Harrison - York Housing - Lawsuit

Case 1:17-cv-00887-JEJ Document 1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 23
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SANDRA HARRISON, : Case No.

Plaintiff :
:
v. :
:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF YORK, :
d/b/a YORK HOUSING AUTHORITY :
Defendant : Jury Trial Demanded
COMPLAINT
AND NOW on this the 17th day of May 2017, here comes Sandra Harrison,
Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, Sandra Thompson, Esquire, to file this
Complaint and to state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action is brought pursuant to: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") for unlawful
discrimination and hostile work environment on the basis of race and sex; 42
U.S.C.A. 1981 as a breach of contract; Age Discrimination and
1
Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq., and Title I of the
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328
(1990) (ADA), as amended. The action is also brought alleging
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and age under the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. 951, et seq.
PARTIES
2. Sandra Harrison, (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff), is an African-American
female born in 1958 who resides at 3058 Gemstone Lane, York County,
Pennsylvania.
3. Plaintiff at all times relevant from the physical impairment of High Blood
Pressure and Diabetes, which substantially limits one or more major life
activities because her energy levels are substantially reduced.
4. Housing Authority of the City of York d/b/a York Housing Authority
(hereinafter referred to as Defendant), is incorporated under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Its principal place of business is located at
31 South Broad Street, York, Pennsylvania 17403.
5. At all times relevant, Defendant employed a minimum of fifty (50)
employees.
2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Jurisdiction is provided by 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e, 28 U.S.C.A. 1331,
1343, and 1367.
7. Venue is within the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania in that all alleged acts occurred within York City, York County,
Pennsylvania.
8. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies by timely filing a
discrimination complaint raising the issues as alleged herein with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC), docketed as
17F-2014-61601, who dual filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission docketed as 201307459 (hereinafter PHRC).
9. On February 13, 2017, the EEOC mailed to Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice
of Rights letter dated February 10, 2017, which gave to Plaintiff a right to
sue within ninety (90) days of receipt of said letter, which she has done by
this filing. (A copy of said EEOC notice is attached hereto, incorporated
herein, and is marked as Exhibit A.)
10. On June 15, 2016, PHRC issued a Right to Sue letter which gave to Plaintiff
a right to sue within two years of the date of the notice. (A copy of said
3
PHRC notice is attached hereto, incorporated herein, and is marked as
Exhibit B.)
11. The Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims,
as there is a common nucleus of operative facts between the state claims and
the federal claims.
FACTS
12. Defendant administers various housing programs funded by the federal
government in the City of York and the County of York since around 1978.
13. On June 12, 2006, Defendant employed Plaintiff as a Property Manager.
14. Since 2006 and at all times relevant, Plaintiff was qualified for her position
and for the positions to which she sought promotion, as she has a vast
knowledge of HUD regulations and the programs administered by Defendant
and the various areas served, consistently and accurately provides
professional advice to other property managers and resolves tenant issues,
strives to expand her knowledge of the industry, and frequently recommends
and applies new techniques and changes in procedures to meet industry
demands.
4
15. Plaintiff was more qualified than the persons promoted, because of her
education, tenure, knowledge, skill, and experience.
16. Plaintiff was qualified because she managed various properties since 1987,
including 3000 units with a staff of 52 employees and served as the
designated liaison to the union for Edgewood Management
17. Defendant gave to employees an employee manual and annual training on
Defendants harassment and discrimination policies that promised to
employees the right to be treated equally in their compensation, terms,
benefits, conditions, or privileges of employment regardless of their protected
class.
18. Shelley Peterson (hereinafter Peterson), Caucasian female, was employed
and acted in her capacity as Public Housing Director for Defendant.
19. Craig Zunbrum (hereinafter Zunbrum), Caucasian male, was employed and
acted in his capacity as Executive Director for Defendant.
20. Donald Moul (hereinafter Moul), Caucasian male, was employed and acted
in his capacity as Controller for Defendant.
21. Plaintiff made Defendant aware of her physical disability through reports to
Peterson and Susan Piava, Admin Human Resources.
5
22. Defendant regarded Plaintiff as having a physical disability since on or
before May 2012.
23. In May 2012, Defendant approved Plaintiffs accommodation request to have
a flexible work schedule to accommodate her disability or perceived
disability.
24. At all times relevant, Defendant afforded to managers a flexible work
schedule to pursue higher education.
25. At all times relevant, despite flexing her schedule, Plaintiff performed her
duties and remained available to her staff as needed.
26. Beginning around March 2012 and continuing, Plaintiff was treated more
adverse in the compensation, terms, conditions, benefits, or privileges of
employment of her employment than similarly situated non African-
American employees, male employees, employees under the age of 50 or
who were sufficiently younger than Plaintiff, and than employees without a
disability or perceived disability.
27. Beginning around March 2012 and continuing, because of her race and/or sex
and/or age and/or disability or perceived disability, Plaintiff was severely,
regularly and pervasively harassed by Shelley Peterson, Craig Zunbrum, by
6
employees who directly reported to Peterson and Zunbrum at their allowance
and encouragement.
28. From March 2012 and continuing, Defendant intentionally subjected Plaintiff
to harassment by:
A. Peterson and Zumbrun acting individually and together to intentionally
modify, alter, or to interpret reports, including but are not limited to work
orders and property statistics, to create and communicate a negative false
impression of Plaintiffs work performance, knowledge, and peer and
tenant relations;
B. Peterson, Zunbrum, and Moul acting individually and together to
intentionally, consistently, and repeatedly made false statements to
employees, Plaintiffs co-workers and staff, so that she would receive
negative peer reviews and/or staff evaluations.
C. Peterson, Zunbrum, and Moul falsely communicated to staff that
Plaintiff manipulated the accounts of residents who were related to her for
their benefit.
D. In September 2013 and continuing, denying to her a reasonable
accommodation of flex time without cause, although such accommodation
had existed since May 2012;
7
E. Denying to her income by awarding to her a fraction of annual
increases that were given to other similarly situated managers such as
Moul, Priscilla(LNU), Danni Petrs, Andy Westhaver, Craig Wolf, Cindy
Utz, Kristie Gross, Kathy Wolf, and Peterson, and Zunbrum who differed
than Plaintiff by race, and/or sex and/or age and/or disability or perceived
disability;
F. In 2013, denying Plaintiff educational advancement afforded to
similarly situated managers, like Westhaver, who differed than Plaintiff
by race, and/or sex and/or age and/or disability or perceived disability and
requiring that she drop out of college and forfeit her tuition payment;
G. Assigning to Plaintiff the most problem Units requiring the greatest
care while intentionally denying to Plaintiff the proper staff and other
resources to effectively address the needs of the Units and tenants;
H. Refusing to assign available staff to Plaintiff to help address unit
issues;
I. Interfering with Plaintiffs ability to perform her duties to manage the
properties assigned to her, then reprimanding Plaintiff for failing to
perform her duties;
8
J. Holding Plaintiff to higher standards and assigning more substantial
workload and results from Plaintiff than other similarly situated managers
who differ from Plaintiffs protected classes and who are given greater
support and resources than Defendant provides to Plaintiff.
K. Repeatedly reassigning staff to other managers after Plaintiff trained
them;
L. Intentionally providing negative and false performance evaluations to
deprive Plaintiff of promotions and employment benefit increases
afforded to similarly situated managers such as Utz and White who
differed than Plaintiff by race, and/or sex and/or age and/or disability or
perceived disability, but who performed more poorly than Plaintiff; and
M. By assessing blame to and reprimanding Plaintiff for unforeseeable
tenant destruction of units and conditions of units when similarly situated
property managers like Cindy Utz and Brian White who differed than
Plaintiff by race, and/or sex and/or age and/or disability or perceived
disability were not so blamed or reprimanded for tenant destruction of
property or bed bug infestations.
29. In late 2013, Peterson left Defendants employ, acts described herein
continued against Plaintiff through Zunbrum and Moul.
9
30. When Zunbrum left Defendants employment as an Executive Director he
continued making decisions negatively affecting Plaintiffs terms, conditions,
and benefits of employment as a consultant.
31. Zumbrum now serves as Recording Secretary for the Defendants Board of
Directors.
32. Similarly situated managers who differed than Plaintiff by race, and/or sex
and/or age and/or disability or perceived disability were not harassed or
treated differently in the terms, benefits, and conditions of employment by
Defendant as was Plaintiff.
33. Defendants harass of Plaintiff was intentional, severe and pervasive
occurring several times a week causing Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional
distress, the development or aggravation of high blood pressure and lack of
sleep.
34. At all times relevant, Plaintiff complained to Defendant through Zunbrum,
Richard Fox, Executive Director, Moul, Peterson, Craig Wolf, Maintenance
Superintendent, and multiple Board of Directors that she was suffering
discrimination and harassment, but Defendant took no corrective action.
35. Around October 13, 2013, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant appointed
White to the position of Interim Lead Manager.
10
36. Defendants were required by Civil Services rules to post the position but they
violated such rules.
37. The position was never posted denying to Plaintiff an opportunity to apply
for the position before the appointment.
38. After learning of the appointment, Plaintiff immediately applied by
informing Zunbrum of her interest to serve in the position.
39. Zunbrum responded to Plaintiff that Defendant would hold interviews.
40. Defendant never interviewed Plaintiff nor was she notified about any
interviews.
41. Plaintiff had more experience and better qualifications than White.
42. Around April 23, 2014, Defendant notified Plaintiff that White was hired
permanently in the position of Lead Manager.
43. Defendant intentionally reassigned Plaintiffs trained staff to White to
compensate for his lack of experience, skill and knowledge to perform as
Lead Manager.
44. Plaintiff is assigned to Parkway Units which Defendant references as a
ghetto with predominantly African-American residents.
11
45. Plaintiff has complained to Defendant about its policies that negatively affect
housing units that are inhabited by residents who are mostly non-Caucasian,
such as Hispanics and African-Americans.
46. She has complained about Defendants enactment of 3xs Late Policy,
charging of utilities, use of funding, and provision of services to the units
with mostly non-white tenants.
47. Plaintiff was assigned to manager these units.
48. Staff and resources are also denied to Plaintiff because the tenants she
manage are mostly non-Caucasian.
COUNT I- TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

42 USCA 2000e-2(a)
49. Paragraphs 1 through 48 of this Complaint are re- alleged and incorporated
herein by reference as though set forth in full.
50. As heretofore alleged herein, Plaintiff was treated more adversely in the
compensation, terms, conditions, benefits, or privileges of employment than
similarly situated Caucasian and/or male managers based on her race and sex.
12
51. Defendant impermissibly considered Plaintiffs race and/or sex in treating her
more adversely than her Caucasian and/or male similarly situated co-workers
as described herein including her work assignment, staff assignments, award
of flextime, performance evaluations, discipline, educational opportunities,
promotional opportunities, provision of staff and resources to residential
units, policies and procedures enacted for Plaintiffs assigned units, and by
interfering with her ability to perform her duties, and subjecting Plaintiff to
severe and pervasive harassment.
52. Plaintiff suffered severe mental and emotional distress, anxiety, affront to her
personality, indignity, disgrace, inconvenience, humiliation, loss of
enjoyment of life which was a direct, intended, foreseeable harm and/or
proximate cause of Defendants actions or failures to act appropriately.
53. As a direct and proximate and foreseeable cause to Defendants intentional
adverse treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment
action because she lost income because of low rated performance evaluations
that in turn denied or subjected her to lower merit pay raises, bonuses, and
pension contributions, and denial of promotions.
adverse treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff also suffered adverse employment
13
actions by being denied employment opportunities that were awarded to
Caucasian and/or male similarly situated co-workers.
55. Defendant acted intentionally to harass, intimidate, and to discriminate
against Plaintiff because of her race and/or sex.
56. Plaintiffs race and/or sex were a substantial and motivating factor in
Defendants adverse actions or inaction.
57. Plaintiff suffered a hostile work environment because of her race and/or sex.
58. Defendant failed to take reasonable care to prevent and to promptly correct
the harassment of Plaintiff.
60. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional injury, loss wages and benefits which was
a direct, intended, foreseeable harm and/or proximate cause of Defendants
actions or inaction.
61. Any reasonable person in Plaintiffs protected classes and in Plaintiffs
position would have been affected the same as Plaintiff.
14
62. Defendants acts or failures to act were intentional and were because of
malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs federally protected rights to be
treated equally regardless of her race or sex.
63. These claims were not waived or previously litigated.
64. Plaintiff seeks damages as authorized by 42 U.S.C.A. 1981a, as applicable.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court would enter

Judgment against Defendant and would award to her compensatory damages of at
least $50,000.00, plus attorney fees, interest and costs as well as any other fair and
equitable remedy.
COUNT II- 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-

Breach of Contract
65. Paragraphs 1 through 64 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated
66. Defendants acts of treating Plaintiff more adversely than Caucasian
managers continued through to date.
67. At all times relevant, Defendant continued increasing Plaintiffs workload,
denying her adequate support, denying to her merit raise increases, and
creating and/or reporting false information to negate her job performance and
15
to justify lower evaluations causing her to lose income and to deny her
promotions.
68. Plaintiff attempted to exercise her rights under Defendants employee
manual, policies and procedures which promised she would be treated
equally to employees who were non African-American.
69. Defendant attempted to and/ or did deny Plaintiff the enjoyment of the
compensation, terms, conditions, benefits, or privileges of employment of the
employee manual, policies and procedures that were enjoyed by non African-
American.
70. Plaintiff seeks fees and other allowable costs as authorized by 42 U.S.C.A
1988.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court would enter Judgment
against Defendant and would award to her compensatory damages of at least
$50,000.00, plus attorney fees, interest and costs as well as any other fair and
equitable remedy.
16
COUNT III- Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.

621, et seq
72. Utz, White, Westhaver, who were around age 45, and other similarly situated
managers were substantially young than Plaintiff who was over age 55 at all
times relevant.
73. The managers who were in their forties or younger were not subjected to the
same adverse terms and conditions of employment as Plaintiff, nor were they
harassed.
74. As heretofore alleged herein, Plaintiff was treated more adversely in the
compensation, terms, conditions, benefits, or privileges of employment than
similarly situated substantially younger managers based on her age.
75. Defendant impermissibly considered Plaintiffs age in treating her more
adversely than her Caucasian and/or male similarly situated co-workers as
described herein including her work assignment, staff assignments, award of
flextime, performance evaluations, discipline, educational opportunities,
promotional opportunities, provision of staff and resources to residential
units, policies and procedures enacted for Plaintiffs assigned units, and by
17
interfering with her ability to perform her duties, and subjecting Plaintiff to
severe and pervasive harassment.
adverse treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment
action because she lost income due to low rated performance evaluations and
was denied or subjected to lower merit pay raises, bonuses, and pension
contributions.
adverse treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff also suffered adverse employment
actions by being denied available awards and employment opportunities.
79. Defendant acted intentionally to harass, intimidate, and to discriminate
against Plaintiff because of her age.
80. Plaintiffs age was a substantial and motivating factor in Defendants adverse
action or inaction.
81. Plaintiff suffered a hostile work environment because of her age.
18
82. Plaintiffs age had determinative influence on the outcome of Defendants
actions and decisions as Defendant treated similarly situated managers who
were substantially younger than Plaintiff better than Plaintiff.
83. But for Plaintiffs age, Plaintiff would have been treated the same as her
similarly situated substantially younger co-workers.
84. Defendant failed to take reasonable care to prevent and to promptly correct
the discrimination and harassment of Plaintiff.
85. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional injury, loss wages and benefits which was
a direct, intended, foreseeable harm and/or proximate cause of Defendants
actions or inaction.
86. Any reasonable person in Plaintiffs protected classes and in Plaintiffs
position would have been affected the same as Plaintiff.
87. Defendants acts or failures to act were intentional and were because of
malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs federally protected rights to be
treated equally regardless of her race or sex.
88. Plaintiff seeks fees and other allowable costs as authorized by law.
equitable remedy.
19
COUNT IV- Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-
336) (ADA), as amended
90. Plaintiff suffers from a physical impairment of High Blood Pressure and
Diabetes that substantially limits one or more of her major life activities
which includes, but is not limited to, her energy and Defendant has a record
of such impairment.
91. Defendant regarded Plaintiff as having such a disability since around May
2012.
92. Defendant gave to Plaintiff an accommodation from around May 2012 until
around September 2013.
93. Around September 2013, Defendant intentionally, arbitrarily and without
cause revoked her accommodation of flextime which then caused a negative
impact on Plaintiffs ability to perform her duties resulting in discipline, poor
evaluations, denial of pay increases, and a denial of educational opportunities
and promotions.
94. Plaintiffs request for an accommodations created no undue hardship to
Defendant.
20
equitable remedy.
COUNT V Violation of The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act,

43 P.S. 951, et seq.
96. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to adverse treatment in the compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or contract and denied
Plaintiff equal protection under the law, because of her race and/or sex and/or
age and/or disability or perceived disability, in violation of 43 P.S. 955(a).
97. Plaintiff requests remedy as authorized by 43 P.S. 962 (c )(3) and (c.2).
98. Plaintiff requests remedy as authorized by Section 9 Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act.
21
WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court would enter

Judgment against Defendant and would award to her compensatory damages,
attorney fees, and other remedies as authorized by the act.
Respectfully Submitted:
s/ Sandra Thompson, Esquire

Counsel for Plaintiff
PA ID No. 84345
351 East Princess Street
P.O. Box 1901
York, Pennsylvania 17405
Telephone/Fax: 215-987-3650
Email: sthompsonllc@gmail.com
22
VERIFICATION STATEMENT
I, Sandra Harrison, Plaintiff, do hereby verify that the statements made in this
Complaint are true and correct to the best of my information, belief, and
knowledge. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the
penalties of perjury.
Sandra Harrison, Plaintiff
23

Harrison - York Housing - Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Harrison - York Housing - Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:17-cv-00887-JEJ Document 1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 23

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SANDRA HARRISON, : Case No.

Complaint and to state as follows:

amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") for unlawful

U.S.C.A. 1981 as a breach of contract; Age Discrimination and

Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq., and Title I of the

(1990) (ADA), as amended. The action is also brought alleging

Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. 951, et seq.

2. Sandra Harrison, (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff), is an African-American

activities because her energy levels are substantially reduced.

4. Housing Authority of the City of York d/b/a York Housing Authority

(hereinafter referred to as Defendant), is incorporated under the laws of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Its principal place of business is located at

31 South Broad Street, York, Pennsylvania 17403.

5. At all times relevant, Defendant employed a minimum of fifty (50)

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Jurisdiction is provided by 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e, 28 U.S.C.A. 1331,

1343, and 1367.

8. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies by timely filing a

Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC), docketed as

17F-2014-61601, who dual filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations

Commission docketed as 201307459 (hereinafter PHRC).

this filing. (A copy of said EEOC notice is attached hereto, incorporated

herein, and is marked as Exhibit A.)

PHRC notice is attached hereto, incorporated herein, and is marked as

the federal claims.

12. Defendant administers various housing programs funded by the federal

13. On June 12, 2006, Defendant employed Plaintiff as a Property Manager.

knowledge of HUD regulations and the programs administered by Defendant

and the various areas served, consistently and accurately provides

professional advice to other property managers and resolves tenant issues,

strives to expand her knowledge of the industry, and frequently recommends

and applies new techniques and changes in procedures to meet industry

education, tenure, knowledge, skill, and experience.

including 3000 units with a staff of 52 employees and served as the

designated liaison to the union for Edgewood Management

17. Defendant gave to employees an employee manual and annual training on

Defendants harassment and discrimination policies that promised to

employees the right to be treated equally in their compensation, terms,

benefits, conditions, or privileges of employment regardless of their protected

18. Shelley Peterson (hereinafter Peterson), Caucasian female, was employed

and acted in her capacity as Public Housing Director for Defendant.

acted in his capacity as Executive Director for Defendant.

in his capacity as Controller for Defendant.

Peterson and Susan Piava, Admin Human Resources.

22. Defendant regarded Plaintiff as having a physical disability since on or

before May 2012.

23. In May 2012, Defendant approved Plaintiffs accommodation request to have

a flexible work schedule to accommodate her disability or perceived

24. At all times relevant, Defendant afforded to managers a flexible work

schedule to pursue higher education.

duties and remained available to her staff as needed.

adverse in the compensation, terms, conditions, benefits, or privileges of

employment of her employment than similarly situated non African-

American employees, male employees, employees under the age of 50 or

disability or perceived disability.

and/or age and/or disability or perceived disability, Plaintiff was severely,

regularly and pervasively harassed by Shelley Peterson, Craig Zunbrum, by

employees who directly reported to Peterson and Zunbrum at their allowance

A. Peterson and Zumbrun acting individually and together to intentionally

orders and property statistics, to create and communicate a negative false

impression of Plaintiffs work performance, knowledge, and peer and