1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TARA SPEICHER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO: 1:16-cv-00059

)

COMMUNITY DENTAL CLINIC, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Tara Speicher (“Speicher”), by counsel, files this Complaint and Demand for 

Jury Trial against Defendant Community Dental Clinic, Inc.(“Community Dental”), under Title 

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

I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

I. PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION

1. Speicher, a female, resides in LaGrange, Indiana, which is in LaGrange County, 

within the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. 

2. Community Dental has offices and conducts business in the Northern District of 

Indiana. 

3. Speicher was an “employee” of Community Dental within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e(f) and 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (4) from April 2013 until her employment was 

involuntarily terminated on December 1, 2014.

4. Community Dental is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)

and 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (5). 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00059-JVB-SLC document 1 filed 02/12/16 page 1 of 8
2

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Defendant and venue is 

proper in this court.

6. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Speicher’s claims under 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

7. Speicher satisfied her obligations to exhaust administrative remedies, having 

timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Speicher received her Notice of Right to Sue on December 7, 2015.

8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in that Community Dental is 

subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Indiana, Community Dental regularly 

conducts business activities within the Northern District of Indiana, and a substantial part of the 

events giving rise to the Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Northern District of Indiana.

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Speicher hereby incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth here.

10. Speicher worked as a receptionist at Community Dental from April 2013 until 

December 1, 2014.

11. During her job interview, the Community Dental Office Manager asked Speicher 

whether she was pregnant. Speicher replied that she was not pregnant.

12. Speicher began fertility treatment in January 2014. 

13. In April 2014, Speicher learned that she was pregnant. 

14. About two weeks after learning she was pregnant, Speicher requested time off 

from work for a doctor’s appointment. Speicher’s immediate supervisor became angry, threw a 

pen, and said “you were just there.” 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00059-JVB-SLC document 1 filed 02/12/16 page 2 of 8
3

15. Speicher did not plan or intend to share her pregnancy news with Community 

Dental during the first trimester of her pregnancy. 

16. Speicher felt pressured to explain the reason for her doctor’s appointment so that 

she could keep her doctor’s appointment, so she disclosed her pregnancy to Community Dental 

in mid-April 2015. 

17. During Speicher’s pregnancy, she developed gestational diabetes. 

18. Due to the gestational diabetes, Speicher was required to have appointments with 

her doctor each Friday of her pregnancy.

19. Speicher’s supervisor repeatedly harassed Speicher and complained about her 

weekly doctor appointments. 

20. In September 2014, Community Dental hired a receptionist and instructed 

Speicher to train that person.

21. Community Dental told Speicher this new employee would fill in for Speicher

while she was on maternity leave, but that after Speicher returned from maternity leave, the new 

employee would work one day a week to cover days off for the other receptionists. 

22. Speicher trained the new employee. 

23. On December 1, 2014, Speicher was at work when she thought she was going into 

labor. 

24. Speicher informed her supervisor that she might be starting labor and called her 

doctor. 

25. Speicher’s doctor advised her to come to the doctor’s office to be checked. 

26. Speicher’s doctor examined her, found she was not in labor, and authorized 

Speicher to return to work. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00059-JVB-SLC document 1 filed 02/12/16 page 3 of 8
4

27. Speicher immediately called her supervisor informing her that Speicher was not in 

labor and was cleared by her doctor to return to work. 

28. Speicher attempted to return to work on December 1, 2014. 

29. Speicher’s supervisor refused to allow Speicher to return to work on December 1, 

2014, or on any day after that. 

30. Speicher contacted her supervisor several times over the next week, asking to 

return to work, but she was not permitted by Community Dental to return to work. 

31. Speicher delivered her baby on December 7, 2014.

32. After giving birth, Speicher contacted her supervisor in early January 2015 to 

communicate about her planned return to work. 

33. Speicher was told repeatedly that they “were not busy” and “were having trouble 

filling appointments.” 

34. Speicher’s return to work date changed a few times, but was ultimately set for 

February 17, 2015. 

35. On February 17, 2015, Community Dental informed Speicher that she was 

terminated. Speicher’s supervisor called and told Speicher’s husband that Speicher was being 

laid off. 

36. Speicher called her supervisor back and asked why she was being laid off. 

37. Speicher’s supervisor told her that a meeting had been held late the night before 

and that the supervisor and a board member named Eric thought it would be best to lay her off 

because she just had a baby and she had already been off of work. 

38. Since February 17, 2015, Speicher has tried several times to get back to work, but 

without success. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00059-JVB-SLC document 1 filed 02/12/16 page 4 of 8
5

39. On May 4, 2015, Speicher visited the Community Dental office as a patient.

40. While at Community Dental that day, Speicher discovered that the new employee 

whom she had trained to provide coverage while Speicher was on maternity leave was working 

there as a receptionist. 

41. Community Dental did not eliminate Speicher’s position.

42. Community Dental replaced Speicher with the person she trained in the fall of 

2014.

43. On May 28, 2015, Speicher filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against Community Dental alleging violation

of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 

III. LEGAL ALLEGATIONS

Count I: Violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act

44. Speicher hereby incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth here. 

45. Speicher was medically cleared and able to perform her job from December 1, 

2014, until December 7, 2014. 

46. Community Dental knowingly and intentionally discriminated against Speicher by 

requiring her to remain on leave from December 1, 2014, until December 7, 2014 in violation of 

the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

47. As a result of Community Dental’s discriminatory practices, Speicher has 

sustained economic injury in lost earnings and benefits and lost earning potential. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00059-JVB-SLC document 1 filed 02/12/16 page 5 of 8
6

48. As a result of Community Dental’s discriminatory practices, Speicher has 

sustained severe emotional injury and pain and suffering. 

49. Community Dental acted knowingly and intentionally to deliberately discriminate 

against Speicher with malice and in reckless disregard for her federally protected rights. 

Count II: Violation of Title VII – Sex Discrimination 

50. Speicher hereby incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth here. 

51. Community Dental’s termination of Speicher was an adverse employment action. 

52. Community Dental terminated Speicher because of her sex and specifically due to 

her recent pregnancy and childbirth. 

53. Community Dental unlawfully discharged Speicher in violation of Title VII 

because of her sex and pregnancy status. 

54. As a result of Community Dental’s discriminatory practices, Speicher has 

sustained economic injury in lost earnings and benefits and lost earning potential. 

55. As a result of Community Dental’s discriminatory practices, Speicher has 

sustained severe emotional injury and pain and suffering. 

56. Community Dental acted knowingly and intentionally to deliberately discriminate 

against Speicher with malice and in reckless disregard for her federally protected rights. 

Count III: Violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act

57. Speicher hereby incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth here. 

58. Speicher became aware she was pregnant in April 2014. Speicher developed 

gestational diabetes, a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00059-JVB-SLC document 1 filed 02/12/16 page 6 of 8
7

59. At all relevant times, Community Dental knew of Speicher’s disability. 

60. Speicher’s disability in no way hindered her ability to perform the essential 

functions of her job. 

61. No accommodation of Speicher’s disability was needed or requested. 

62. Community Dental knowingly and intentionally discriminated against Speicher by 

treating her differently than similarly situated employees in the terms and conditions of her 

employment because of her disability, specifically, by harassing her for going to weekly doctor 

appointments for her condition and by refusing to allow her to return to work while she was 

medically able to work.

63. As a result of Community Dental’s discriminatory practices, Speicher has 

sustained economic injury in lost earnings and benefits and lost earning potential. 

64. As a result of Community Dental’s discriminatory practices, Speicher has 

sustained severe emotional injury and pain and suffering.

65. Community Dental discriminated against Speicher deliberately and with malice 

and in reckless disregard of her federally-protected rights.

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff requests the following relief:

a. Compensatory damages;

b. Damages to compensate Speicher for mental anguish and emotional 

distress;

c. Liquidated damages and/or punitive damages;

e. All costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in litigation of this action;

f. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00059-JVB-SLC document 1 filed 02/12/16 page 7 of 8
8

g. Any and all other legal and/or equitable relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tara Speicher, by counsel, requests a judgment in her favor, the 

costs of this action, a trial by jury, and for all other just and proper relief.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kathleen A. DeLaney

Kathleen A. DeLaney (#18604-49)

Kathleen E. Field (#28559-49)

DeLaney & DeLaney LLC

3646 Washington Blvd.

Indianapolis, IN 46205

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Tara Speicher, by counsel, hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so 

triable.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kathleen A. DeLaney

Kathleen A. DeLaney (#18604-49)

Kathleen E. Field (#28559-49)

DeLaney & DeLaney LLC

3646 Washington Blvd.

Indianapolis, IN 46205

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00059-JVB-SLC document 1 filed 02/12/16 page 8 of 8