Case 1:05-cv-01896-SHR Document 1-1 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 1 of 10
HlEtJ
~nr.:nq'C.:::8UPG. ~b.

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT

cv 0 5 - 1 8 9 6 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRJCT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUN!Tt •

COMMISSION,

•

)

Plaintiff,

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v.

)

)

RITE AID CORPORATION

) COMPLAINT

) JURYTRJAL

Defendant.

) DEMAND

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VTI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of

the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis

of retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to Elka Faye ("Kellie") Portman who

was adversely atlected by such practices. As articulated with greater particularity in

paragraph 7 below, the Commission alleges that Defendant Rite Aid Corporation

discharged Ms. Portman in retaliation for exercising her rights under Title VII when

Case 1:05-cv-01896-SHR Document 1-1 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 2 of 10
she complained that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis ofher sex. Ms. Portman suffered mental and emotional distress as a result ofDefendant"s retaliatory actions against her.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to§ 706(!)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f) and (3), ("Title VII"), and Section I02 ofthe Civil Rights Act ofl991, 42 U.S.C. § 198!a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of tbe United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(!)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Rite Aid Corporation ("Rite Aid"), has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Pennsylvania and the
2

Case 1:05-cv-01896-SHR Document 1-1 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 3 of 10
town of Camp Hill and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer had continuously been an
employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70l(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Kellie Portman filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least 2001, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Camp IIill, Pennsylvania facility, in violation of section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). These unlawful practices include, but arc not limited to the following: (a) On March 24, 1997, Kellie Portman began working for Rite Aid as an Associate Counsel in the Real Estate Department. At the time of her hire, she was a George Washington School of Law graduate, and was licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Previous to her employment with Defendant Rite Aid, she had worked as a Law Associate for a large law fim1, been a Law Professor, and worked as a Contract Attorney on a number ofsophisticated commercial transactions.
3

Case 1:05-cv-01896-SHR Document 1-1 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 4 of 10
(b) After Ms. Portman's hiring, the Real Estate Department eventually became comprised of approximately fifteen (15) attorneys. Her primary responsibilities in tbe Real Estate Department included supporting the Department, managing store leases and resolving landlord/tenant disputes.
(c) Sometime in 1999-2000, Defendant implemented a major reduction in force that resulted in the termination of several attorneys from the Real Estate Department. After the reduction in force, only six (6) attorneys were retained, including Kellie Portman.
(d) At all relevant times, Ms. Portman's perfonnance was satisfactory, and she had never received any disciplinary action or been counseled that her perfonnance was deficient.
(c) On or about August 28,2001, Kellie Portman complained to Roher! Sari, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, that she believed that her Supervisor, Larry Gelman, was discriminating against her on the basis of her sex. She specifically alleged that Mr. Gelman unfairly provided better pay and conditions ofemployment to a male Attorney, who had started his employment at the same time as Ms. Portman. Upon leaving her meeting with Sari, Ms. Portman discovered that Gelman was listening to the conversation from outside of Sari's otlice.
4

Case 1:05-cv-01896-SHR Document 1-1 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 5 of 10
(!) Gelman then started becoming increasingly hostile toward Ms. Portman. He constantly criticized her and humiliated her in the presence of co-workers. He also began closely monitoring her arrival, departure and lunch breaks, which he had never done to her or any other attorney in the past.
(g) ln September 2001, Ms. Portman met with Human Relations Director Steve Chesney to discuss her gender discrimination complaint. Chesney told her that he would set up a meeting between she and Gelman to resolve her issues.
(h) On September 24, 2001, Ms. Portman met with Chesney and Gelman to discuss her discrimination allegations. However, instead of addressing her concerns, she was provided with a written notice which listed nine (9) reasons why she was not allegedly meetingjob performance standards. Ms. Portman was shocked and surprised by this sudden written notice because she had never been advised that her performance was deficient, or had she ever been cotmseled at any time about any of the nine listed issues.
(i) Ms. Portman immediately objected to the notice in writing and informed Defendant that she believed it was retaliatory because she had tiled a sex discrimination complaint against Gelman.
(j) In .Tanuary 2002, Gelman gave Ms. Portman a three (3) page single spaced negative performance review. The review asserted that her performance was
5

Case 1:05-cv-01896-SHR Document 1-1 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 6 of 10
deficient. Ms. Portman was placed on six (6) month probation and was informed that she would not be receiving a raise, or even the 31Yo cost of living adjustment which all Rite Aid Associates receive. This was the first formal review that Ms. Portman had ever received during her five (5) year career with Defendant. Further, no other Rite Aid Attorney received a review. Kcllic Portman again objected to this review as retaliatory.
(k) Defendant Rite Aid subsequently provided Ms. Portman with a third and fourth negative performance review. After the fourth review in June 2002, Ms. Portman advised Defendant that she considered their actions retaliatory and that she would be filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
(I) On September 12, 2002, while at work, Ms. Portman printed out discrimination complaint documents that she was planning to forward to the EEOC. At the time she printed the documents, Linda Brown, Defendant's Office Manager, read the documents o!Tthe printer.
(m) On September 17, 2002, approximately five (5) days after Brown saw the documents, Defendant terminated Kellie Portman.
(8) The effect ofthe practices complained ofin paragraph 7(a) through (m) above has been to deprive Ms. Portman of equal employment opportunities and otherwise affect her status as an employee, because she engaged in protected activity
6

Case 1:05-cv-01896-SHR Document 1-1 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 7 of 10

under Title VII.

(9) The acts complained of in paragraph 7(a) through (m) were intentional. (I O) The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7(a) through (m) above were done with malice or with reckless indiflerence to the federally protected rights ofKellie Portman because she engaged in protected activity under Title VII.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its
officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with
it, from retaliating against employees who complain of such and in any other employment practice which operates to retaliate against employees.
B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals who complain of discrimination, which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

C.

Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out a complaint

procedure which encourages employees to come forward with complaints regarding

violations of its policies against discriminatory retaliation.

7

Case 1:05-cv-01896-SHR Document 1-1 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 8 of 10
D. Order Derendant Employer to institute and carry out a training program which shall promote supervisor accountability imposing on all managers and supervisory personnel a duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure compliance with policies on non-discrimination and anti-retaliation; and requiring all managers and supervisors to report any incidents and/or complaints of retaliation of which they become aware to the department charged with handling such complaints.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Kcllie Portman by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other atlirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
F. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Kellie Portman by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 above, including but not limited to out-of~pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Kellie Portman by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 above, including pain and
suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss oflife's pleasures, in amounts to be
detennined at trial.

Case 1:05-cv-01896-SHR Document 1-1 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 9 of 10

H.

Order Defendant Employer to pay Kellie Portman punitive damages

for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7, 8 , 9 and 10 above,

in amounts to be determined at trial.

I. Gran! such further reliefas the Court deems necessary and proper in the

public interest.

J.

Award the Commission its costs of this action.

<)

Case 1:05-cv-01896-SHR Document 1-1 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 10 of 10

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of tirct raised by its

complaint.

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWFNllOLYN YOUNG REAMS
Associate General Counsel U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1RO l L. Street, NW Washington, DC 20507

'.J-"hAuCQwUvEeL-IN<E£H-.-M'-CNfA)I~; I' 1h~ (~
Regional Attorney

{)M[_{~f', [1' . 0/ fj"'J Lc._
'J'uuJTH A. O'BOYLE Supervisory Trial Attome
Wo0~0~Af,1D/lE~M"':'::::__
Trial Attorney NJ 022702000 hQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Philadelphia District Office The Bourse Building 21 S. 5'" Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone (215) 440-2814

10

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

Plaintiff

:

:

and

:

:

KELLIE PORTMAN

:

Interv

enor

:

:

v.

:

:

RITE AID CORPORATION,

:

Defendant

:

Case No. 1:CV-05-1896 filed via ECF System JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR KELLIE PORTMAN Plaintiff, Kellie Portman (“Portman”), by and through her undersigned counsel, Hartman Hartman Howe & Allerton, P.C., hereby alleges as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action seeking redress for discrimination based on gender and retaliation, in contravention of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). 2. Portman, a female citizen of the United States of America, seeks equitable and monetary relief for the Defendant’s unlawful actions, including back pay and benefits, compensation for physical and emotional pain and suffering, reimbursement of medical expenses, costs, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and all other relief to which she is entitled by Title VII and the PHRA.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 above are incorporated as if set forth at length herein. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Title VII claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1331 and 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (§706). This Court has jurisdiction over Portman’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 because the claims arising under the PHRA are substantially similar to the claims arising under Title VII and form the same case or controversy.
5. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(B). The unlawful acts and practices of the Defendant were committed by the Defendant in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania which is within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. III. PARTIES
6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 above are incorporated as if set forth at length herein. 7. Plaintiff, Portman, is an adult individual residing at 4509 Terrace Place, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110. 8. Defendant, Rite Aid Corporation (“Rite Aid”), is a Delaware corporation registered with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Its principal place of business is located at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. It is an employer within the meaning of the PHRA and did, in fact, employ Portman. IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9. Paragraphs 1 through 8 above are incorporated as if set forth at length herein. 10. Portman began employment with Rite Aid on or about March 24, 1997 as Associate Counsel in the Real Estate Department.
2

11. Rite Aid Real Estate Law Vice President Larry Gelman (“Gelman”) supervised Portman.
12. Rite Aid unfairly provided better terms and conditions of employment to its male legal associates, including but not limited to:
a. Specifically, upon information and belief, Jim Comitale (“Comitale”), a male attorney in Rite Aid’s Legal Department who commenced his employment with Rite Aid at the same time as Portman, received an annual salary that exceeded Portman’s salary by approximately $50,000.00 to $100,000.00.
b. Gelman refused to allow Portman to handle more complex legal matters and routinely assigned those more complicated matters to male legal associates with less legal experience.
c. Rite Aid’s Real Estate Law Department was, at one time, comprised of fifteen (15) attorneys. After a reduction in force, six (6) attorneys remained, including Portman.
d. Despite the fact that Comitale did not practice Real Estate Law, he was promoted to the position of Assistant Secretary in order to attest to documents prepared by Portman and Eve Exar, a female Real Estate Associate Counsel, who had been employed in the Legal Department since approximately 1986.
13. During the first four and a half years of employment with Rite Aid, Portman had not received one performance review.
14. Prior to 2001 and before initially raising the equality issue, Portman was awarded a raise of $20,000.00 per year and issued stock options.
3

15. At all time relevant hereto, Portman satisfactorily performed her job function at Rite Aid.
16. In August 2001, Portman reported to Rite Aid Senior Vice President and then Deputy General Counsel, Robert Sari (“Sari”) that she was being discriminated against by Gelman on the basis of her gender.
17. Specifically, Portman informed Sari that Gelman provided better pay and conditions of employment to male legal associates, including but not limited to Comitale.
18. Gelman overheard the conversation between Sari and Portman and became increasingly hostile to Portman in the workplace.
19. On or about September 6, 2001, Portman accused Gelman directly of discriminating against her on the basis of her gender.
20. Subsequent thereto, Gelman engaged in a pattern of harassment and retaliation against Portman.
21. On or about September 7, 2001, Portman met with Rite Aid Director of Human Resources, Steven A. Chesney (“Chesney”), to discuss her allegations of gender discrimination against Gelman. Chesney assured Portman that he would set up a meeting between her and Gelman to discuss the matter further.
22. On or about September 24, 2001, Portman met with Chesney and Gelman, and rather than discussing her gender discrimination claim, Chesney and Gelman presented Portman with a written notice listing nine (9) reasons why her performance was, allegedly, substandard (“September 2001 Notice”).
4

23. The September 2001 Notice stated “… without the immediate and ongoing change in your [Portman’s] job performance and/or conduct, further disciplinary action will result.”
24. The September 2001 Notice further stated that “The company [Rite Aid] may impose whatever form of discipline it believes it is appropriate based upon the associate’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances. The company [Rite Aid] reserves the right to use any order of steps in the discipline process, including skipping steps as deemed necessary or moving directly to termination of employment.”
25. Portman noted that she was unaware that Rite Aid had such a form of written notice to which Chesney responded that the form of written notice was “new.”
26. Portman immediately objected to the disciplinary notice and thereafter, by correspondence dated October 1, 2001, formally requested in writing that the September 2001 Notice be removed from her personnel file as it was issued in retaliation for her raising a claim of gender discrimination (“Portman’s October 2001 Response”), however Rite Aid took no action in response thereto.
27. On or about December 11, 2001, Gelman informed Portman that he intended to give her an annual performance review on or around December 23, 2001.
28. Prior thereto, Portman had not received one (1) annual performance review during her employment with Rite Aid.
29. By memorandum to Sari dated December 14, 2001, Portman requested that Gelman be excused from participation in her review as he could not review her performance objectively in light of Portman’s claim of gender discrimination and again requested that Rite
5

Aid cease its discriminatory behavior toward female associates (“December 2001 Memorandum”).
30. On or about January 29, 2002, Gelman, in the presence of Sari and Chesney, gave Portman her first annual performance review, which consisted of a three (3) page single spaced document, detailing Portman’s alleged performance deficiencies (“First Performance Review”).
31. Approximately ninety percent (90%) of the alleged performance deficiencies detailed in the First Performance Review arose subsequent to Portman’s claim of gender discrimination.
32. Contemporaneously with Portman’s receipt of the First Performance Review, Gelman placed Portman on six (6) months probation and Sari denied Portman the three percent (3%) cost of living increase that each Rite Aid legal associate, with the exception of Portman, received.
33. Upon information and belief, no other Rite Aid legal associate received a review at any time relevant hereto.
34. Subsequent thereto, Gelman required Portman to meet with him on a weekly basis to give him a status report on the matters being handled by Portman (collectively, “Weekly Status Meetings”).
35. Consistently, Gelman noted only Portman’s uncompleted matters and ignored her numerous completed matters at the Weekly Status Meetings.
36. By memorandum dated February 13, 2002, Portman objected to the alleged performance deficiencies contained within the First Performance Review as retaliatory and stated
6

that Rite Aid should not have permitted Gelman to participate in Portman’s review based on his inability to approach the matter objectively (“Portman’s February 2002 Memorandum”).
37. Subsequent thereto, Portman requested reassignment by Sari to report to Sari or any other attorney in the Legal Department, however Sari denied her request.
38. On or about February 25, 2002, Chesney and Sari informed Portman that they intended to commence an investigation into her claim of gender discrimination.
39. On or about April 24, 2002, Sari and Chesney informed Portman that they had excused themselves from the investigation as they were “too close to the situation” and had requested that Rite Aid Vice President of Diversity and Human Relations Associate, Stephanie Naito (“Naito”), review Portman’s claim of gender discrimination.
40. According to Sari and Chesney, Naito had concluded that there was no basis for Portman’s claim of gender discrimination and Rite Aid considered the matter “closed.”
41. Portman never met with Naito regarding her claim nor was a written report detailing Naito’s determination presented to Portman at any time relevant hereto.
42. Immediately thereafter, Portman was given an oral negative performance review by Gelman.
43. Subsequent to Naito’s determination, Gelman’s hostile behavior toward Portman increased; Gelman openly criticized Portman’s prioritization of matters without offering any guidance as to his expectations; handled matters without notifying Portman and blamed Portman for failing to complete the matters and openly criticized Portman via email correspondences which he copied to all Rite Aid business partners.
44. In order to complete her work free from Gelman’s harassment, Portman often
7

worked in the office late in the evenings and on the weekends. 45. Portman was forced to constantly defend her work due to Gelman’s harassing
behavior. 46. Despite the fact that Portman was an “exempt employee” and not required to
“clock in “ or “clock out”, Gelman directed his paralegals to document Portman’s arrival time, lunch breaks and departure time.
47. Upon information and belief, no other legal associate’s arrival time, lunch breaks or departure times were monitored by Rite Aid or any of its employees.
48. On or about June 9, 2002, Gelman refused to approve Portman’s request to take one (1) vacation day despite the fact that Portman was entitled to three (3) weeks of vacation each year.
49. On or about June 18, 2002, Portman again met with Gelman and Sari where Gelman gave Portman another negative performance review and presented a stack of files and documents evidencing Portman’s alleged poor performance.
50. At this meeting, Sari threatened to immediately terminate Portman’s employment with Rite Aid, told Portman that her gender discrimination claim was “baseless” and indicated that Rite Aid Associate Counsel should not be paid the same because “attorneys are not factory workers.”
51. At the meeting Portman disclosed to Gelman and Sari that she had filed a gender discrimination claim with the EEOC.
52. On or about September 12, 2002, Portman printed the documents to support her EEOC claim from a printer in Rite Aid’s office and the documents were read by the Office
8

Manager, Linda Brown. 53. Five (5) days later, Portman was terminated from her position at Rite Aid. 54. Portman sought and is currently under the care of a psychiatrist for depression and
takes two (2) different prescription anti-depressant drugs each day due to the discrimination and retaliation she endured at Rite Aid.
55. As a result of the discriminatory behavior of Rite Aid toward Portman based on her gender, Portman has lost wages and benefits, endured emotional pain and suffering and was otherwise damaged.
56. As a result of the retaliatory behavior of Rite Aid toward Portman, Portman has lost wages and benefits, endured emotional pain and suffering and was otherwise damaged.
57. As a result of her termination, Portman has lost wages and benefits, endured emotional pain and suffering and was otherwise damaged.
58. Portman signed a Charge of Discrimination against Defendant on February 20, 2003, and dual filed the charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
59. On or about September 21, 2005, the EEOC filed a Complaint against Defendant. V. CLAIMS
COUNT I – TITLE VII GENDER DISCRIMINATION 60. Paragraphs 1 through 59 above are incorporated as if set forth at length herein. 61. Portman was discriminated against on the basis of her gender when she was denied equal pay and conditions of employment by Rite Aid. 62. Rite Aid knew or should have known of the discriminatory behavior and actions toward female legal associates, particularly Portman.
9

63. Rite Aid acted outrageously, with evil motive and/or with reckless disregard to the rights of Portman.
64. As a direct result of Rite Aid’s discriminatory behavior and actions against Portman based on her gender, Portman has suffered and continues to suffer harm including, but not limited to, loss of income, loss of other employment benefits, front pay, medical expenses, physical suffering, humiliation, embarrassment and damage to her reputation.
WHEREFORE, Portman prays for compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and such other and further relief as permitted by law or equity.
COUNT II – TITLE VII RETALIATION 65. Paragraphs 1 through 64 above are incorporated as if set forth at length herein. 66. Rite Aid discriminated (retaliated) against Portman when they terminated her for opposing practices forbidden by Title VII (gender discrimination). 67. Rite Aid acted outrageously, with evil motive and/or with reckless disregard to the rights of Portman. 68. As a direct result of Rite Aid’s discriminatory behavior and actions (retaliation) against Portman, Portman has suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to, loss of income, loss of other employment benefits, front pay, medical expenses, physical suffering, humiliation, embarrassment and damage to her reputation. WHEREFORE, Portman prays for compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and such other and further relief as permitted by law or equity.
10

COUNT III – PHRA GENDER DISCRIMINATION 69. Paragraphs 1 through 68 above are incorporated as if set forth at length herein. 70. Portman was discriminated against on the basis of her gender when she was denied equal pay and conditions of employment by Rite Aid. 71. Rite Aid knew or should have known of the discriminatory behavior and actions toward female legal associates, particularly Portman. 72. Rite Aid acted outrageously, with evil motive and/or with reckless disregard to the rights of Portman. 73. As a direct result of Rite Aid’s discriminatory behavior and actions against Portman based on her gender, Portman has suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to, loss of income, loss of other employment benefits, front pay, medical expenses, physical suffering, humiliation, embarrassment and damage to her reputation. WHEREFORE, Portman prays for compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and such other and further relief as permitted by law or equity.
COUNT IV – PHRA RETALIATION 74. Paragraphs 1 through 73 above are incorporated as if set forth at length herein. 75. Rite Aid discriminated (retaliated) against Portman when they terminated her for opposing practices forbidden by the PHRA (gender discrimination). 76. Rite Aid acted outrageously, with evil motive and/or with reckless disregard to the rights of Portman. 77. As a direct result of Rite Aid’s discriminatory behavior and actions (retaliation) against Portman, Portman has suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to,
11

loss of income, loss of other employment benefits, front pay, medical expenses, physical suffering, humiliation, embarrassment and damage to her reputation.
WHEREFORE, Portman prays for compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and such other and further relief as permitted by law or equity.

Dated: December 2, 2005

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Andrew N. Howe Andrew N. Howe, Esquire I.D. No. PA56337 Hartman, Hartman, Howe & Allerton, P.C. 2901 St. Lawrence Avenue P.O. Box 4429 Reading, PA 19606 Telephone: 610-779-0772 Facsimile: 610-779-7473 E-mail: ahowe@hhha.com Counsel for Intervenor, Kellie Portman

JURY TRIAL DEMAND Portman demands trial by jury as to all issues.
s/ Andrew N. Howe Andrew N., Howe, Esquire Hartman, Hartman, Howe & Allerton, P.C. Counsel for Intervenor, Kellie Portman
12

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

Plaintiff

:

:

and

:

:

KELLIE PORTMAN

:

Interv

enor

:

:

v.

:

:

RITE AID CORPORATION,

:

Defendant

:

Case No. 1:CV-05-1896 filed via ECF System JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Andrew N. Howe, Esquire, counsel for Intervenor, certify that on December 2, 2005 I
filed the Complaint of Intervenor Kellie Portman in the above-captioned matter electronically
and it is available for viewing and downloading from the ECF system.
Woody Anglade, Esquire Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Philadelphia District Office The Bourse Building
21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106
Brian P. Downey, Esquire Pepper Hamilton, LLP 200 One Keystone Plaza
North Front and Market Streets P.O. Box 1181
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181 Counsel for Rite Aid Corporation

s/ Andrew N. Howe Andrew N. Howe, Esquire I.D. No. PA56337 Hartman, Hartman, Howe & Allerton, P.C. 2901 St. Lawrence Avenue P.O. Box 4429 Reading, PA 19606 Telephone: 610-779-0772 Facsimile: 610-779-7473 E-mail: ahowe@hhha.com Counsel for Intervenor, Kellie Portman
2

 
 IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and ELKA FAYE ("KELLIE") PORTMAN
Plaintiffs,
v.
RITE AID CORPORATION Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION
NO.05-CV-1896 JUDGE SYLVIA H. RAMBO JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Electronically Filed

CONSENT DECREE INTRODUCTION
A. This action was instituted by the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or the "Commission") on or about

September 21, 2005, against Rite Aid under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 and Title 1 of tile Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII"). The Commission

alleged that Defendant Rite Aid discharged Elka Faye "Kellie" Portman in

retaliation for exercising her rights under Title VII when she complained tllat

Detendant discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. TIle Commission also alleged that Ms. Portman suffered mental and emotional distress as a result of Detendant's retaliatory actions against her.
B. This Consent Decree is entered into by the EEOC and Defendant Rite Aid. This Consent Decree shall be final and binding between the EEOC and
Defendant Rite Aid, its directors~ officers, agenl~, employees, successors or assigns
and all persons in active concert or participation with it, (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Rite Aid" or "Defendant'').
C. The Commission and Defendant do hereby agree to the entry of this Consent Decrcc, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raiscd by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 05-CV-1896. This Consent Decree shall not constitute an adjudication of or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as a violation of Title VII by Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE Upon consent of the parties to this actioll, it 18 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
NON-DISCRIMINATION AND NON-RETALIATION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.
·2-

2. Defendant agrees that it will not discriminate on the basis of retaliation in violation of Title VII.
3. Defendant agrees that it will not engage in any employment practices which rctaliate in any manner against any person, including but not limited to, Kellie Portman, because of that person's opposition to any practice alleged or believed to be unlawlul under Title VII, or because of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or the participation in any manner in any investigation, hearing or proceeding under Title VII.
4. Defendant shall not diVUlge, directly or indirectly, except as required by law, to any employer or potential employer of Kellie Portman, any of the facts or circumstances related to the charge of discrimination against Dcfendant, or any orthe events relating (0 her participation in the litigation of (his matter.
5. Defendant shall comply fully with all provisions of Title VII. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit the obligations of Defendant under Title VII or the EEOC's authority to process or litigate any charge of discrimination which may be filed against Defendant in the future.
MONETARY RELIEF 6. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief III the total amount of $93,000 to Elka Faye Portman and her private counsel (Andrew N. Howe, Esq.), in
-3-

full settlement of the claims against Defendant which were raised in the Commission's Complaint. The check will be mailed to Kellie POliman through her private attorney Andrew N. Howe, Esq., at 2901 St. Lawrence Avenue, P.O. Box 4429, Reading, Pennsylvania 19606, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Defendant will mail a photocopy of the check to the EEOC, to the attention of Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, EEOC, The Bourse, 21 South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515, within five days of the date of mailing of the check to Mr. Howe, Esq. In order to receive the monetary relief, Ms. Portman must execute the Settlement Agreement and General Release which has been provided to her counsel by counsel for Rite Aid on behalf of the Company.
POSTING OF NOTICE 7. Within ten (10) business days after entry of this Decree, or as soon as practicable, Rite Aid shall post a same-sized copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit A to this Decree on a bulletin board located at its 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA facility usually used by Defendant for communicating with employees. The notice shall remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Counsel for Rite Aid shall provide a copy of the Notice, and an indication of the date and location of its posting, to the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office, attention, Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, within ten (10) days of the posting. Defendant shall pernlit a representative of the EEOC to enter Defendant's 30
-4-

Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA premises for purposes of veritying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business with reasonable written notice. Defendant shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Should the posted copies become defaced, removed, marred, or otherwise illegible, Rite Aid agrees to as soon as practicable post a readable copy in the same manner as hereto specified.
TRAINING
8. Defendant agrees to provide training on the requirements of Title VII on the following terms:
a. Defendant agrees to provide at least one training session during the duration of the Consent Decree, to all of its managers and supervisors who work at its 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA facility by providing training on an employee's rights under Title VII, and the employer's obligations under Title VII, with an emphasis on what constitutes unlawful discrimination, how to keep Defendant free of such fomlS of discrimination, and what constitutes unlawful retaliation;
b. Each training seSSlOn will include a live presentation by a company designee with specialized training, emphasizing Rite Aid's commitment to preventing and correcting discrimination and retaliation.
-5-

9. Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC with a copy of the training material used following training conducted pursuant to the terms of this Consent Decree.
10. Rite Aid shall certify to the EEOC in writing plior to the expiration of the Consent Decree that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include the dates, location and duration of the training sessions.
RECORDKEEPING II. For a period of two (2) years following entry of this Decree, Defendant agrees to maintain and make available for inspection and copying by the Commission, records of each complaint and investigation files of any incident of alleged retaliation discrimination made at its 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA facility. Each such report shall indicate the date the complaint was made, who made it, what was alleged, and what actions the Defendant took to resolve the matter. The Delendant shall also make records of all actions it takes to prevent retaliation discrimination at its 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA facility during the duration of this Decree. 12. Defendant shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 11, above, available for inspection and copying within a reasonable period of time after the Commission provides Rite Aid with written notice
-6-

requesting same directed to Marilyn T. McClure-Demers, Employment Law Counsel, Rite Aid, 30 IIunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 170 II, or her successor.
13. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any ohligation Defendant may otherwise have to maintain under Title VII or any other
law or regulation.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 14. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance within ten (10) days of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 15. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 16. The tenns of this Decree are and shan be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, assigns, and successors of
-7-

Defendant in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers of Rite Aid, and not in their individual capacities. This Paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event that any individual is found to be in contempt for a violation of this Decree.
17. This Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 05-CV-1896.
18. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and shall continue to be in effect for a period of two (2) years. Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than thirty (30) days notice to the other party.
19. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case in order to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree.
20. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a filcstamped copy ofthis Consent Decree to counsel of record.
-8-

For PlaintiITEEOC:

For Defendant Rite Aid:

James L. Lee

Deputy General Counsel

lsi Brian P. Downey

Gwendolyn Young Reams

Brian P. Downey, Esquire

Associate General Counsel

Pepper Hamilton LLP

Washington, D.C.

200 One Keystone Plaza

North Front & Market Streets

Post Office Box 1181

Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181

.

" " - -" 'I '"

,.l-... . '; 4:Jr-- )1 . t..e ... -L- .........-/'---:!"/ .,/

, h: _ ,

1 ~

. (0,

Jacqucline H. McNair

~ I 9';-1)) Marilyn . cClure- emers

Regional Attorney

.i Y' Emplo ent Law Co nse!

Rite A\¢

30 Hunter Lane

Camp Hill, PA 17011

,

Judith A. O'Boyle

Supervisory Trial Attorney

lsi Wood!' Anglade Woody Anglade Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Conunission Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5'h Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106
IT IS ORDERED AND APPROVED:
BY THE COURT:
..-§1iliRlUUbO, J.

Date: _-,3~!'p-"2I'-It/ua:Lt:"---­

-9-

EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALI. RITE AID EMPLOYEES
This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Federal Court in EEOC, et al.. v. Rite Aid Corporation, Civil Action Number 05-1896 (M.D. PA.), resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Rite Aid ("Rite Airl").
Title VU of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.c. Section 2000e, ct seq., as amended, ("Title VII"), prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for (.;mpioyment based upon race, color, sex, religion or national origin. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail thl!lllsclves of their rights under Title VII by engaging in protected activities, such as opposing employment practices believed 10 be discriminatory, filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is a federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has authority to bring lawsuits in Federal Court 10 enforce Title VII.
To resolve the case, the parties have entered into a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that: (1) consistent with its current anti-retaliation policy, Rite Aid will not retaliate against any person because she or he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VB, filed a charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asscrtl;d any rights under the Consent Decree; and (2) Rite Aid agrees to train certain employees at its 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA, facility regarding unlawful discrimination and retaliation.
If yOLl believe you have b~i::n discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (215) 440-2600. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other materhd. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to the: Regional Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia Oistrict Office, 21 South StlL Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

By:

,

? Name: '' -; ~ ~ ."t, -,-...A:!~ G/ --''''-~. '-C. ,/1!.. ~~
/}'-~ ;Z PositiorUi't . Cr..-:tf[Y'Yd l

For: Equii'fEInployment Opportunity.!

Commission

 
 Pennsylvania Middle District Version 3.0.5 - Docket Report

https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?674101314348749-L_...

CASREF, CLOSED, HBG, STANDARD
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-01896-SHR

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rite Aid Corporation Assigned to: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/21/2005 Date Terminated: 01/11/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Jacqueline H. McNair Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 S. 5th Street Suite 400 The Bourse Building Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-440-2670 Email: jacqueline.mcnair@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith A. O'Boyle Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 South 5th Street Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515 215-440-2669 Fax: 215-440-2674 Email: Judith.oboyle@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Woody Anglade Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 S. Fifth Street Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515 215-440-2814 Email: woody.anglade@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff

1 of 4

6/6/2007 3:24 PM

Pennsylvania Middle District Version 3.0.5 - Docket Report

https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?674101314348749-L_...

Kellie Faye Portman
V. Defendant Rite Aid Corporation

represented by Andrew N. Howe Hartman, Hartman, Howe & Allerton 2901 St. Lawrence Avenue P.O. Box 4429 Reading, PA 19606 610-779-0772 Email: ahowe@hhha.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian P. Downey Pepper Hamilton LLP 200 One Keystone Plaza North Front & Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181 717-255-1192 Email: downeyb@pepperlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/21/2005
09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/28/2005 09/30/2005
09/30/2005
10/18/2005 10/18/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Rite Aid Corporation , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(crh, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Summons Issued (crh, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
SPECIAL ADMISSION FORM SENT to Jacqueline H. McNair, Judith A. O'Boyle and Woody Anglade (crh, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
2 ORDER Re: Case Assignment and Procedures Signed by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo on 09/28/05. (ma, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
3 PETITION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION (PRO HAC VICE) by Woody Anglade on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( Filing fee $25, Receipt Number 111 144167) (crh, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
4 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Woody Anglade, Esq. on behalf of the EEOCSigned by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo on 09/30/05. (ma, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian P. Downey on behalf of Rite Aid Corporation. (Downey, Brian) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 7.1. (Downey, Brian) (Entered: 10/18/2005)

2 of 4

6/6/2007 3:24 PM

Pennsylvania Middle District Version 3.0.5 - Docket Report

https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?674101314348749-L_...

10/19/2005
10/24/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/23/2005 11/25/2005 11/28/2005 12/01/2005
12/02/2005 12/20/2005 12/21/2005 12/22/2005

7 NOTICE of Hearing:A Case Mgmnt Conf has been set for 12/1/2005 @ 9:15 AM before Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo. This conference is by phone and the call is to be initiated by the pltf. A joint case mgmnt plan is to be filed n/l/t 5 business days prior to the conf.Signed by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo on 10/19/05. (ma, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
8 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand with Affirmative Defenses by Rite Aid Corporation.(Downey, Brian) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Rite Aid Corporation served on 10/4/2005, answer due 10/24/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(crh, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
10 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Rite Aid Corporation on 10/4/05, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (crh, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
11 MOTION Of Kellie Portman To Intervene As Plaintiff Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 w/Exhibit . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(ga, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
12 BRIEF IN SUPPORT w/COS re 11 MOTION of Kellie Portman to Intervene as Plaintiff.(ga, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
13 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN Joint Report by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Anglade, Woody) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
14 CERTIFICATE of Concurrence re 11 MOTION to Intervene. (bg, ) (Entered: 11/25/2005)
15 ORDER granting Motion to Intervene 11 by Elka Faye Portman as a pltf.Signed by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo on 11/28/05 (ma, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
16 ORDER - STANDARD CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK This case placed on the 09/2006 trial list. Cases on this list are schd'd to begin on 9/5/2006 following the completion of all j/s's which commence at 9:30 AM. A date certain for trial may be discussed at the PTC which has been set for 8/18/2006 @ 10:00 AM before Judge Rambo. PTMs due by 8/11/2006. Discovery due by 4/3/2006. Dispositive Mtns due by 6/9/2006. See order for other ddls. Signed by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo on 12/01/05. (ma, ) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
18 First Intervenor COMPLAINT Against Rite Aid Corporation, filed by Kellie Faye Portman.(Howe, Andrew) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
19 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser for settlement conference.Signed by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo on 12/20/05. (ma, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
20 DISQUALIFICATION- I hereby disqualify myself in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4). ( cc: all cnsl, Ct) Signed by Mag. J. Andrew Smyser on 12/21/05. (rc ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
21 ORDER: 1) The order of 12/20/05 referring the case to MJ Smyser is vacated.2) The captioned case is referred to the MJ Malachy E. Mannion, for the purpose of conducting asettlement conference. The conference shall be scheduled at the

3 of 4

6/6/2007 3:24 PM

Pennsylvania Middle District Version 3.0.5 - Docket Report

https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?674101314348749-L_...

12/27/2005 12/28/2005 01/09/2006 01/10/2006 01/11/2006
03/07/2006 03/08/2006

convenience ofMJ Mannion. Signed by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo on 12/22/05. (ma, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
22 STIPULATION re 18 Intervenor Complaint to Extend Defendant's Time to Answer Complaint by Kellie Faye Portman, Rite Aid Corporation. (Downey, Brian) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
23 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 1/10/2006 at 10:30 AM in Willkes-Barre before Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion. Signed by Judge Malachy E. Mannion on 12/28/05. (bs, ) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
24 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Rite Aid Corporation.(Downey, Brian) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
26 TAPE OF PROCEEDINGS of Salient parts of settlement placed on the record on 1/10/06. (bs, ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
25 ORDER DISMISSING CASE without costs and without prejudice to the right of either party, upon good cause shown within sixty (60) days, to reinstate the action if settlement is not consummated.Signed by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo on 01/11/06. (Attachments: # 1 Memo from MJ Mannion)(ma, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
27 Proposed Consent Decree. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Downey, Brian) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
28 CONSENT DECREE-ORDER Signed by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo on 03/08/06. (ma, ) (Entered: 03/08/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/06/2007 16:20:19

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

eeoc 1:05-cv-01896-SHR 0.16

4 of 4

6/6/2007 3:24 PM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - March 2006

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement03-06.html

EEOC v. Rite Aid Corp. No. 1: CV 05-1896 (M.D. Pa. March 8, 2006)
The Philadelphia District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that Rite Aid, a leading national drug store chain, disciplined and then discharged charging party, an attorney at defendant's corporate headquarters in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, in retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination. CP worked as an associate counsel in defendant's Real Estate Department from 1997 until she was discharged in September 2002. During a 1999-2000 reduction-in-force defendant retained only 6 out of 15 attorneys in the Real Estate Department, including CP. In August 2001, CP complained to the deputy general counsel that the vice president of real estate law was affording a male coworker more favorable pay and assignments than she received, based on sex. On the heels of CP's complaint, the VP began criticizing her, humiliating her in front of colleagues, and monitoring her attendance and lunch breaks. In September 2001, he issued a disciplinary notice regarding her performance, to which she responded with a letter stating that she believed the discipline was retaliatory. In January 2002 the VP gave CP her first-ever written performance review in 5 years with Rite Aid, citing deficient performance; placed her on probation for 6 months; denied her a pay raise; and denied her the 3% cost of living adjustment that all Rite Aid employees received. On April 24, 2002, Rite Aid told CP it had concluded that her sex discrimination claims were unfounded. Defendant gave CP a second negative written performance review later the same day and a third one in June 2002. The CP reiterated her belief that the performance reviews were retaliatory and said she intended to file a charge with the EEOC. She was discharged in September 2002 a few days after defendant learned she was preparing materials to send to the EEOC. The 2- year consent decree resolving this case provides CP with $93,000 in monetary relief.

1 of 1

6/6/2007 3:32 PM