United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THOMAS M. BLEWITT, Magistrate Judge.
On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff, Georgina Joan Gyuriska, a resident of 1407 Pittston Avenue, Scranton, Pennsylvania, 18505, filed, pro se, a 2-page unsigned form Complaint with a 13-page typed Complaint attached. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff states on the face of her form Complaint that it was filed under "American Disabilities Act of 1990[, ] Title 42 [U.S.C. §] 12111[, ] Civil Rights Act of 1964[, and] Title 42 [U.S.C. §§] 2000." (Doc. 1, p. 1). On her Civil Cover Sheet attached to her Complaint, Plaintiff indicated that this Court has jurisdiction over her action under federal question. Plaintiff indicated that the Nature of her Suit was "Americans with Disabilities-Employment" and she stated that her Cause of Action was under Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000. Plaintiff provided a brief description of her claim and stated, "In retaliation of (sic) past litigation Plaintiff was subjected to continual harassment, sexual abuse, threats and bullying; causing Plaintiff to fear for her life and making the work place, environment, both intolerable and dangerous; forcing the Plaintiff to abandon her job." (Doc. 1-2).
Plaintiff attached 25 pages of Exhibits to her Complaint, Exs. 1-5, including copies of the EEOC Notice of Right to Sue, dated July 8, 2014, 11-page narrative Affidavit of Plaintiff, dated January 12, 2012, a Voice Stress Analysis of Plaintiff regarding on the job harassment, dated January 12, 2012, 5-page Dunmore School District Policy regarding unlawful harassment, and 5-page Dunmore School District Policy regarding bullying. (Doc. 1-1).
Named as Defendants are: Dunmore School District ("DSD"); Dunmore Board of Education ("Board") and its Members; Richard McDonald, DSD Superintendent; Gary Maracco, Union Steward; Bob Brucelli, DSD Supervisor; Mike Butler; Jeanie Doe; Shawn Doe; John Doe a/k/a Johnny Mac; and John Doe a/k/a Chris Papa a/k/a Joe Papa.
As indicated, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has filed an Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff indicates that she is unemployed and receives Social Security disability monthly payments in the amount of $1, 089.00. Plaintiff also indicates that she has $400 and a 1999 Ford Escort with a value of $150.
With respect to Plaintiff's Complaint, we find that it is deficient.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff states that she has been disabled since birth and she is seeking damages against Defendants under the ADA. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff does not state her alleged disability in her Complaint. Nor does Plaintiff state when she was employed by DSD and in what capacity she worked for DSD. However, it appears from Plaintiff's Exhibits that she was a janitor for DSD from September 9, 2010 through December 14, 2011. (Doc. 1-1, p. 4).
Plaintiff asserts four Counts in her Complaint. In Count I, "Conspiracy to Retaliate, " Plaintiff avers that Defendants initiated a plan of retaliation against [her] for [her] past litigation brought against the Defendants in 2002 under Federal [Civil No. 02-0493 (M.D. Pa.)]." Plaintiff alleges that the individual Defendants assigned her to burdensome and strenuous tasks which were outside of her abilities due to her physical disabilities, that Defendants harassed her and made sexual advances and innuendos, and that Defendants intimidated and threatened her. As a result, Plaintiff avers that she lost weight due to chronic depression. As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants. ( Id., pp. 7-10).
In Count II, Plaintiff raises a state law claim for "Gross Negligence." Plaintiff alleges that Defendants DSD, Dunmore Board of Education and its members, and McDonald "wer grossly negligent in not enforcing their own policies and procedures of the District regarding sexual harassment and bullying when they knew or should have known that [she] was suffering from such conduct at the hands of their employees and co-conspirators." Plaintiff also states that said Defendants were aware of the problems she was experiencing. As relief. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants. ( Id., pp. 10-11).
In Count III, "Int[e]ntional Affliciton (sic) of Emotional Distress, " Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants intentionally and recklessly, with sole intent to cause harm and emotional duress engaged in daily course of conduct, consisting of threats of rape and molestation, stalking, demeaning name calling, invasion of privacy, threats of employment termination by bearing testimony under false witness and other outrageous and extreme conduct which Plaintiff endured for over a period of a year and a half." As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants. ( Id., pp. 11-12).
In Count IV, "Hostile Work Environment, " Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Mike Butler, Jeanie Doe, Shawn Doe, Johnny Mac, and Chris Papa created a hostile work environment by their course of conduct for over one and a half years, that the supervisory Defendants were aware of this conduct and failed to intervene to stop it, and that this treatment was done in retaliation for the past lawsuit Plaintiff and her father initiated as well as due to her disability and gender. Plaintiff also avers that Defendants Brucelli and Maracca aided and abetted the stated Defendants "in the torture and abuse of the Plaintiff." As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants. ( Id., pp. 13-14).
As mentioned, Plaintiff indicated on the face of her from Complaint it was also filed under the ADA and Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq. Plaintiff appears to be raising claims of sexual harassment and discrimination and, retaliation for filing a previous lawsuit against Defendants. Plaintiff also appears to claim that Defendants created a hostile work environment and that she was forced to resign her job with DSD.
Plaintiff's Complaint has not yet been served on Defendants and the Court has not yet ruled on her Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We find that Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court based upon federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since his Complaint alleges violations of Title VII and the ADA. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Williams v. Phila. Hous. Auth. Police Dep't, 380 F.3d 751, 761 (3d Cir. 2004); Reilly v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., 2012 WL 895459, *4 (E.D. Pa. March 15, 2012); Page v. Trustees of Univ. of Pennsylvania, 222 Fed.Appx. 144, 145, n. 1 (3d Cir. 2007). Also, this Court can exercise pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See Slater v. Susquehanna Co., 613 F.Supp.2d 653, 657 (M.D. Pa. 2009).
The ADA prohibits discrimination "against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, ...