigate damages, Plaintiff agreed to become a subcontractor. 29. Plaintiff was not given a written agreement by Dewberry or Mr. Brown setting forth terms and conditions for the subcontractor arrangement. 30. Plaintiff received assignments for his services as a hydro geologist, as a subcontractor. 31. Plaintiff provided services in a competent and professional manner. 3 32. In December 2003, Dewbeny informed Plaintiff that it intended to assign all future hydrogeologist projects to other employees. 33. Dewbeny had continuing work for Plaintiff as a hydrogeologist and in related fields for which he was the best able and most competent employee. 34. Defendant substantially delayed payment for services rendered, and indicated after terminating his services in December that payment would depend upon whether Defendant was paid by various clients. 35. At no time had Plaintiff agreed to work on a contingent or "pay if and when paid" basis. 36. Payment was only made by Defendant to Plaintiff, after Plaintiff was forced to retain counsel and threatened action under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law which provides for both penalties and attorney's fees. 43 P.S. ~ 260.1, et seq. 37. Defendant substantially undermined Plaintiffs ability to mitigate damages by refusing to provide a reference. 38. Defendant substantially undermined Plaintiffs ability to mitigate damages by making disparaging remarks regarding Plaintiff to its clients, to scapegoat Plaintiff for the conduct of other employees of Defendant and to undermine any ability of Plaintiff to secure work in competition with Defendant after his termination as a subcontractor. 39. This conduct continued the discriminatory conduct which had continued and escalated since October 2002. 40. Plaintiff was treated differently and worse than other employees on the basis of age and physical disability as well as a perception of disability. 4 41. While the stroke resulted in limited disability requiring reasonable accommodations, it did not prevent him from performing any essential job functions with accommodations. 42. The discrimination is in violation of state and federal law. 43. The conduct was outrageous and warrants imposition of punitive damages. 44. Plaintiff suffered loss of employment, wages and benefits and ordinary distress as a result of the discrimination. 45. Plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. 46. Plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay differential, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees. 47. Plaintiff filed a timely complaint with the PHRC on January 14,2004, at PHRC Dkt. 200304319. 48. The Complaint was cross-filed with the EEOC at EEOC NO. 17F A461603. 49. More than a year has past since the filing of the PHRC complaint and a one year notice of right to pursue a civil action was issued. 50. A federal right to Sue Letter was also issued March 31, 2005 and received June 2, 2005. Count I State Discrimination - PHRA: Age, Disability, Perceived Disability 51. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are incorporated by reference, as if restated verbatim. 52. Plaintiff was discriminated against in relation to assignment of work and then terminated on the basis of age, disability and perceived disability in violation of the PHRA. 53. Plaintiff suffered loss of employment, wages and benefits and ordinary distress as a result of the discrimination. 54. The conduct was outrageous and warrants the imposition of punitive damages. 55. Plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. 5 56. Plaintiff filed a timely complaint for age and disability discrimination with the PHRC on January 14,2004, at PHRC Dkt. 200304319. 57. More than a year has past since the filing of the PHRC complaint, and a one year notice of right to pursue a civil action was issued. 58. Plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay differential, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees, and such other relief as the court deems just. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendant for lost wages (back pay and front pay differential), compensatory damages in an unliquidated amount in excess of the local arbitration limit ($25,000) and punitive damages, together with attorney's fees and such other relief as the court may deem just. Count II Federal Discrimination - Age - ADEA 59. Paragraphs 1 through 58 are incorporated by reference, as if restated verbatim. 60. Plaintiff is over 40 years old. 61. Plaintiff was discriminated against in relation to assignment of work and then terminated on the basis of age in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. g621, et seq. 62. Plaintiff suffered loss of employment, wages and benefits and ordinary distress as a result of the discrimination. 63. The conduct was wilfull and warrants the imposition ofliquidated damages. 64. Plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. 65. Plaintiff filed a timely complaint for age discrimination with the PHRC on January 14, 2004, at PHRC Dkt. 200304319. 66. The Complaint was cross-filed with the EEOC at EEOC NO. 17FA461603. 6 67. A federal Right to Sue Letter was also issued March 31, 2005 and received June 2, 2005, which included confirmation that more than 60 days had past since the filing of the EEOC age complaint. 68. Plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay differential, liquidated damages and attorney's fees, together with such other relief as the court deems just. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination, and judgment against Defendant for lost wages (back pay and front pay differential) in an unliquidated amount in excess of the local arbitration limit ($25,000) and liquidated damages, together with attorney's fees and such other relief as the court may deem just. Count III Federal Discrimination ADA - Disability, Percieved Disability and History of Disability 69. Paragraphs 1 through 68 are incorporated by reference, as if restated verbatim. 70. Plaintiff was a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodations by the Defendant; and he has suffered an adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, il2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. ill2101 et seq. 71. Plaintiff was disabled as the result of a stroke which limited his ability to drive and perform physical tasks in his employment and generally without reasonable accommodation. 72. Plaintiff was perceived as disabled within the meaning of the ADA, and as having a history of disability within the meaning of the ADA by Defendant. 73. Plaintiff was discriminated against in relation to assignment of work and then terminated on the basis of disability, perceived disability and history of disability in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. il12112. 7 74. Plaintiff suffered loss of employment, wages and benefits and ordinary distress as a result of the discrimination. 75. The conduct was outrageous and warrants the imposition of punitive damages. 76. Plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. 77. Plaintiff filed a timely complaint for disability discrimination with the PHRC on January 14, 2004, at PHRC Dkt. 200304319. 78, The Complaint was cross-filed with the EEOC at EEOC NO. 17FA461603. 79. A federal Right to Sue Letter was also issued March 31, 2005 and received June 2, 2005. 80. Plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay differential, compensatory damages and attorney's fees, together with such other relief as the court deems just. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination, back pay, front pay differential, compensatory damages in an unliquidated amount in excess of the local arbitration limit ($25,000), and attorney's fees together with such other relief as the Agency may deem proper. Respectfully su '- A (lr . Barbin, Esq Atty. I.D. 43571 ANDREW W. BARBIN, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 717-506-4670 Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G. Rahsman DATED: August 26, 2005 8 Au.g 26 05 08:11a Rob and Jane Rahsman 302644-1130 p.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT G. RAHSMAN Village of Five Points 33164 West Chesapeake Street Rehoboth-Lewes, DE 19958-6289 Plaintiff v. Docket No. Civil Action - Employment Discrimination Jury TriaI Demanded DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, INC. 101 Noble Boulevard Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant VERIFICATION I, ROBERT G, RAHSMAN, verifY that the statements made in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. & 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~r1 lo (}.J- RobertG. Rahsman DATED: August 26,2005 1 ~,. ~(\ ~ -- ~ 'f' -..l () ~ ~ ~ 0'\ ~ ~ u , \ w, ~ C) ;;'?;; r:_-. C':;-;; ~~fl /~ :"',,. (';-'J "'.) C;") -"D -"', ..- - ~ -.r_~. f-",) ":.0 '< . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT G. RAHSMAN, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, v. NO. 05-4406 DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, INC., Defendant. NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Notice is hereby given that on September 23, 2005, defendant, Dewberry- Goodkind, Inc., by their undersigned attorneys, filed a Notice of Removal of this action from the Cumherland County Court of Common Pleas of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. A copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Amy G. McAndrew (PA 75040) PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 400 Berwyn Park 899 Cassatt Road Berwyn, PA 19312-1183 Telephone: (610) 640-7800 Facsimile: (610) 640-7835 Email: mcandrewa@pepperlaw.com Dated: September 23, 2005 Attorneys for Defendant Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P~t')UtlV FROM RECORD ROBERT G. RAHSMAN . In 1'8IIIIMny wnereol. I herI unto" Illy IlInO Village of Five Points . and! tIllI seal 01 said Court III ~J- 33164 West Chesapeake Street fhi' Y Rehoboth-Lewes, DE 19958-6289 Plaintiff v, DOcket\~0.05- ~"o~ I"'~ ~eJ\.M-. Civil Adion - Employment Discrimination Jury Trial Demanded DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, INC. 101 Noble Boulevard Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant NOTICE YOU HA VB BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish 1:0 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 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 ytlu 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 (Ir other rights important to you, YOU SHOULD T AKB THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEJB OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue CllIlise, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas ade1ante en las siguientes pa@jnas. debe tomar acci6n dentro de 105 proximos veinte (20) dlas despues de 1a notificacion de esta Demanda y A viso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demand as presientadas aqul en contra suya. Se Ie ------.--.'.--....-.-.---___b_ advierte d~ que si usted Calla de tom.at acci6n como se describe anterionnenle, el caso puede proceder .Sln usted y ~ fa1l~ ,par cualqmer suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda 0 cualquier otra r~cllll~acl6n 0 re~~o SOhCltadO par el dcmandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte Sin mas aVlso adiClonal. Usted puede perder dinero 0 propi.edad u olms derechos importantes para lISted, USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME 0 VA Y A A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. 81 USTED NO PUEOE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEOA PROVEER INFORMACION SCBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAlO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlise, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 ~ W, Barbin, A .1.0.43571 ANDREWW. BARBIN, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg,PA 17055 717-506-4670 DATED: August 26, 200S 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT G. RAHSMAN Village of Five Points 3 3164 West Chesapeake Street Rehoboth-Lewes, DE 19958-6289 Plaintiff v. Docket No. Civil Action - Employment Discrimination Jury Trial DelllaDded DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, INC. 101 Noble Boulevard Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant COMPLAINT Robert G. Rahsman, by and through counsel, Andrt.'W W. Barbin of Andrew W. Barbin, P .C., 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055, files this Complaint and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff is a 56 year old white male, born Marc:h 13, 1949. 2. Plaintiff was employed as a Project Manager with Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. ("Dewberry") at 101 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is a Practicing Hydrogeologist with over 30 yean of experience. 4. In May of 2000, Plaintiff was hired by Dewberry-Goodkind, Ine. as a Hydrogeo1ogist-Project Manager. 5. On May 31, 2001, a Certificate of Appreciatioll signed by Gary Neuwerth, President and William Brown, Senior Vice President-Pennsylvania BralJlcb Manager was given to Plaintiff for his service and dedication to the Company, along with a salary' increase. 6. In May 2002, Plaintiff received another salary increase. 7. On June S, 2002, Plaintiff suffered a stroke, which left some paralysis to his right side. 8. On June 14, 2002, Plaintiff was moved to Rehab Center of Hershey Medical Center for occupational, physical and speech therapy. 9. Plaintiff was released on July 2, 2002 from thE: hospital, but was unable to drive. He was also required to attend one hour physical therapy, one hour occupational therapy and one hour speech therapy three times a week. 10. During the time that Plaintiff was hospitalized and his convalescence, he met with associates of Dewberry concerning work projects. 11. The time period spanned from June 26, 2002 tlJrcough September 13, 2002. 12. These meetings were in the field and some were at the Carlisle office. 13. Since Plaintiff could not drive, his wife drove him to these meetings. 14. Plaintiff was not paid for these hours of work. 15. Instead, Plaintiff was credited for "comp time" for these hours upon his retUrn on October 1,2002. 16. In October 2002, William Brown spoke to Plaintiff in the lunchroom about his annual review. 17. At this time, Mr. Brown infonned Plaintiffthar he was doing a good job, and would be compensated with another salary increase. 18. Between October 2002 and July 30, 2003, Plaintiff's work assignments were restricted by Defendant, so that his total billable hours were decreased. 19. The reduction in billable hours was not due to any lack of capacity or productivity on the part of Plaintiff. 20. Plaintiff was at all times ready, willing and ,able to perfonn additional available work. 2 21. On July 30, 2003, without prior notice, William Brown told Plaintiff that as of August l, 2003, he was terminated. 22. From October 2002 to July 30, 2003, Plaintiff was not informed of poor work performance in any respect. 23. At various company meetings, William Brown informed the staff that the Carlisle Branch ofDewberry-Goodkind, Inc. was the only office doing as well as in previous years. 24. When William Brown informed Plaintiff that he was being terminated, the alleged basis for th.e decision was that based upon year end projectiolls, the municipal department in which Plaintiff worked was not doing well, and that there was no need for a hydro geologist anymore. 25. Plaintiff explained to William Brown that he was able to perform duties for other positions, but Mr. Brown did not respond and made no attempt to assess whether appropriate work was available. 26. Plaintiff was told by William Brown that he could become either a subcontractor or a contract employee; but with no benefits. 27. Plaintiff believes and avers that the true motive for the termination was to avoid health benefit expenses in light of his age and the stroke he had suffered. 28. In order to mitigate damages, Plaintiff agreed to become a subcontractor. 29. Plaintiff was not given a written agreement by Dewberry or Mr. Brown setting forth terms and conditions for the subcontractor arrangement. 30. Plaintiff received assignments for his services as a hydro geologist, as a subcontractor. 31. Plaintiff provided services in a competent and professional manner. 3 32. In December 2003, Dewberry informed Plaintiiff that it intended to assign all future hydro geologist projects to other employees. 33. Dewberry had continuing work for Plaintiff as a hydrogeologist and in related fields for which he was the best able and most competent employee. 34. Defendant substantially delayed payment for ilervices rendered, and indicated after terminating his services in December that payment would dep'I:nd upon whether Defendant was paid by various clients. 35. At no time had Plaintiff agreed to work on a ,contingent or "pay if and when paid" basis. 36. Payment was only made by Defendant to Plaintiff, after Plaintiff was forced to retain counsel and threatened action under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law which provides for both penalties and attorney's fees. 43 P.S. ~ 260.1, et seq. 37. Defendant substantially undermined Plaintiffs ability to mitigate damages by refusing to provide a reference. 38. Defendant substantially undermined Plaintiffs ability to mitigate damages by making disparaging remarks regarding Plaintiff to its clients, to scapegoat Plaintiff for the conduct of other employees of Defendant and to undermine any ability of Plaintiff to secure work in competition with Defendant after his termination as a subcontractor. 39. This conduct continued the discriminatory conduct which had continued and escalated since October 2002. 40. Plaintiff was treated differently and worse than other employees on the basis of age and physical disability as well as a perception of disability. 4 41. While the stroke resulted in limited disability requiring reasonable accommodations, it did not prevent him from performing any essential job functions with accommodations. 42. The discrimination is in violation ofstate and federal law. 43. The conduct was outrageous and W8mll1ts imposition of punitive damages. 44. Plaintiff suffered loss of employment, wages and benefits and ordinary distress as a result of the discrimination. 45. . Plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. 46. Plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay differential, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees. 47. Plaintiff filed a timely complaint with the PHRC on January 14, 2004, at PHRC Dkt. 200304319. 48. The Complaint was cross-filed with the EEOC at EEOC NO. l7F A46l603. 49. More thll1l a year has past since the filing of the PHRC complaint and a one year notice of right to pursue a civil action was issued. 50. A federal right to Sue Letter was also issued Marcli! 31, 2005 and received June 2, 2005. Count I State Discrimination - PHRA: Age, Disability, Perceived Disability 51. Paragraphs I through 50 are incorporated by reference, as if restated verbatim. 52. Plaintiff was discriminated against in relation to assignment of work and then terminated on the basis of age, disability and perceived disability in violation of the PHRA. 53. Plaintiff suffered loss of employment, wages and benefits and ordinary distress as a result of the discrimination. 54. The conduct was outrageous and warrants the imposition of punitive damages. 55. Plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate damiiges. 5 56. Plaintiff filed a timely complaint for age and di.sability discrimination with the PHRC on January 14, 2004, at PHRC Dkt. 200304319. 57. More than a year has past since the filing of the l'HRC complaint, and a one year notice of right to pursue a civil action was issued. 58. Plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay differerltial, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees, and such other relief as the court deems just. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendant for lost wages (back pay and front pay differential), compensatory damages in an unliquidated amount in excess of the local arbitration limit ($25,000) and punitive damages, together with attorne:y's fees and such other relief as the court may deem just. Count II Federal DlscriminatioD - Age - ADEA 59. Paragraphs 1 through 58 are incorporated by reference, as if restated verbatim. 60. Plaintiff is over 40 years old. 61. Plaintiff was discriminated against in relaticlIl to assignment of work and then terminated on the basis of age in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. ~62l, et seq. 62. Plaintiff suffered loss of employment, wages lmd benefits and ordinary distress as a result of the discrimination. 63. The conduct was wilful] and warrants the imposiition ofliquidated damages. 64. Plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. 65. Plaintiff filed a timely complaint for age discrimination with the PHRC on January 14, 2004, at PHRC Dkt. 200304319. 66. The Complaint was cross-filed with the EEOC at EEOC NO. l7F A461603. 6 67. A federal Right to Sue Letter was also issued lMarch 31,2005 and received June 2, 2005, which included confirmation that more than 60 days had past since the filing of the EEOC age complaint. 68. Plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay differential, liquidated damages and attorney's fees, together with such other relief as the court deems just. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination, and judgment against Defendant for lost wages (back pay and front pay differential) in an unliquidated amount in excess of the local arbitration limit ($25,000) and liquidated damages, together with attorney's fees and such other relief as the court may deem just. Count m Federal D1scrlmiDatioD ADA - Disability, Perdeved Disability and History of Disability 69. Paragraphs 1 through 68 are incorporated by reference, as if restated verbatim. 70. Plaintiff was a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodations by the Defendant; and he has suffered an adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ~ :1 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. ~ 12101 et seq. 71. Plaintiff was disabled as the result of a stroke which limited his ability to drive and perform physical tasks in his employment and generally witho'<1t reasonable accommodation. 72. Plaintiff was perceived as disabled within the meaning of the ADA, and as having a history of disability within the meaning of the ADA by Defendant. 73. Plaintiff was discriminated against in relation to assignment of work and then terminated on the basis of disability, perceived disability and history of disability in violation of the ADA, 42 V.S.C. ~12112. 7 74. Plaintiff suffered loss of employment, wages 8l~d benefits and ordinary distress as a result of the discrimination. 75. The conduct was outrageous and warrants the imposition of punitive damages. 76. Plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. 77. Plaintiff filed a timely complaint for disability discrimination with the PHRC on January 14,2004, at PHRC D1ct. 200304319. 78. The Complaint was cross-filed with the EEOC at EEOC NO. l7FA46l603. 79. A federal Right to Sue Letter was also issued March 31, 2005 and received June 2, 2005. 80. Plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay differential, compensatory damages and attorney's fees, together with such other relief as the court deems just. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination, back pay, front pay differential, compensatory damages in an unliquidated amount in excess of the local arbitration limit ($25,000), and attorney's fees together with such other relief as the Agency may deem proper. " Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G,. Rahsman DATED: August 26, 2005 8 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT G.RAHSMAN Village ofFive Points 33164 West CbeslIpeake SIn:et Rchoboth-Lewes, DE 19958-6289 plaintiff v. Docket No. Civil ActiOlI- Employment Discrimination Jury Trial D_decl DEWBERRY-GOODKIND,INC. 101 NobIeBoukvard Carlisle, PA 17013 Defimdant VRRI1I'ICATION 1, ROBERT O. RAHSMAN. verify that the """"""olt nwIo in tba fo.reaoing CoMP.l.AINT... true and corrcc:t. 1 \lIJlIenotMd that falso stalements borein axe lruade subject to the peoallies of 18 Pa.C.S. ~ 4904 relating to IIDSWOID falsiIieaticm to IWIboriIiea. Wlo~ RobertO. Rahsman DATED: August 26, 2005 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. Brian Downey certify that, on this day, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing Notice of Removal to be served on the following person by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid: Andrew W. Barbin. Esquire 5020 Ritter Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: September 23, 2005 <} ~~ "'" t~ c;:,) of' L" ~.\ '-" "" CP ~ . ~~~ ,4 q, -' 't,-<1 tn~ -o\--r", MOl}CJ \$.~\ {-, ";.~ <Q '):~(\'\ -;~ 'S~ '?l p- ::" -q -- -- i9 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA ROBERT G. RAHSMAN Plaintiff v. Docket No. 05-4406 DEWBERRY-GOODKlND, INC. Defendant Civil Action CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew W. Barbin, Esquire, hereby certify that on September 21, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT was served via first class mail, postage prepaid, and by facsimile upon the following: VIA FACSIMILE (717-238-0575) Brian P. Downey, Esquire Pepper, Hamilton & Sheetz LLP 200 One Keystone Plaza North Front and Market Streets P. O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, P A 17108 ,)' -'i ROBERT G. RAHSMAN. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION DEWBERRY -GOODKIND, INC.. NO. 05-4406 Defendant. ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I accept service of the Complaint on behalf of Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. on the date listed below and certify that I am authorized to do so. \ "'" '- R~N DO EY~ Attor' .' ~:"S.Q!!91 PEPPER H'AMILIQ' , 200 One Keystone Plaza North Front and Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, P A 17lO8-1l8 [ Attorney for Defendant DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, INC. Dated: September 7, 2005 . . -:) ~ o -n ....; -:r; .." t'"'f:: -\1~.', .,\)"-' :.;~,<? :<'~f2}) L')0' .;..>, -1; .2 ~ ~ ,-' $ <.J" <Jl (..'1.. "'0 ~~\~-, _1'-' ~~,' ~!>. ~~::\.-:.-- ~~i~,_~~ ~ P< :2. ~ l';?