IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA A. HICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

ACE INA HOLDINGS, INC., and

ACE LIMITED,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

No. 

COMPLAINT

1. Lisa Hicks began her employment at ACE American Insurance

Company in December 1999 as Assistant Vice President of Communications. In short

order, due to her success on the job, she was promoted to the position of Vice President of

Communications and received two pay raises, a bonus and ACE Limited stock options. 

In late 2001, however, her career took a turn for the worse. When Ms. Hicks learned that

her boss, the Senior Vice President in charge of Communications, was leaving the

company, she expressed an interest in his job. She was informed, however, by a member

of senior management that the job he held was reserved for men. Faced with a glass

ceiling, Ms. Hicks nonetheless applied for the job and reported what she had been told to

the Company’s Human Resources Department. Subsequently, she was subject to

retaliation in the form of harassment, diminished job responsibilities and a negative

performance review. In June 2002, the Company hired a man, less qualified and

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 1 of 14
2

experienced than Ms. Hicks, to be its Senior Vice President of Communications. Three

months later, in September 2002, he fired Ms. Hicks supposedly because of her poor

performance, but that was a pretext: the real reason she was fired was because of her

gender (female) and because she had complained of sex discrimination.

2. Ms. Hicks seeks redress for her non-promotion and job termination

pursuant to the anti-discrimination and non-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), respectively codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

Jurisdiction

3. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Hicks’s sex

discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to Section 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f)(3).

Venue

4. Venue over Ms. Hicks’s claims is proper in this Court pursuant to

Section 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), since those claims arose in this

judicial district and were it not for defendants’ unlawful actions, she would have

continued working for ACE in this district.

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 2 of 14
3

Parties

5. Plaintiff, Lisa A. Hicks, currently resides at 6728 Little Branch

Road, York, South Carolina 29745.

6. Defendant ACE American Insurance Company, also known as ACE

USA, has offices located at Two Liberty Place, 1601 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19103. It provides a full range of insurance products and services to

customers in the United States.

7. Defendant ACE INA Holdings, Inc. is the domestic parent

corporation of ACE American Insurance Company. ACE INA Holdings, Inc. also has

offices located at Two Liberty Place, 1601 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103.

8. Defendant ACE Limited is the Bermuda-based holding company of

the ACE Group of Companies and is the parent corporation of defendants ACE American

Insurance Company and ACE INA Holdings, Inc. Through its subsidiaries, ACE

Limited provides a full range of insurance and reinsurance products to customers

throughout the world. It maintains its global headquarters at 17 Woodbourne Avenue,

Hamilton HM08, Bermuda.

9. Defendants acted jointly in regard to the adverse employment actions

at issue in this case and thus constitute a single employer for purposes of the claims raised

against them by Ms. Hicks.

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 3 of 14
4

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

10. On November 13, 2002, Ms. Hicks filed a charge of sex

discrimination against all the defendants with the Philadelphia District Office of the

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The charge, No.

170-2003-00420, alleged that the defendants unlawfully denied Ms. Hicks the position of

Senior Vice President of Communications and unlawfully terminated her employment on

account of her gender, female. 

11. In the documents accompanying her charge, Ms. Hicks also alleged

that defendants retaliated against her by not promoting her to the position of Senior Vice

President of Communications and by dismissing her from employment. The EEOC

investigated that retaliation claim in addition to the charge of sex discrimination Ms.

Hicks filed against the defendants.

12. By letter dated February 18, 2004, the EEOC terminated its

jurisdiction over Ms. Hicks’s charge and informed her of her right to file a Title VII suit

against the defendants within 90 days of her receipt of that notice.

13. This action has been filed in accordance with the suit-filing

provisions of Title VII and the above-referenced right-to-sue letter.

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 4 of 14
5

Factual Allegations

A. Background Facts

14. Ms. Hicks began her employment with ACE USA, a/k/a Ace

American Insurance Company, in December 1999 as Assistant Vice President of

Communications.

15. The position Ms. Hicks held was the senior most role in

communications at ACE USA. In that capacity, she reported directly to Dennis Reding,

the President of ACE INA Holdings, Inc.

16. In June 2000, due to her excellent performance, ACE USA promoted

Ms. Hicks to the position of Vice President of Communications with a 5% increase in her

base pay.

17. In March 2001 Ms. Hicks received a positive performance review

from Mr. Reding, another 5% increase in her pay, a $30,000.00 bonus and an award of

1,200 ACE Limited stock options

18. Throughout the first fourteen months of her employment with ACE

USA, Ms. Hicks continually received positive feedback from the numerous ACE clients

that she and her staff served.

19. In April 2001 Dennis Reding left ACE INA Holdings, Inc.

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 5 of 14
6

20. Following Mr. Reding’s departure, the communications and the other

support departments of ACE USA were placed under the direction and supervision of

Dominic Frederico, the Chairman of ACE INA and a Vice Chairman of ACE Limited.

21. However, whereas all the male executives of the support departments

of ACE USA were instructed to report directly to Mr. Frederico, Ms. Hicks, the only

female executive at ACE USA, was told not to report to Mr. Frederico.

22. Instead, Ms. Hicks was told to report to Larry Owen who had just

been hired as Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for ACE INA Holdings, Inc.

23. As a result of this arrangement, all the direct reports to Mr. Frederico

were men.

B. Plaintiff’s Claims of Gender Discrimination

24. On November 29, 2001, Wendy Davis-Johnson, the head of Global

Communications for ACE Limited, told Ms. Hicks that Larry Owen would be dismissed

from employment in the very near future.

25. Ms. Hicks told Ms. Davis-Johnson that she would like to be

considered for Mr. Owen’s position.

26. In reply, Ms. Davis-Johnson informed Ms. Hicks that she should not

apply for Mr. Owen’s position since the senior management team of the Company headed

by Mr. Frederico was a “boy’s club” and “women aren’t allowed in.”

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 6 of 14
7

27. Ms. Hicks protested and told Ms. Davis-Johnson that it was not fair

to exclude women from senior management positions at ACE INA Holdings, Inc.

28. On December 10, 2001, Larry Owen’s employment with ACE INA

Holdings, Inc. was terminated.

29. The next day, on December 11, 2001, Ms. Hicks submitted her

application for the position of Senior Vice President of Communications via e-mail to

Peter O’Connor, the global head of Government Affairs for ACE INA Holdings, Inc. She

applied because she was qualified for the position and believed she should be afforded a

fair opportunity to be considered for the job.

30. Approximately two weeks later, Mr. O’Connor appointed Kevin

McArdle, a peer of Ms. Hicks, as acting Senior Vice President of Communications.

31. Following his appointment, Mr. McArdle harassed and threatened

Ms. Hicks, discredited her to her peers and clients and criticized her for applying for the

position of Senior Vice President of Communications.

32. In April 2002 Mr. McArdle resigned his employment with ACE INA

Holdings, Inc.

33. In June 2002, ACE INA Holdings, Inc. hired John Herbkersman, an

outside applicant, as its Senior Vice President of Communications.

34. It did so not because Mr. Herbkersman was the most qualified person

for the job; quite the contrary, it did so because he is a man and in order to discriminate

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 7 of 14
8

against Ms. Hicks, a qualified female applicant for the job. In fact, Ms. Hicks was never

even given an interview for the position to which Mr. Herbkersman was appointed.

35. Three months later, on September 30, 2002, without notice or

warning, and in contravention of ACE’s progressive disciplinary policy, Mr.

Herbkersman fired Ms. Hicks because, he said, she was not the caliber of person ACE

wanted as a Vice President.

36. That, however, was not the real reason Ms. Hicks was fired. Rather,

she was fired because of her gender (female) in willful and reckless violation of her rights

under Title VII. Moreover, as pled in paragraphs 37 - 41, infra, Ms. Hicks was also fired

in willful and reckless retaliation for her complaints of sex discrimination.

C. Plaintiff’s Claims of Retaliation

37. Ms. Hicks reported and complained to her Human Resources

representative, Denise Carson, that she had been told by Ms. Davis-Johnson not to apply

for the position of Senior Vice President of Communications because women were not

welcome in that position. See ¶ 26, supra.

38. Ms. Hicks also reported and complained to Ms. Carson that Kevin

McArdle was harassing and threatening her because she had applied for the position of

Senior Vice President of Communications. See ¶ 31, supra.

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 8 of 14
9

39. Defendants did not make a good faith effort to investigate Ms.

Hicks’s complaints of sex discrimination.

40. Instead, in reprisal for those complaints, defendants engaged in a

campaign of retaliation against Ms. Hicks that included the following actions taken

against her:

a. For his part, Mr. O’Connor removed a number of the job

duties and responsibilities of Ms. Hicks and reassigned them

to Kevin McArdle;

b. Mr. McArdle, in turn, continued to harass Ms. Hicks and

discredit her to her clients and her staff;

c. In doing so, Mr. McArdle told Ms. Hicks that upper

management was upset that she had applied for the position of

Senior Vice President of Communications and warned her to

“watch out” because they would be protecting “his back”;

d. Ms. Davis-Johnson, who as an employee of ACE Limited was

not permitted to interfere with the operations of its U.S.

subsidiary, prohibited Ms. Hicks from performing

assignments that had been requested of her by her clients;

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 9 of 14
10

e. Though there was no basis for it, in March 2002, Mr.

O’Connor gave Ms. Hicks her first and only negative

performance review;

f. In June 2002 Ms. Hicks was denied the position of Senior

Vice President of Communications and John Herbkersman

was hired into that position; and

g. On September 30, 2002 Mr. Herbkersman fired Ms. Hicks

though he had no valid basis for doing so.

41. Each of the actions described in paragraph 40(a) - (g) was

undertaken by defendants in willful and reckless retaliation for the complaints of sex

discrimination that Ms. Hicks reported to her human resources representative, Denise

Carson.

D. Plaintiff’s Damages

42. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ violations of her

rights, Ms. Hicks has suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of earnings and earning

capacity, including lost wages, bonuses, pay increases, pension credits, stock options and

other emoluments of employment to which she would have been entitled but for her

non-promotion to the position of Senior Vice President of Communications and her

termination from employment from ACE American Insurance Company.

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 10 of 14
11

43. As a further direct and proximate result of defendants’ violations of

her rights, Ms. Hicks has incurred physical pain and sickness, emotional distress,

humiliation, harm to her reputation, loss of confidence and self-esteem, and the loss of

enjoyment of life’s pleasures. She also was forced to sell her home in southern New

Jersey and relocate to South Carolina in an effort to obtain suitable work for herself and

her family -- for which she had been the principal source of support.

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 11 of 14
12

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count I: First Claim of Sex Discrimination

44. Ms. Hicks incorporates by reference the allegations set out in

paragraphs 1 through 43 of her Complaint.

45. By denying her the position of Senior Vice President of

Communications, defendants discriminated against Ms. Hicks because of her sex in

violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Count II: Second Claim of Sex Discrimination

46. Ms. Hicks incorporates by reference the allegations set out in

paragraphs 1 through 45 of her Complaint.

47. By terminating her employment, defendants discriminated against

Ms. Hicks because of her sex in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2(a)(1).

Count III: Claim for Retaliation

48. Ms. Hicks incorporates by reference the allegations set out in

paragraphs 1 through 47 of her Complaint.

49. By diminishing her job duties, by harassing and discrediting her, by

denying her the position of Senior Vice President of Communications, by issuing her a

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 12 of 14
13

negative performance review and by terminating her employment, defendants retaliated

against Ms. Hicks in reprisal for her complaints of sex discrimination in violation of

Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Lisa A. Hicks, respectfully requests the Court to

enter judgment in her favor and against all defendants, and to include in its judgment the

following relief:

(a) an award of back and front pay with interest as authorized by

Title VII;

(b) an award of non-economic compensatory damages as authorized

by Title VII;

(c) an award of punitive damages as authorized by Title VII;

(d) an award of reasonable counsel fees and costs as authorized

by Title VII; and

(e) such other legal and equitable relief as may be just and proper

under the circumstances.

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 13 of 14
14

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Lisa A. Hicks demands a trial by jury on all the legal claims she

has raised in her Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

RAYNES, McCARTY, BINDER, ROSS & MUNDY

/s/ Harold I. Goodman, Esquire

By: 

Harold I. Goodman

1845 Walnut Street, 20th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Telephone No.: 215 - 568 - 6190

Facsimile No.: 215 - 988 - 0618

E-Mail: higoodman@raynesmccarty.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Lisa A. Hicks

Dated: April 21, 2004

Case 2:04-cv-01729-JG Document 1 Filed 04/21/04 Page 14 of 14