1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

________________________________

:

JOAN EBERT :

4701 Trails Way East :

Doylestown, PA 18901 :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO.

:

LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION,:

d/b/a LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP :

1500 Market Street :

West Tower, Suite 3900 :

Philadelphia, PA 19102 :

:

and :

: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DELAWARE MANAGEMENT :

BUSINESS TRUST, d/b/a DELAWARE :

INVESTMENTS, INC. :

One Commerce Square :

Philadelphia, PA 19103 :

:

Defendants. :

________________________________:

COMPLAINT

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff, Joan Ebert, brings this action against Lincoln National

Corporation, d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group and Delaware Management Business Trust,

d/b/a Delaware Investments, Inc. Ms. Ebert alleges sex discrimination, including sexual

harassment and hostile work environment, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e), et seq. (“Title VII”) and the

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 11
2

Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, as amended, 43 P.S. §951, et seq. (“PHRA”). Ms.

Ebert seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages and other statutory relief as

permitted under state and federal law.

II. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Joan Ebert, is an individual and citizen of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing therein at 4701 Trails Way East, Doylestown, 

Pennsylvania 18901. 

2. Plaintiff is female.

3. Defendant, Lincoln National Corporation, d/b/a Lincoln Financial

Group (“Defendant Lincoln”), is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of

business at 1500 Market Street, West Tower, Suite 3900, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19102.

4. Defendant, Delaware Management Business Trust, d/b/a Delaware 

Investments, Inc. (“Defendant Delaware”), is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business at One Commerce Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

5. Defendant Delaware is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant

Lincoln. 

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lincoln controls the 

employment, personnel and human resources operations and practices for Defendant

Delaware.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lincoln controls some or 

all of the financial matters of its subsidiaries, including Defendant Delaware.

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 11
3

8. Upon information and belief, employees of Defendant Delaware

are considered to be employees of Defendant Lincoln, and are governed by the same

employment practices.

9. At all times material hereto, Defendant Lincoln acted as an

“employer” within the meaning of the anti-discrimination laws that are the subject of this

suit.

10. At all times material hereto, Defendant Delaware acted as an 

“employer” within the meaning of the anti-discrimination laws that are the subject of this

suit.

11. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of 

Defendants within the meaning of the anti-discrimination laws that are the subject of this

suit. 

12. At all times material hereto, Defendants acted by and through their

authorized agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting within the course and

scope of their employment and in furtherance of Defendants’ business.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. The causes of action set forth herein arise under Title VII and the 

PHRA. 

14. The District Court has jurisdiction over the cause of action set forth 

in Count I pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. The District Court has supplemental jurisdiction

over the cause of action set forth Count II under 28. U.S.C. § 1367.

15. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000 

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 11
4

(e)(5)(f)(3). 

16. At all times material hereto, Defendants employed more than fifteen

(15) employees.

17. On or about September 23, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Charge of 

Discrimination alleging sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC”), which was cross filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations 

Commission (“PHRC”). The Charge of Discrimination complained of acts of sex 

discrimination described herein. Attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked as 

Exhibit “1" is a true and correct copy of the 2003 Charge of Discrimination filed by 

Plaintiff. 

18. On or about January 6, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Charge of 

Discrimination alleging sex discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC, which was 

PHRC. The Charge of Discrimination complained of acts of sex discrimination and 

retaliation described herein. Attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked as 

Exhibit “2" is a true and correct copy of the 2004 Charge of Discrimination filed by 

Plaintiff. 

19. On or about March 17, 2005, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Dismissal 

and Notice of Rights letter on the above-referenced Charges of Discrimination. 

Attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit “3" is a true and correct 

copy of a Dismissal and Notice of Rights. 

20. Plaintiff has fully complied with all administrative prerequisites for 

the bringing of this action.

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 4 of 11
5

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

21. In or about August, 1995, Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in the 

position of Client Service Associate.

22. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff performed her job duties in a 

highly competent manner.

23. In or about January, 2000, Plaintiff was promoted to Assistant Vice 

President, Client Services division.

24. After Plaintiff was promoted to Assistant Vice President, Client

Services division, Plaintiff began reporting to Gordon Searles, Vice President of Client

Services. 

25. At all times material herein, Mr. Searles reported to Renee Campis,

Executive Vice President of Retirement Financial Services. 

26. Mr. Searles engage in inappropriate, unwelcome and sexually

explicit conduct toward Plaintiff.

27. Mr. Searles and Mr. Campis engaged in inappropriate, unwelcome

and sexually explicit conduct toward female employees of Defendants.

28. Prior to May of 2003, another female employee made a complaint

of sexual harassment against Mr. Searles, Plaintiff was not questioned as part of any

investigation conducted by Defendants and Mr. Searles remained employed in his Vice

President position.

29. On or about June 25, 2003, Mr. Searles engaged in inappropriate,

unwelcome and sexually explicit conduct toward Plaintiff including, but not limited to:

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 5 of 11
6

a) making reference to vasectomies and indicating that after a man

has a vasectomy, his sperm “tastes like strawberries;”

b) stating to Plaintiff: “you know, you give everyone a boner;” and,

c) making inappropriate comments about Plaintiff’s body;

30. On or about July 7, 2003, Plaintiff and Christine Pollick, 

Vice President of Client Services, a co-worker who also experienced sexual harassment

by Mr. Searles and Defendants, made a compliant to Mary Carruth from the Human

Resources department, relaying, among other things, the inappropriate conduct of Mr.

Searles and the fear they had for their physical well-being as a result of making a sexual

harassment complaint to Human Resources.

31. After Plaintiff and Ms. Pollick complained about Mr. Searles, they 

were informed by Human Resources that Mr. Searles would not be terminated but

rather would be placed on an administrative leave.

32. Mr. Searles was finally terminated on or about July 11, 2003.

33. On September 23, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination 

with the EEOC alleging that she was subjected to sex discrimination by Defendants 

based on her sex. A copy of the Charge of Discrimination was hand-delivered to

Defendants the same day.

34. Six (6) days later after Defendants learned that Plaintiff had filed a 

Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, on or about September 29, 2003, Defendants

advised Plaintiff that her position was now eliminated and told Plaintiff she could

interview for new, open positions with Defendants.

35. After Plaintiff interviewed for another new position, she was told 

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 6 of 11
7

that the flexible schedule which she had maintained for many years was revoked.

36. Defendants knew that Plaintiff had ten (10) month old twin

daughters and a two (2) year old son and that Plaintiff’s flexible work schedule was a

necessary for her to remain employed by Defendants.

37. By terminating Plaintiff’s flexible work schedule, Defendants knew

that Plaintiff would not be able to remain employed by Defendants. 

38. As a result, Plaintiff’s employment was terminated by Defendants, 

effective on or about October 7, 2003, approximately two (2) weeks after filing a Charge

of discrimination with the EEOC.

39. At all times material herein, Defendants knew or should have

known about Mr. Searles’ inappropriate conduct and his propensity to engage in sexual

harassment of female employees, including subordinates, as well as his propensity to

retaliate against female employees who complained about his conduct.

40. At all times material herein, Defendants were negligent in their

hiring, supervision and training of Mr. Searles.

41. At all times material herein, Defendants knew or should have

known about the inappropriate conduct of Mr. Campis, including his failure to properly

supervise Mr. Searles.

42. At all times material herein, Defendants were negligent in their

hiring, supervision and training of Mr. Campis.

43. Defendants created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff based 

on her sex and retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining of sexual harassment.

44. Defendants intentionally discriminated and retaliated against 

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 7 of 11
8

Plaintiff.

45. Plaintiff’s sex was a determinative and motivating factor in 

Defendants’ improper, harassing and discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff while Plaintiff

was employed at Defendants, and in Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff.

46. Plaintiff’s complaining about sexual harassment was a 

determinative and motivating factor in Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff.

47. At all times material hereto, Defendants failed to take appropriate

steps to prevent, investigate or remedy the hostile work environment which existed for

its employees, including Plaintiff.

48. As a direct and proximate result of the improper, harassing,

discriminatory and retaliatory conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has in the past incurred,

and may in the future incur, a loss of earnings and/or earning capacity, loss of benefits,

pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of self esteem, mental anguish and

loss of life’s pleasures, the full extent of which is not known at this time. 

49. The conduct of Defendants, as set forth above, was outrageous 

under the circumstances and warrants the imposition of punitive damages against

Defendants.

COUNT I

50. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 49

above, as if set forth herein in their entirety.

51. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination and retaliation

against Plaintiff, Defendants have violated Title VII.

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 8 of 11
9

52. Said violations were willful and intentional and warrant the

imposition of punitive damages.

53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of Title VII,

Plaintiff has suffered the injuries, damages and losses set forth herein and has incurred

attorney’s fees and costs. 

54. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury

and monetary damages as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory and retaliatory acts

unless and until this Court grants the relief requested herein.

55. No previous application has been made for the relief requested 

herein.

COUNT II

56. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 55

above, as if set forth herein in their entirety.

57. Defendants, by the above improper, discriminatory and retaliatory

acts, have violated the PHRA. 

58. Said violations were intentional and willful.

59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the

PHRA, Plaintiff has sustained the injuries, damages and losses set forth herein and

has incurred attorney’s fees and costs.

60. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable 

injuries and monetary damages as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory and retaliatory

acts unless and until the Court grants the relief requested herein.

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 9 of 11
10

61. No previous application was made for the relief requested herein. 

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendants, and equitable relief

relating to the conduct of Defendants, and specifically prays that the Court grant the

following relief to the Plaintiff by:

a) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in

violation of the Title VII;

b) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in

violation of the PHRA;

c) enjoining and restraining permanently the violations alleged herein;

d) entering judgment against Defendants and in favor of the Plaintiff in

an amount to be determined;

e) awarding compensatory damages to make Plaintiff whole for all lost

earnings, earnings capacity and benefits, past and future, which Plaintiff has suffered or

may suffer as a result of Defendants’ improper conduct;

f) awarding compensatory damages to Plaintiff for past and future

pain and suffering, emotional upset, mental anguish, humiliation and loss of life’s

pleasures, which Plaintiff has suffered or may suffer as a result of Defendants’ improper

conduct;

g) awarding punitive damages to Plaintiff under Title VII;

h) awarding Plaintiff such other damages as are appropriate under

Title VII and the PHRA;

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 10 of 11
11

i) awarding Plaintiff the costs of suit, expert fees, other disbursements

and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and,

j) granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just,

proper or equitable including other injunctive and equitable relief providing restitution for

past violations and preventing future violations.

CONSOLE LAW OFFICES LLC

BY: s/ Stephen G. Console

 Stephen G. Console 

 Laura C. Mattiacci

 1525 Locust Street, 9 Floor th

 Philadelphia, PA 19102

 (215) 545-7676

 Attorneys for Plaintiff,

 Joan Ebert

Dated: June 10, 2005

Case 2:05-cv-02770-CG Document 1 Filed 06/10/05 Page 11 of 11