IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

JAMES PIUNTI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 

)

LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

COMPLAINT

Comes now the plaintiff, James Piunti, by counsel, and for his Complaint against the 

defendant, states as follows:

I. Preliminary Statement.

1. The plaintiff, James Piunti, alleges discrimination in the work place, by his former 

employer, the Lake County Sheriff’s Department.

2. The challenged action violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as 

amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, as amended, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. 

II. Jurisdiction.

3. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12117, 42 U.S.C. §2000 e-5, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The plaintiff has filed a timely charge 

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued a “Right to Sue Letter.”

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00220-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/09/15 page 1 of 10
2

III. Parties.

4. The plaintiff, James Piunti, is an adult male. He is a citizen of the United States 

and a resident of Lake County, Indiana.

5. Lake County Sheriff’s Department employs more than fifteen employees, and is 

an “employer” within the meaning of Section 101 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(5)(a).

IV. Factual Allegations.

6. James Piunti is a person of disability, as he has congenital and profound deafness. 

When Piunti was hired by the defendant, the defendant was fully aware of Piunti's disabilities. 

7. On August 22, 2005, Piunti started employment with Lake County, in the Lake 

County Sheriff's Department. At all times relevant, Piunti’s employment was at the direction and 

supervision of the Lake County Sheriff.

8. From August 22, 2005 to January 30, 2006, Piunti worked in the defendant's 

Computer Services Department as a part-time employee. 

9. On January 30, 2006, Piunti was given a full-time position within the Computer 

Services Department. 

10. Piunti's job duties in the Computer Services Department included performing 

computer hardware and software repair. 

11. Piunti received over 300 hours of computer training related to his job duties in 

2006. 

12. While working in the Computer Services Department, Piunti's disability was 

accommodated. He was issued a cellular phone with text capabilities and a computer with email 

access to communicate with co-workers and management. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00220-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/09/15 page 2 of 10
3

13. Piunti was, at all times, able to perform the essential functions of his job in the 

Computer Services Department, with reasonable accommodation for his disability.

14. During this time, co-workers were aware that Piunti was deaf and were able to 

communicate with him. To communicate with patrol officers, Piunti wrote down questions and 

answers on paper. To communicate with other co-workers, including office staff, the jail, and the 

medical department, Piunti used text or e-mail. 

15. During this time, Piunti received no discipline or negative work evaluations. 

16. After John Buncich ("Sheriff Buncich") became the Lake County Sheriff in 

January 2011, Piunti was transferred back and forth between the Computer Services Department 

and the Bureau Identification Department four different times. 

17. In or around January, 2011, Piunti's accommodated method of communicating 

with co-workers was removed. Specifically, Piunti's work-issued cellular phone with text 

capabilities was discontinued without notice. In addition, Piunti was informed that he was not to 

have or use a computer during work hours. 

18. On June 30, 2011, Piunti was permanently transferred to the Bureau of 

Identification at the direction of Sheriff Buncich, and Piunti was assigned to work in the supply 

room. 

19. Piunti's job duties at the Bureau of Identification included handing out supplies, 

printing envelopes, filing fingerprint cards, putting index cards in alphabetical order, and 

performing maintenance on the Duplo printing machine, which included minor repairs and 

replacement of ink and supplies. Piunti was also assigned the task of answering the telephone to 

take telephone orders for supplies within the Department. Piunti was, at all times, able to perform 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00220-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/09/15 page 3 of 10
4

the essential functions of his job in the Bureau of Identification, with reasonable accommodation 

for his disability.

20. Piunti received no training for his new assignment at the Bureau of Identification, 

and there were no attempts made by the defendant to accommodate for Piunti's disability. 

21. In his new role, Piunti had trouble communicating with his co-workers, 

supervisors, and the public, making it difficult for him to perform his job duties. 

22. Because co-workers were not informed of Piunti's disability, they continued to 

attempt to place supply orders by telephone. Piunti was unable to hear the telephone ring because 

of his disability. 

23. Piunti's supervisor, Corporal Maria Garcia, informed him that she was receiving 

complaints because the telephone was not answered and that it was inconvenient for her to take 

the supply orders in addition to her other duties. 

24. Garcia changed the procedure to require supply orders be made in person and 

written down on paper. Piunti was met with hostility from co-workers because they were then 

required to make their requests in person, instead of by telephone. Piunti spoke to Garcia about 

the hostility he was receiving from co-workers regarding the procedure change. Garcia informed 

Piunti that the new process of placing orders was not going to change. 

25. On several occasions, Piunti attempted to contact Garcia for advice, and Garcia 

did not respond to him. 

26. After Piunti requested access to a computer for e-mail communication within the 

department, Garcia informed him that Sheriff Buncich had instructed that Piunti was not to have 

or use a computer during work hours. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00220-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/09/15 page 4 of 10
5

27. Without a cellular phone with texting capabilities, or a computer with e-mail 

access, Piunti's only method of communication with his co-workers was direct face-to-face 

contact. 

28. On or around July 18, 2011, Piunti informed Officer Chris Salmon about 

problems he was having with the Duplo print machine, and told him that it may need to be 

repaired. Piunti provided Salmon with the repair company's name and phone number, but no one 

called the repairman and the machine was not repaired. 

29. On or around March 11, 2013, Garcia told Piunti that he was responsible for 

printing envelopes with ink blots and smudges. Piunti was upset and attempted to explain that the 

Duplo print machine was not in good condition and needed a tune-up, but Garcia disagreed. In 

the past, Piunti told Garcia and other staff about this on-going problem and that it would be a 

good idea to order pre-printed envelopes. 

30. On March 12, 2013, Piunti was summoned to a meeting with Sergeant Carl 

Porter, Deputy Commander Robert Arnold, and Chief Tom Downs. At the meeting, Piunti 

received a letter from Sheriff Buncich, informing him of his termination, effective March 12, 

2013. The reason given for Piunti's termination was "repeated instances of inefficiency in the 

performance of duties." Piunti received no prior warnings or write-ups prior to his termination. 

31. During the course of Piunti’s employment with the Lake County Sheriff’s 

Department, and at the time of his termination, Piunti satisfactorily performed the functions of 

his job.

32. On March 15, 2013, Piunti went to the Bureau of Identification to pick up his 

personnel files. In his files, Piunti discovered a letter of reprimand dated March 7, 2013. Piunti 

never received a copy of this letter, and had no knowledge of this letter prior to March 15, 2013. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00220-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/09/15 page 5 of 10
6

33. On April 2, 2013, Sheriff Buncich made a statement regarding Piunti’s disability,

was printed in a Northwest Indiana newspaper, that Piunti's inability to hear or speak meant that 

he could not perform adequately in the Department, that the Department "made every 

accommodation [they] possibly could help him to fit in," and that it "is hard with a disability like 

that." 

34. Piunti did not consent to have his confidential medical information disclosed in 

the newspaper article, including statements about his ability to perform his job duties. 

35. On May 28, 2013, Piunti filed a "Charge of Discrimination" with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for disability discrimination. 

36. On July 1, 2014, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination, finding that, "[T]he 

[Employer] had knowledge of [Plaintiff's] need for an accommodation. [Employer] failed to 

provide an accommodation, despite the fact that an accommodation would not have been an 

undue hardship. Evidence indicates that [Employer] believed [Plaintiff's] disability meant that he 

could not perform the essential functions of his position." The EEOC further found that "there is 

reasonable cause to believe that the [Employer] denied [Plaintiff] an accommodation and fired 

him because of his disability, in violation of the ADA." The EEOC further found that evidence 

indicated that the Employer "disclosed [Plaintiff's] disability to the public in violation of the 

ADA." 

37. As a result of the employment practices by the Lake County Sheriff’s 

Department, Piunti has been discriminated against based on his disability, in violation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the Americans with Disabilities 

Amendments Act (ADAAA).

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00220-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/09/15 page 6 of 10
7

38. As a result of discrimination by the Lake County Sheriff’s Department, Piunti has 

been adversely affected. Piunti lost his full-time employment with the defendant, and has 

incurred a loss of income and benefits. He has also suffered humiliation, embarrassment, 

emotional and mental distress.

V. Legal Claims.

Count One – Discrimination under the ADA and the ADAAA

39. Piunti hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs one (1) through thirty-eight

(38) of his Complaint by reference.

40. Piunti was wrongfully terminated by the defendant, as the defendant has violated

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities 

Act Amendments Act of 2008, as amended, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. 

41. Lake County Sheriff’s Department’s acts and omissions in this matter 

discriminated against Piunti because of his disability, his record of disability, and/or being 

regarded as having a disability in violation of the ADA and the ADAAA.

42. The unlawful employment practices complained of were intentional.

43. The unlawful employment practices complained of were done with malice or with 

reckless indifference of the federally protected rights of James Piunti.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests that the court:

A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the defendant’s discrimination of the plaintiff 

violates the ADA, and the ADAAA;

B. Enter an injunction against the defendant from further discrimination against the 

plaintiff, and order that the defendant institute and carry out policies, practices and programs 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00220-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/09/15 page 7 of 10
8

which provide equal employment opportunities for the disabled, and which eradicate the effects 

of its past and present unlawful employment practices;

C. Order the defendant to make whole James Piunti by providing appropriate back 

pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief 

necessary to eradicate the effects of the defendant’s unlawful employment practices, including, 

but not limited to reinstatement of Piunti to his employment, or in the alternative, an award of 

front pay;

D. Award the plaintiff compensatory damages and punitive damages, available under 

the ADA and the ADAAA, in an amount to be proved at trial;

E. Award the plaintiff costs and attorney’s fees;

F. Award the plaintiff all other just and equitable relief.

Count Two – Disclosure of Confidential Information to the Public

In Violation of the ADA and the ADAAA

44. Piunti hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs one (1) through forty-three

(43) of his Complaint by reference.

45. Defendant obtained Piunti’s medical information through employment-related 

medical examinations and inquiries.

46. Defendant failed to treat this medical information as confidential when it 

disclosed it to the public.

47. Piunti was injured by the disclosure when he was denied future employment with 

prospective employers, suffered emotional injury and was subject to the Defendant’s continued 

illegal discrimination in employment.

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00220-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/09/15 page 8 of 10
9

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests that the court:

A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the defendant’s discrimination of the plaintiff 

violates the ADA, and the ADAAA;

B. Enter an injunction against the defendant from further discrimination against the 

plaintiff, and order that the defendant institute and carry out policies, practices and programs 

which provide equal employment opportunities for the disabled, and which eradicate the effects 

of its past and present unlawful employment practices;

C. Award the plaintiff compensatory damages and punitive damages, available under 

the ADA and the ADAAA, in an amount to be proved at trial;

D. Award the plaintiff costs and attorney’s fees;

E. Award the plaintiff all other just and equitable relief.

s/ Michael J. Rappa

_____________________________________________ 

Michael J. Rappa, Attorney No. 17512-45

Law Office of Michael J. Rappa, P.C.

Attorney for the plaintiff, James Piunti

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00220-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/09/15 page 9 of 10
10

JURY DEMAND

Comes now the plaintiff, James Piunti, by counsel, and demands trial by jury.

Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Michael J. Rappa

_____________________________________________ 

Michael J. Rappa, Attorney No. 17512-45

Law Office of Michael J. Rappa, P.C.

233 East 84th Drive, Suite 203

P.O. Box 10932

Merrillville, IN 46411

Tel. (219) 595-3295

Fax (219) 595-3289

Email: rappa.michael@gmail.com

Attorney for the plaintiff, James Piunti

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00220-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 06/09/15 page 10 of 10