1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

TAMMY N. BRUDNAK, : 

 Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION 

 vs. : 

 : NO. 

ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT and : 

MARIO TRACA, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 Defendants : 

C O M P L A I N T

 1. The Plaintiff, Tammy N. Brudnak, is an adult individual residing at 1120 East 

Congress Street, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania 18109 with a date of birth of 

January 20, 1986. 

 2. The Defendant, Allentown School District [“School District”], is a municipal 

corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with 

offices at 31 S. Penn Street, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania 18101. 

 3. The Defendant, Mario Traca, is an adult individual with offices in care of 

Dieruff High School, 815 N. Irving Street, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania 

18109 who at all times relevant was an agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant, 

School District acting within the scope of such employment relationship. 

JURISDICTION

 4. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§1983, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, 20 U.S.C.A. §1681 

et seq. (Title IX), and the principles of ancillary and pendant jurisdiction. 

Case 2:05-cv-02159-JKG Document 1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 1 of 10
2

COUNT ONE

(42 U.S.C. §1983) 

(Plaintiff Tammy N. Brudnak v. Defendant Mario Traca) 

 5. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 4 inclusive are incorporated herein 

as if fully set forth at length. 

 6. Plaintiff is a female born on January 28, 1986. 

 7. Plaintiff attended Dieruff High School which is part of the School District from 

September 2000 until June of 2004. 

 8. At all times herein relevant, Defendant Traca was a teacher at Dieruff High 

School and functioning as a state actor. 

 9. During the Spring semester of Plaintiff’s junior year, she was assigned to 

Defendant Traca’s physical education class. 

 10. At that time, Defendant Traca began a pattern and practice of intentional 

discrimination against Plaintiff based upon her gender. 

 11. During Spring semester of 2003, Defendant Traca repeatedly asked Plaintiff 

to stay after school to keep time for the track team, and Defendant Traca would drive 

Plaintiff home. 

 12. Plaintiff made excuses and always declined offers of rides home from 

Defendant Traca as Plaintiff was uncomfortable with his repeatedly asking her questions 

about her personal life including about boyfriends. 

 13. During Spring of 2003, while Plaintiff was sitting down in her physical 

education shorts, Defendant Traca sat next to Plaintiff, began talking to her and placed 

his hand on Plaintiff’s thigh. 

Case 2:05-cv-02159-JKG Document 1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 10
3

 14. During Spring of 2003, Defendant Traca told Plaintiff that she should come 

over to Defendant’s house, and he could teach her CPR. 

 15. Sometime during Plaintiff’s tenure in Defendant’s classes, Defendant 

whispered into Plaintiff’s ear that she would look even better with fewer clothes on and 

then winked at Plaintiff. 

 16. Sometime during Plaintiff’s tenure in Defendant’s classes, Defendant, Traca 

told Plaintiff that he could imagine what her mother looked like because Plaintiff looked 

“that good.” 

 17. During Plaintiff’s Senior year, beginning in September of 2003, Defendant 

Traca intentionally, purposefully selected Plaintiff for Defendant to mentor. 

 18. Generally, seniors at Defendant’s high school select their own mentor, but 

Defendant Traca intentionally, purposefully selected Plaintiff as someone Defendant 

Traca hand chose to mentor without allowing then minor Plaintiff to select her own 

mentor. 

 19. During Fall semester (2003) of Plaintiff’s senior year, Defendant assigned 

Plaintiff alone to a resource room, stood over her by placing both arms around the desk 

where she was seated hovering over her and told Plaintiff that he could take advantage 

of her and no one would ever know. 

 20. At the time aforesaid, while supposedly mentoring Plaintiff and helping her 

with her graduation presentation, Defendant Traca sat upon Plaintiff’s lap. 

 21. At the time and place aforesaid, when Plaintiff told Defendant that she was 

serious about her graduation presentation, he replied that she “could pass for a little 

something”. 

Case 2:05-cv-02159-JKG Document 1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 3 of 10
4

 22. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff clearly conveyed to Defendant Traca 

that Defendant’s offensive sexual innuendo, comments, suggestions and touchings were 

unsolicited, unwelcomed, highly offensive, intimidating, humiliating, threatening and 

were sexually harassing. 

 23. Defendant Traca’s aforesaid intentional words and actions deprived Plaintiff 

of her constitutional rights to liberty and bodily integrity and of her rights under Federal 

law and the Equal Protection Clause to be free from invidious discrimination based upon 

gender, t and her constitutional right to be free from sexual harassment. for which 

Plaintiff seeks compensation. 

 24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Traca’s intentional 

discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s school work, attendance, and grades suffered 

dramatically. 

 25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Traca’s intentional 

discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent mental pain and 

suffering, anxiety, anguish, distress, stress, humiliation, intimidation, loss of reputation, 

and sleeplessness. 

 26. As a result of the interference with Plaintiff’s academic performance, Plaintiff 

suffered a loss of earnings capacity for which she claims damages. 

 27. Defendant Traca’s aforesaid actions were outrageous, egregious, intentional, 

willful, wanton, reckless and in deliberate disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, entitling Plaintiff 

to punitive damages. 

Case 2:05-cv-02159-JKG Document 1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 4 of 10
5

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tammy N. Brudnak demands judgment against 

Defendant, Mario Traca, in an amount to be determined, together with costs of suit and 

reasonable attorney fees. 

COUNT TWO

(42 U.S.C. §1983) 

(Plaintiff, Tammy N. Brudnak v. Defendant Allentown School District) 

 28. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 27 inclusive are incorporated herein 

as if fully set forth at length. 

 29. The Defendant, Mario Traca, carried on an open, notorious and hostile 

flirtatious campaign in an attempt to obtain sexual favors from Plaintiff. 

 30. The campaign by the Defendant, Traca, was done in front of fellow 

teachers, and his inappropriate behavior was brought to the attention of the school 

administrator, and Defendant Allentown School District, had actual or constructive 

knowledge of the teacher’s inappropriate behavior. 

 31. Neither the fellow teachers nor administration intervened to protect the then 

minor from the unwanted sexual advances of the teacher directed to the minor. 

 32. By way of custom and practice, the Defendant, Allentown School District, 

condoned and tolerated the sexual harassment of the Plaintiff by its teacher 

characterizing it as harmless flirting. 

 33. The Defendant, Allentown School District, either knew or should have known 

that the sexual attention by its teacher of a then minor student was unsolicited, 

unwelcome, highly offensive, intentionally humiliating, threatening and was sexually 

harassing. 

Case 2:05-cv-02159-JKG Document 1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 5 of 10
6

 34. The policy or practice of condoning as “harmless flirting” by the Defendant, 

Allentown School District, deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional right to liberty and 

bodily integrity and of her rights under Federal law and the Equal Protection Clause to 

be free from invidious discrimination based upon gender and her constitutional right to 

be free from sexual harassment for which Plaintiff seeks compensation. 

 35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Allentown School District’s 

intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s school work, attendance, and 

grades suffered dramatically. 

 36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Allentown School District’s 

intentional discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent 

mental pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, distress, stress, humiliation, intimidation, 

loss of reputation, and sleeplessness. 

 37. As a result of the interference with Plaintiff’s academic performance, Plaintiff 

suffered a loss of earnings capacity for which she claims damages. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tammy N. Brudnak, demands judgment against 

Defendant, Allentown School District, in an amount to be determined together with 

costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees. 

COUNT THREE

(20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.) 

(Plaintiff Tammy N. Brudnak v. Defendant Allentown School District) 

 38. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 37 inclusive are incorporated herein 

as if fully set forth at length. 

Case 2:05-cv-02159-JKG Document 1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 6 of 10
7

 39. At all relevant times, Defendant School District received federal funding by 

promising and contracting not to engage in or condone sexual harassment/gender 

discrimination. 

 40. As set forth above, Plaintiff was subjected to sexual discrimination under an 

education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance in violation of 20 

U.S.C. 1681(9). 

 41. The campaign by the Defendant, Traca, was done in front of fellow 

teachers, and his inappropriate behavior was brought to the attention of the school 

administrators, and Defendant, Allentown School District, had actual or constructive 

knowledge of the teacher’s inappropriate behavior. 

 42. Two gym teachers, Mrs. Crutlenden and Mr. Walters, personally observed 

the open, notorious and hostile flirting by Defendant, Mario Traca, directed to the 

Plaintiff. 

 43. Both gym teachers knew or should have known that the written district 

policy required them to report the sexual harassment of a minor by a teacher to the 

administration, but they failed to intervene to protect the minor from unwanted sexual 

advances. 

 44. On or about December 22, 2003, Plaintiff, in the presence of her mother, 

advised Rosalee R. Sabo, Principal, of the sexual harassment, and Rosalee R. Sabo 

failed to take any disciplinary action against the Defendant, Mario Traca, under the de 

facto custom and practice of harmless flirting. 

Case 2:05-cv-02159-JKG Document 1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 7 of 10
8

 45. At all times herein relevant, Defendant’s agent, servant and/or employee, 

Rosalee R. Sabo actually knew of the abuse of Plaintiff, and the power to end the abuse 

and failed to do so. 

 46. At all times herein relevant, Defendant School District had actual notice 

and/or knowledge of Defendant Traca’s sexual harassment of Plaintiff because it was 

open, notorious and hostile, carried on in front of teachers and because of the meeting 

of December 22, 2003. 

 47. At all times herein relevant, Defendant School District’s official agents, 

servants, and/or employees had authority to institute corrective measures on Defendant 

School District’s behalf, and had actual notice and/or knowledge of Defendant Traca’s 

sexual harassment of Plaintiff. 

 48. At all times herein relevant, despite actual notice by appropriate persons of 

Defendant School District, Defendant School District knowingly, purposefully acted with 

deliberate indifference to Defendant Traca’s sexual harassment of Plaintiff, and 

Defendant School District failed to adequately respond. 

 49. As a direct and proximate result of the repeated sexual harassment of 

Plaintiff, and Defendant School District’s deliberate indifference to Defendant Traca’s 

illegal actions, Plaintiff has suffered severe and permanent mental pain and suffering, 

anxiety, anguish, distress, stress, humiliation, intimidation, loss of reputation and 

sleeplessness. 

 50. As a result of the interference with Plaintiff’s academic performance, Plaintiff 

suffered a loss of earnings capacity for which she claims damages. 

Case 2:05-cv-02159-JKG Document 1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 8 of 10
9

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tammy N. Brudnak demands a monetary judgment 

against Defendant, Allentown School District in an amount to be determined, together 

with costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees. 

COUNT FOUR

(Willful Misconduct) 

(Plaintiff, Tammy N. Brudnak v. Defendant, Mario Traca) 

 51. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 50 inclusive are incorporated herein 

as if fully set forth at length. 

 52. Defendant Traca’s aforestated words and actions constituted willful 

misconduct under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8550. 

 53. The open, notorious and hostile sexual harassment of Plaintiff, a then minor 

student, was willful misconduct prohibited by the School District’s written policy. 

 54. The inappropriate touching of the Plaintiff by the Defendant, Mario Traca, 

constituted a battery and was willful misconduct. 

 55. The multiple flirtatious comments by Defendant, Mario Traca, constituted an 

assault putting Plaintiff in fear of further touching and was willful misconduct. 

 56. The harassing incident wherein Defendant indicated to Plaintiff that he could 

do whatever he wanted to Plaintiff constituted an assault and was willful misconduct. 

 57. The placing of Plaintiff in his mentoring class and not letting Plaintiff select 

the mentor that she wanted so he could be alone with Plaintiff was false imprisonment 

and was willful misconduct. 

 58. The inappropriate touching, the inappropriate flirting, the threats of 

physically being able to do whatever the teacher wanted to do to the then minor 

student, the preventing the then minor student from selecting her own mentor so the 

Case 2:05-cv-02159-JKG Document 1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 9 of 10
10

teacher could be alone with the student--the pattern of behavior indicates that the 

perpetrator knew that his conduct was wrong, and it was carried out with the intention 

of achieving its wrongful purpose.

 59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Traca’s aforesaid willful 

misconduct, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages specified above and incorporated 

herein. 

 60. Defendant Traca’s aforesaid actions were outrageous, egregious, intentional, 

willful, wanton, reckless and in deliberate disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, entitling Plaintiff 

to punitive damages. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tammy N. Brudnak demands judgment against 

Defendant Mario Traca in an amount to be determined, together with costs of suit. 

 ORLOSKI, HINGA, PANDALEON & 

 ORLOSKI 

 ________________________________ 

 Richard J. Orloski 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 111 N. Cedar Crest Blvd. 

 Allentown, PA 18104-4602 

 610 433-2363 

 Attorney ID# 09857 

 RJO 2737 

Case 2:05-cv-02159-JKG Document 1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 10 of 10