Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ Document 1 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John R. Hancock

Plaintiff,
C.A. No.
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Pennsylvania State University,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. John R. Hancock brings this civil rights action against his former employer,

Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”). The action is brought pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., as well as

pursuant to Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, on the grounds

that Penn State failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Hancock’s disability, and

terminated Mr. Hancock on the basis of his disability or perceived disability and in

retaliation for his request for reasonable accommodation.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., and 29 U.S.C. § 794.

3. On July 11, 2005, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC") mailed Mr. Hancock a Notice of Right to Sue. A copy of the Notice of Right to

Sue is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. Mr. Hancock has filed suit within 90

days of his receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue.

 Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ Document 1 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 2 of 7

4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because

the violations alleged in the Complaint occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff John R. Hancock is a resident of Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, which

is located in this District.

6. Defendant Penn State is a state run educational institution with business

offices at 120 South Burrowes Street, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16801, which is in

this District. Penn State employs over fifteen employees and is a recipient of federal

funding.

BACKGROUND

7. Penn State hired John R. Hancock in 1993. Mr. Hancock worked for Penn

State in the position of Maintenance Worker Utility Grade 9 for nine years, from July

1995 through May 5, 2004, when Penn State terminated his employment.

8. In Fall of 2003, Mr. Hancock was diagnosed with terminal illness due to

cirrhosis of the liver.

9. From the Fall of 2003 to the time of his termination, Mr. Hancock’s medical

condition progressively worsened. During this period, Mr. Hancock’s illness impaired

his major life activities, including his ability to walk and lift, his control over his bodily

functions, and his short-term memory. It has also affected his equilibrium and impaired

his ability to eat a normal diet and caused him to suffer from extreme fatigue.

10. Since early November 2003, Penn State has been aware of Mr. Hancock’s

medical condition. At that time, Mr. Hancock’s wife advised his then-direct supervisor,
 Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ Document 1 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 3 of 7

Mark Bigelow, as well as Human Resource Coordinator Susan Rutan, of Mr. Hancock’s

illness.

11. In the Winter of 2004, despite knowledge of Mr. Hancock’s disability, Penn

State required Mr. Hancock to perform more taxing duties than he had previously

performed. Previously, three employees had been assigned the task of cleaning the

power plant area; Penn State now required Mr. Hancock and a seventy-year old co-

worker to clean the entire area. At one point, for a span of ten to fourteen days,

Mr. Hancock was required to clean the entire plant himself. In addition, at the same

time, Penn State significantly increased the surface area that Mr. Hancock was required

to clean.

12. Mr. Hancock sought reasonable accommodation for his qualified disability.

On or about January 11, 2004, Mr. Hancock discussed such accommodations with his

supervisor, Mark Bigelow. Mr. Bigelow’s sole offer of an accommodation was a transfer

to a lower level position with decreased pay. The very next day, January 12, 2004, Mr.

Hancock agreed to accept the lower-paying position. However, Penn State failed to

place Mr. Hancock in this position.

13. On March 1, 2004, Mr. Bigelow pressured Mr. Hancock to apply for leave

under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and told Mr. Hancock that the earliest

Penn State could provide any accommodation was the end of 2004. Moreover, Mr.

Bigelow told Mr. Hancock that he must continue to perform all of the physically

demanding activities of his current position until that time and emphasized that Mr.

Hancock would be required to operate the floor scrubber which Mr. Bigelow stated

would likely hit Mr. Hancock directly in the liver and cause painful internal bleeding.
 Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ Document 1 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 4 of 7

14. Mr. Hancock refused to apply for FMLA leave and continued to perform

his job despite his disability. However, workers in the power plant increasingly

undermined his work by placing hostile notes in his locker and by deliberately making

him redo his work, by, for example, putting fresh wax beneath objects on the floor,

which when removed would expose the area that needed to be buffed. Mr. Hancock

notified his supervisor, but no corrective action was taken.

15. In late April, Eileen Long, a new supervisor was assigned to Mr.

Hancock’s area. Ms. Long made a practice of continually criticizing Mr. Hancock and

asking whether he could do certain types of work, such as snow shoveling or floor

waxing, jobs that Mr. Hancock had problems performing because of his disability.

However, Ms. Long failed to provide Mr. Hancock with the accommodation he had been

previously promised, not did she offer any other accommodation.

16. Ms. Long was aware that Mr. Hancock had a disability, requested

reasonable accommodation, and that he complained about the actions of co-workers.

17. On May 5, 2004, Area Services Manager Gregory Anderson, Janitorial

Supervisor Eileen Long, and Manager of Human Resources Susan Rutan informed Mr.

Hancock that he was discharged due to misconduct, based on statements he had

allegedly made earlier that day to Ms. Long.

18. On May 17, 2004, Penn State sent Mr. Hancock a letter confirming the

meeting on May 5, 2004 and the termination of his employment.

19. Penn State terminated Mr. Hancock on account of his disability and his

continued requests for reasonable accommodation, and in retaliation for making

 Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ Document 1 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 5 of 7

continued requests for reasonable accommodation. The Defendant’s alleged reason for

terminating Mr. Hancock is pretextual.

20. Subsequent to his dismissal, Plaintiff filed timely charges with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that he had been terminated

unlawfully on account of his disability.

21. On July 11, 2005, Plaintiff was sent a right-to-sue letter by the EEOC.

22. As a result of the discharge, Plaintiff has lost his income and has had to

buy replacement medical insurance necessary for treating his terminal condition.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count 1: Violation of the ADA

23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein by reference.

24. John Hancock is a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA

because he has a disability, cirrhosis of the liver.

25. Penn State is an "employer" and a "covered entity" under the ADA.

25. Prior to the termination of his employment, John Hancock was qualified for

his employment at Penn State as a Maintenance Worker Utility Grade 9.

26. Penn State violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under the ADA because it did not

make reasonable accommodations to the known physical limitations of an otherwise

qualified individual with a disability. Such accommodation would not have imposed an

undue hardship on the operation of Penn State’s business.

27. On May 5, 2004, Penn State terminated Mr. Hancock’s employment in

violation of the ADA due to his disability and or his perceived disability, and in retaliation

for requests that Mr. Hancock made for reasonable accommodation.

 Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ Document 1 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 6 of 7

28. Mr. Hancock has been damaged by Penn State’s violation of the ADA

because he has been without a job since May 5, 2004, because the manner in which

Penn State terminated his employment effectively precluded him from finding alternative

employment; because he has been denied access to certain benefits to which he was

entitled under Penn State’s employee benefit plan or plans; and because he has

suffered humiliation and embarrassment.

Count II: Violation of the Rehabilitation Act

29. Paragraphs 1 through 28 are incorporated herein by reference.

30. Penn State’s actions violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under Section 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, because, as alleged above in Count I, Penn

State violated Mr. Hancock’s rights under the ADA, and because Penn State is a

program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, as those terms are defined in

the Rehabilitation Act.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff John Hancock asks the

court to:

a. assume jurisdiction of his case;

b. find and declare that Penn State violated the ADA, and the

Rehabilitation Act, and enjoin such further conduct by Penn State;

c. direct that Mr. Hancock be reinstated to his job;

d. award Mr. Hancock such back pay, front pay, and employment

benefits and all other emoluments of employment as if the discharge had not occurred;

e. award Mr. Hancock compensatory and punitive damages;

 Case 4:05-cv-02049-JEJ Document 1 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 7 of 7

f. award Mr. Hancock such costs and expenses of suit, and

reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness costs, and such other relief as the Court

deems necessary and proper after trial of this matter;

g. find for Mr. Hancock and against Penn State on all counts of this

Complaint; and

h. order such other and further relief as may be deemed just and

proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Edward J. Feinstein

Edward J. Feinstein
PA I.D. 29718
Stember Feinstein
1705 Allegheny Building
429 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2301
(412) 391-9018

Attorney for the Plaintiff

Dated: October 7, 2005