2011 KAR - I P £ { fN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

...... LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

-.^Ui.'C;:",'.] n.J.;"'!'V ,
~A!;L C'j. CL E^'.VaTcCiL'riT
17CV000324
JACQUELYN R. ADAMS )
1223 Lafayette Street, Unit 6
VINCENT A CULOTTA
Denver, CO 80218, )

Plaintiff, )
-vs-
) COMPLAINT

STERIS CORPORATION ) Trial by Jury Endorsed Hereon

5860 Heisley Road
Mentor, OH 44060 )

and

MIKE KAY
5860 Heisley Road
Mentor, OH 44060, )

Defendants. )

INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action under Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code for violations
of secured rights of gender equality on the basis of sex.

JURISDICTION
2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code.'

PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, JACQUELYN R. ADAMS, is a female citizen of the United States and was at all
relevant times a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio who worked for defendants and was qualified
and prepared to perform all required work for the position available with defendants.

1|Page
 4. Defendant STERIS CORPORATION was at all relevant times an employer under Ohio
Revised Code Chapter 4112.

5. Defendant MIKE KAY was at all relevant times the Technical Training manager and the
direct superior of the plaintiff.

6. In February, 2011, defendant STERIS Corporation hired the "plaintiff as

a Technical Instructor based on her education and experience as an engineer.

7. STERIS Corporation hired the plaintiff as a Technical Instructor in its STERIS University.

8. Upon information and belief, plaintiff was the first woman hired by defendant
STERIS Corporation as a Technical Instructor since its founding over a century ago.

9. Upon information and belief, there are comparatively few women graduating from college with
engineering background and training.

10. STERIS University was located in Mentor, Ohio for the majority of the time of the plaintiffs
employment with defendant STERIS Corporation and most of the incidents described herein took
place there or at other locations in the State of Ohio.

11. Plaintiffs initial service training manager was Denny Cooney.

12. Shortly after she was hired, Mr. Cooney told a male STERIS employee while in the presence
of the plaintiff that he enjoyed looking at pictures of nude women online.

13. In approximately March, 2011, plaintiffs male coworker and fellow student, Mike, repeatedly
sang a song about anal sex while working on equipment during the training course lab exercises.

2 | P age
 14. In approximately March, 2011, another male STERIS Corporation technical trainer who was in
a position of authority over plaintiff, Michael Thompson, explained to a class that a procedure was
so simple that even "Jackie" could do it.

15. Upon information and belief, Mr. Thompson did not make similar comments about male
students.

16. On numerous occasions during her time in the Technical Training department, plaintiffs
clothing and appearance were the subject of conversation by male instructors and other students
during class.

17. Upon information and belief, defendant Kay knew of these discussions and took no corrective
action.

18. Because defendant Kay took no action and because plaintiff was given no instruction or
guidance on what she could do to stop the regular humiliation in the workplace, she was forced to
endure the sexually humiliating remarks and comments.

19. During an assignment by defendant Mike Kay to have the plaintiff shadow
a male employee, another male STERIS Corporation employee said to plaintiff as she was removing
a blue zip-up cover worn in surgical suite an employee said to her something like "Yeah, take it all
off."

20. Defendant Kay and other STERIS employees knew of this incident but took no corrective
action.

21. Another male employee repeatedly called plaintiff a stripper in front of her colleagues
when she walked down the halls despite plaintiffs requests that he stop.

22. None of the STERIS Corporation employees who were present when this took place took any
corrective action to prevent this behavior.

3 | Page
 23. A male manager told a "joke" about rape in class without consequence.

24. As the insulting and demeaning behavior continued, plaintiff maintained her composure during
the day and regularly suffered bouts of crying when she arrived home caused by the nearly daily
experiences she endured.

25. Plaintiff continued to inform her supervisor, defendant Kay, and other STERIS Corporation
employees and supervisors of these incidents of sexual harassment, but corrective action was still
not taken.

26. Plaintiff knew that, if she were to quit, it could negatively impact her professional reputation,
so she was forced to continue to endure the humiliation.

27. After being informed of these incidents and others and being requested by plaintiff to take
action to correct these numerous incidents, defendant Mike Kay advised that any incident involving
sexual harassment not be reported to defendant STERIS Corporation's human
resources department because he would handle these incidents
within the Technical Training department.

28. The continuing expressions, acts and conduct relating to sexual harassment continued
unabated and unreported based on defendant Kay's advisory ("Kay Advisory") on behalf of
defendant STERIS Corporation.

29. Defendant Kay told plaintiff that the reasoning behind the Kay Advisory was that if
the approximately 800 service technicians, more than 99% of whom were male, learned that a female
instructor raised a sexual harassment claim, they would blame her for the allegations and would be
concerned about attending her class.

30. The Kay Advisory discouraged reporting sexual harassment because it would generate
opprobrium with male technicians.

4 | P a ge
 31. Because Mike Kay was her superior, plaintiff trusted his advice and judgment and complied
with the Kay Advisory.

32. Plaintiff was referred to as a "bitch" by co-workers without consequence.

33. Because of the Kay Advisory, no corrective action could be taken because there was no
remedy available to the plaintiff through her superior.

34. The Kay Advisory resulted in the plaintiff having no remedy within defendant STERIS
Corporation to stop sexual harassment.

35. Notwithstanding the suffering she experienced because of her gender, because of her
exceptional work, plaintiff was ranked as the top Technical Instructor.

36. Despite her ranking as STERIS Corporation's top Technical Instructor, plaintiff continued to
be subjected to a pattern and practice of sexual harassment, including repulsive sexual references.

37. Plaintiff made sure that her manager was aware of the pattern and practice of sexual
harassment, but provided assurance to her manager that she would not report any of the humiliating
remarks and actions directed toward her because of her gender as consistent with the Kay Advisory.

38. Another instance of sex-based discrimination occurred when a student, upon hearing that he
was failing the course, alleged that the plaintiff was flirting with the students instead of teaching the
lessons.

39. This allegation was quickly determined baseless by the STERIS human resources department
and was dropped.

40. The gender-based humiliation continued for over four years of plaintiffs employment and
continued to demean and humiliate her.

5 | Page
 41. The pattern and practice of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment continued and, among
other things, resulted in a male, non-STERIS employee physically touching plaintiffs body in a
sexually suggestive manner during one of the customer classes.

42. The male also inappropriately contacted her after the class was finished because of the
permissive environment caused by the Kay Advisory.

43. Although Defendant Mike Kay did instruct the student to stop, defendant Kay did not
report the overt, gender-based physical harassment and impropriety to defendant STERIS
Corporation's human resources department.

44. The Kay Advisory resulted in some case-by-case intervention without addressing the gender-
based root of the problem which could have been solved with corporate human resources
involvement.

45. As one of the few female engineers and a highly-rated instructor, plaintiff was continually
subjected to gender-based humiliation without consequence and without any ability to modify the
work culture which she faced.

46. Plaintiff instructed her students that professionalism was an expected part of their
qualifications just as much as their technical competency.

47. Plaintiff instructed that, since defendant STERIS Corporation was one of the top medical
equipment suppliers, there was an expectation of a professional work ethic and behavior and
that profanity and other inappropriate dialogue would be unacceptable.

48. Plaintiff instructed the concept of professional expectations with other defendant STERIS
Corporation's trainers, management and human resources in hopes that they would see the value of
instilling a strong sense of professionalism and gender bias-free behavior.

49. Plaintiff shared her experiences of sexual harassment and sex discrimination with a senior
executive of defendant STERIS Corporation.

6 | Page
 50. The executive informed plaintiff that, since another female engineer had not personally
experienced sexual harassment, the allegations concerning the plaintiffs experiences could not be
valid.

51. That conclusion negated any hope that the pattern and practice of sexual harassment and sex
bias that plaintiff identified and experienced would be remedied.

52. Plaintiff informed Defendant Mike Kay of her intention to disclose her experiences of sexual
harassment and sex-based discrimination to Defendant STERIS Corporation's human resources
department during her exit interview.

53. In order to protect other women in the future, she chose to speak out about the pattern and
practice of sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination with Defendant STERIS corporation's
work culture.

54. She received a shocking response from defendant STERIS Corporation's human resources
manager to the effect that "boys will be boys."

55. Because of the shocking response she received, plaintiff scheduled to meet with Defendant
STERIS Corporation's human resources manager again to readdress this concern.

56. The response by defendant STERIS Corporation's human resources manager at the second
meeting was limited to a proposal of additional on-line sexual harassment training.

57. Plaintiff responded that additional on-line sexual harassment training

would be unlikely to result in changing corporate practices.

58. Plaintiff informed defendant STERIS Corporation's human resources manager that instituting
more on-line sexual harassment training would not be an effective way of changing the perception
of a sexually permissive environment.

7 | Page
 59. After leaving employment with defendant STERIS Corporation, plaintiff continued to
communicate with upper management with the goal of facilitating changes concerning problems of
sexual harassment and sex discrimination within STERIS Corporation.

60. Plaintiff informed senior management of Defendant Mike Kay's advisory not to report to
human resources.

61. Plaintiff stated the lack of following proper guidelines for dealing with sexual harassment and
sex-based discrimination had created a pattern and practice of sexual harassment and sex-based
discrimination at Defendant STERIS Corporation's workplace.

62. The effect of the acts and conduct complained of against the defendants has been to deprive
plaintiff of equal employment opportunities on the basis of sex.

63. The acts and conduct of the defendants were intentional and in wanton and reckless disregard
of the rights and feelings of the plaintiff.

64. The unlawful employment practices of the defendants were done with reckless indifference to
the statutorily protected rights of the plaintiff.

65. As a result of the acts and conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered
substantial mental and emotional injury, diminution in the quality of life and loss of income and
related pain and suffering and continues to endure such suffering.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff JACQUELYN R. ADAMS, urges this Court to grant

the following relief:

A. Grant to the plaintiff and against the defendants a permanent

injunction enjoining defendants from engaging in continued sex
discrimination and related unlawful sex-based misconduct which

8 | Page
discriminate on the basis of sex made unlawful under Chapter 4112
of the Ohio Revised Code;

B. Order defendants to make plaintiff whole by providing

compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from
the unlawful practices complained of, including past and
future nonpecuniary losses relating to injuries, emotional pain,
suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, humiliation and
other related costs in an amount to be determined at trial.

C. Order defendants to affirmatively institute and carry out

policies, practices, and programs which provide meaningful equal
employment opportunities for women which correct the effects of its
past and present unlawful employment practices and which will
advance and encourage women to work at defendant STERIS
Corporation as engineers.

D. Order defendants to pay to plaintiff appropriate

compensatory damages exceeding $75,000.00.

E. Order defendant STERIS Corporation to pay to plaintiff

appropriate punitive and exemplary damages for its intentional and
reckless conduct toward the plaintiff in an amount to be determined
at trial.

F. Order defendants to pay plaintiff costs of litigation

including reasonable attorney fees.

G. Grant such further relief as the court deems necessary,

proper, just and equitable in the public interest.

^VERY S. (W)06103)
Avery FriedmanTk Associates
701 The <|fy Club Building
850 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114-3358
(216) 621-9292
FAX 621-9283
aveiy (Stlawfriedman. com
fairhousing^gmail. com

Attorney for Plaintiff Jacquelyn R. Adams

9 | Page
 TRIAL BY TURY

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury.

10 | P a g e