1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Elizabeth D. Tate, SBA # 32659

2953 North 48th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85018-7749

Phone: (602) 670-4653

Fax: (602) 595-5959

E-mail: attorneyelizabethtate@yahoo.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin W. Glass,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AsicNorth, Inc., an Arizona 

Corporation

 Defendant.

 

 Case #

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND 

FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Kevin W. Glass (“Glass”), by and through Elizabeth D. Tate, his

undersigned attorney of record, submits this Complaint and Demand for Jury 

Trial pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 7(a)1, 8(a & d), 

15(a), and 38(a & b).

1. Parties, Claims, and Jurisdiction

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The Plaintiff, Kevin W. Glass (Glass), is, and has been always material 

to this Complaint, an adult resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

2. At all times material to this Complaint, Glass has suffered from three

disabilities: (1) carpel tunnel (2) COPD; and (3) asthma:

3. At all times material to this Complaint, Glass has been:

(A) An employee of Defendant AsicNorth, Inc. as that term is defined 

and used in 42 U.S.C. 2000e(f), and 42 U.S.C. 12111(4);

(B) A “qualified individual with a disability” as that term is defined and 

used in 42 U.S.C. 12111(8) and 42 U.S.C 12112(a);

4. Defendant AsicNorth, Inc. (“AsicNorth”) has been always material to 

this Complaint:

(A) A design service business providing integrated circuit design

services, engaged in interstate commerce employing more than 300 

persons, with a place of business in Maricopa County, Arizona;

(B) The employer of Glass as that term is used and defined in 42 

U.S.C. 2000e(b), and 42 U.S.C. 12111(5)(A)

5. Glass seeks relief against the Defendant herein on his claims arising 

under federal statutes and state law as follows:

Count One: Disability Discrimination in violation of the A.D.A., 42 U.S.C. 

12112

Count Two: Retaliation in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12203

Count Three: Interference with Business Expectancy

6. Based upon the foregoing, this Court is the proper venue is proper

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1692(b).

2. Additional fact allegations supporting claims

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

7. AsicNorth employed by Glass as a Senior Engineer from January 12, 

2016 until he was fired without good cause on July 1, 2016. Jeff Jorvig, who 

was design manager at the time negotiated Glass’ terms of employment.

8. Glass’ doctors diagnosed Glass with carpel tunnel, COPD, anemia 

and asthma that affected Glass’ ability to engage in repetitive motion,

strength and endurance, a disability affecting a major life activity of moving, 

motion and breathing.

9. Glass is a qualified individual, qualified to perform the essential 

functions of his job with a disability, within the meaning and intent of the 

ADA in that he has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or 

more of his major life activities involving endurance, repetitive movement 

and breathing. Glass did not reveal to AsicNorth the fact that he is 

disabled at the time Jorvig hired him. 

10. AsicNorth hired Glass with the understanding that Glass would work 

on an RF radio project. However, on January 18, 2018, four days into 

Glass’ employment, AsicNorth still had not given Glass any work to do. 

Glass emailed Steve Hogarth, lead engineer in North Carolina to ask him for 

work to do. Hogarth assigned Glass a very difficult design job without clear

direction. Hogarth wanted Glass to design an extremely small, low power 

chip to be placed in contact lenses. Hogarth did not tell Glass what was in 

the chip, a deadline for getting the chip designed or when the client planned 

to manufacture the chip. Nevertheless, Glass began working on the chip

design project.

11. When Glass began working on the project, Glass learned that 

AsicNorth had no net listing software and no access to Cadence Analog

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

Design Environment which would have made the project go faster by 

automatically populating the net list. Without net listing software and 

Cadence, Glass had to create the net list by hand by typing it into a list. 

AsicNorth’s software and methods were from the 1990s and outdated.

12. In February of 2016, one month into the project, Steve Stratz, 

AsicNorth’s Vice President, approached Glass to speak about the fact that 

Glass took breaks and moved and walked around his workspace. Glass for 

the first time, informed Stratz about his disability, explaining that creating 

the net lists by hand required a lot of typing and aggravated his carpel 

tunnel. Glass also informed Stratz that his work station had poor 

ergonomics. At that time, Glass made his first accommodation request. 

Glass requested a key board tray, ergonomic chair and adjustable table 

from which to work. Glass also inquired about the Company’s outdated 

software. Stratz informed Glass that the Company did not have Net lister for 

AFS, up-to-date software, to save money. Glass needed AsicNorth to 

install the latest software to eliminate manually creating the list to lessen 

typing. But knowing the cost, Glass only asked for the keyboard tray and 

ergonomic work station which would be inexpensive. AsicNorth made no 

response to Glass’ first request for accommodation.

13. In March of 2016, Glass still worked on the chip design project. 

Horgath still had not provided Glass with crucial information about the 

project. Horgath needed to inform Glass of the design schedule, design 

methodology, design review the formats and give direction on how to 

organize schematic and simulation directories. Also, in March of 2016, 

AsicNorth required its employees to participate in a charity outing to work at 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

a farm. At that time, Glass informed Jorvig that Glass could not participate 

because his disabilities prevented him from shoveling and lifting. This was 

Glass’ second request for accommodation of a key board tray and 

ergonomic work station. Without a response, Glass continued to work on 

the chip design project without accommodation.

14. In April of 2016, AsicNorth assigned a Cory Barrows, Director, to Glass’ 

chip design project. Barrows conducted weekly telephonic meetings. At the 

first meeting, Barrows informed Glass that he was satisfied with Glass’s 

work. During the meeting on the second week of April, Barrows nit-picked 

Glass’ work. Barrows insisted that Glass justify why Glass used a certain 

transistor for the regulator cascode transistor. Glass explained that that he 

chose the transistor that worked using extensive computer simulations. 

Barrows then impatiently told Glass he wanted the chip project design done 

by the end of the week. Glass informed Barrows to do the job properly, he

needed two weeks. Barrows told Glass to just give him what him, Glass, 

had done at the end of the week. Barrows then hung up on Glass. When 

Glass tried to call back, Glass learned Barrows had locked him out of the 

meeting.

15. By the end of the third week of April 2016, Glass delivered the chip 

design project as Barrows requested, even providing more extensive 

simulations than requested. Horgath commented, that the inclusion of more 

simulations must have really aggravated Glass’ carpel tunnel. During the 

fourth week of April, Glass was assigned another difficult project involving 

the anatomy of the eye. Glass presented a power point presentation that 

impressed Jorvig and others. On April 28, 2016, Barrows made a visit to 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

Glass’ office in Phoenix. Glass planned to stay home sick that day because

of an asthma flare-up. However, Glass came into the office anyway to meet 

Barrows. Glass showed Barrows his work station and made a third request 

for a keyboard tray and ergonomic work station. Glass then went home sick 

with asthma.

16. Less than three weeks later, on May 18th, 2016, Jorvig placed Glass 

on a performance improvement plan, “PIP”. Puzzled, Glass asked why he 

was placed on a PIP when he had been doing good work. Jorvig stated the 

PIP came from Barrows. Barrows accused Glass of insubordination in the 

PIP. Glass contacted Judy Stohl, HR representative to inform her that 

Barrows unfairly placed him on a PIP because Glass had been doing good 

work and met the chip design project deadline despite not getting 

methodology or getting a timetable for the project. Glass also informed 

Stohl that he had been requesting an accommodation which the Company 

never addressed. Glass informed Stohl that he was going to file an EEOC 

charge because the Company discriminated against him. On May 20, 2016, 

Glass notified Jorvig of Glass’ EEOC charge.

17. On May 23, 2016, Stratz telephoned Glass. Glass explained how the 

PIP was unfair. Stratz appeared angry that Glass had filed the EEOC 

charge but informed Glass that there was flexibility in the PIP and that no 

one had ever been fired because of being placed on a PIP. On the same 

day, Glass returned from lunch to find that someone had placed rat feces 

on his chair. 

18. On June 9th, 2016, Stroh telephoned Glass to discuss Glass’ disability. 

Glass then made a fourth request for a keyboard tray and ergonomic work 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

station. Glass explained to Stroh that AsicNorth’s lack of up to date 

software caused a lot of typing to aggravate Glass’ carpel tunnel. Glass 

also informed Stroh that his asthma and COPD affected his endurance.

Stroh listened but AsicNorth still did not accommodate Glass’ disabilities.

On June 21, 2016, Glass made a fifth request for accommodation.

19. On July 1, 2016, ten days later, Jorvig called Glass into a meeting with 

three witnesses to fire Glass. One large witness was positioned at the end 

of the table near the door. Jorvig claimed he was firing Glass because 

Glass missed PIP deadlines on two minor items that were not well defined 

but completed. Jorvig hollered at Glass and when Glass would try to speak, 

Jorvig spoke over Glass. Glass informed Jorvig he would contact EEOC to 

amend his charge to include his firing. Jorvig loudly cursed at Glass as 

Glass departed from the building. Glass amended his EEOC charge on 

December 23, 2016.

20. Ever since Glass’s firing AsicNorth retaliated against Glass in violation 

of the ADA when Glass engaged in the protected activity by reporting 

disability discrimination and filing his EEOC charges. AsicNorth also 

interfered with Glass’ attempts to get employment. In November of 2018, 

Glass applied for job and Glass had a bona fide expectation that the interview 

would lead to employment. The interviewer on the second phone interview 

asked Glass if he was serious about the job, and to commit that if offered he 

would take it. Glass agreed he would take the job if offered. Glass traveled 

for an onsite interview with the employer. The interview went well. A job 

formal job offer never materialized, after contacting ASICNorth, which was 

listed on Glass’s resume. Glass called the interviewer. The interviewer 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

refused to answer Glass’ questions. Given the circumstances where Jorvig 

cursed Glass when Jorvig fired Glass, Jorvig would have informed Glass’ 

interviewers that Glass had been fired for cause when in fact he was not. 

AsicNorth thwarted Glass’ attempt to secure employment with major 

companies. Glass has only been able to secure contract work.

22. On October 11, 2017, another recruiter from a major company that hires 

engineers contacted Glass about a job. The recruiter set a phone interview 

for Glass. Glass had a bona fide expectation that the interview would lead to 

employment. Glass sent the recruiter his resume. The recruiter checked

Glass’ employment history. Glass called to find out about the phone 

interview. The interviewer rudely said to Glass, “never contact me again.” 

Since leaving AsicNorth’s employment, Glass applied for over 60 jobs but has 

not been able to secure direct employment. The opportunities disappear 

when prospective employers check his job history with AsicNorth. AsicNorth 

is aware that Glass is attempting to find another job. AsicNorth is thwarting 

Glass’ attempts to get other employment. 

21. AsicNorth repeatedly violated the American with Disabilities Act by not 

engaging in an interactive process when it learned of Glass’ disability in 

February of 2016. Glass requested that AsicNorth accommodate his 

disability 5 times but to no avail. AsicNorth had a duty under the ADA to 

engage in an interactive process with Glass. HR should have contacted 

Glass in February of 2016 when Glass first informed AsicNorth of his 

disabilities and after each request thereafter. 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

22. AsicNorth has failed and refused to reasonably accommodate Glass’ 

disability which could have been accommodated by providing a key board 

tray and ergonomic workstation with little cost.

23. AsicNorth could have accommodated Glass’ disabilities without undue 

hardship.

24. AsicNorth, in contravention of the ADA, retaliated against Glass for 

engaging in the protected activity of reporting disability discrimination.

25. Based upon the events alleged herein, Glass timely filed a charge of 

discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, "EEOC", under charges number 540-2016-02048 and 540-

2017-00722 concerning discrimination and retaliation in his employment

because of disability as described above. Glass received his notice of right 

to sue on December 22, 2017. See Attached Exhibit 1, 2 and 3 charges and 

notice of right to sue.

3. Demand for Trial by Jury

Glass demands a trial by jury on her claims pursuant to the U.S. 

Constitution Seventh Amendment and FRCP Rule 38.

4. Relief Requested

Count One: Disability Discrimination in violation of the A.D.A.,

42 U.S.C. 12112

1. Compensatory and punitive damages

2. Injunctive relief including back pay and front pay

3. Reasonable attorneys’ fees

4. Taxable costs

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

Count Two: Retaliation in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12203(a)

1. Injunctive relief including back pay and front pay

2. Reasonable attorneys’ fees

3. Taxable costs

Count 7: Interference with Business Expectancy

1. General tort damages

2. Punitive damages

3. Taxable costs pursuant to FRCP Rule 54(d) 1, LRCiv 54.1 and 

28 U.S.C. 1920

Respectfully submitted this 21, day of March, 2018.

s/Elizabeth D. Tate

 Elizabeth D. Tate, Attorney for Plaintiff 

Attached: Exhibits One through Three

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 10 of 10