THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

Kim Petsalis

Plaintiff,

v.

Franciscan Alliance, Inc.,

Defendants.

 Case No. 

 TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42

USCS §§ 2000ff et seq.), The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (42 USCS §

1320d et seq.), The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the "ADEA"), and The Americans

with Disabilities Act (42 USC § 12101 et seq.)

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

1343.

3. Venue is proper in this court because:

a. the unlawful employment practices and civil rights violations alleged in this

complaint have been, and now are being committed within the Northern District of the State of

Indiana;

b. the Defendant is an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name

under applicable Indiana laws and subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to this

civil action and venue is proper pursuant to 28 USCS § 1391; and

1 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00290-PRC document 1 filed 06/27/16 page 1 of 8
c. the Plaintiff resides in this district.

Parties

4. Plaintiff, Kim Petsalis, lives in Lake County, Indiana.

5. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. has its principal places of business in Indiana and

regularly transacts business in the state.

6. Defendant is an employer subject to the provisions of Title VII in that it is a

corporation, affects interstate commerce, and has employed 50 or more persons for each working

day in each of 12 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

7. Defendant is and at all material times has been a company authorized or organized

and existing under laws of the State of Indiana, with offices located in Lake County, Indiana.

Conditions Precedent

8. Prior to the institution of this action, Plaintiff, claiming to be aggrieved, filed

charges of discrimination against the Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”).

9. The Commission investigated these charges and issued to Plaintiff a right to sue

notice, the notice is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

10. All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have been fulfilled.

Factual Background

11. Defendant is a company with several hundred employees.

12. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. provides access to the benefits of health insurance via,

among other means, its online computing systems and its clinics.

13. Ms. Kim Petsalis ("Plaintiff") is an employee of Defendant ("Franciscan").

2 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00290-PRC document 1 filed 06/27/16 page 2 of 8
14. The Plaintiff holds a baccalaureate in nursing and is an Indiana licensed B.S.N.

that worked as a House Supervisor for the Defendant.

15. The Defendant significantly affects Plaintiff's access to employment benefits

including the benefits of health insurance coverage.

16. Plaintiff is over 40 years old.

17. Plaintiff, due to her age, is more likely to suffer from chronic diseases than other

younger and similarly situated employees. In August of 2013, Ms. Petsalis suffered a stroke.

18. Defendant discriminatorily implements, by itself and by and through its agents, a

return to work test (the "Test").

19. After her stroke, the Plaintiff began an authorized family medical leave.

20. Less than 12 weeks later the Plaintiff received a letter from her doctor that she was

okay to return to work.

21. The Plaintiff, upon her return to work as a House Supervisor, was required by the

Defendant to take the Test.

COUNT I

22. The foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated into this count.

23. Other employees of the Defendant, including its priest, and a younger male were

off for injuries but were not required by the Defendant to take a Test like the Plaintiff was

required to do.

24. On December 16, 2013 the Plaintiff was fired due to her age, gender, disability

and other wrongful reasons and another younger non-disabled male took her position.

25. Without Plaintiff's consent, Defendant shared the Plaintiff's personal information

3 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00290-PRC document 1 filed 06/27/16 page 3 of 8
related to the Test, the screening assessment and Plaintiff's health insurance charges and fees with

third parties.

26. Plaintiff was required by Defendant to complete a health questionnaire as well as

completing the Test.

27. The questionnaire included questions that are wholly unrelated to the Plaintiff's

job duties or her injuries that prompted her FMLA leave including questions related to her

physical abilities and disabilities.

28. The questions on the questionnaire included questions about Plaintiff's family and

family history as well as questions related to Plaintiff's own genetics ("Genetic information").

29. In order to take the Test, Defendant is believed to have required Plaintiff to allow

a third party to share her personal health information with other third parties for reasons not

related to the Test.

30. Defendant refused Plaintiff's request, due to her recent stroke, for an

accommodation to continue working 12 hour days and a shorter work week; instead the

Defendant required that she work 8 hour days, other employees without disabilities were allowed

to work 12 hour days.

31. At the time of the discrimination Plaintiff had passed all necessary requirements to

participate and perform in her duties as House Supervisor Nurse.

32. When the Defendant reported the Test status of the Plaintiff along with her

personal identification information, Defendant knowingly disclosed uniquely identifying health

and other medical information of the Plaintiff to private insurance carriers, data processors, and

other unknown entities and individuals without her consent and for their own commercial gain in

4 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00290-PRC document 1 filed 06/27/16 page 4 of 8
violation of privacy laws including without limitation 42 USCS § 1320d-6.

33. The Plaintiff received an examination by the Defendant's physician and that doctor

said she was fine.

34. Unlike other employees similarly situated the Defendant required the Plaintiff to

submit to a psychiatric examination.

35. Unlike other employees similarly situated, the Defendant completed physical

exam questions for the Plaintiff instead of the Plaintiff completing those questions on her own.

36. Because of the Defendant's discrimination and other wrongful acts, Plaintiff has

been damaged monetarily.

37. Because of the Defendant's discrimination and other wrongful acts, Plaintiff has

been defamed by the Defendant who has published her to the public as being a debilitated stroke

victim and damaged her thereby.

38. Due to Defendant's actions, Plaintiff is in fear of losing her abilities to work as a

B.S.N. with other healthcare organizations and files this Complaint with much trepidation.

39. At all material times, the Defendant has been and is intentionally engaging in

discriminatory action against Plaintiff who has expressed opposition to Defendant's unlawful

employment practices in violation of Title VII, GINA, ADEA and the ADAAA. These retaliatory

policies and practices include, but are not limited to:

a. Failure and refusal to grant Plaintiff equal terms and conditions of employment as

compared to similarly situated non-protected employees.

b. Actual, pre-textual, and constructive reduction of the employment benefits of

Plaintiff.

5 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00290-PRC document 1 filed 06/27/16 page 5 of 8
40. These employment practices are unlawful employment practices that discriminate

and are in violation of Title VII, GINA, ADEA and the ADAAA among others.

41. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant's direct, indirect,

unintentional, careless, reckless, negligent, unreasonable, malicious, callous, intentional, willful

and/or knowing actions of Defendant acting within the course and scope of its duties and/or

employment, individually and in concert, Kim Patselis suffered damages and continues to sustain

harm. Her damages include those which justify the awarding of liquidated (exemplary) damages

in favor of Kim Petsalis against the Defendant; and an award in favor of Kim Petsalis and against

the Defendant, for her attorney fees, expert witness fees and other costs associated in filing this

Complaint.

42. Kim Petsalis has incurred costs and expenses to file this action against Defendant

to protect her constitutional and statutory rights. She has suffered general emotional distress,

general mental pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment to name, character and reputation,

decreased employability, loss of employment benefits due to the actions and inactions of the

Defendant by their agents, servants, supervisors, administrators, human resources and/or

employees acting within the course and scope of their employment.

43. In addition, the above acts by Defendant, and its agents, servants, supervisors,

administrators, human resources and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their

duties and/or employment, individually and in concert, were willful, wanton, malicious,

intentional and oppressive, and justify the awarding of actual, compensatory and/or punitive

damages in favor of Kim Petsalis against Defendant and an award in favor of Plaintiff and

against the Defendant for her attorney fees, expert witness fees and other costs associated in

6 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00290-PRC document 1 filed 06/27/16 page 6 of 8
filing this Complaint.

COUNT II

44. The foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated into this count.

45. After the Defendant ignored Plaintiff's complaints and then wrongfully deemed

Plaintiff to be unfit for duty, Plaintiff began to be held out in the public eye as being a debilitated

stroke victim; the Defendant is believed to have advised Plaintiff's colleagues and Defendant's

third party vendors of the Plaintiff's complaining of discrimination and caused the colleagues and

vendors to treat Plaintiff differently and with disdain, at different times and with a cumulative

effect, and over the course of days thereby creating a hostile work environment.

46. In retaliation for Plaintiff having complained, orally and otherwise, of how she

was being treated differently, pointing to the Defendant's discrimination and other wrongful acts,

Defendant intentionally ignored Plaintiff's complaints and instead ordered her to see their doctor

a second time; This time that doctor deemed her unfit for work.

COUNT III

47. The foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated into this count.

48. The Defendants communicated to others that the Plaintiff is a debilitated stroke

victim, which tends to lower a person's reputation, all the while knowing that Plaintiff was not a

debilitated stroke victim.

49. The Defendant knowingly made false communications that have defamed the

Plaintiff, pursuant to Indiana laws, and caused her great harm.

Jury Demand

50. COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Kim Petsalis, by counsel, and demands trial by jury.

7 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00290-PRC document 1 filed 06/27/16 page 7 of 8
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff, being injured by the Defendant’s

wrongful acts, requests that this Court issue 1) A decree ordering the Defendant to make Plaintiff

whole, including, but not limited to, providing financial compensation, and restitution in an

amount to be proved at trial, and by providing other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the

effects of the Defendant's past and present unlawful employment practices; 2) A Judgment for the

Plaintiff for her actual, compensatory and punitive damages; 3) An award to the Plaintiff for her

reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action; 4) An award to the Plaintiff for prejudgment

interest at the statutory rate; 5) A Judgment for the Plaintiff compensating her for the general

emotional distress and humiliation Plaintiff has suffered as a result of defendant’s unlawful

conduct; and 6) An order for all other relief that is necessary and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/Daniel Zamudio 

Daniel Zamudio, Patent Attorney

Zamudio Law Professionals, PC

233 South Colfax

Griffith, Indiana 46319

Phone (219) 924-2300

Fax (219) 924-2401

dan@zlawpro.com

8 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00290-PRC document 1 filed 06/27/16 page 8 of 8