1 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the 

Northern District of Indiana 

Hammond Division 

 

MARY BETH GINALSKI, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 v. ) Case No. 2:15-cv-95 

DIOCESE OF GARY, ) 

ANDREAN HIGH SCHOOL, ) 

HARRY J. VANDE VELDE, III, ) JURY DEMANDED 

DR. BARBARA O’BLOCK, ) 

 Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff, Mary Beth Ginalski, by her attorney, complains against defendants Diocese of 

Gary, Andrean High School, Harry J. Vande Velde, III, and Dr. Barbara O’Block, as follows: 

PARTIES

 1. Plaintiff, Mary Beth Ginalski is a competent adult who resides in and is a citizen 

of the State of Indiana. 

 2. Defendant, Diocese of Gary is a Roman Catholic religious organization with 

headquarters in Merrillville, Lake County, Indiana.

 3. Defendant, Andrean High School is a Roman Catholic educational institution 

located in Merrillville, Indiana, and operated by the Diocese of Gary. 

 4. Defendant, Harry J. Vande Velde, III is an individual residing, on information and 

belief, in Valparaiso, Indiana, and at all times herein employed by the Diocese of Gary and/or 

Andrean High School as the President of Andrean High School. 

 5. Defendant, Barbara O’Block, is an individual residing, on information and belier, 

in Lake County, Indiana, and at all times herein employed by the Diocese of Gary as the 
2 

Superintendent of Schools for the Diocese. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under 42 U.S.C. §2000e, 

28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C. §1343, and 29 U.S.C. 2615 and 2617(a)(2). 

7. The employment at issue in this matter took place in this State and in this District. 

Thus, Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). 

BACKGROUND

8. In early August 2012, the Diocese of Gary and Andrean High School hired 

plaintiff to be Principal of Andrean High School prior to the 2012-13 school year. 

9. Plaintiff served Andrean well for the 2012-13 school year, receiving highly 

favorable evaluations from defendant O’Block and Andrean’s school board. During the 2012-13 

school year, plaintiff accomplished many feats at the high school that had been neglected for a 

very long time, evaluated teachers for the first time in many years, and won respect from the staff, 

students and school community. 

10. In early 2013, the Diocese of Gary began considering in earnest a “PresidentPrincipal Model” to govern Andrean and Bishop Noll Institute, another Catholic High School 

operated within the Diocese of Gary. 

11. In considering the President-Principal Model, one of the purposes to enact the 

model was to better allocate leadership resources so that one individual – the President – could 

oversee financial concerns such as fundraising and budgeting, while the other individual – the 

Principal – could concentrate on Andrean High School’s daily operation. 

12. Ultimately, the Diocese of Gary and/or Andrean organized a “Search Committee”, 

and delegated that committee authority to find suitable individuals who might serve as Andrean’s 
3 

President, which would include accepting applications, considering resumes, and interviewing 

viable candidates. 

13. According to earlier planning, the school Principal – who would work closely 

with the chosen President – was to be a member of the interviewing team for applicants. But 

plaintiff was never included. 

14. Defendant Vande Velde was originally a member of the Search Committee to help 

evaluate candidates for the position of President for Andrean. The committee reviewed 

applicants and their attendant background experience, interviewed multiple candidates, and 

considered a woman candidate with excellent credentials as a leading contender. 

15. On information and belief, while the woman mentioned in the prior paragraph 

was under consideration, defendant Vande Velde convinced the remaining committee members 

that he would be the best candidate for the President position. 

16. On information and belief, the Search Committee inadequately and hastily vetted 

Vande Velde’s background to determine whether he possessed sufficient Catholic identity, ability 

and integrity to serve as Andrean’s President. For example, although other candidates presented 

“portfolios” detailing their background, recommendation letters and other requirements – 

including the former woman leading candidate – Vande Velde had minimal requirements for the 

Search Committee’s consideration. 

17. Further, the Search Committee had set a salary for the President position in the 

$100,000 range. When the Search Committee ultimately approached Vande Velde about offering 

him the President position, he informed the committee that he needed a salary commensurate 

with the position he was leaving – which was in the $130,000 range (making him the highest 

paid Diocesan employee), and insisted he be paid before the end of the normal initial pay period. 
4 

18. The Search Committee – as the Diocese of Gary and Andrean’s representative – 

consciously overlooked their due diligence responsibility in considering Vande Velde and 

promptly considered his contemplated salary increase primarily because he was a male. 

19. Andrean and/or the Diocese of Gary ultimately agreed to Vande Velde’s salary 

increase to $130,000 (or thereabouts), and in September 2013, Andrean and the Diocese of Gary 

announced him as Andrean’s President. 

20. Vande Velde began his tenure as Andrean’s President on September 30, 2013. 

21. From the start of Vande Velde’s tenure, it became clear that Andrean and/or the 

Diocese of Gary did not have clear job descriptions delineated for plaintiff, the Principal, vis-àvis defendant Vande Velde, the President. 

22. Specifically, Vande Velde wished to act as both President and Principal, and 

consequently, relegate plaintiff – although Andrean’s Principal – to a “non-entity.” 

23. Vande Velde, although hired to serve as Andrean’s President, spent significantly 

more time on principal duties than that of his role as financial leader. He dealt with sports issues,

secretarial issues, guidance counseling issues, and met with teachers on a regular basis. However, 

neither the Diocese nor Andrean provided plaintiff a clear list of which individual (her or Vande 

Velde) handled what responsibility. Vande Veldealso appointed himself freshman girls’ 

basketball coach. Further examples of Vande Velde usurping plaintiff’s authority, and 

minimizing her role are as follows: 

a. Just days prior to his official start date, Vande Velde met with the Andrean 

staff on September 25, 2013. He proclaimed that he was the “King” of 

Andrean and everything and anything that happened there would go through 

him. 
5 

b. In the week of October 7, 2013, a problem developed with Andrean’s girls’ 

volleyball team, which was overseen by a non-teacher, part-time employee 

coach. The girls’ volleyball coach had been abusive to a senior player, and 

plaintiff and Athletic Director Bill Mueller attempted to address the situation 

with the coach and player. Plaintiff felt that the coach needed strong 

“encouragement” to deal with the player fairly, to which the coach resisted. In 

direct contravention of plaintiff’s duties to oversee Andrean’s daily operations, 

Vande Velde injected himself into this situation and sided with the volleyball 

coach, who then suspended the senior player, who had done nothing wrong. 

c. On October 9, 2013 Vande Velde screamed at plaintiff, and told her to “act 

like a principal, not like a victim.” 

d. In November 2013, Vande Velde moved plaintiff from her Principal’s office, 

which had its own door to the hallway where anyone had access to the 

office.Vande Velde forced plaintiff into a smaller, closet-like, office with very 

little room, where she was isolated and was no longer seen by the parents and 

students. 

e. Through the end of 2013, although Vande Velde rarely met with plaintiff. At 

those rare meetings, he always mentioned weight issues to her. He seemed to 

be obsessed about weight and made plaintiff feel uncomfortable about her 

weight. Vande Velde seemed to favor meeting with the attractive, thin female 

employees at Andrean, but shunned meetings with plaintiff. 

24. In January, plaintiff met with defendant O’Block and another Diocese 

administrator. At this meeting, plaintiff was visibly upset and she told O’Block that there were a 
6 

number of difficulties, including emotional outbursts by Vande Velde toward plaintiff and gender 

specific discrimination. Upon hearing plaintiff’s revelations, O’Block responded by saying 

“sounds like you’re working in a hostile work environment.” 

25. After the above meeting with O’Block, plaintiff had a meeting in late January 

with Vande Velde and O’Block after school. The two told plaintiff she would be on an “action 

plan” – although no specific reason why was given. Plaintiff was stunned at this point because 

her evaluations had been so glowing up to this point. In fact, under plaintiff’s leadership, part of 

the school had been remodeled, Andrean’s Indiana State Department of Education ranking went 

from a D to an A, and multiple new academic classes were added. Further, plaintiff had evaluated 

all teachers and Andrean was running smoothly. 

26. Vande Velde and O’Block gave plaintiff 22 days to complete the “action plan.” 

Most of the action plan consisted of jobs that were outside of plaintiff’s responsibility, like 

organizing work files, etc. Plaintiff told Vande Velde and O’Block that some of the “action plan” 

appeared to be secretarial work. Plaintiff further reminded both Vande Velde and O’Block that 

the school secretaries would be better at those tasks because plaintiff had Attention Deficit 

Disorder (ADD) and organizing files might not be the job for her. 

27. Despite the secretarial/ministerial nature of the “action plan”, plaintiff decided to 

satisfy it and completed all tasks within the stated 22-day time period. Plaintiff wrote out the 

required responses on paper and gave to Vande Velde, per his directions. Afterward, Vande Velde 

never met with plaintiff regarding her responses to the “action plan,” and offered no substantive 

feedback to anything she had done. 

28. In late February, plaintiff was forced to terminate the employment of a (thin, 

attractive) female teacher who been squirt-gunning water at her senior male students (mainly 
7 

football players), who would then remove their wet shirts in class and expose themselves barechested, much to the teacher’s delight. This teacher had been a favorite of Vande Velde, and he 

had mentioned to others that she would make a good principal. He also served as this teacher’s 

mentor for her PHD program, although he has no credentials that allowed him to do that. 

29. Although in plaintiff’s belief any teacher employment decisions were her 

responsibility as Principal, she felt uncomfortable in having to terminate the above teacher. 

Nevertheless, and after Vande Velde stated he would not be involved with the decision – plaintiff 

terminated the teacher’s employment, which plaintiff knew would result in further retaliation by 

Vande Velde. 

30. After not meeting with plaintiff about the “action plan”as described above, on 

Monday, March 3, 2014 plaintiff was called into Vande Velde’s office at 9:00 a.m., whereupon 

Vande Velde and Dr. O’Block terminated plaintiff’s employment. At that meeting, plaintiff noted 

that she was never given the chance to show the “action plan” work that she had done, the 

completion and ideas she had generated with the accomplished work. Vande Velde simply stated 

that plaintiff had “not completed it” – without indicating what plaintiff had not done. Plaintiff 

had not anticipated that the March 3, 2014 meeting would result in her termination. She thought 

that meeting would allow her to demonstrate all the work she had done on the action plan, and to 

further discuss it. 

31. At the March 3, 2014 meeting, plaintiff requested that O’Block and Vande Velde 

allow her to finish the school year. Vande Velde refused that request. Plaintiff was told to vacate 

her office, and not discuss her employment termination with anyone. Plaintiff further inquired 

whether she could empty out her office, and Vande Velde indicated that would not be allowed. 
8 

Shortly afterward, plaintiff discovered that her access to her school e-mail was denied and she 

could no longer enter through school doors with her key pass. 

32. In the days following plaintiff’s termination, defendant O’Block gave plaintiff 

paperwork pursuant to the Diocese of Gary’s Family Medical Leave Policy, and requested that 

plaintiff complete it – suggesting to her that plaintiff have hip replacement surgery before the 

school year ended – which would help Defendants support their false announcement to the 

Andrean community following plaintiff’s termination that plaintiff took a voluntary “leave of 

absence.” Plaintiff refused O’Block’s request because she did not want to have hip replacement 

surgery at that time and she never agreed to a “leave of absence.” 

33. In the last 24 months, the Diocese of Gary has terminated the employment of 

numerous women over the age of 40 – primarily in school administrative positions – with no 

rational basis for terminating them. In almost every case involving these terminated women, 

they were replaced by younger men. These multiple terminations demonstrate a discriminatory 

pattern and practice against women over the age of 40, including plaintiff herein. 

34. In plaintiff’s case, after her termination, defendants Diocese of Gary and Andrean 

High School filled her previous position by hiring two males under the age of 35: 1) a new 

Principal who was 29 years-old with no teaching experience; and 2) a new Assistant Principal (a 

newly created position) in, on information and belief, his early 30s. Upon hiring the 29 year-old 

Principal, defendant Vande Velde re-installed him into the nicer office that Vande Velde had 

forced plaintiff out of in November 2013. 
9 

GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

35. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of a declaratory judgment that 

Defendant, as employer, violated the anti-discrimination laws referenced above. Pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. §200e et seq., plaintiff also prays for reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. 

36. From September 30, 2013 to March 3, 2014, defendants subjected plaintiff to age 

and sex-based discrimination in her employment constituting a hostile work environment. 

37. On March 3, 2014, defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment, and then prior 

to the 2014-15 school year, hired two less-qualified males aged 29, and early 30s, respectively, to 

replace plaintiff. 

38. On or about August 22, 2014, plaintiff filed a timely discrimination charge before 

the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under charge number 470-2014-

02752 for employment discrimination due to her age and sex and, and for violations of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff received her notice of right to sue on or after 

December 13, 2014. 

39. In late January, February and early March 2014, Defendants retaliated against 

plaintiff for reporting discrimination by the following actions: 

a. On information and belief, ascribing her a poor job rating without just cause; 

b. Putting her on an pretextual “action plan” without just cause; 

c. Not providing relevant feedback to plaintiff regarding her responses to the 

pretextual, concocted “action plan.” 

d. Terminating her in retaliation for plaintiff apprising herself of her constitutional 

rights under federal law. 
10 

40. Plaintiff is a woman, aged 56 (and then turned 57) during the relevant time 

periods described herein, and is obese and diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). 

41. The hostile work environment defendant subjected plaintiff to was not inflicted 

upon any of her fellow male administrators at Andrean High School. 

42. The hostile work environment created by defendants rendered plaintiff unable to 

adequately perform her job due to the additional hardships placed on her. 

43. Plaintiff reported the age and sex discrimination and hostile work environment to 

her supervisor, defendant O’Block, who failed to take any remedial action. 

44. Plaintiff reporting the age and sex discrimination and hostile work environment 

constituted a protected opposition activity. Subsequent to plaintiff’s reporting, defendants Vande 

Velde and O’Block began acting adversely toward her by purportedly giving her negative 

reviews despite plaintiff never having a negative report before reporting the discrimination, and 

then defendants Vande Velde and O’Block putting plaintiff on the concocted and pretextual 

“action plan.” 

45. In continuing the discrimination and hostile work environment, defendants denied 

plaintiff her employment by terminating her and then hiring two younger males less qualified 

than she. 

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I – Age and Sex Discrimination (Against All Defendants) 

46. Plaintiff was a 57 year-old woman who was meeting all defendants’ legitimate 

employment expectations; despite doing so, plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions. By 

treating younger male employees more favorably, and exposing her to a hostile work 

environment, defendants intentionally discriminated against plaintiff because of her age and sex, 
11 

violating Title VII, and defendants are thus liable to plaintiff for compensatory and punitive 

damages, and declaratory relief. 

Count II – Retaliation (Against All Defendants) 

47. Plaintiff engaged in statutorily protected activity by witnessing and reporting 

discriminatory conduct to her supervisor, defendant O’Block – who responded by telling plaintiff 

that it “sounds like you’re working in a hostile work environment.” But, in response to 

plaintiff’s report to O’Block, instead of working to end the discriminatory conduct, defendants 

O’Block and Vande Velde created a non-warranted “action plan” – a concocted ruse that amounts 

to a pretext – in an attempt to perpetuate the discrimination against plaintiff and improperly 

justify her termination. Accordingly, defendants unlawfully retaliated against plaintiff for 

asserting discrimination in her employment, thus violating Title VII and rendering defendants 

liable for compensatory and punitive damages, and declaratory relief. 

Count III – Violation of Americans With Disabilities Act (Against All Defendants) 

48. Plaintiff is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), and advised 

defendants Diocese of Gary, Andrean High School, and O’Block in 2012, and defendant Vande 

Velde in 2013, of her diagnosis. Plaintiff is also obese. Diabetes and obesity are both protected 

medical conditions under the American with Disabilities Act. 

49. Defendants discriminated against plaintiff due to her ADD and obesity conditions, 

and failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her. 

50. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct due to plaintiff’s ADD and obesity conditions 

constitute a violation of the American with Disabilities Act, and renders defendant liable for 

compensatory and liquidated damages, and declaratory relief. 
12 

Count IV – Negligent Hiring (Against Defendants Diocese of Gary, Andrean High School, 

and O’Block) 

51. Prior to Vande Velde’s hiring as President in 2013, due to her position as existing 

Principal at Andrean High School, defendants Diocese of Gary, Andrean High School and 

O’Block owed plaintiff a duty to provide her professional support, supervision and interaction 

with her colleagues, and freedom from a discriminatory and hostile work environment. 

52. By hiring Vande Velde in September 2013, defendants Andrean High School, 

Diocese of Gary and O’Block breached their duty to plaintiff by one or more of the following: 

a. Allowed Vande Velde to promote himself from the “Search Committee” to the 

leading candidate for the President position without proper protocol; 

b. Failed to adequately vet Vande Velde’s professional and personal/religious 

background to determine if he had the background and credentials to serve as 

Andrean’s President; 

c. Failed to require Vande Velde to undergo the same background review required of 

other candidates for the President position; 

d. Offered Vande Velde more money than what the President position was supposed 

to pay – and paid him earlier than the standard pay period – which only 

emboldened him once he began as President to operate with unfettered discretion; 

e. Failed to delineate Vande Velde’s job responsibilities, so that once he began as 

President, he could do whatever he wanted, including engage in discriminatory 

and otherwise unlawful conduct; and 

f. Once they learned of it, failed to curtail Vande Velde’s discriminatory actions 

toward plaintiff, but instead allowed him, with O’Block’s apparent blessing, to 

create a phantom “action plan” as a pretext to wrongfully terminating plaintiff. 
13 

53. Defendants’ breach of the duty owed plaintiff as described above proximately 

caused her injuries and damages. 

Count V – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants) 

54. At all times described above, defendants owed plaintiff a duty of reasonable care 

to refrain from improper actions detrimental to her, especially considering her known ADD and 

obesity conditions. 

55. Defendants breached their duty to plaintiff by one or more of the following 

negligent acts, all which were reasonably foreseeable to cause her mental, emotional and 

psychological harm: 

a. Fostered a hostile working environment; 

b. Subjected her to extreme and outrageous conduct; 

c. Subjected her to discriminatory acts; 

d. Retaliated against plaintiff after she availed herself of her protected rights; and 

e. Other negligent acts. 

56. As a result of the actions stated above, defendants have proximately caused 

personal and emotional injury and damages to plaintiff. 

Count VI – Defamation (Against Defendants Diocese of Gary, Andrean High School and 

Vande Velde) 

57. On information and belief, on multiple occasions after he became Andrean’s 

President, defendant Vande Velde made untrue statements to defendant O’Block, and individuals 

in the Andrean community about plaintiff’s professional capabilities, job performance and 

competence. 
14 

58. Defendant Vande Velde made statements about plaintiff’s professional capabilities, 

job performance and competence knowing, or he should have known, that those statements were 

false, or alternatively, not knowing definitely whether those statements were true. 

59. Vande Velde’s statements referenced in the preceding paragraphs constitute 

defamation per se, and damages to plaintiff’s personal reputation are presumed. 

60. Vande Velde further made those statements to defendant O’Block and others in 

the Andrean community to further his intended discriminatory conduct toward plaintiff, justify 

the pretextual “action plan” concocted to justify – in Vande Velde’s mind – plaintiff’s 

employment termination, and to resist any community support that may have developed in 

plaintiff’s favor related to her unjustified termination. 

61. Vande Velde made the defamatory statements described above: 

a. in his capacity as Andrean President, or, alternatively; 

b. clearly outside the scope of his employment, with malicious, harmful and/or 

willful and wanton intent, and proximately caused injuries and resulting 

damages to plaintiff. 

Count VII – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against Defendants)

62. Vande Velde and O’Block’s actions described above constitute extreme and 

outrageous behavior. 

63. Vande Velde and O’Block’s extreme and outrageous behavior described above 

was done in their capacity as Diocese of Gary and/or Andrean representatives/agents. 

64. Alternatively, Vande Velde and O’Block’s extreme and outrageous behavior was 

clearly outside the scope of their employment, with malicious, harmful and/or willful and wanton 

intent, and proximately caused injuries and resulting damages to plaintiff. 
15 

65. As a proximate result of the unlawful extreme and outrageous behavior described 

above, the Diocese of Gary, Andrean High School, Vande Velde and O’Block proximately caused 

injuries and resulting damages to plaintiff. 

Prayer for Relief 

 WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Mary Beth Ginalski, prays for judgment in this cause and the 

following relief: 

a. A declaratory judgment that defendants discriminated against plaintiff, Mary Beth 

Ginalski on account of her age, sex and disabilities in the terms and conditions of her 

employment; 

b. Preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring defendants the Diocese of Gary and/or 

Andrean High School to pay all sums of back pay necessary to redress its wrongful 

discriminatory actions toward plaintiff, Mary Beth Ginalski, including her unwarranted 

employment termination; 

c. Award compensatory damages for economic losses caused by defendants’ discriminatory 

actions described in this Complaint and for pain, suffering, mental anguish and 

humiliation; 

d. Award punitive damages against defendants to deter future age, sex and disability 

discrimination; 

e. Award liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C.A. §2617; 

f. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e5(k), 28 U.S.C. §1998 and 20 U.S.C. §216(b), and 29 U.S.C.A. 2617(a)(3), and the 

applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and 

g. All other appropriate relief. 
16 

MARY BETH GINALSKI 

 _________________________ 

 By: William J. Obermeyer 

 Attorney at Law, Her Attorney 

#31447-49 

813 E. Jefferson St. 

Valparaiso, IN 46383 

219.455.1615 

obermeyerlaw@gmail.com

PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL TRIABLE ISSUES 

 MARY BETH GINALSKI 

 _________________________ 

 By: William J. Obermeyer 

Attorney At Law, Her Attorney 

#31447-49 

813 E. Jefferson St. 

Valparaiso, IN 46383 

219.455.1615 (phone) 

obermeyerlaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff