United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
M. MUNLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
employment discrimination matter arises from Defendant
Comprehensive Women's Health Services's decision to
terminate Plaintiff Kathryn Carroll's employment one day
after she requested medical leave for genetic cancer testing
and two days after requesting leave for a cancer related
surgery. Plaintiff claims the defendant terminated her
employment in contravention of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Pennsylvania's Human Relations Act, and
the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.
the court for disposition is plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint to add David Krewson, M.D.
and Robert Zimmerman, M.D. (collectively “Doctors
Krewson and Zimmerman”) as individual defendants under
plaintiff's state law PHRA claim. Because we find that
plaintiff named Doctors Krewson and Zimmerman in her
administrative grievances with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”), the
court will grant plaintiff's motion.
instant employment discrimination action arises from
Plaintiff Kathryn Carroll's (hereinafter
“plaintiff”) employment with Defendant
Comprehensive Women's Health Services (hereinafter
“defendant” or “CWHS”). Plaintiff
worked in defendant's medical records department from
November 2000 until her termination on February 6, 2013.
(Doc. 9, Am. Compl. (hereinafter “Am. Compl.”)
¶¶ 21, 26-27).
employed with the defendant in 2011, plaintiff received a
breast cancer diagnosis and requested approximately three
weeks of medical leave to receive treatment. (Id.
¶¶ 13-15). Plaintiff requested, and the defendant
granted, an additional three weeks in 2012 to receive breast
cancer treatment. (Id. ¶ 16). On January 31,
2013, plaintiff again requested one day of medical leave to
receive genetic testing to verify whether plaintiff carried a
cancer gene. (Id. ¶ 17). Plaintiff also
requested a week off in March 2013 for surgery to
prophylactically remove her ovaries. (Id. ¶
February 5, 2013, plaintiff went for genetic testing.
(Id. ¶ 20). Upon plaintiff's return to work
the next day, plaintiff's supervisor stated that she
could not locate a patient's chart. (Id. ¶
21). Plaintiff responded that she did not work the previous
day and did not know the location of the missing chart.
(Id. ¶ 22). Shortly thereafter, plaintiff's
supervisor located the missing chart and, according to
plaintiff, “proceeded to verbally reprimand plaintiff
for her attitude about the missing chart.”
(Id. ¶ 23).
hours later, plainitff's supervisor met with Doctors
Krewson and Zimmerman. (Id. ¶ 25). At the
conclusion of this meeting, these individuals called
plainitff into a conference and terminated her employment.
(Id. ¶ 26). Plaintiff's supervisor
immediately escorted plaintiff out of the building and
directed her not to say anything to the staff. (Id.
response to her termination, plaintiff filed a complaint and
a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint
asserts three claims. Count I avers the defendant
discriminated against the plaintiff because of her disability
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (hereinafter
“ADA”). (Id. ¶¶
36-44). Count II states a disability discrimination claim
against the defendant under Pennsylvania's Human
Relations Act, 43 Pa. Stat. § 951, et seq.
(hereinafter “PHRA”). (Id. ¶¶
45-48). Count III asserts a claim under the Genetic
Information Non-Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff,
et seq. (hereinafter “GINA”).
November 21, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to
file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff seeks
to name Doctors Krewson and Zimmerman as individual
defendants under Count II-plaintiff's state law PHRA
claim. The parties briefed the issues, bringing the case to
the present procedural posture.
case is brought pursuant to the ADA and GINA for unlawful
employment discrimination, we have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.”). The court has supplemental jurisdiction over
plaintiff's state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
seeks leave to file a second amended complaint to include
Doctors Krewson and Zimmerman as individual defendants under
her state law PHRA claim. Plaintiff asserts these
individuals, as owners of Defendant CWHS, made the decision,
or aided and abetted in making the decision, to terminate her
employment. The defendant argues plaintiff failed to
administratively exhaust her remedies pertaining to any claim
against these doctors, and therefore, plaintiff's
proposed amendment is futile. After a careful review, the
court agrees with the plaintiff and will allow her to file ...