The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN JONES III, District Judge
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Pending before the Court is Defendants', Outdoor World
Corporation, Resorts USA, Inc., Rank America, Inc., and Rank
Holdings B.V. (collectively "Corporate Defendants"), Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ("Corporate Defendants'
Motion"). (Rec. Doc. 5). Also pending before the Court is
Defendants', Mary Gotchell, Donald Delaplain and Mark Turner
(collectively "Individual Defendants"), Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ("Individual Defendants Motion"). (Rec.
Doc. 6). We shall dispose of both Motions in this Order.
Federal question jurisdiction is proper pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pendent jurisdiction is proper over the state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
For the following reasons, the Corporate Defendants' Motion and
the Individual Defendants' Motion shall be granted in part and
denied in part.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, Richard Earl Ruberg ("Plaintiff" or "Ruberg"),
became employed by the Corporate Defendants on February 28, 2001.
His position was general manager of Outdoor World at Timothy Lake
in East Stroudsburg, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff's
direct supervisor was Defendant Donald Delaplain, who was the
Regional Manager of Outdoor World Corporation. Defendant Mary
Gotchell was the Human Resources Manager and Defendant Mark
Turner was the Vice-President of Outdoor World Corporation.
Plaintiff is a homosexual male. Plaintiff alleges that
beginning in October 2003 and over the next few months, he and
Defendant Delaplain had a number of business dinner meetings.
Plaintiff further alleges that during these meetings Defendant
Delaplain criticized Plaintiff for being a homosexual and
implored him "to be normal." Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Delaplain's comments caused him to feel scared, humiliated, embarrassed, denigrated, insulted and
otherwise uncomfortable and prevented him from performing his
employment duties without feeling discriminated against.
In December of 2003 Plaintiff was diagnosed with the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV"). Plaintiff did not immediately
disclose his condition to the Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that
he received a satisfactory evaluation in his annual review in
February of 2004.
In July of 2004, Plaintiff required medical treatment that
necessitated a reduction from a 40-hour work week to a 32-hour
work week. Plaintiff's doctor issued a note to this effect for
Plaintiff to give to his employer. On August 3, 2004, Plaintiff
informed Defendant Gotchell of his HIV-positive condition and
requested the reduction in weekly work hours, which was promptly
The following day, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gotchell
requested Plaintiff's physician complete a certification
regarding Plaintiff's HIV-positive medical condition on a
pre-printed form. Plaintiff alleges that although Defendant
Gotchell promised Plaintiff she would maintain his strict
confidence regarding Plaintiff's condition, Defendant Gotchell
informed Defendants Delaplain and Turner of Plaintiff's
On September 14, 2004, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Delaplain informed Plaintiff that a co-worker had accused Plaintiff of falsifying
work records and/or directing subordinates to falsify work
records in August of 2004. The accusation was made in the
presence of Defendant Gotchell. Plaintiff categorically denied
Defendant Delaplain's accusations of misconduct. On September 17,
2004, Defendant Turner terminated the Plaintiff's employment.
Plaintiff alleges that the reason for the termination was pretext
for discrimination and that he was never given an opportunity to
challenge the accusations of misconduct.
On or about October 12, 2004, Plaintiff filed a pro se
administrative complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission ("PHRC") against Defendant Outdoor World Corporation,
in which he alleged that his employer discriminated against him
based on his disability, namely his HIV-positive condition. On
September 9, 2005, Plaintiff received a notice from PHRC that his
pro se administrative complaint was being dismissed. (Rec. Doc.
18, Ex. A).
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint (doc. 1)
with this Court on August 1, 2005. In the complaint (doc. 1),
Plaintiff alleges that the Corporate Defendants and the
Individual Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended ("Title VII"), the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments by way of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"). On September 30, 2005, Plaintiff
received a Dismissal and Notice of Rights Letter from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). (Rec. Doc. 18, Ex.
The Corporate Defendants' Motion (doc. 5) was filed on
September 12, 2005. The Individual Defendants' Motion (doc. 6)
was filed on September 19, 2005. Both Motions have been ...