You're viewing Docket Item 1 from the case Thomas v. The County of York, Pennsylvania et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 27














































: Case No.
:
:
: Electronically
: Filed
:

:
:
:
: Judge:
: Jury Trial Demand
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE

DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


Kathleen B. Thomas,





































v.



Plaintiff











The County of York, Pennsylvania; and


Lori O. Mitrick, President Commissioner,
M. Steven Chronister, Commissioner, and
Douglas E. Kilgore, Commissioner,

in their official capacities as York County
Commissioners, and collectively as the

York County Board of Commissioners; and


York County Youth Development Center; and

Wayne R. Bear, individually, and as Program
Director for Defendant York County Youth
Development Center.







Defendants






















































1

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 27

COMPLAINT



INTRODUCTION

1.

This suit is filed on behalf of Kathleen B. Thomas (hereinafter

“Plaintiff”), a former shift supervisor at the York County Youth Development

Center, alleging numerous and egregious acts of sexual harassment and

retaliation sufficient to create a hostile work environment and deprive Plaintiff

of her Constitutional rights, against the County of York, Pennsylvania; Lori O.

Mitrick, President Commissioner, M. Steven Chronister, Commissioner, and

Douglas E. Kilgore, Commissioner, in their official capacities as York County

Commissioners and, collectively as the York County Board of Commissioners;

the York County Youth Development Center; and Wayne R. Bear individually

and as Program Director for Defendant York County Youth Development

Center.

2.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the Pennsylvania Human

Relations Commission (hereinafter “PHRC”) and the United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”) on March 31,

2005 (hereinafter “Complaint”) against the herein named Defendants alleging

acts of sexual harassment sufficient to create a hostile work environment and

retaliation.



2

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 27

3.

Said Complaint alleged numerous acts of sexual harassment

perpetrated by Plaintiff’s supervisor, Wayne R. Bear, which collectively

created and fostered a hostile work environment.

4.

Said Complaint also alleged that Defendants, themselves and/or

by and through their agents, engaged in acts that constituted retaliation for

Plaintiff’s exercise of an activity protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, as amended, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

5.

Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint, and the

administrative agencies conducted a fact-finding investigation.

6.

The parties named herein have been unsuccessful in reaching a

settlement of Plaintiff’s claims.

7.

Having not rendered a decision on the merits of the Complaint for

a period greater than one year, on May 11, 2006, the PHRC delivered to

Plaintiff a “notice-of-right-to-sue” in which the PHRC notified Plaintiff that

she had a right to pursue a court action based upon the allegations in the

Complaint, but also maintained that the PHRC would continue to process the

case until it has rendered a decision, or a court action is filed. A copy of said

notice dated May 11, 2006 is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and is

marked as Exhibit “A.”



3

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 27

8.

As a result of a governmental entity being named as a defendant in

the Complaint, the EEOC forwarded the case to the United States Department

of Justice Civil Rights Division for evaluation.

9.

In a letter dated August 16, 2006, the United States Department of

Justice Civil Rights Division issued a “notice-of-right-to-sue” allowing

Plaintiff to file a Complaint within ninety (90) days of receipt of said notice,

dated August 16, 2006, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part

hereof, and is marked as Exhibit “B.”

10. Plaintiff commences this Action based upon the allegations set

forth in the original administrative Complaint filed with the PHRC and EEOC,

as well as acts of retaliation and harassment that occurred subsequent to the

filing of such administrative Complaint, and which are properly within the

scope of the administrative complaint and/or the investigation arising

therefrom.



JURISDICTION

11. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s causes of

action arising under the Constitution of the United States, and Title VII of the

United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq.,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 42 U.S.C. §20003-5(f)(3). This Court has



4

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 5 of 27

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s tort claims, and claims arising under

the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951-963, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1367.



PARTIES

12. The Plaintiff herein is Kathleen B. Thomas of York, Pennsylvania,

with an address at 770 Church Road, York, Pennsylvania, 17404.

13. The Defendants herein are:

a.

Defendant, the County of York, Pennsylvania, is a local

governmental unit, a third class County, with an address for business at 28 East

Market Street, York, Pennsylvania 17401 (hereinafter “County”);



b.

Defendant, the York County Board of Commissioners, the

governing body of York County, Pennsylvania, with an address for business at

28 East Market Street, York, Pennsylvania 17401,consisting of three members,

the three members of the York County Board of Commissioners herein named

as Defendants (hereinafter “Commissioners”);

c.

Defendant, Lori O. Mitrick, is President of the York County

Board of Commissioners, with a business address at 28 East Market Street,

York, Pennsylvania 17401 (hereinafter “Mitrick”);



5

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 6 of 27

d.

Defendant, M. Steven Chronister, is a member of the York

County Board of Commissioners, with a business address at 28 East Market

Street, York, Pennsylvania 17401 (hereinafter “Chronister”);

e.

Defendant, Douglas E. Kilgore, is a member of the York

County Board of Commissioners, with a business address at 28 East Market

Street, York, Pennsylvania 17401 (hereinafter “Kilgore”);

f.

Defendant, the York County Youth Development Center, is a

Department of the County of York, Pennsylvania, with an address at 3564

Heindel Road, York, York County, Pennsylvania 17402 (hereinafter “Center”);

and

g.

Defendant, Wayne R. Bear, an adult individual residing at 655

Stillcreek Lane, Hellam, Pennsylvania, 17406 (hereinafter “Bear”), with a

business address at 3564 Heindel Road, York, York County, Pennsylvania

17402.



FACTUAL BACKGROUND

14. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant County to work at the Defendant

Center, a department of Defendant County, in or about June of 2002, for the

position of Shift Supervisor.



6

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 7 of 27

15. Defendant Bear has been the Program Director of Defendant

Center since in or about 2004 and, at all times relevant herein, an employee and

agent of Defendant County of York, Pennsylvania. In that capacity, Defendant

Bear was Plaintiff’s supervisor.

16. Plaintiff, during the course of her employment with Defendant

Center, was the victim of the following intentional, unwelcome, unwanted,

unprovoked, offensive, inappropriate, obscene, harassing, and discriminatory

statements and sexual contact, which the Plaintiff regarded as such, perpetrated

by Defendant Bear:

a. In or about October of 2004, Defendant Bear began a work-related

statement addressed to Plaintiff by sexually suggesting, “While I was laying in

bed last night thinking about you . . . .” Defendant Bear then pause, laughed,

and continued with his statement.

b. In or about October of 2004, Plaintiff was telling Defendant Bear

what one of the juvenile residents had said to her when Defendant Bear

interjected, “I know you’re a whore, but how does he [the resident] know?”

c. In or about November of 2004, Plaintiff was eating in a

conference room with Defendant Bear and Shannon Long, former Assistant

Program Director at Defendant Center (hereinafter “Long”). As Plaintiff was

eating a chicken wing, Defendant Bear made sexually suggestive grunts,



7

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 8 of 27

moans, and innuendoes and told Plaintiff “yeah, take it, take it all,” referring to

Plaintiff by name and acting in a sexually suggestive way by leaning back in

his chair, putting his hands behind his head, and gyrating his pelvis.

d. On or about the week prior to Christmas of 2004, Plaintiff was

discussing Defendant Center’s Christmas Party in her office with Long and

another supervisor when Defendant Bear entered and stated, “[t]he staff back in

detention were singing a song about you [Plaintiff] yesterday, and it went

something like, ho, ho, ho . . . .” Defendant Bear intended his contextual use of

the word “ho” as a double entrendre, suggesting that Plaintiff was a “whore,”

that Plaintiff was a woman of particular sexual promiscuity, and/or that

Plaintiff was little more than a sexual object.

e. On or about December 22, 2004, Plaintiff was in the gym at

Defendant Center putting up Christmas decorations with Long and another

supervisor when Defendant Bear came into the gym, walked up behind

Plaintiff, and placed Plaintiff in an upper torso restraint while thrusting his

pelvis into Plaintiff’s posterior in a sexually suggestive manner for

approximately ten (10) seconds, during which time Plaintiff was unable to

move.

f. On or about January 4, 2005, Plaintiff, during the course of a

meeting at Defendant Center with other supervisory employees, addressed



8

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 9 of 27

Defendant Bear, asking him if he was going to rectify a staff-related issue at

Defendant Center. Defendant Bear responded in an inappropriate sexually

suggestive manner, “[w]hat are you going to do for me, Mickey” (Plaintiff was

referred to at Defendant Center as Mickey).

g. On or about January 5, 2005, during a daily morning staff

meeting, Defendant Bear brought up the topic of television commercials for

erectile dysfunction medication and, in a shocking and inappropriate way,

carried on about the prospect of having an erection for four hours, stating, in

front of Plaintiff, “[i]f I have an erection for more than four hours, I’m not

going to need a doctor, I’m going to need CPR. What’s the problem with

having a four hour erection?”

h. On or about April 7, 2006, Plaintiff was conversing with Brian

Roberson (hereinafter “Roberson”), a co-worker with whom she shares an

office, when Defendant Bear, regardless as to the action taken by Defendant

County as hereinafter set forth, entered and stated that he wanted to “touch

base” with Roberson. Roberson replied to Defendant Bear, “There will be no

touching.” Defendant Bear then stared at Plaintiff, outstretched his arms

making a gesture, and stated, “as long as it was a group hug . . . ,” causing

Plaintiff to feel uncomfortable and threatened.



9

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 10 of 27

17.

In accordance with Defendant County’s policy regarding sexual

harassment, Plaintiff complained to Long, who reported Defendant Bear’s

conduct to Sharon L. Luker, the Executive Director of Human Resources for

the Defendant County (hereinafter “Luker”), who, along with County Solicitor

Michael W. Flannelly (hereinafter “Flannelly”), conducted an investigation

into Plaintiff’s allegations on or about January 10, 2005.

18. Plaintiff voluntarily and fully complied with the investigation into

Defendant Bear’s conduct.

19. As a result of the investigation, Defendant County, by and through

the official actions of Defendants Mitrick, Chronister, and Kilgore, collectively

comprising Defendant Commissioners, suspended Defendant Bear from his

position at Defendant Center for one (1) week, from on or about Thursday,

January 20, 2005 through Wednesday, January 26, 2005.

20. Plaintiff expressed concern with the leniency of the disciplinary

action taken by the Defendant County, by and through Defendant

Commissioners, and the possibility of further working with Defendant Bear via

letters addressed to Luker and Defendant Mitrick dated January 11, 2005 and

January 26, 2005, respectively. Copies of said letters are incorporated herein

and made a part hereof, and attached hereto as Exhibits “C” and “D,”

respectively.



10

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 11 of 27

21. Luker and Flannelly told Plaintiff and Long that:

a. The decision to reinstate Defendant Bear rendered by Defendant

Commissioners was final;

b. Plaintiff, among other things, would “have to respect” Defendant

Bear and abide by his authority;

c. Plaintiff would be required to meet with Defendant Bear about the

situation and work with him in the future;

d. Plaintiff and Long either had to work under Defendant Bear or

resign;

e. The Defendant County would not offer any severance packages to

those who chose to resign rather than work for Defendant Bear;

f. There would be no transfers to other positions within the

Defendant County; and

g. Those who resigned would be ineligible for unemployment

benefits.

22. Plaintiff felt threatened and intimidated by the statements described

in paragraph 21.

23. Luker, Flannelly, and C. Bruce Funk, acting Executive Director of

Human Services for Defendant County (hereinafter “Funk”), on or about

January 27, 2005, met with Defendant Center’s management team, including



11

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 12 of 27

the Plaintiff and Long, to inform them of Defendant Bear’s return, and to

reiterate the statements in paragraph 21.

24. Thereafter, Defendant Bear made an apology that Plaintiff believed to

be insincere, and Funk abruptly ended the meeting by stating, “sorry guys,

sometimes life is unfair.”

25. On or about February 3-4, 2005, Luker required that Plaintiff meet

alone with her and Defendant Bear. At said meeting, Defendant Bear offered

Plaintiff an insincere and scripted apology. Plaintiff felt intimidated and

uncomfortable at said meeting.

26. On March 2, 2005, Flannelly, Luker, Funk, Defendant Bear, and

Defendants Mitrick, Chronister, and Kilgore, met with all employees of

Defendant Center. At said meeting, several employees, including Plaintiff,

expressed displeasure with Defendant Commissioners’s decision to reinstate

Defendant Bear after his brief suspension for sexually harassing Plaintiff.

Defendant Chronister replied, “[t]he bottom line is you can either get on board

or leave.” Plaintiff felt threatened, intimidated, and believed that such comment

was directed to her as a retaliatory remark.

27. Thereafter, Defendant Bear, acting in his official capacity as Program

Director of Defendant Center, a department of Defendant County, with final

policymaking authority vested in Defendant Commissioners, engaged in the



12

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 13 of 27

following acts in retaliation against Plaintiff, intending such acts to cause

Plaintiff mental and emotional stress and, it is believed and therefore averred,

to provide a basis under which Defendants could terminate Plaintiff and/or

make her work environment so negative as to cause her to resign:

a. Defendant County, by and through the actions of Defendant

Chronister and Commissioners, refused any potential request for a

transfer to another position with Defendant County;

b. Defendant County, through Defendant Chronister, threatened

Plaintiff by stating “the bottom line is you can either get on board

or leave,” referring to the reinstatement of Defendant Bear;

c. Defendant County, by and through the actions of Defendant

Chronister and Commissioners, threatened Plaintiff by telling the

staff that no severance packages would be offered to anyone

resigning as a result of the reinstatement of Defendant Bear;

d. On or about March 8, 2005, Defendant Bear requested that, when

Plaintiff had an issue, she come directly to him instead of resorting

to email communication. Plaintiff preferred email communication

because she feared face-to-face communication with Defendant

Bear. Plaintiff felt intimidated by the meeting and the thought of



13

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 14 of 27

having to confront Defendant Bear when e-mail communication

would cause to avoid unnecessary face-to-face communications;

e. On or about March 8, 2005, Defendant Bear accused Plaintiff of

using more than the one-half hour of “emergency time off” she had

requested earlier that morning. Using more “emergency time off”

than originally requested was permitted by the established practice

and procedure at Defendant Center. Defendant Bear stated, “this is

not a disciplinary action,” yet he nonetheless “wrote up” the

incident and presented it to Plaintiff for her signature;

f. On or about June 6, 2005, Plaintiff was unjustly and unfairly

suspended for three days without pay as a result of the following

two incidents in which Defendants Bear and Center relied on

disputed facts that placed Plaintiff in a false light:

i. On or about March 23, 2004, a picture was taken of Plaintiff

and a fellow staff member named Anthony Zorbaugh

(hereinafter “Zorbaugh”), which Defendants claim depicts

Zorbaugh grabbing Plaintiff’s breasts;

ii. Defendants Bear and Center claimed that on July 5, 2005,

Plaintiff engaged in “disgusting” and “inappropriate”



14

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 15 of 27

behavior with a male subordinate in front of a resident of

Defendant Center; and

g. On or about June 2, 2006, Defendants Bear and Center accused

Plaintiff of “stealing county time,” and suspended her pending an

investigation. Plaintiff was made to believe that she would be

terminated. After such investigation proved to be fruitless, Plaintiff

was reinstated and paid for the suspension, yet was presented with

a written warning to be placed in her personnel file, despite having

been exonerated through the investigation.

28. The retaliatory actions described in paragraph 27 have irrevocably

damaged Plaintiff’s employment record and reputation and have caused

Plaintiff severe mental and emotional stress sufficient to cause Plaintiff to seek

psychological counseling.

29.

It is believed and therefore averred that the retaliatory actions

described in paragraph 27 were intended to formulate a pretext on which

Defendants Bear and Center could terminate Plaintiff’s employment or create a

negative work environment such that Plaintiff would resign.










15

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 16 of 27

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. §1983 – EQUAL PROTECTION

Plaintiff v. Defendants County, Commissioners, Mitrick, Chronister,

and Kilgore



30. Paragraphs 1-29 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set

forth.

31. Plaintiff has a right to employment at Defendant Center that is

protected by the Constitution of the United States.

32. Defendants, by and through their actions as set forth herein,

intentionally denied Plaintiff her right to equal protection under the law as

guaranteed to her by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution by failing to prevent and correct the discriminatory and retaliatory

actions caused by Defendant Bear while acting as an employee and agent of

Defendants County and Center.

33. The Defendants did not treat Plaintiff the same as those with

whom Plaintiff was similarly situated because of her gender.

34. Defendants were, at all times, acting under the color of state law.

35. Defendant Commissioners, comprised of Defendants, Mitrick,

Chronister, and Kilgore, are the governing body of Defendant County and,

thus, have final policymaking authority, rendering their decisions official acts

of government.



16

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 17 of 27

36. Defendant County, by and through its governing body, Defendant

Commissioners, comprised of Defendants, Mitrick, Chronister, and Kilgore,

adopted and maintained a practice, custom, and/or policy of deliberate

indifference to the infringement of Plaintiff’s Constitutionally protected rights.

37. Defendant County, and its governing body, Defendant

Commissioners, comprised of Defendants, Mitrick, Chronister, and Kilgore,

are liable for the actions of Defendants Bear and Center, because their failure

to prevent and correct the sexually discriminatory behavior of Defendants Bear

and Center described hereinabove constituted a tacit approval thereof.

38. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants County,

Commissioners, Mitrick, Chronister, and Kilgore violated 42 U.S.C. §1983 by

depriving Plaintiff of equal protection under the law and judgment is demanded

therefor.

39. As a result of the violations of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the

14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, caused by Defendants

County, Commissioners, Mitrick, Chronister, and Kilgore, Plaintiff is entitled

to all necessary and appropriate relief, including, but not limited to, any and all

compensatory, punitive, and other damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs,

and claim is made therefor.





17

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 18 of 27

COUNT II – Sexual Harassment

Title VII/PHRA - Hostile Work Environment

Plaintiff v. All Defendants



40. Paragraphs 1-39 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set

forth.

41. Plaintiff’s protected class is sex-female.

42. Plaintiff qualifies as a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.

§2000e(a) and 43 Pa.C.S. §954(a), and as an employee under 42 U.S.C.

§2000e(f) and 43 Pa.C.S. §954(c).

43. Defendants County, Commissioners, and Center are employers

under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b) and 43 Pa.C.S. §954(b).

44. During the term of her employment, Plaintiff was subject to

intentional, unwelcome, unwanted, unprovoked, offensive, inappropriate,

flirtatious, obscene, harassing, and discriminatory conduct while engaged in an

activity protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and

the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Such intentional, unwelcome,

unwanted, unprovoked, offensive, inappropriate, flirtatious, obscene, harassing,

and discriminatory conduct was perpetrated by Defendant Bear, Plaintiff’s

Supervisor.



18

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 19 of 27

45. Said intentional, unwelcome, unwanted, unprovoked, offensive,

inappropriate, flirtatious, obscene, harassing, and discriminatory conduct was

made or directed to, and/or imposed upon Plaintiff because of her gender.

46. Said intentional, unwelcome, unwanted, unprovoked, offensive,

inappropriate, flirtatious, obscene, harassing, and discriminatory conduct

affected a term or condition of Plaintiff’s employment by creating a hostile

work environment in which Plaintiff felt anxious, belittled, defiled,

embarrassed, exploited, intimidated, threatened, and victimized.

47. The conduct of Defendant Bear unreasonably interfered with

Plaintiff’s work performance in that, among other things, she often cried at

work, feared further offensive and harassing conduct on the part of Defendant

Bear, went out of her way to avoid Defendant Bear, and had to work every day

in an environment with a male supervisor who harassed her, made unwelcome

sexual advances toward her, physically threatened her, humiliated her in front

of co-workers, and insulted her on multiple occasions as set forth hereinabove.

48. The trauma caused by Defendant Bear’s unlawful and

discriminatory actions led Plaintiff to seek psychological counseling.

49. Plaintiff continues to receive counseling for mental and emotional

harm arising out of the foregoing alleged conduct on the part of Defendants.



19

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 20 of 27

The conduct of Defendants has also caused Plaintiff to require prescription

medication for depression and anxiety.

50. Defendants County, Commissioners, Mitrick, Chronister, and

Kilgore failed to adequately correct the defect in the condition of Plaintiff’s

employment through its failure to terminate or otherwise sufficiently discipline

Defendant Bear and thus correct the hostile work environment.

51. Defendants County, Commissioners, and Center are vicariously

liable for the intentional, unwelcome, unwanted, unprovoked, offensive,

inappropriate, flirtatious, obscene, harassing, and discriminatory conduct of

Defendant Bear.

52. Plaintiff timely and appropriately took advantage of preventative

and/or corrective opportunities by complaining about Defendant Bear’s

conduct and participating in the investigation of same, despite the humiliation,

degradation, and castigation that resulted.

53. The trauma caused by the foregoing actions of the Defendants led

Plaintiff to resign her position on October 14, 2006.

54. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have

violated 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1) and 43 Pa.C.S. §955(a), and that Plaintiff is

entitled to all necessary and appropriate relief, including, but not limited to,



20

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 21 of 27

any and all compensatory, punitive, and other damages, attorney’s fees, and

court costs, and claim is made therefor.






COUNT III – Sexual Harassment

Title VII/PHRA – Retaliation

Plaintiff v. All Defendants

55. Paragraphs 1-54 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set

forth.

56. Plaintiff qualifies as a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.

§2000e(a) and 43 Pa.C.S. §954(a), and as an employee under 42 U.S.C.

§2000e(f) and 43 Pa.C.S. §954(c).

57. Both Defendants County of York and Center are employers under

42 U.S.C. §2000e(b) and 43 Pa.C.S. §955(b).

58. Plaintiff was engaged in an activity protected by Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations

Act at all times relevant to the allegations herein.

59. Defendants were collectively aware that Plaintiff was engaging in

an activity protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act at all times relevant to the

allegations herein.



21

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 22 of 27

60. As a result of Plaintiff complaining about Defendant Bear’s

behavior, Defendants County and Center, by and through the actions of

Defendant Bear, took materially adverse employment actions against her.

61. Defendants’ materially adverse employment actions would have

dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of

discrimination.

62. The trauma caused by the foregoing acts led Plaintiff to seek

psychological counseling.

63. Plaintiff continues to receive psychological counseling for mental

and emotional harm arising out of the foregoing allegations. The conduct of

Defendants has also caused Plaintiff to require prescription medication for

depression and anxiety.

64. The trauma caused by the foregoing acts led Plaintiff to resign her

position on October 14, 2006.

65. Defendants County, Commissioners, and Center are vicariously

liable for all retaliatory conduct of Defendant Bear.

66. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants, by and through their

actions, have violated 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a) and 43 Pa.C.S. §955(d), and

Plaintiff is entitled to all necessary and appropriate relief, including, but not



22

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 23 of 27

limited to, any and all compensatory, punitive, and other damages, attorney’s

fees, and court costs, and claim is made therefor.



forth.

COUNT IV – BATTERY
Plaintiff v. Defendant Bear



67. Paragraphs 1-66 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set

68. On or about December 22, 2004, Defendant Bear intentionally

made harmful and/or offensive physical contact with Plaintiff in the gym at

Defendant Center as referenced herein at paragraph 16(e), such harmful and/or

offensive physical contact being witnessed by two of Plaintiff’s co-workers.

69. Such contact offended Plaintiff’s reasonable sense of personal

dignity because such contact was unwelcome, unwanted, unwarranted,

unprovoked, and constituted a physical and sexual molestation of Plaintiff’s

person.

70. As a result of such harmful and/or offensive contact, Plaintiff was

in reasonable fear of further physical contact from Defendant Bear and suffered

mental and emotional stress.

71. Such unwelcome physical contact damaged Plaintiff’s reputation

as it was demeaning, demoralizing, degrading, and occurred in the presence of

Plaintiff’s co-workers.



23

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 24 of 27

72. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges the Defendant Bear

committed civil battery upon her in the manner described above, and that

Plaintiff is entitled to all necessary and appropriate relief, including, but not

limited to, any and all compensatory, punitive, and all other damages, and

claim is made therefor.



COUNT V – FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Plaintiff v. Defendant Bear

73. Paragraphs 1-72 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set



forth.

74. On or about December 22, 2004, Defendant Bear acted

intentionally to confine Plaintiff within fixed boundaries as referenced herein at

paragraph 16(e).

75. Defendant Bear’s herein referenced intentional acts did directly

confine the Plaintiff.

76. Plaintiff was, at all times relevant hereto, aware of Defendant

Bear’s intentional confinement of her, and was harmed by such intentional

confinement.

77. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges the Defendant Bear

falsely imprisoned her in the manner described above, and that Plaintiff is

entitled to all necessary and appropriate relief, including, but not limited to,



24

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 25 of 27

any and all compensatory, punitive, and other damages, and claim is made

therefor.



COUNT VI – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

Plaintiff v. Defendants County, Center, and Bear

DISTRESS



78. Paragraphs 1-77 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set

forth.

79. Beginning in October of 2004, Defendant Bear caused Plaintiff to

suffer repeated sexually harassing and degrading statements, innuendos, and

unwelcome sexual physical contact as described herein.

80. Such repeated sexually harassing and degrading statements,

innuendos, and unwelcome sexual physical contact constitute extreme and

outrageous conduct because such conduct goes beyond all possible bounds of

decency, and may be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized

society.

81. Defendant Bear intentionally perpetrated such repeated sexually

harassing and degrading statements, innuendos, and unwelcome sexual

physical contact against Plaintiff.

82. As a result of Defendant Bear’s repeated sexually harassing and

degrading statements, innuendos, and unwelcome sexual physical contact,



25

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 26 of 27

Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, headaches, nausea, fits of

uncontrollable crying, and other symptoms of severe emotional distress,

requiring her to seek psychological counseling and require anti-anxiety and

depression medication.

83. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges the Defendant Bear

intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff is

entitled to all necessary and appropriate relief, including, but not limited to,

any and all compensatory and punitive damages, and claim is made therefor.



forth.



JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

84. Paragraphs 1-83 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set

85. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiff on all Counts, and to hold Defendants liable to

her and award her any and all appropriate relief including:

a.

An injunction preventing Defendants from engaging in

behavior prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act;



26

Case 1:06-cv-02218-WWC Document 1 Filed 11/13/06 Page 27 of 27

b.

Compensatory Damages, including, but not limited to,

damages related to impairment of reputation, mental and emotional

stress, and out-of-pocket expenses for psychiatric care and prescription

medication;

c.

d.

e.

Punitive Damages;

Pre- and post- judgment interest;

Attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(b), 42 U.S.C.

2000d-5(k), and 43 Pa.C.S. §962(c.2);

f.

g.







































Court costs; and

All other relief deemed appropriate by this honorable Court.




























Respectfully Submitted,

___s/ Niles S. Benn, Esquire______
Niles S. Benn, Esquire
ID # PA16284
103 East Market Street
York, PA 17405-5185
Phone: (717) 852 – 7020
Fax: (717) 852 – 8797
[email protected]

27