Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-05027 1 jl JI -I] I II ($ 1 ) I ~ ~ J l' . ~: , i I ' l{)l 0-' . 1 01 "Z DALE L. RAUDABAUGH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JAMES C. BARTOLI, t/dlb/a : NO. 95 - JAMES C. BARTOLI PRODUCE: COMPANY, CIVIL TERM Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT NOW comes the plaintilf, Dale L. Raudabaugh, by his attorney, Harold S, Irwin, III, and files this complaint against the defendant, representing as follows: I. The Plaintilf, Dale L. Raudabaugh, is an adult individual currently residing at 980 Long Gap Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013, 2. The Defendant. James C. Bartoli, tldlb/a James C. Bartoli Produce Company, is an adult individual having a place of business located at 325 South Cemetery Avenue, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3, Plaintiff was born on January 13, 1935 and is currently 60 year old. 4. Plaintiff was hired by the defendant in 1978 as a truck driver and laborer, 5. Plaintiff was employed by the defendant from 1978 until April 25, 1994 at which time defendant gave the plaintilfnotice that plaintilfwould be discharged from employment with the Bartoli Produce Company. 6. Defendant stated at the time he gave the plaintiff notice of discharge that the plaintiff was being discharged due to the plaintill's failing health. 7. At no time during any conversation between the parties relative to plaintiffs discharge, did defendant indicate that plaintiff was being tenninated for cause, failure of performance, or any other reason related to his work for defendant. 8. Plaintiff. at the time of and prior to the discharge notice, had not been seeing any doctors nor was he being treated by any doctors for any medical ailments, nor was plaintiffs health failing in any way. 9, PlaintilTwas discharged on April 30, 1994, 10, At the time of his discharge, plaintiff was working 40 hours a week and being paid 5395,00 per week by Ihe defendant. II. Plaintiff was 59 years old at the time of his discharge by the defendant. 12, Plaintiff believes and therefor avers that the defendant unlawfully discharged him from employment due to his age in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act ("PHRA"), 43 Pa,C.S, ~ ,el.wq.. 13. Plaintiff, as a result of his age. is within a protected class under the PHRA. 14. Plaintiff has pursued his administrative remedy by filing a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC.) at Docket No. 69672, 15. The PHRC officially dismissed the plaintiffs claim and closed his case on August 3, 1995; however, as can be more fully described at the trial of this matter, the dismissal of this mailer by the PHRC was without the benefit of affording plainliff a hearing in order to present his own testimony or to be present at the time testimony was taken of the defendant. 16. Plaintiff now, after exhausting his administrative remedy, brings this cause ofaetion before this honorable coun pursuant to 43 P.S. ~ 962 (c). WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands reinstatement to his former job and back pay with interest. The plainliff also requests the coun order the defendant to pay plaintiffs costs and allorney's fees incurred as a result of this litigation pursuant to 43 Pa.C.S. ~ 962 (4) (c.2) and any other legal or equitable relief that the coun may deem appropriate. September 21,1995 36 South Pitt Street Carlisle. PA 17013 (717) 243-6090 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 if: CD 11\ >-.. .z:,. "';r Wt';:?~l_ o % L.::r ~f:'1<';:'~ "-'.1:e,"-, ':) ~~::: f,:, .:1 .... "' ,~ ':: ,. ;~l ~~ i~~- ~~:: '~-;., ,- '" ,~'-' '-' t \ ~ ~ . ~~ ('o0oi ~ e.~ .;;:, ~IS) ~ e, ~ ::j-- ~ ~ I"t) ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 1/). III .0,) ~ .. << ~~ .... "- d .... ~ .... ,Q III I1dll ::r: ... "- 'tl I~~ II II p,. III =.0,) 'tl I-l><d Z :J:1Il Cld "- ..:l Z GI o -<E-I tJ... .0,) 0<.... ~><..:l <Ill - E-I!::GI E-I1..:l lIlool I-l III A OZZI-l <p,. ..:l <0 utJO> A . 0 IIlU Ol-ll-l ~ > E-I ~~III t< l&<UE-IU III . III o U III < Uu A< III I/)tJ ~~ ~ E-IZ . 11l<..:l ..:l iliA tJ..:l1-l . ~~ ~ o III > III U UIIlI-lIt'l ~ I/) ...,p,. IIlU(7l III !;l~ , ~ 0 E-IU Z ..., Zl&< 1-l0 DALE L. RAUDABAUGH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES C. BARTOLI, t/d/b/a JAMES C. BARTOLI PRODUCE COMPANY, NO. 95-5027 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Dale L. Raudabaugh c/o Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 36 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. Date: /o/~h) By: Edward E. Guido, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. # 21206 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendant F & MASLAND SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND 26 w. HiSh SUm Carlisle. PA DALE L. RAUDABAUGH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES C. BARTOLI, t/d/b/a JAMES C. BARTOLI PRODUCE COMPANY, NO. 95-5027 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ABSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes James C. Bartoli, Inc. by and through its attorneys, Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland, and answers Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that James C. Bartoli is an adult individual. It is denied that he does business as James C. Bartoli Produce Company. To the contrary, he is an employee of a Pennsylvania corporation known as James C. Bartoli, Inc. which does business under the name and at the location listed in Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. Plaintiff was never hired by Defendant James C. Bartoli. To the contrary, Plaintiff was hired as a truck driver and laborer of James C. Bartoli, Inc., a corporation SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF &: MAS LAND 26 w. High Street Carlisle. PA organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 5. Denied. Plaintiff was never hired by Defendant James C. Bartoli. To the contrary, Plaintiff was hired as a truck driver and laborer of James C. Bartoli, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. By way of further answer, it is admitted that SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MAS LAND 2~ W HIgh 5'1<<' CarlisIC'. PA Defendant gave Plaintiff notice on behalf of James C. Bartoli, Inc. that he would be discharged on April 30, 1994. 6. Denied. At no time did Defendant state that Plaintiff's health was a reason for his discharge. To the contrary, Plaintiff was specifically advised that he was being laid off because of economic conditions. 7. Denied. Plaintiff was specifically advised that he was being laid off for cause, i.e., economic conditions. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth therein and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 9. It is admitted that Plaintiff was discharged by James C. Bartoli, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation on April 30, 1994. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiff's discharge was due to lack of work and his slow job performance, not his age. 13. Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant filed a Complaint with the PHRC. The remaining averments contained therein are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 2 II II I' 22. Job performance, not age, was the sole criteria for choosing which truck driver/laborers were to be laid off. 23. One of the truck driver/laborers who was not laid off was older than Plaintiff. 24. Plaintiff was by far the slowest and the most unproductive of the five truck driver/laborers. 25. Plaintiff was not laid off because of his age. 26. Plaintiff was not the most competent or best able to perform the position of truck driver/laborer. 27. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (42 Pa.C.S. S 951, et seq.). 28. Plaintiff has brought this Complaint in bad faith, well knowing that the only reason he was discharged was because of the economic difficulties of the corporation and the better performance of the other employees in similar positions. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that the Complaint be dismissed. Defendant also requests this Honorable Court to order Plaintiff to pay Defendant's costs and attorney fees incurred as DATED: this 11 tigation. Jol,o/tr~ Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND a result of SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND By: a 26 W High SU'CCI CarlilOle. PA Edward E. Guido, Esquire Supreme Ct. 1.0. * 21206 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendant 4 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer with New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.e.S.A. S 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: lO{ " {15 SAlDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF " MASLAND 26 W. Hilh Slmt Carli lie. PA L.I") en ,"; ) " ,., -; . - " . , . 0 't> ('I ~-:t - .., <.::> Q Z j M rn r-i2!j < IIJ-M ffl ~~~<~ u ...."'I-:z~ - ~)(t/)z_ It 0 lil x IIJ.... o Q . 9 ~E ~ "OX~IIJ ~ ~p.;~!!l~ '" ,.,..lx ~ .... ~ a. ~ U Q .. < rn SHERIFF'S RETURN. REGULAR CASE NO: 1995-05027 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RAUDABAUGH DALE L VS. BARTOLI JAMES C ET AL STEVE WHISTLER . Sherlff or Deputy She.lff of CUMBERLAND County. Pennsylvanla. who beIng duly sworn accordlng to law, says. the wlthln COMPLAINT __.____ was serve>d upon BARTOLI JAMES C TIDIBIA JAMES C BARTOLI PRODUCE COMPANY de>fendant. at 911 :00 HOURS. on the 26th day of September 1995 at 325 SOUTH CEMETARY AVENUE the CARLISLE. PA 17013 .CUMBERLANr> County. Pennsylvanla. by handlno toI.A.t!E~._C. BARTOLI a t.ue and attested copy of the COMPLAINT and at the same timE' dlre>ctlng HJ.c, atten'.lGn to the cQntentE thereof. She.,fi's Costs: DocketinCl Ser'/ ice . Affidavit Surcharge ,- _.~" #c .::JC! an.:J~ . ~ /.. . i7 ~ ~ft'-">-?c,,"'< c.f! , 18.0('1 :;,80 .00 2.00 h:- ':E~-)--m::t ::--r\11ne;--sn-r;.;-iTTf---------- ~:;.:~s"Qr'HAHUU' . IRwtN III V!? / .-:'7 /1 '3'JS by .~,-c._l:J, ~ .----- L''-:~P'.J~~ Sworn and subscrIbed to bef(lr~ me th15 .J~'!- day uf C!!.~___- 19__i$.'. A. t'. _ _ _\-:;:,.,.,..".r.:.,VLcL~.::'_r~--~'1:- -. -on ~.:'trlC^'r,'.:' "J.:;,: DALE L. RAUDABAUGII, Plaintiff IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACfION - LAW v. JAMES C. BARTOLI, INC. Defendant : NO. 95 - 5027 CIVIL : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOW comes the plaintiff, Dale L. Raudabaugh, by his attorney, Harold S. Irwin, III, and tiles this complaint against the defendant, representing as follows: I. The Plaintiff, Dale L. Raudabaugh. is an adult individual currently residing al980 Long Gap Road, Carlisle. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. The Defendant. James C. Bartoli, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business located at 325 South Cemetery Avenue, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Plaintiff was born on January 13, 1935 and is currently 60 year old. 4. Plaintiff was hired by the defendanl in 1978 as a truck driver and laborer. 5. Plaintiff was employed by the defendant from 1978 unlil April 25, 1994 at which time, James C. Bartoli. president of defendant, gave the plaintiff notice that plaintiff would be discharged from employment with the Bartoli Produce Company. 6. James C. Bartoli stated at the time he gave the plaintiff notice of discharge that the plaintiff was being discharged due to the plaintift's failing health. 7, At no time during any conversation between Ihe parties relalive to plaintiffs discharge, did James C. Bartoli indicale that plaintilTwas being tenninated for cause, failure of performance, or any other reason related to his work for defendant. 8, Plaintilf, at the time of and prior to Ihe discharge notice, had nol been seeing any doctors nor was he being treated by any doctors for any medical ailments, nor was plaintiffs health failing in any way. 9. Plaintiff was discharged on April 30, 1994. 10, At the time of his discharge, plainliffwas working 40 hours a week and being paid 5395,00 per week by the defendant. 11. Plaintiff was 59 years old at the time of his discharge by the defendant. 12. Plaintiff believes and therefor avers that the defendant unlawfully discharged him from employment due to his age in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act ("PHRA"). 43 Pa.C.S. ~ ,el seq.. 13. Plaintilf, as a result of his age, is within a protected class under the PHRA. 14. Plaintiff has pursued his administrative remedy by filing a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC") at Docket No. 61J672. 15. The PHRC officially dismissed the plaintiff's claim and closed his case on August 3, 1995; however, as can be more fully described at the trial of this matter, the dismissal of this matter by the PHRC was without the benefit of affording plaintiff a hearing in order to present his own testimony or to be present at the time testimony was taken of the defendant. 16, Plainliffnow, after exhausting his administrative remedy, brings this cause of action before this honorable court pursuant to 43 P.S. ~ 962 (c). 17. Due to the improper termination as aforesaid, plaintiff has lost wages which he would have olherwise earned as an employee of defendanl from the time of termination to the present. 18. Due to the improper termination as aforesaid, and the loss of benefits to which he would otherwise have received as an employee of defendant, plaintiff has incurred various expenses for medical treatment which would have been covered by medical insurance provided by defendant during his employ, 19. Due to the improper as aforesaid, plaintiff has incurred other losses in retirement benefits and vacation time and/or vacation pay to which he would have otherwise been entitled as an employee of defendant. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands reinstatement to his former job and back pay with interest, as well as reimbursement of all other losses as aforesaid in order to make plaintiff whole had he not been improperly terminated from his employment. The plaintiff also requests the court order the defendant to pay plaintiffs costs and allomey's fees incurred as a result of this litigation pursuant to 43 Pa.C.S. ~ 962 (4) (c.2) and any other legal or equitable relief that the court may dee/~a~1Priate. {)<jtAAJ-~~~A October 26, 1995 36 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6090 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 ~ I verifY that the statements made in this complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~ 4909 relating to unsworn falsification. October 31 . 1995 ~/l!e)} 1?IfJIIflJ9}JIJJIJ G1 ale L. Raudabaugh tA ~r: - ~ :!z.., "'il~.':)- U~O;l: ~ -riO<4 ..... t:~O~ - 0....2:,... .Oe", - CU'-';;e WQ..~;c: C"ooI =U.t~"" '... ~:x Q. .. => C> ~c.> = 1Il. 0<0< IolZ ... ... o-::lZ ... . I: !-oo .., l1.1ol :J: .... tJlll li~ Ii p l1. 0< :t:... Z'tl Z o-::l t!ll: HI: I:l o . I t:l.... QJ Z ~~ Z 0< III .... Iol 0 I%lroi HQJ 100 OZ H 0<l1. o-::ll:l Iol Ut:l E-o I:l 0 I:l e=~ ~i ~ 0 tJ t:l . E-o '~I i ~ ~ IootJ 0< 0< > II:: 0 0 II:: 0< E-o I:l o-::l I%l 3;J ,d E-oZ H . Iol 11::0< > o-::l . tJ t:lo-::l H tJ H ~"l 1lI 011:: tJ Iol E-o tJlol ~ 1Il 0 ~ I%l Iol Z gg; :E 0< E-otJ .., Zloo HO DALE L. RAUDABAUGH, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 95-5027 CIVIL TERM JAMES C. BARTOLI, INC., Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Dale L. Raudabaugh c/o Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 36 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter wi thin twenty (20) days from service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. Date: 11/20/95 SHUFF & MASLAND By: Edward E. Guido, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. . 21206 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendant SAlOIS. GUIDO. SHUFF " MAS LAND 26 w. Hip SI1<<1 Carli.le. PA SAlDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF " MASLAND 26 W. Hith SIrteI Carli.le.PA DALE L. RAUDABAUGH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 95-5027 CIVIL TERM JAMES C. BARTOLI, INC., Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes James C. Bartoli, Inc. by and through its attorneys, Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland, and answers Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as follows: 1- Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. At no time did Defendant state that Plaintiff's health was a reason for his discharge. To the contrary, Plaintiff was specifically advised that he was being laid off because of economic conditions. 7. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff was specifically advised that he was being laid off for cause, Le., economic conditions. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth therein and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiff's discharge was due to lack of work and his slow job performance, not his age. 13 . Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant filed a Complaint with the PHRC. The remaining averments contained therein are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the PHRC dismissed Plaintiff's claim and closed his case on August 3, 1995. The remainder of the averments are denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff was given adequate opportunity to present testimony, and to be present to cross examine the Defendant. 16. Denied. The averments contained therein are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 17. Denied. The averment dealing with improper termination is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & asserts that the termination was properly made solely on the MASLAND 26 W High Str<et Carlisle. PA basis of economic conditions and job performance. The remaining averments are denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth therein and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 18. Denied. The averment dealing with improper termination is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant asserts that the termination was properly made solely on the basis of economic conditions and job performance. The remaining averments are denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth therein and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 19. Denied. The averment dealing with improper termination is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant asserts that the termination was properly made solely on the basis of economic conditions and job performance. The remaining averments are denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the avermente set forth therein and strict SAIDIS. GUIDO, SHUFF " MASLAND 26 W HI.h Slrm CarI"Ie,PA proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that the Complaint be dismissed. Defendant also requests this Honorable Court to order Plaintiff to pay Defendant's costs and attorney fees incurred as a result Qf this litigation. 3 NEW MATTER 20. The responses set forth in paragraph 1 through 19 above are incorporated herein by reference. 21. In December of 1993, Defendant's warehouse and all of its produce, equipment and trucks were totally destroyed by fire. 22. In April of 1994 it became apparent that Defendant would have to layoff part of its work force. 23. In April and May of 1994 one sales person and two of the Defendant's truck driver/laborers were laid off. 24. Job performance, not age, was the sole criteria for choosing which truck driver/laborers were to be laid off. 25. One of the truck driver/laborers who was not laid off was older than Plaintiff. 26. Plaintiff was by far the slowest and the most unproductive of the five truck driver/laborers. 27. Plaintiff was not laid off because of his age. 28. Plaintiff was not the most competent or best able to perform the position of truck driver/laborer. 29. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (42 Pa.C.S. S 951, et seq.). 30. Plaintiff has brought this Complaint in bad faith, well knowing that the only reason he was discharged was because of the SAlOIS. GUIDO, SHUFF & economic difficulties of the corporation and the better MASLAND 26 W High Street Carlisle. PA performance of the other employees in similar positions. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that the Complaint be dismissed. Defendant also requests this Honorable Court to order 4 Plaintiff to pay Defendant's costs and attorney fees incurred as a result of this litigation. DATED: 11 "0 ICl<; Respectfully submitted, By: Edward E. Guido, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. * 21206 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Defendant SAID IS, GUIDO. SIIUn" . MASI.AND 26 W lhah SUftl Cllh.Ie,PA 5 CBRTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Edward E. Guido, Esquire certify that on the 20th day of November, 1995, I served a true and correct copy of the within Answer with New Matter upon counsel for Plaintiff in this matter by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid addressed as follows: Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 36 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND By: Edward E. Gu do, Esquire SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF &. MASLAND 26 w. H'lh Slrm Carliole,PA Q Z j ~ ~ !;j~a e ~~~<:5: - ~~!ii~~ !t OO:cI1l.... OQ~!:2c:c ~ ...O:c~~ :5 ;:J~:i!!lo t.:) ",..I:c ~ NllI:l1. rIJ <( ... u Q ... < rIJ IIAROLD S. IRWIN, III. ESQUIRE AlIORNEY ID NO. 29920 J6 SOUTH PIli STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (7 I 7) 243-61190 AlIORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DALE L. RAUDABAUGH. Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNlY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JAMES C. BARTOLI, INC. Defendant : NO. 95 - 5027 CIVIL : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOW, comes the plaintiff, by his attorney, Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquires, and responds to the defendant's new matter, representing as follows: 20. Plaintiff restates the averments of his complaint, paragraphs one through twenty inclusive, by incorporation herein by reference as if fully set forth at length, 21. The averments of paragraph twenty-one of the defendant's new matter are admitted, 22, The averments of paragraph twenty-two of the defendant's new matter are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proofthercof at trial is demanded if relevant. 23. The averments of paragraph twenty-three of the defendant's new mailer are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded if relevant. 24. The averments of paragraph twenty-four of the defendant's new matter arc specifically denied. To the contrary, at the time of termination. at no time was plaintiff informed that he was being terminated for cause, failure of performance or any other reason related to his work performance or the economic difficulties of the defendant, Rather, he was specifically informed that he was being terminated because defendant's president believed that plaintiff had a failing health condition. 25. The averments of paragraph twenty-five of the defendant's new mailer are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proofthercofattrial is demanded if relevant. 26. The averments of paragraph twenty-six of the defendant's new mailer are specifically denied, To the contrary, plaintiff believes and therefor avers that his work performance was adequate and acceptable. By way of further response, at the time of termination, at no time was plaintiff informed that he was being terminated for cause. failure of performance or any other reason related to his work performance or the economic difficulties of the defendant. Rather, he was specifically informed that he was being terminated because defendant's president believed that plaintiff had a failing health condition. 27, The averments of paragraph twenty-seven of the defendant's new mailer are specifically denied. To the contrary, at the time of termination, at no time was plaintiff informed that he was being terminatcd for cause, failure of performance or any other reason related to his work performancc or the economic difficulties of the defendant. Rather, he was specifically informed that he was being terminated because defendant's president believed that plaintiff had a failing health condition, Plaintiff believes and therefor avers that he was unlawfully discharged because of his age as averred in plaintiff's complaint. 28. The averments of paragraph twenty-eight of the defendant's new mailer are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof thereof attriaI is demanded if relevant. By way of further response. however, plaintiff believes and therefor avers that his work performance was adequate and acceptable. At the time of termination, at no time was plaintiff informed that he was being terminated for cause, failure of performance or any other reason related to his work performance or the economic difficulties of the defendant. Rather, he was specifically informed that he was being terminated because defendant's president believed that plaintiff had a failing health condition, 29. The averments of paragraph twenty-nine of the defendant's new matter are specifically denied, To the contrary, plaintiff has stated a cause of action under the PHRA (42 Pa,C,S. Section 951. et seq,), 30, The averments of paragraph thirty of the defendant's new mailer are specifically denied. To the contrary. delendant's bad faith in unlawfully terminating plaintiff in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act has resulted in this litigation, At the time of termination, at no time was plaintiff informed that he was being terminated for cause, failure of performance or any other reason related to his work performance or the economic difficulties of the defendant. Supreme Court lD No. 29920 Rather, he was specifically informed that he was being terminated because defendant's president believed that plaintiff had a failing health condition. Since plaintiff had no failing health condition, was not told he was being discharged for economic reasons, for cause, or for poor job performance, plaintiff believes and therefor avers that he was unlawfully discharged becasue of his age, WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands reinstatement to his former job and back pay with interest, as well as reimbursement of all other losses as aforesaid in order to make plaintiff whole had he not been improperly terminated from his employment. The plaintiff also requests the court order the defendant to pay plaintiffs costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result of this litigation pursuant to 43 Pa,C.S. ~ 962 (4) (c.2) and any other legal or equitable relief that the court may deem appropriate. r- December ~, 1995 ~ 36 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6090 ~ I verifY that the statements made in this ANSWER TO NEW MA'ITER are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~ 4909 relating to unsworn falsification. December 5 ,1995 ;J;Jo-~~~k 4- tDALE L. RAUDABA GH ~ I en ~ C? - 8~ - - z: ~ < o~ r- Z I ::iz rf u lliP2 lJ.J c:;;. ~ ~ U") cn 1Il 0< 1ol0< o-:ll1. :E . l1. II:: tJ ID t:s :! .:J: Iol j:l .... Z'" . Z:><O<E-olol a:... HI: i I~~ Ii II OE-oo-:l j:l Cl~ III ~r5I~~ t:l... .'tl <I: HI: "'101 00 > I%l~ o-::lGl Cllll tJtJZHIol 0< III 0... ::~ OtJj:l !5roi E-oGl ~., ~ ~ Iooj:lH . ~j:l ai O:iE-o o-:l 0<l1. :- ur-o< II:: I%l E-oo-:lO<NH ~I!I 11::11:: 011:: . . t:llolo-:llllE-o o-:l tJ ~"l 1lI OI%lH 101 tJ~> :>< Iol 1Il E HI~ o-:l Iol ~ IoltJtJ 0< ~ :t: Ill.., j:l .= E-o 100 Cl\ .., 0 Z H .' ... LAW OFI'ICES 11..1 ROU) .\', IRWIN. III