UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SANDRA DILAURA and

: Civil Action No. 03-2200

JEFFREY DILAURA, w/h, and

:

THE UNITED STATES EQUAL

:

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION,

:

: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, :

INC., d/b/a

:

MAMSI,

:

:

Defendant.

:

COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, claim of defendant, Mid

Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI, damages upon a cause of action whereof

the following is a statement:

I. PARTIES.

1. Plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, are adult individuals, who

presently reside at 12 Whitewoods Lane, in Malvern, Chester County, Pennsylvania,

19355. Plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, file the present Civil

Action, in order to seek redress for discriminatory employment practices,

discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability and discriminatory

termination based on disability, and other discriminatory employment practices,

under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42, U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq.,

Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, the Pennsylvania

Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Sections 955, et. seq., and the Family and

Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq., to which Mrs.

DiLaura was subjected during the course and scope of her employment with the defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a/ MAMSI. 2. Defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI, is a corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland, and is registered and licensed to engage in business, and is engaged in the business, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a registered business office address, located in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at Ten Great Valley Parkway, in Malvern, Chester County, Pennsylvania, 19355. II. VENUE AND JURISDICTION. 1. This case is filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, based on Federal Question Jurisdiction, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1331, arising from the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq., Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Sections 955, et. seq., and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq. 2. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, because defendant resides within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, because defendant is registered and licensed to engage in business and is engaged in business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and because the primary transactions, occurrences and events associated with plaintiffs’ causes of action occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
2

3. Jurisdiction is properly invoked in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, due to subject matter jurisdiction of plaintiffs’ Federal civil rights claims as Federal questions, arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq., Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq. Damages in this case are in excess of the Federal jurisdictional limits. This Honorable Court is requested to assume supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state statutory claims arising under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Sections 955, et. seq., and under Pennsylvania state law. III. COUNT NO. 1: VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, TITLE 42 U.S.C. SECTIONS 12101, ET. SEQ. 4. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, was hired by defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI, on March 23, 1999. Mrs. DiLaura was hired as an account executive, and worked for the defendant employer as an account executive from March 23, 1999, until she was illegally and unlawfully terminated on August 30, 2000. Mrs. DiLaura worked out of defendants’ business office located at Ten Great Valley Parkway in Malvern, Chester County, Pennsylvania, 19355. 5. During the course and scope of the employment of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, with defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI, Mrs. DiLaura did not receive any negative performance evaluations, or any written warnings about any alleged deficiencies in her job performance. 6. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, was terminated illegally, unlawfully and without any prior warning or notice, either written or verbal, on August 30, 2000, from her gainful employment with defendant. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, was unlawfully and illegally terminated, because of her being perceived as being disabled, and 3

based on disability discrimination and harassment, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq., in violation of Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, and in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq. 7. At the time of the termination of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, from her gainful employment with the defendant employer, on August 30, 2000, Mrs. DiLaura earned the salary of approximately $50,000.00 per year. 8. The Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq., prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability, because of the disability of the individual in the employment environment and in the workplace, and based on the unlawful perception of disability. 9. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, was an individual with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq. 10. On August 30, 2000, Mrs. DiLaura requested a three-week medical leave of absence, in order to medically acclimate herself to new prescription medications prescribed by her treating physicians. The defendant employer denied Mrs. DiLaura’s reasonable request for a medical leave of absence in a discriminatory manner. 11. Instead, the defendant employer terminated plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, from her gainful employment. The defendant employer alleged that its policies did not cover the class of medical disability suffered by plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura. This information conveyed to plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, by the defendant employer, was untrue, false and misleading. Mrs. DiLaura properly requested an appropriate
4

medical leave of absence from the defendant employer to which she was legally entitled. The defendant employer advised Mrs. DiLaura, in response to her request for a medical leave of absence, that her options involved resignation, not taking the requested leave of absence and continuing to work, which she was not able to do medically for a three-week period of time, due to the new prescription medications that she was taking properly as prescribed by her treating physicians, or else, to take the requested medical leave of absence, and to be terminated for being out of work and on an unauthorized medical leave of absence. 12. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, never received any written documentation or correspondence regarding her termination. The defendant employer refused to offer to Mrs. DiLaura the family and medical leave of absence to which she was legally entitled and which she properly requested. Instead, the defendant employer denied Mrs. DiLaura’s request for a family and medical leave of absence, and instead, terminated her gainful employment without any warning or notice, in an unlawful and illegal manner, based on disability discrimination and based on its illegal and unlawful perception of her as being a disabled person, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq. 13. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, received medical treatment from her treating psychiatrist, Stuart D. Levy, M.D., for postpartum depression and bipolar affective disorder. Dr. Levy prescribed new psychotropic medications for Mrs. DiLaura, including, Zyprexa, Topamax and Wellbutrin. 14. Dr. Levy wrote to Mrs. DiLaura’s employer, Ms. Collette Donato, of the human resources department of the defendant employer. Dr. Levy advised the defendant employer that Mrs. DiLaura was currently under his medical care for the medical
5

treatment of postpartum depression and bipolar affective disorder. Dr. Levy further advised the defendant employer that Mrs. DiLaura suffered from depression and affective bipolar disorder. 15. Dr. Levy further advised the defendant employer that Mrs. DiLaura should be able to return to work in approximately three weeks. Consistently, Mrs. DiLaura also advised the defendant employer that she should be able to return to work in approximately three weeks. 16. Mrs. DiLaura’s depression and affective bipolar disorder were transitory, due to post-partem depression from the birth of her second child. Thus, Mrs. DiLaura made a reasonable request for a reasonable accommodation for a temporary medical leave of absence, to which she was legally entitled. 17. Without any reasonable basis, and in an illegal, unlawful and discriminatory manner, the defendant employer refused to grant Mrs. DiLaura’s reasonable request for a reasonable accommodation for a temporary medical leave of absence. 18. Mrs. DiLaura was a disabled and impaired person under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mrs. DiLaura was a qualified person with a disability within the meaning of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq. 19. Mrs. DiLaura was able to continue to perform her work and to perform the essential functions of her job position, only needing the reasonable accommodation of being granted a three week temporary medical leave of absence to which she was clearly legally entitled.
6

20. The defendant employer’s refusal to permit Mrs. DiLaura to continue to perform her work with this reasonable accommodation was based on Mrs. DiLaura’s record of impairment, and the defendant employer’s erroneous perception of her inability to perform the essential functions of her job position.
21. The defendant employer could easily have afforded this temporary three week medical leave of absence to Mrs. DiLaura. However, the defendant employer chose not to do so, in a discriminatory manner against Mrs. DiLaura, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq.
22. The defendant employer’s allegation that it would have incurred a hardship by allowing Mrs. DiLaura to remain off from work for this three week period of time because of the amount of work to be done and the relatively small size of the office and staff is a false and pretextual reason without a legitimate factual or legal basis. The defendant employer is a large national company with a number of offices located in a number of states.
23. The defendant employer’s allegation that Mrs. DiLaura was considered to have abandoned her job position after she took an unauthorized medical leave of absence is also made on a pretextual and false basis. Mrs. DiLaura legally requested a proper medical leave of absence to which she was legally entitled. The defendant employer denied Mrs. DiLaura’s proper and legitimate request, and instead, would not legally allow her to take a medical leave of absence for her temporary psychiatric condition caused by her temporary post-partum depression from the birth of her second child.
24. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, provided the defendant employer with medical documentation that she possessed a disability as defined by the Americans with
7

Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq. The defendant employer did not possess a legitimate reason for denying Mrs. DiLaura’s request for a reasonable accommodation consisting of a temporary three-week medical leave of absence. The defendant employer made a false allegation that staffing and business needs required the defendant employer to deny Mrs. DiLaura’s reasonable request for a reasonable accommodation consisting of a temporary three-week medical leave of absence. 25. The defendant employer is a large national employer that employs thousands of employees at multiple locations. Thus, the defendant employer’s allegation that by allowing Mrs. DiLaura to take a temporary three-week leave of absence from work to deal with her post-partum depression and the psychotropic medications that she was being prescribed for the post-partum depression, after she had been a diligent and competent employee for several years, because of an alleged staffing hardship, is pretextual, false and made without a legitimate factual basis. Instead, the defendant employer’s allegation is a mere cover-up for its unlawful and illegal decision to deny Mrs. DiLaura’s reasonable request for a reasonable accommodation consisting of a temporary three-week medical leave of absence for documented and legitimate medical reasons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq. 26. The defendant employer is not exempt from the Family and Medical Leave Act requirements, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq. Under Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 825.104(c), the corporation is the employer and not the division. Therefore, if the division has less than 50 employees, but the employer has 50 or more employees, then the employee is a covered entity under
8

the Family and Medical Leave Act, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq. The defendant employer possesses multiple business locations in both Malvern, Pennsylvania, and in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, well within 75 miles of each other. More than 50 employees work at the Malvern, Pennsylvania, and Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, locations of the defendant employer, which are within 75 miles of each other. 27. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, only requested a temporary three-week medical leave of absence and not the full twelve weeks of medical leave to which she was legally entitled under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The genuine fact is that the employer did not want Mrs. DiLaura, with a transitory mental illness, taking psychotropic medications, working at its facility. Therefore, the defendant employer illegally and unlawfully perceived Mrs. DiLaura as being a disabled person with a disability, consisting of a transitory mental illness taking psychotropic medications, and did not want her working at its facility. Therefore, the defendant employer denied Mrs. DiLaura’s reasonable request for the reasonable accommodation of a temporary three-week medical leave of absence without a legitimate factual basis, and on a discriminatory basis, because it perceived her as being a disabled person with mental health problems requiring psychotropic medications. 28. The defendant employer grants family and medical leaves of absence to employees other than Mrs. DiLaura, thereby discriminating against Mrs. DiLaura, based on the illegal and unlawful perception of her as being a disabled person, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq. In its own MAMSI Health Plans Employee Handbook, the defendant
9

employer recognized its obligation to grant Mrs. DiLaura’s request for family and medical leave. In the defendant employer’s own MAMSI Health Plans Employee Handbook, the defendant employer enumerated its own progressive discipline policies. The defendant employer violated its own MAMSI Health Plans Employee Handbook, specifically, its own progressive discipline policies. In the Progressive Discipline Steps, Section 4 of the defendant employer’s own MAMSI Health Plans Employee Handbook, a number of progressive discipline steps are enumerated for employees, before termination, including an oral reminder, the first step prior to formal discipline; a verbal warning, the first level of formal correction; a written warning, the second level of formal correction; the final warning, a third level of formal correction; and then, a suspension; all before a dismissal. None of these progressive disciplinary steps were ever undertaken by the employer towards Mrs. DiLaura, in violation of the defendant employer’s own MAMSI Health Plans Employee Handbook. 29. Also, in the section of the defendant employer’s MAMSI Health Plans Employee Handbook, entitled, “Disciplinary Procedure And Corrective Action”, there are a number of infractions that may result in immediate dismissal, none of which Mrs. DiLaura committed or was ever accused of committing, including, assault on another employee, visitor or customer; bringing a weapon into the workplace; dishonesty; falsification or misrepresentation on the employment application or on other work records; using and/or distributing illegal drugs at the workplace; breach of the customer’s right to the expectation of the confidentiality of their information; sexual, racial, religious or ethnic harassment; negligence or any
10

careless action which endangers the life or safety of others; willful damage to, or theft of, the employer’s property; or gross insubordination. 30. The defendant employer also violated its own Employee Handbook, Section 7, entitled, “Employee Benefits Programs”. Specifically, one of the employee benefits to which all of the employees of the defendant employer were legally entitled is family and medical leave. Mrs. DiLaura was denied her legal entitlement to this family and medical leave, in a discriminatory manner, based on the employer’s illegal and unlawful perception of her as being a disabled person, and based on disability discrimination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury award all damages allowable by law, including, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, Court costs, litigation costs and such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and awards against defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury find in their favor and against defendant on all counts. IV. COUNT NO. 2: FAILURE TO RETURN TO WORK WITH OR WITHOUT
ACCOMODATIONS PURSUANT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, TITLE 42 U.S.C. SECTIONS 12101, ET. SEQ. 31. Plaintiffs repeat the averments of paragraphs 1-30 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference thereto, as fully as those same were set forth at length herein.
11

32. The defendant employer’s refusal to permit Mrs. DiLaura to continue to perform her work and its refusal to reasonably accommodate any perceived impairment violated Mrs. DiLaura’s legal rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully
request that this Honorable Court and Jury award all damages allowable by law, including, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, Court costs, litigation costs and such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and awards against defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury find in their favor and against defendant on all counts.
V. COUNT 3: FAILURE TO RETURN TO WORK WITH OR WITHOUT ACCOMMODATIONS PURSUANT TO THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT.
33. Plaintiffs repeat the averments of paragraphs 1-32 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference thereto, as fully as those same were set forth at length herein.
34. Mrs. DiLaura was a person with a handicap or a disability within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Section 955(a).
35. With the reasonable accommodation of being provided a temporary three-week medical leave of absence, Mrs. DiLaura was able to continue to perform her work and to fulfill the essential functions of her job position on or about August 30, 2000, and thereafter, and she remained able and available to continue to perform her work thereafter. The refusal of the defendant employer to permit her to
12

continue to perform her work with this reasonable accommodation, was based on Mrs. DiLaura’s record of impairment and the erroneous perception by the defendant employer of Mrs. DiLaura’s inability to perform the essential functions of the job position. 36. The refusal of the defendant employer to permit Mrs. DiLaura to continue to perform her work and the refusal to reasonably accommodate the perceived impairment violated Mrs. DiLaura’s legal rights under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Sections 955, et. seq. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury award all damages allowable by law, including, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, Court costs, litigation costs and such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and awards against defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury find in their favor and against defendant on all counts. VI. COUNT 4: RETALIATION PURSUANT TO THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT. 37. Plaintiffs repeat the averments of paragraphs 1-36 of this Complaint, which are
incorporated herein by reference thereto, as fully as those same were set forth at length herein. 38. Subsequent to the defendant employer being advised of the medical condition of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, the defendant employer took adverse action against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, in an effort to prevent her from continuing to perform her gainful employment, including, unjustifiably refusing to honor her reasonable
13

request for a temporary three-week medical leave of absence, terminating her gainful employment, refusing to acknowledge her reasonable accommodation requests, refusing to honor her reasonable request for a reasonable accommodation of a temporary three-week medical leave of absence, and other deceptive conduct calculated to prevent plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, from continuing to perform her job duties. 39. The conduct of the defendant employer constitutes unlawful retaliation, in violation of Section V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq. 40. As the direct and proximate result of the willful, illegal and unlawful actions of the defendant employer, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has been caused to suffer severe economic losses of pay, benefits and other employee remunerations, and the undeserved and painful diminution of her abilities to provide for herself and her family with the earned rewards of excellence in her career, and given her loyalty and efforts on behalf of defendant, emotional distress and humiliation, pain and suffering, losses of life’s pleasures, mental, emotional and physical pain and suffering, medical expenses for medical treatment for her severe mental, emotional and physical injuries, significant losses of wages and losses of earning capacities and powers, and the inability to attend to her usual, customary and normal daily duties, occupations and activities of daily living and employment and occupational activities, and has sustained the permanent diminution in her abilities to enjoy the activities of daily living, to enjoy life’s pleasures, to earn wages, to work and to be employed.
14

41. As the direct and proximate result of the defendant’s discriminatory conduct, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has suffered damages in excess of the Federal jurisdictional limits, and plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has suffered the following, including, but not limited to: a. That the Honorable Court and Jury enter a declaratory judgment and find that defendant violated plaintiffs’ legal rights to be free from disability discrimination and disability harassment under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act; b. That the Honorable Court and Jury enter the verdict for plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, and find that defendant has discriminated against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act; c. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such damages as back pay, front pay, overtime, loss of fringe benefits, medical benefits and other benefits of employment; d. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such compensatory damages as are allowable by law; e. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such declaratory damages, actual damages, punitive damages and nominal damages as are allowable by law; f. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and delay damages as are allowable by law;
15

g. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, equitable relief, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, reinstatement of salary, wages and earnings, holiday pay, sick pay, vacation pay, and reaffirmation of her employment records and positive letters of reference;
h. That the Honorable Court award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, puntivie damages;
i. That the Honorable Court award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury award all damages allowable by law, including, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, Court costs, litigation costs and such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and awards against defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury find in their favor and against defendant on all counts.
VII. COUNT 5: RETALIATION PURSUANT TO THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT.
42. Plaintiffs repeat the averments of paragraphs 1-41 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference thereto, as fully as those same were set forth at length herein.
43. Subsequent to the defendant employer being advised of the medical conditions of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, the defendant employer took adverse action against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, in an effort to prevent her from continuing to perform 16

her gainful employment, including unjustifiably refusing to honor her reasonable request for a reasonable accommodation of a temporary three-week medical leave of absence, terminating her gainful employment, refusing to acknowledge her reasonable accommodation requests, refusing to honor her reasonable request for a temporary three-week medical leave of absence, and other deceptive conduct calculated to prevent plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, from continuing to perform her job duties. 44. The conduct of the defendant employer constitutes retaliation, in violation of the legal rights of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, to be free from retaliation, under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Sections 955, et. seq. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury award all damages allowable by law, including, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, Court costs, litigation costs and such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and awards against defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury find in their favor and against defendant on all counts. VIII. COUNT 6: DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF
PLAINTIFF, SANDRA DILAURA, UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT, TITLE 43 C.S.A. SECTIONS 955, ET. SEQ. 45. Plaintiffs repeat the averments of paragraphs 1-44 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference thereto, as fully as those same were set forth at length herein.
17

46. Defendant violated the provisions of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Sections 955, et. seq., in that defendant illegally and unlawfully discriminated against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, on account of her disability.
47. Under the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a), this Honorable Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims, which “are related to” the Federal claims over which the Honorable Court has jurisdiction as Federal questions. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, raises a claim in this count for violation of her state civil rights to be free from disability discrimination and disability harassment, under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Such state law claims arise from the same “nucleus of operative facts”, including, disability discrimination and disability harassment, which form the basis of the Federal claims of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq., under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, and under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq. This Honorable Court is requested to assume supplemental jurisdiction over the claims arising under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Sections 955, et. seq.
48. The defendant employer employs more than four persons within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and thus, is an “employer”, under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
49. The actions of the defendant employer, as enumerated herein, constitute illegal and unlawful disability discrimination and disability harassment, under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Sections 955, et. seq. These discriminatory acts were performed by the defendant employer against
18

plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Sections 955, et. seq., thereby entitling plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, to compensatory damages, and were also performed against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, by the defendant employer, in wanton, willful and reckless disregard of her legal rights, thereby entitling plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, to be awarded punitive damages. 50. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has duly exhausted administrative remedies by the dual filing of a timely Complaint in writing with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, enumerating the discriminatory acts of the defendant employer, which complaint was investigated by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 51. Conciliation in this matter was undertaken by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, more than one year has passed since the filing of this Complaint, and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a Determination dated October 26, 2001. This Determination found sufficient and competent evidence to establish a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq., by the defendant employer against Mrs. DiLaura. 52. Based on defendant’s failure to offer conciliation of this case in a proper manner, and based on the determination made by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the defendant employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq., plaintiffs commenced the present Civil Action.
19

53. As the direct and proximate result of the willful, illegal and unlawful actions of the defendant employer, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has been caused to suffer severe economic losses of pay, benefits and other employee remunerations, and the undeserved and painful diminution of her abilities to provide for herself and her family with the earned rewards of excellence in her career, and given her loyalty and efforts on behalf of defendant, emotional distress and humiliation, pain and suffering, losses of life’s pleasures, mental, emotional and physical pain and suffering, medical expenses for medical treatment for her severe mental, emotional and physical injuries, significant losses of wages and losses of earning capacities and powers, and the inability to attend to her usual, customary and normal daily duties, occupations and activities of daily living and employment and occupational activities, and has sustained the permanent diminution in her abilities to enjoy the activities of daily living, to enjoy life’s pleasures, to earn wages, to work and to be employed.
54. As the direct and proximate result of the defendant’s discriminatory conduct, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has suffered damages in excess of the Federal jurisdictional limits, and plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has suffered the following, including, but not limited to: a. That the Honorable Court and Jury enter a declaratory judgment and find that defendant violated plaintiffs’ legal rights to be free from disability discrimination and disability harassment under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act; b. That the Honorable Court and Jury enter the verdict for plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, and find that defendant has discriminated against plaintiff,
20

Sandra DiLaura, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act; c. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such damages as back pay, front pay, overtime, loss of fringe benefits, medical benefits and other benefits of employment; d. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such compensatory damages as are allowable by law; e. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such declaratory damages, actual damages, punitive damages and nominal damages as are allowable by law; f. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and delay damages as are allowable by law; g. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, equitable relief, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, reinstatement of salary, wages and earnings, holiday pay, sick pay, vacation pay, and reaffirmation of her employment records and positive letters of reference; h. That the Honorable Court award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, puntivie damages; i. That the Honorable Court award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, injunctive relief. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury award all damages allowable by law,
21

including, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, Court costs, litigation costs and such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and awards against defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury find in their favor and against defendant on all counts.
IX. COUNT 7: PLAINTIFFS REQUEST PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT, UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, UNDER TITLE VII OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1964 AND 1991, AND UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993, TITLE 29 U.S.C. SECTIONS 2601, ET. SEQ.
55. Plaintiffs repeat the averments of paragraphs 1-54 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference thereto, as fully as those same were set forth at length herein.
56. Under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Title 43 Pa. C.S.A. Sections 955, et. seq., under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101, et. seq., under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, and under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq., defendant is liable to plaintiffs for punitive damages, and for acts of discrimination performed “with malice”, or in “reckless indifference to the Federally protected civil rights” of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura.
57. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, alleges that the managers and the supervisors of the defendant employer continued to engage in certain acts of disability discrimination and disability harassment against her, and did so with the knowledge that such disability discrimination and such disability harassment were offensive to plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, and then, retaliated against plaintiff, 22

Sandra DiLaura, by terminating her for objecting to and opposing this misconduct, thus creating liability for punitive damages for such acts performed with “reckless indifference to plaintiff’s Federally protected rights”. 58. As the direct and proximate result of the willful, illegal and unlawful actions of the defendant employer, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has been caused to suffer severe economic losses of pay, benefits and other employee remunerations, and the undeserved and painful diminution of her abilities to provide for herself and her family with the earned rewards of excellence in her career, and given her loyalty and efforts on behalf of defendant, emotional distress and humiliation, pain and suffering, losses of life’s pleasures, mental, emotional and physical pain and suffering, medical expenses for medical treatment for her severe mental, emotional and physical injuries, significant losses of wages and losses of earning capacities and powers, and the inability to attend to her usual, customary and normal daily duties, occupations and activities of daily living and employment and occupational activities, and has sustained the permanent diminution in her abilities to enjoy the activities of daily living, to enjoy life’s pleasures, to earn wages, to work and to be employed. 59. As the direct and proximate result of the defendant’s discriminatory conduct, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has suffered damages in excess of the Federal jurisdictional limits, and plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has suffered the following, including, but not limited to:
a. That the Honorable Court and Jury enter a declaratory judgment and find that defendant violated plaintiffs’ legal rights to be free from disability discrimination and disability harassment under Title VII of the United
23

States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; b. That the Honorable Court and Jury enter the verdict for plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, and find that defendant has discriminated against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, in violation of Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; c. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such damages as back pay, front pay, overtime, loss of fringe benefits, medical benefits and other benefits of employment; d. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such compensatory damages as are allowable by law; e. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such declaratory damages, actual damages, punitive damages and nominal damages as are allowable by law; f. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and delay damages as are allowable by law; g. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, equitable relief, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, reinstatement of salary, wages and earnings, holiday pay, sick pay,
24

vacation pay, and reaffirmation of her employment records and positive letters of reference; h. That the Honorable Court award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, puntivie damages; i. That the Honorable Court award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, injunctive relief. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury award all damages allowable by law, including, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, Court costs, litigation costs and such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and awards against defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury find in their favor and against defendant on all counts. X. COUNT 8: VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1964 AND 1991. 60. Plaintiffs repeat the averments of paragraphs 1-59 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference thereto, as fully as those same were set forth herein. 61. Defendant violated plaintiffs’ legal rights under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, in that defendant illegally and unlawfully committed disability discrimination and disability harassment against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura. 62. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, was fired without any warning and without any notice, either written or verbal, on August 30, 2000, based on the employer’s unlawful
25

perception of her as being a disabled person, because it refused to accommodate her reasonable request for the reasonable accommodation of a three-week medical leave of absence in a discriminatory and unlawful manner. 63. The willful and unlawful actions of the defendant employer in terminating the employment of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, was part of a pattern and practice of illegal and unlawful disability discrimination and disability harassment on the part of the defendant employer, in violation of the applicable laws of the United States of America and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 64. As the direct and proximate result of the willful, illegal and unlawful actions of the defendant employer, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has been caused to suffer severe losses of her professional status and reputation in the community of her peers. 65. As the direct and proximate result of the willful, illegal and unlawful actions of the defendant employer, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has been caused to suffer severe economic losses of pay, benefits and other employee remunerations, and the undeserved and painful diminution of her abilities to provide for herself and her family with the earned rewards of excellence in her career, and given her loyalty and efforts on behalf of defendant, emotional distress and humiliation, pain and suffering, losses of life’s pleasures, mental, emotional and physical pain and suffering, medical expenses for medical treatment for her severe mental, emotional and physical injuries, significant losses of wages and losses of earning capacities and powers, and the inability to attend to her usual, customary and normal daily duties, occupations and activities of daily living and employment and occupational activities, and has sustained the permanent diminution in her
26

abilities to enjoy the activities of daily living, to enjoy life’s pleasures, to earn wages, to work and to be employed. 66. As the direct and proximate result of the defendant’s discriminatory conduct, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has suffered damages in excess of the Federal jurisdictional limits, and plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has suffered the following, including, but not limited to:
a. That the Honorable Court and Jury enter a declaratory judgment and find that defendant violated plaintiffs’ legal rights to be free from disability discrimination and disability harassment under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991;
b. That the Honorable Court and Jury enter the verdict for plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, and find that defendant has discriminated against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, in violation of Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991;
c. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such damages as back pay, front pay, overtime, loss of fringe benefits, medical benefits and other benefits of employment;
d. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such compensatory damages as are allowable by law;
e. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such declaratory damages, actual damages, punitive damages and nominal damages as are allowable by law;
27

f. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and delay damages as are allowable by law;
g. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, equitable relief, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, reinstatement of salary, wages and earnings, holiday pay, sick pay, vacation pay, and reaffirmation of her employment records and positive letters of reference;
h. That the Honorable Court award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, puntivie damages;
i. That the Honorable Court award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury award all damages allowable by law, including, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, Court costs, litigation costs and such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and awards against defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury find in their favor and against defendant on all counts.
XI. COUNT 9: VIOLATION OF THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993, TITLE 29, U.S.C. SECTIONS 2601, ET. SEQ.
67. Plaintiffs repeat the averments of paragraphs 1-66 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference thereto, as fully as those same were set forth at length. 28

68. Defendant, Mid Atlantic Health Services Plan, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI, violated the legal rights of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq.
69. Plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, reasonably and properly requested the reasonable accommodation of a three-week temporary medical leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq., to which she was legally entitled.
70. The defendant employer willfully, unreasonably, illegally, unlawfully and in a discriminatory manner denied the reasonable request of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, for a temporary three-week medical leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq.
71. The defendant employer made willful misrepresentations to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the course of the investigation by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding its unfounded allegation that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 did not apply to the defendant employer, because the defendant employer allegedly did not have 50 or more employees working in its facilities within a 75 mile radius of each other. In fact, the defendant employer possesses two facilities within a 75 mile radius of each other, these facilities being located in Malvern, Pennsylvania, where plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, worked, and in Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania. These two facilities are located within 75 miles of each other. Between these two facilities, the defendant employer employed more than 50 employees.
29

72. Therefore, the defendant employer knew and should have known that it employed 50 or more employees within a 75 mile radius of its two business locations in Malvern, Pennsylvania, and in Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania. Thus, the defendant employer made willful misrepresentations to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In fact, the defendant employer was governed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq., because the defendant employer employed more than 50 employees within a 75 miles radius of its facilities in Malvern, Pennsylvania, and in Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania.
73. Furthermore, the defendant employer, in its own MAMSI Health Plans Employee Handbook, provides the benefit for all employees of family and medical leaves of absences, in Section 7.1, entitled, “Employee’s Benefit Programs”. The employer provides family and medical leaves of absences to employees other than plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura. Consequently, the defendant employer is governed by the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq.
74. The defendant employer made misrepresentations to both the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and to plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, that plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, was not legally entitled to a family and medical leave of absence upon her proper and reasonable request for a family and medical leave of absence under the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq.
75. Consequently, the defendant employer committed and engaged in willful misrepresentations, misconduct and violations of the provisions of the Family and
30

Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq., by failing and refusing to provide to plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, her proper and reasonable request for family and medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq. The defendant employer engaged in willful violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq., by misrepresenting to both the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and to plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq., did not govern the reasonable request of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, for a temporary threeweek family and medical leave. 76. In fact, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq., did govern the proper and reasonable request of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, for a temporary three-week family and medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq., and defendant knew and should have known that it did so. 77. As the direct and proximate result of the willful, illegal and unlawful actions of the defendant employer, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has been caused to suffer severe economic losses of pay, benefits and other employee remunerations, and the undeserved and painful diminution of her abilities to provide for herself and her family with the earned rewards of excellence in her career, and given her loyalty and efforts on behalf of defendant, emotional distress and humiliation, pain and suffering, losses of life’s pleasures, mental, emotional and physical pain and suffering, medical expenses for medical treatment for her severe mental, emotional and physical injuries, significant losses of wages and losses of earning
31

capacities and powers, and the inability to attend to her usual, customary and normal daily duties, occupations and activities of daily living and employment and occupational activities, and has sustained the permanent diminution in her abilities to enjoy the activities of daily living, to enjoy life’s pleasures, to earn wages, to work and to be employed. 78. As the direct and proximate result of the defendant’s discriminatory conduct, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has suffered damages in excess of the Federal jurisdictional limits, and plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, has suffered the following, including, but not limited to:
a. That the Honorable Court and Jury enter a declaratory judgment and find that defendant violated plaintiffs’ legal rights to be free from disability discrimination and disability harassment under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993;
b. That the Honorable Court and Jury enter the verdict for plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, and find that defendant has discriminated against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993;
c. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such damages as back pay, front pay, overtime, loss of fringe benefits, medical benefits and other benefits of employment;
d. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such compensatory damages as are allowable by law;
32

e. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such declaratory damages, actual damages, punitive damages and nominal damages as are allowable by law;
f. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, such attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and delay damages as are allowable by law;
g. That the Honorable Court and Jury award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, equitable relief, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, reinstatement of salary, wages and earnings, holiday pay, sick pay, vacation pay, and reaffirmation of her employment records and positive letters of reference;
h. That the Honorable Court award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, puntivie damages;
i. That the Honorable Court award plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury award all damages allowable by law, including, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, Court costs, litigation costs and such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and awards against defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h, respectfully request that this Honorable Court and Jury find in their favor and against defendant on all counts.
33

XII. LOSS OF CONSORTION CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF, JEFFREY DILAURA, AGAINST DEFENDANT, MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., D/B/A MAMSI.
79. Plaintiff, Jeffrey DiLaura, repeats the averments in paragraphs 1-78 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference thereto, as fully as those same were set forth at length herein.
80. Plaintiff, Jeffrey DiLaura, was and is the spouse and husband of plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, at all times material and relevant hereto.
81. As the direct, proximate and sole result of defendant’s employment discrimination, disability discrimination and disability harassment committed against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, plaintiff, Jeffrey DiLaura, has suffered and continues to suffer extensive damages and injuries, and has been deprived of the consortion, love, services, companionship, society, affections and attentions of his wife and spouse, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, and other severe, serious and substantial detriment, harm, losses and damages.
82. As the further direct, proximate and sole result of defendant’s employment discrimination, disability discrimination and disability harassment committed against plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura, plaintiff, Jeffrey DiLaura, has suffered and continues to suffer severe financial losses and damages for the losses suffered by his wife and spouse, plaintiff, Sandra DiLaura. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Jeffrey DiLaura, respectfully request that this Honorable
Court and Jury award all damages allowable by law, including, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, Court costs, litigation costs and such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and awards against defendant, Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a MAMSI.
34

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Jeffrey DiLaura, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court and Jury find in his favor and against defendant on all counts.

Respectfully submitted, LOWENTHAL & ABRAMS, P.C.

June 25, 2003

BY: _________________________________
JAMES B. MOGUL, ESQUIRE
555 City Line Avenue, Suite 440
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
610-667-7511 Counsel for plaintiffs, Sandra DiLaura and Jeffrey DiLaura, w/h

35

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
V.
JEFFREY DiLAURA SANDRA DiLAURA
Intervenor Plaintiffs
V.
MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

:

NO. 03-2200

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: this 23rd day of January, 2004, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court , it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.

ALL PENDING MOTIONS ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

BY: ___________________________ Rita L. Polkowski Deputy Clerk

Civ 2 (8/2000) 41(b).frm

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYI"VANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)
) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-2200

Plaintiff,

)

v.

)

)

)

MID ATLANTiC MEDICAL SERVICES,lNC'1 )

d/b/a MAMSI,

)

)

FILED

Defendant.

)

~--------~~--)

CONSENT DECREE

MAR 0 2 2004

MIC~ KUNZ, Clerk

By ~

-_." Dap. Clerk

INTRODUCTION

A. This action was instituted by the United States Equal Employment. Opportunity Conunission ("the EEOC' or "the Commission") on April 8, 2003, against Mid-At.lantic Medical Sen'ices,lnc., d/b/a MAMST ("MA1v1SI"). The EEOC alleged that MAMSI failed to reasonably accommodate the disability of Sandra DiLaura, in violation of the Americans with Disahilities Act ofl990, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., ("ADA"). The EEOC also alleged thut MAlvfSItenninated M~. DiLaura on Septemher 6,2000, based on her disahility, in violation of the ADA.
B. This Consent Decree is entered into by the EEOC anti Defendant, MA.MSI. This Consent Decree i')hall be final and binding between the EEOC and Defendant, MAMSI, its directors, officers, agent.s, employees, successors or assigns and all persons in active concert or pal1.icipation with it, (hcrcinaHer collectively refen-ed to as "Defendant" or "MAMSJ").
C. The EEOC and Defendant, .MAMSI, do hereby agree to the ently of Ihis Consent Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raisr.;u by the EEOC in ils Complaint in Civil Actiol1 No. 03-2200. This Consent Decree shall not constitute an adjudication of or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant or any violation of the ADA.

CONSENT DECREE

Upon consent of the parties to this action, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and

DECREED that: NON-DISCRIMIlSATION AND NON-RETALIATION

1. This COUli has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.

2.

Defendl:l.nt~ MAMSl, is enjoined from engaging in any employment practice whirh

constitutes unlawful discrimination under thc ADA. 3. Defendant, MAM:SI, is enjoined from engaging in any employment practices which
retaliate in any manner against any person, including but not limited to, Sandra DiLaura, because
of that person's opposition to any practice alleged or believed to be unlawful under the ADI\., Or because of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or the participation in any

manner in any invesligation, hearing or proceeding under the ADA.

4. MAMSI sha.1l not divulge, directly Of indirectly, to any employer or potential
employer ofSandra DiLaura, any ofthe fa.cts or circumstances related to the charge ofdiscrimination

against MAMSI, or any of the events relating to Sandra OJ.Laurats participation in the litigatioI'1 of

this maUer.

5. MAMSI shall comply fully with all provisions of the ADA. Nothing in this Consenl

Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be COllstmed to limit lhe obligations of Defendant,

MAMSI, under the ADA or the EEOCs authority to process or litigat~ any charge ofdiscrimination

which may be filed against Defendant in the future.

POSTING OF NOTIC~

6.

Within len (10) business days after cntry of lhis Decree, MAMSI ~hall post same-

sized copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit 1 to this Decree on all bulletin boards usually used by

MAMSI for conununicating with employees at its Fort Washington, Pcnnsylvania location. The

Notice shall remain posted for ninely (90) days from the datc of entry of this Decree. Counsel for

MAMSI shall provide a copy of the Notice, and an indication of the date and location of its posting,

to the EEOC's Philadelphia DistIict Office, attention, Mary M. Tieman, Senior Trial Attorney,

within len (l 0) days ofthe posting. MAMSI shall take ail rcasonable steps to ensure thallhe posting

2

is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Should the posted copies become defaced,

removed, marred, or otherwise illegible, Defendant agrees to inunedialdy post a readahle copy in

the same manner as heretofore specified.
RF,PORTING
or 7. MAMST shall provide one report to the EEOC two weeks prior to the expiration

this Consent Decree regarding: any inlcmal ADA complaints asserted by any employee ofM AMSI

in PelUlsylvania; the name ofthe complainant; the allegation of the complaint; and the action taken

by Defendant in response to the complaint.
TRAINING

8. Within ninety (90) days of the docketing of this Consent Decree, MAMSI shall

provide one lraining session to all ofit.s 1l1anagers and exempt Human Resources personnel working

in Pennsylvania on an employee's rights and the employer's obligations under the ADA.

9.

MAMSI shall certify to thc EEOC in writing with iivc (5) business day~ aft~r the

training session required by Paragraph 8 above has occurred that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include: (i) the date~, location and

duration of the training session; (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the narne and position of each person in attendance.

JO. MAMSI agrees t.o provide the EEOC with copies ofall pamphlets, brochures, nutli ncs

or other written materials provided to the participants of the t.raining session.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION I 1. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that thlj other party has fai led t.o comply with any pl'Ovision(s) ofthe Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other pUliy afthe alleged non-compliance within ten (l0) days of the alleged non-compliance and ~haLl afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the a.llcged non-complying party has complied. Ifthe alleged non~complying party has not remedied the alleged nOll-compliance or satisfied the complaining patiy that il has complied within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for
3

appropriate relief. MISCELLANEOUS PROVTSIQI"f.&
12. Each party to this Dl;:e,;r~~ shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees.
13. The tcnns of this Dtlcrcc arc and shall be binding upon the present and future repr~sentati ves, agents, directors, officerSj assigns, and successors ofMAMSI in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers ofMAMSI, (lnd not in theirindividual c(lpacities. This
paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit un remeditls available tu the Court in the event that any individual is found to be in contempt for a violation of this Decree.
14. This Consent Decree shall fUlly and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in ils Complaint in Civil Action No. 03-2200. This Consent Decree is not binding on Sanura DiLaura and l:>hall not affecl any claimi;; asserted by Sandra DiLaura as alleged in her Complaint and First Amended Complaint against MAMSI.
15. This Consent Decree shall be filed in thc United Slates District Court for the Eastern District uf Pennsylvania anu shall continue to be in effect for a period of six munths_ Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall he made by motion to the Court on no less than twenty (20) days notice to the other party.
16. The Court rctainl$ jurisdiction over this case in ordcr to (;;nforce the temlS of the
Consent Decree_
4

17. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a file-stamped copy of

this Consenl Decree to counsel of record.
Gerald Maatman, Esquire ette Heintzehnan, E quire
'cyfarth Shaw 55 East Monroc Street
Suite 4200
Chicagu, IlL 60603 312-346-8000

Eric S. Dreiband
General Counsel

James L. Lee
Deputy General Counsd

Gwendolyn Young Reams
Associate General Counsel U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1901 L Street, NW
a hington DC 2050
H~

. que' e II. McNair
Regional Attorney
[J-L-/i,c:rS t;"'· i~)) /~t ~ /.\.

Udith A. O'Doyle e

.;

Supervisory Trail Attorney

m~M~'-an----:'--="-lIoII,;;/ ..:::....L::..~ L:...IO::::::>"-
Senior Trial Allorney U.S. EQUAl. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Philadelphia District Officc 2 t S. 5th Street, S llite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-440-2828
I

5

NOTICE TO ALL MAMSI EM.Pl,OYE.E.S.
_ ._ _ 01•• 11
Thifi Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the fcucral COlI1~ in EEOC v. Mid Atlall!ic Medical Services. lnc., Civi.l Ae,tion ~u1?ber,,03-220,? (E.I?PA.): rcsoJvll:g a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportwuty Cornrms::"ilon ( EEOC ) agall1~t Mld Atlantic
Medical Services. Inc. ("MAMSI')
The Americans with Disabiliti~sAct of 1990 ("the ADA") prohibits discrimination against employees anu applicants for employm,ent based on disability. The ADA also prohibits retaliation
again~t employees or applicants who avail themselves of the rights under the ADA by engaging in
protected activities. such as filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation.
Tho EEOC is the federa.l agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment
discrimination. The EEOC has the authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce the ADA.
In its lawsuit. the EEOC alleged that MAMSI failed to accommodate the disability of an emploYGc and terminated her based on her disability, in violation oftlll; ADA. M.A1v1SI denied these allegations. To resolve the case. MAMSI and the EEOC have entered in to a Consent Decree whieh provided. among other things, that: (1) MAMSI will not discriminate on the ba...i~ of disabi lity; (2)
MAMSI will not retaliate against any perSOll because he Or sho upposed any practice made unlawful by the ADA, filed an ADA charge of discriminalion, participated in any ADA proceeding, or
asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; and (3) MAMSI will provide training regarding the ADA.
Ifyou believe you have heen discriminated against. you may contact the EEOC at (215) 4402600. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than Engli~h_
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUS1' NOT RIi: DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for ninety (90) days from the date below and must not be alterell, ddaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to the: Regional Attorney; R~~OC Philadelphia District Office, 21 South 5th Street, Philadelphia, P A 19106. .

.ua! : ,~S. . Employrn~nt Opportunity Com nlSSlon
, - - DATED: cjjQGlc,,!

f DATED: __ '!:~/ L./-!O

 
 CLOSED, STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03−cv−02200−WY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION et al Assigned to: HONORABLE WILLIAM H. YOHN, JR Cause: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/08/2003 Date Terminated: 01/23/2004 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 801 MARKET ST. PENTHOUSE, SUITE 1300 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 215−440−2666 Email: jacqueline.mcnair@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. O'BOYLE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215−440−2687 Email: judith.oboyle@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARY M. TIERNAN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM PHILA DISTRICT OFFICE THE BOURSE BLDG 21 S. 5TH ST., STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215−440−2286 Fax: 215−440−2848 Email: mary.tiernan@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff JEFFREY DILAURA
Intervenor Plaintiff

represented by JAMES B. MOGUL LOWENTHAL &ABRAMS PC 555 CITY LINE AVE STE 440 BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 610−667−7511 Email: james@lowabram.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SANDRA DILAURA
V. Defendant MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. doing business as MAMSI

Date Filed

#

Docket Text

represented by JAMES B. MOGUL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GERALD L. MAATMAN, JR. SEYFARTH SHAW 131 SOUTH DEARBORN ST. SUITE 2400 CHICAGO, IL 60603−4205 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNY B. FRIEDMAN SEYFARTH SHAW 55 EAST MONROE ST. STE. 4200 CHICAGO, IL 60603−5803 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHELLE B. RADCLIFFE RAY AND ISLER, P.C. 8245 BOONE BLVD. SUITE 402 VIENNA, VA 22182 703−748−2690 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICK J. BRODERICK WILSON, BRODERICK &ASSOCIATES ONE EAST AIRY ST POBX 389 NORRISTOWN, PA 19404 610−278−0702 Fax: 610−272−6266 Email: pbroder140@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEVEN W. RAY RAY &ISLER, PC 8245 BOONE BLVD. STE. 402 TYSONS CORNER VIENNA, VA 22182 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
YVETTE A. HEINTZELMAN SEYFARTH SHAW 55 EAST MONROE ST. STE. 4200 CHICAGO, IL 60603−5803 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

04/08/2003 04/08/2003 04/08/2003 05/15/2003
05/16/2003 05/16/2003 06/10/2003
06/11/2003
06/25/2003 06/25/2003 07/15/2003 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 08/14/2003

1 COMPLAINT against MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(cw, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/7/2003 (ldb, ). (Entered: 04/08/2003)
Summons Issued as to MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC..One Given To: Counsel on 04/08/03 (cw, ) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (cw, ) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re: The MCS Group, Inc. served Summons and Complaint upon MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. by Personal Service. MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. served on 4/28/2003, answer due 5/19/2003. (fdc) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
3 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., Certificate of Service.(fdc) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
Issue Joined (fdc) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
4 DEFENDANT, MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.'S MOTION FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF GERALD L. MAATMAN, JR., ESQ., YVETTE A. HEINTZELMAN, ESQ., JENNY B. FRIEDMAN, ESQ., STEVEN W. RAY, ESQ. AND MICHELLE BODLEY RADCLIFFE, ESQ., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(Attachments: # 1 Certification# 2 certificate of service# 3 Friedmanaff# 4 Heintzelman# 5 Maatman# 6 Proposed Order# 7 radcliffe affidavit# 8 Steven Ray Affidavit)(fdc) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
5 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT, MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A MAMSI FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF GERALD L. MAATMAN, JR., ESQ., YVETTE A. HEINTZELMAN, ESQ., JENNY B. FRIEDMAN, ESQ. OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, STEVEN W. RAY, ESQ. AND MICHELLE BODLEY RADCLIFFE, ESQ. OF VIENNA, VIRGINIA IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. ON 6/11/03.6/11/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fdc) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
6 MOTION TO INTERVENE FILED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS, SANDRA DILAURA, JEFFREY DILAURA, W/H, MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(fdc) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
7 Intervenor Complaint filed by JEFFREY DILAURA, SANDRA DILAURA against DEFENDANT, MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.(fdc) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
8 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE FILED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS, SANDRA DILAURA AND JEFFREY DILAURA, W/H IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. ON 7/15/03. 7/16/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fdc) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
9 DEFENDANT MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.'S Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, Jury Demand, Certificate of Service.(fdc) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
Issue Joined (fdc, ) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER: DISCOVERY DUE BY 12/30/2003. MOTIONS DUE BY 1/20/2004. TRIAL DATE SET FOR 5/3/2004

10/06/2003
10/10/2003 10/30/2003
11/07/2003 11/24/2003
11/25/2003
12/08/2003 12/08/2003 12/24/2003 01/16/2004 01/21/2004 01/23/2004

10:00 AM, ETC. SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. ON 08/12/03. 08/14/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (ar, ) Modified on 8/14/2003 (ar, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 8/14/2003 (td, ). (Entered: 08/14/2003)
11 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT ALL DISCOVERY IS DUE BY 1/16/2004. MOTIONS ARE DUE BY 2/6/2004. TRIAL DATE SET FOR 5/3/2004 10:00 AM BEFORE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. ON 10/6/03. 10/6/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
12 PLAINTIFFS, JEFFREY DILAURA, SANDRA DILAURA'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION, MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(fdc) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
13 ORDER THAT PLFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IS GRANTED &THAT PLFFS, SANDRA DILAURA &JEFFREY DILAURA, W/H, THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL, JAMES B. MOGUL, ESQ. OF THE LAW FIRM OF LOWENTHAL &ABRAMS, P.C. BE &HEREBY ARE PERMITTED TO FILE THEIR AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 10 DAYS. SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. ON 10/29/03.10/31/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kw, ) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
14 AMENDED COMPLAINT against MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. , filed by SANDRA DILAURA.(fdc) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
15 DEFENDANT, MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD TO PLAINTIFF SANDRA DILAURA'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(Attachments: # 1 proposed order)(fdc) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
16 ORDER THAT THE COURT HEREBY GRANTS DEFENDANT, MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.'S MOTION EXTENDING THE DATE BY WHICH THEY MUST RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S AMEDNED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION TO DECEMBER 8, 2003. SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. ON 11/25/03. 11/25/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
17 DEFENDANT, MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.'S Answer to Amended Complaint in Intervention, Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of Service.(fdc) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
Issue Joined (fdc) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
18 ORDER THAT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IS SET FOR 1/7/2004 AT 10:00 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE CHARLES B. SMITH. SIGNED BY JUDGE CHARLES B. SMITH ON 12/24/03. 12/24/03 ENTERED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(fdc) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
19 DEFENDANT, MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.'S Rule 26(a)(3)(A) and (C) Pretrial Disclosures, Certificate of Service.(fdc) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
20 Pretrial Disclosures of PLAINTIFF, SANDRA DILAURA.(fdc) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
21 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 41.1(b). SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. ON 1/23/04. 1/23/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (rp) (Entered: 01/23/2004)

03/02/2004

22 STIPULATION AND ORDER. RE: CONSENT DECREE. SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. ON 3/2/04. 3/2/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(fdc) (Entered: 03/02/2004)