Phelan v Town of Hollywood Park– Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANNTONIO, DIVISION

EUGENA L. PHELAN, § 

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO_________

§

TOWN OF HOLLYWOOD PARK §

§

Defendant. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

Comes now, EUGEN L PHELAN, (“Phelan” or “Plaintiff”), complaining of and about the 

TOWN OF HOLLYWOOD PARK, (“Defendant”), and for cause of action shows unto the Court 

the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. This lawsuit is brought as an individual action by Plaintiff to vindicate her wrongful 

discharge, based upon disability and retaliation for engaging in protected activity pursuant to the 

laws identified herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court 

and pursuant to the statutes identified in the causes of action below. Additionally Plaintiff has 

timely complied with all conditions precedent related to the administrative procedures outlined in 

the statutes identified. Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by 

Case 5:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 8
Phelan v Town of Hollywood Park– Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 2 of 8

reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3), of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and pursuant 

to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

3. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) because 

Defendant conducts business in this district.

PARTIES AND SERVICE

4. Plaintiff, Phelan, is an individual who resides in Bexar County, Texas. 

5. Defendant, Town of Hollywood Park is a municipality formed as a class 1-A 

municipality under the laws of the State of Texas. Suit against said entity is authorized by the 

Texas Local Government Code and under The Americans With Disabilities Act. Defendant may 

be served with a summons by serving its City Administrator or its Mayor.

NATURE OF ACTION

6. This is an action under to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of 

disability discrimination and retaliation for engaging in protected activity. 

FACTS

7. Plaintiff is a 55 year old female.

8. Plaintiff was hired by On November 1, 2010, as the Administrative Assistant for 

the Police Department. Her last pay rate was $16.94 per hour. From the beginning of 

Plaintiff’s employment, she always reported to whomever the Chief of Police was. From the 

beginning of Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff informed her employer of her Migraine 

headache condition. The employer would accommodate Plaintiff by giving her occasional 

time off when a migraine would occur and also would accommodate her necessary doctor’s 

visits. The Chief of Police at the outset of Plaintiff’s employment always accommodated 

Plaintiff’s disability. During Fall 2016 Shad Pritchard became the new Chief Police. On May 

Case 5:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 8
Phelan v Town of Hollywood Park– Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 3 of 8

10, 2019, Chief Of Police Shad Prichard called Plaintiff into his office and stated he that he 

would no longer accommodate her disability and that he wanted Plaintiff to quit. Plaintiff 

refused to quit and so Pritchard fired Plaintiff. Plaintiff has never been written up for 

violating the city leave policy and Plaintiff was fourteen months from retirement. 

9. On or about June 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that Plaintiff was being discriminated 

against because of her disability and for retaliation for having engaged in protected activity. A 

dismissal and Notice of Rights was mailed on February 28, 20220 and was received no earlier than 

March 5, 2020.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

Discrimination in 

Violation of The Americans With Disabilities Act

11. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations contained in the 

previous paragraphs as if set forth verbatim.

12. Plaintiff suffers from debilitating migraine headaches which limit her ability to 

perform multiple work related tasks.

13. While employed, Plaintiff informed Defendant that she had been diagnosed with 

migraine headaches and that the impairments interfered with her ability to perform work.

Without an accommodation, Plaintiff was prevented her from performing the essential functions 

of work. Defendant, refused reasonable requests from Plaintiff to modify her work assignment in 

a way that would permit her to continue working, and for making such a request, Plaintiff was 

fired.

Case 5:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 8
Phelan v Town of Hollywood Park– Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 4 of 8

14. Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 102 

of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 et seq., by failing to provide a reasonable 

accommodation to the disabilities of Plaintiff Phelan. These acts or omissions by the Defendant 

ultimately resulted in Defendant firing Plaintiff illegally.

15. The effect of the practices complained of in herein has been to deprive Plaintiff of 

equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee on 

the basis of her disabilities, specifically her migraines. 

16. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein above were intentional.

17. The unlawful employment practices complained herein were done with malice or 

with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights. 

18. Defendant, by and through Defendant’s agents, engaged in unlawful employment 

practices involving Plaintiff because of her disability.

19. The employment practices of Defendant, by and through Defendant's agents, had a 

disparate and adverse impact on Plaintiff because of her disability. Such employment practices 

were not job-related and were not consistent with business necessity.

COUNT II

Discrimination Against Disability

Violation of The Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq.,

“Regarded or Perceived as Disabled,” and Tex. Lab. Code § 21.051 et. seq.

20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations contained in the 

previous paragraphs as if set forth verbatim.

21. Defendant, by and through Defendant's agents, intentionally engaged in unlawful 

employment practices involving Plaintiff because of her disability. At all material times, 

Defendant was aware of her disability and/or regarded or perceived her as disabled. 

Case 5:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 4 of 8
Phelan v Town of Hollywood Park– Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 5 of 8

22. Plaintiff suffers from debilitating migraine headaches which limit her ability to 

perform multiple work related tasks.

23. While employed, Plaintiff informed Defendant that she had been diagnosed with 

migraine headaches and that the impairments interfered with her ability to perform work.

Without an accommodation, Plaintiff was prevented her from performing the essential functions 

of work. Defendant, refused reasonable requests from Plaintiff to modify her work assignment in 

a way that would permit her to continue working, and for making such a request, Plaintiff was 

fired.

24. Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 102 

of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 et seq., by failing to provide a reasonable 

accommodation to the disabilities of Plaintiff Phelan. These acts or omissions by the Defendant 

ultimately resulted in Defendant firing Plaintiff illegally.

25. The effect of the practices complained of in herein has been to deprive Plaintiff of 

equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee on 

the basis of her disabilities, specifically her migraines. 

26. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein above were intentional.

27. The unlawful employment practices complained herein were done with malice or 

with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights. 

28. Defendant, by and through Defendant’s agents, engaged in unlawful employment 

practices involving Plaintiff because of her disability.

29. The employment practices of Defendant, by and through Defendant's agents, had a 

disparate and adverse impact on Plaintiff because of her disability. Such employment practices 

were not job-related and were not consistent with business necessity.

Case 5:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 5 of 8
Phelan v Town of Hollywood Park– Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 6 of 8

COUNT III

Retaliation

Violation of The Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq.,

Tex. Lab. Code § 21.051 et. seq., and Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.055 et. seq.

30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations contained in the 

previous paragraphs as if set forth verbatim.

31. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, instituted a campaign of retaliation. This retaliation 

was and is due to Plaintiff exercising her rights by opposing a discriminatory practice, making or 

filing a charge, filing a complaint, and testifying, assisting, or participating in an investigation or 

proceeding regarding an unlawful discriminatory practice. This wrongful action by Defendant 

violates Plaintiff’s federal and sate protected rights.

32. Defendant, committed unlawful employment practices against Plaintiff because 

Plaintiff engaged in activity protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Texas 

Labor Code.

33. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Plaintiff of 

equal employment opportunities, and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee, 

because of her engagement in a protected activity.

34. Plaintiff would show that the retaliatory actions taken against her were motivated 

by Plaintiff’s request for a reasonable accommodation.

35. Plaintiff alleges that the retaliation was committed with malice or with reckless 

indifference to the state-protected rights of Plaintiff.

36. Plaintiff suffered damages for which Plaintiff herein sues.

DAMAGES

Case 5:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 6 of 8
Phelan v Town of Hollywood Park– Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 7 of 8

37. Defendant’s wrongful acts were a proximate cause of serious damage and injury to 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of the Court. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

38. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury and tenders the jury fee. 

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, prays that Defendant, be cited 

to appear and answer, and that upon a final judgment, Plaintiff, have the following:

(A) judgment against Defendant for damages, jointly and severely in a sum exceeding 

the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court, representing wage payments, 

vacation pay, bonuses, overtime, health care benefits, inconvenience, loss of 

enjoyment of life, other non-pecuniary losses, and all of the compensation due to 

Plaintiff that accrued at the time of the filing of this Petition, plus interest at the 

legal rate from the date each payment became due until the date of judgment; 

(B) a judgment sum representing wages payments, vacation pay, bonuses, overtime 

pay, health care benefits, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, other nonpecuniary losses, and all other compensation due Plaintiff that accrued from the 

date of the filing of this Petition to the date of judgment, plus interest from the date 

each payment becomes due until the date of judgment;

(C) a further sum representing the present value of unaccrued wage payments, vacation 

pay, bonuses, health care benefits, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, other 

nonpecuniary losses, and all other compensation due to Plaintiff for the period 

following the date of judgment, calculated as of the date of judgment for the losses 

that Plaintiff has to sustain in the future;

(D) liquidated damages as provided by law; 

(E) an award of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendant within the 

jurisdictional limits of this Court as may be determined by the trier of fact; 

(F) pre-and post–judgment interest at the legal rate until paid;

(G) Attorney’s fees and expenses;

(H) costs of court; and

(I) for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may show herself justly entitled. 

Case 5:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 7 of 8
Phelan v Town of Hollywood Park– Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 8 of 8

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Glenn D. Levy_______

Glenn D. Levy

Texas Bar No. 12264925

906 Basse Road, Suite 100

San Antonio, Texas 78212

Glenn@GlennLevyLaw.com

Telephone: (210) 822-5666

Facsimile: (210) 822-5650

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 5:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 8 of 8