United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
JOAN P. PRESTON
VANGUARD INVESTMENT FIRM, et al.
with a November 30, 2015 Order dismissing a case against her
former employer, Joan Preston again sues her former employer
and, this time, also sues the attorneys who represented her
and her former employer. In the accompanying Order, we grant
the motion of her former attorney, David M. Roller, and
dismiss all claims against him and deny Ms. Preston's
request for appointment of counsel.
December 22, 2014 Complaint
Preston first sued her former employer The Vanguard Group,
Inc. ("Vanguard") on December 22, 2014 claiming age
and race discrimination and retaliation in violation of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
("ADEA"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
("Title VII"), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Act ("PHRA"). Attorney David Roller represented Ms.
Preston and the law firm of Rlehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg
LLP represented Vanguard.
filing her December 2014 Complaint, Ms. Preston filed a
Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), dual filed with
the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
("PHRC"), alleging race and age discrimination and
retaliation against Vanguard. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue
letter on September 24, 2014.
Preston filed an Amended Complaint on March 24, 2015 alleging
discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII and
the PHRA, retaliation in violation of Title VII and the PHRA,
discrimination based on age in violation of ADEA and the
PHRA, retaliation in violation of ADEA and the PHRA, and race
discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. §
1981. On November 30, 2015, the Honorable Gerald
J. Pappert granted summary judgment in favor of Vanguard on
all claims in the Amended Complaint. Ms. Preston did not
February 22, 2017 Complaint
of a timely appeal, Ms. Preston filed this action on February
22, 2017, again suing Vanguard as well as Judge Pappert,
Koller, and Vanguard's law firm, Klehr Harrison Harvey
Branzburg LLP., alleging discrimination based on race, age,
and religion. Ms. Preston repeated the same race and age
discrimination allegations against Vanguard based on the same
facts as the earlier action, again alleging actions taken by
Vanguard employees to harass and discriminate against her
resulting in her termination. Ms. Preston alleges religious
discrimination, accusing Vanguard of reprimanding her for
listening to Christian music on a headset while at work and
alleging ""gospel tracks" were moved on her
addition to her employment discrimination and retaliation
claims against Vanguard, Ms. Preston takes issue with
Attorney Roller's representation in the December 2014
action. In a letter attached to her Complaint, Ms. Preston
alleges Mr. Roller's law firm represented her in the
earlier action; Mr. Koller failed to retrieve surveillance
videos for her defense, failed to call two witnesses to
testify on her behalf in the earlier action, and failed to
object to questions posed to Ms. Preston during her
deposition; Mr. Koller accepted a "fee" from
Vanguard instead of defending her and offered her a portion
of the "fee"; and when another attorney, John
Krawczyk, "left Koller Law, things changed related to my
case." Ms. Preston asks us to "remove"
Mr. Roller's "claim for $1,
Koller moves to dismiss Ms. Preston's complaint under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) arguing we lack subject matter
jurisdiction and under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim against him.Ms. Preston did not respond to
Mr. Koller's motion.
We dismiss claims against Attorney Koller under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Koller moves to dismiss Ms. Preston's claims against him,
arguing the complaint fails to state a ...