PHLEGAL: #1335007 v1 (SM3J01!.DOC) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FORREST KRAMER, : 

: CIVIL ACTION 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : 

: No. 02-CV-4355 

WEBCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., : 

: 

Defendant. : 

JOINT CASE REPORT

A. Statement of the Facts

1. Plaintiff’s Statement 

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on or about April 20, 1992 as second assistant. 

Plaintiff worked diligently and professionally until August 7, 2000. Plaintiff’s work was praised 

on many occasions. Over the period of 8 1⁄2 years, Plaintiff was hurt at work about five times. 

Every time, Plaintiff recovered and was able to go back to work. Plaintiff is 50-years old. After 

Plaintiff’s last injury at work, Plaintiff was fired. Plaintiff was hurt on July 14, 2000 and was 

able to go back to work (medically) by September 19, 2000 on full duty. Fran Kerrigan fired 

Plaintiff and told him he had too many accidents and that his service was no longer needed. 

Another employee who has had an injury at work has been promoted to supervisor. His name 

was Jonathan Green, age in 30’s. Unlike Plaintiff, this younger individual was not fired, but 

promoted after being injured. 

Plaintiff believes he was replaced with a younger worker. Plaintiff believes he 

has been discriminated against because of his age and disability. The employer has refused to 

accommodate his disability. 

This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Americans 

With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and the Age Discrimination In 

Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 

2. Defendant’s Statement

Forrest Kramer was employed by Webcraft Technologies (“Webcraft”) from 

April 1992 through August 2000. Webcraft is in the business of printing direct marketing 

materials. Kramer’s last position with Webcraft was that of First Assistant, a job which required 

him to work on the plant floor operating parts of printing machines. Because of the potential for 

injury while working with printing machines, Webcraft invests considerable time and effort 

training its employees on safe work practices and has safety procedures in place. 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 7 Filed 11/04/2002 Page 1 of 3
-2- 

PHLEGAL: #1335007 v1 (SM3J01!.DOC) 

Webcraft employees are also subject to rules of conduct, safety and discipline, 

which allow termination after the second occasion of an employee’s willful disregard for safety 

rules. Kramer engaged in a series of unsafe acts while at work, resulting in injury to himself. He 

was, therefore, discharged for violation of the safety rules. 

B. Statement of Causes of Action and Relief Sought

Plaintiff has brought claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 

42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. 

§621, et seq.

The elements of a prima facie case of a claim of discriminatory discharge under 

the ADA or ADEA are that: 1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class (i.e. a disabled 

person within the meaning of the ADA or over 40 years old), 2) the plaintiff was qualified for the 

position he held, 3) the plaintiff was terminated, and (4) the plaintiff was replaced by someone 

not in the protected class. If the Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case, the burden of 

production shifts to Defendant to articulate a legitimate business reason for discharging the 

Plaintiff. Once the Defendant articulates a legitimate business reason, the Plaintiff must prove 

that the articulated reason was merely a pretext for discrimination. 

Plaintiff seeks back pay plus reinstatement or, in the alternative, back pay plus 

front pay.

C. Statement of Defenses

Webcraft contends that Kramer cannot establish a prima facie case of disability 

discrimination because he was not a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA. Webcraft 

also contends that he cannot state a prima facie case of age discrimination because he was 

replaced by someone older than he is. With respect to Defendant’s legitimate business reason for 

its decision, Webcraft terminated Kramer due to his repeated violation of the safety rules, not 

because of his disability or age. 

Defendant’s affirmative defenses are based primarily on the facts noted above and 

related legal theories. 

D. Initial Disclosures

Plaintiff has served his Initial Disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(1). Defendant will serve its Initial Disclosures by the date of the pretrial 

scheduling conference. 

E. Date for Discovery Completion

1. Plaintiff proposes: 

180 days Completion of discovery (May 7, 2003). 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 7 Filed 11/04/2002 Page 2 of 3
-3- 

PHLEGAL: #1335007 v1 (SM3J01!.DOC) 

2. Defendant proposes: 

 90 days Identification of Plaintiff’s experts 

 120 days Identification of Defendants’ experts 

 Completion of factual discovery 

 150 days Completion of expert depositions 

 180 days Submission of dispositive motions 

F. Necessary Parties: All necessary parties have been joined. 

G. Settlement Discussions

 A mediation conference was held before the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission on April 12, 2001, which did not result in a settlement of the matter. The parties 

have not engaged in settlement discussions subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit. 

H. Counsel Attending Settlement Conference

 Counsel for Plaintiff: Robert R. Pandaleon 

 

 Counsel for Defendants: Hope A. Comisky, Natalie Abbott 

_____________________________ _____________________________ 

Richard J. Orloski Hope A. Comisky 

Robert R. Pandaleon Natalie S. Abbott 

Oroloski, Hinga, Pandaleon & Orloski Pepper Hamilton LLP

111 N. Cedar Crest Boulevard 3000 Two Logan Square 

Allentown, PA 18104-4602 Eighteenth and Arch Streets 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Forrest Kramer Attorneys for Defendant, 

Webcraft Technologies 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 7 Filed 11/04/2002 Page 3 of 3