1

Joseph A. Hirsch, Esq.

Atty. Id. No. 66640

HIRSCH & HIRSCH

110 Bala Avenue

Third Floor

Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004

Telephone (610) 660-9955 Attorney for Plaintiff

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAURIE E. SWEIGARD :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO.

: 02-2755

V. :

:

CHOICE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, :

INC., ET AL :

Defendants :

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL

Although the Defendants appear to be displeased that they

have been faced with a Third Motion to Compel, the fact remains

that Defendants have failed to produce many of the documents in

question until after Plaintiff’s motions are filed. In this

regard, it is notable that the Defendants have produced

additional documents with their Reply to this Motion.

The notes produced as Exhibit D to Defendants’ Reply include

what appear to be notes of meetings between Defendants’ CEO,

Carolyn Eberwein, and the Plaintiff on September 28 and 29, 2000

and October 10, 2000. All three of these meetings are

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 17 Filed 11/08/2002 Page 1 of 6
2

specifically referenced in the Complaint herein as part of the

basis of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim (See Complaint paragraphs

34-38 and 44-45). The documents produced as Exhibit F to

Defendants’ Reply contain information that is relevant to the

issue of job qualifications of for the positions at issue in this

case. The documents produced as Exhibit G to Defendants’ Reply

are summaries prepared by Defendants that purport to provide data

on the racial breakdown of categories of employees at issue in

this case (comparators). Although the Plaintiff has not yet

obtained the personnel files for all of the comparators that

allegedly support this summary, this information is directly

related to Defendants’ defenses against Plaintiff’s claim of race

discrimination.

Plaintiff was faced with the failure of Defendants to

produce documents and the expiration of the discovery deadline,

and had no choice but to seek this Court’s intervention.

INTERROGATORY 8

The Defendants claim to have properly answered interrogatory

8 requesting salary information by previously producing the

document attached as Exhibit A to their Reply to Plaintiff’s

Motion. Exhibit A only sets forth salary data as of the date of

promotion, not during the relevant time frame. In some cases,

the information supplied is ten years old because that was the

date of promotion. Notably, Defendants have now produced with

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 17 Filed 11/08/2002 Page 2 of 6
3

their Reply to this Motion (Exhibit G) more salary history that

was previously not provided.

INTERROGATORY 16

Defendants contend that they have properly answered

interrogatory 16 requesting a detailed factual statement of the

reasons for terminating Plaintiff’s employment. The Defendants’

answer directed Plaintiff to the documents they produced, which

included the Defendants’ answer before the PHRC. The Defendants

further rely on the testimony of the witnesses produced for

depositions. The problem is that neither gives a clear statement

of the reasons for Plaintiff’s termination - a critical fact in

this case. The deposition testimony of the witnesses is not

consistent. Furthermore, the PHRC Answer does not provide the

factual detail requested. The Defendants’ PHRC Answer states, in

relevant part as follows: 

“Complainant was discharged for repeated disregard of

explicit directives and warnings. Moreover, she

frequently expressed a desire to be laid off shortly

before she was terminated . . . .”

(PHRC Answer at paragraph 3(a)). This statement does not provide

information about what explicit directives and warnings were

disregarded, and when and how they were disregarded. In another

part of their PHRC Answer, Defendants state as follows:

“Complainant was terminated on October 16, 2000, for

violating the written reprimand, continuing to

interfere with other employees’ work, ignoring repeated

directives to cease doing so, and because she herself

had indicated a number of times that she wanted to be

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 17 Filed 11/08/2002 Page 3 of 6
4

laid off. . . .”

(PHRC Answer at paragraph 3(a)(21)). These statements do not

provide the factual detail about, inter alia, how the Plaintiff

violated the written reprimand, how the Plaintiff allegedly

continued to interfere with other employees work, with which

employees she interfered, and when. For these reasons, the

Defendant has not properly answered interrogatory 16. Plaintiff

is entitled to a clear answer to this basic question, and

Defendants are the only source of this information.

INTERROGATORY 17

With regard to interrogatory 17, the Defendants have failed

to produce the job description for “Project Supervisor” that was

in effect immediately prior to October 2000 or to describe

specifically what the qualifications were for that position at

that time. The qualifications for this position are highly

relevant and important to the Plaintiff’s case because of her

contention that certain employees were promoted to positions

(three of them to “Project Supervisor”) for which they did not

possess the objective qualifications. After the promotions went

into effect, the job description for “Project Supervisor” was

changed, with a revision date of “October 2000." Defendants are

refusing to answer this interrogatory as to the relevant period

(the promotions were announced May 2000 and went into effect in

July 2000). While Defendants attempt to rely on the deposition

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 17 Filed 11/08/2002 Page 4 of 6
5

testimony, in fact, the witnesses were not able to provide clear

answers. (See Deposition of Haag, pp. 49 and 59-60).

Respectfully submitted,

Date: 

JOSEPH A. HIRSCH, ESQUIRE

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 17 Filed 11/08/2002 Page 5 of 6
Joseph A. Hirsch, Esq.

Atty. Id. No. 66640

HIRSCH & HIRSCH

110 Bala Avenue

Third Floor

Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004

Telephone (610) 660-9955 Attorney for Plaintiff

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAURIE E. SWEIGARD :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO.

: 02-2755

V. :

:

CHOICE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, :

INC., ET AL :

Defendants :

Certificate of Service

I, Joseph A. Hirsch, Esq., hereby certify that on this date,

I served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff’s Reply Memo to

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel upon

Peter D. Bludman, Esq., counsel for Defendants, at Margolis

Edelstein, The Curtis Center, 4th Floor, Independence Square

West, Philadelphia, PA 19106-3304, via first class mail, postage

prepaid.

Date: 

JOSEPH A. HIRSCH, ESQUIRE

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 17 Filed 11/08/2002 Page 6 of 6