Preview
LUCAS COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT
CASE DESIGNATION
G-4801-Cl-0202304676-000
TO: Bernie Quilter, Clerk of Courts CASE NO.
Judge Eric Allen Marks
JUDGE
The following type of case is being filed:
Professional Malpractice
Legal Malpractice (L)
Medical Malpractice (M)
CL] roduct Liability (B)
Other Tort (C) By submitting the complaint, with the
signature of the Attorney, the Attorney
Workers' Compensation affirms that the name of person with
State Funded (D) settlement authority and his/her direct
Self Insured (K) phone number will be provided upon
request to a party or counsel in this matter
Administrative Appeal (F)
Commercial Docket ct(-JAppropriation
ther Civil
Consumer Fraud (N{_]Forfeiture
(P) [_] Court Ordered
Other Civil (H) CIcertificate of Title
[_ ]Copyright Infringement (W)
This case was previously dismissed pursuant to CIVIL RULE 41 and is to be assigned to
Judge , the original Judge at the time of dismissal. The
previously filed case number was CI
This case is a civil forfeiture case with a criminal case currently pending. The pending case number
is, , assigned to Judge
This case is a Declaratory Judgment case with a personal injury or related case currently pending.
The pending case number is , assigned to Judge
This case is to be reviewed for consolidation in accordance with Local Rule 5.02 as a companion or
related case. This designation sheet will be sent by the Clerk of Courts to the newly assigned Judge for review
with the Judge who has the companion or related case with the lowest case number. The Judge who would
receive the consolidated case may accept or deny consolidation of the case. Both Judges will sign this
designation sheet to indicate the action taken. If the Judge with the lowest case number agrees to accept, the
reassignment of the case by the Administration Judge shall be processed. If there is a disagreement between the
Judges regarding consolidation, the matter may be referred to the Administrative Judge.
Related/companion case number. Assigned Judge
Approve/Deny Date Approve/Deny Date
Attorney Patricia Brandt
Address 25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone (216) 291-4744
EFILED LUCAS COUN’
12/15/2023 12:06 F
COMMON PLEAS COU!
BERNIE QUILTER, CLEI
ENV#: 922
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO
G-4801-Cl-0202304676-000
JENNIFER FINCH CASE NO.
47 Curwood Road Judge Eric Allen Marks
Holland, OH 43528 JUDGE:
Plaintiff,
Vv. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH
ASSOCIATION OF TOLEDO, INC. (JURY DEMAND ENDORSED
313 Jefferson Ave HEREIN)
Toledo, OH 43604
Serve also:
Carl E. Habekost, Esq. (Stat. Agent)
405 Madison Ave, Suite 1900
Toledo, OH 43604
-and-
REBECCA SHIELDS
401 W Water St
Oak Harbor, OH 43449
Defendants
Plaintiff, Jennifer Finch, by and through undersigned counsel, as her Complaint against the
Defendants, states and avers the following:
PARTIES
Finch is a resident of Lucas County, State of Ohio.
Defendant Neighborhood Health Association of Toledo, Inc. (“Neighborhood”) is a
corporation for non-profit that conducts business in the state of Ohio.
The events underlying Plaintiff's claims in this Complaint took place at Neighborhood’s
location at 117 Main Street, Toledo, Lucas County, OH 43605.
Neighborhood is at all times hereinafter mentioned, Finch’s employer within the meaning of
the Ohio Revised Code § 4112.01 et seq., Ohio Revised Code § 4123 et seq., and The Family
Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C § 2601 ef seq.
At all times referenced herein, Shields was a person within the meaning of R.C. §4112.
Within 300 days of the adverse employment action described herein, Finch filed a dual-
Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC”) against Neighborhood and Sheilds,
Charge No. TOLB2(41614)08012022/22A-2022-03894C (“OCRC Charge”).
The OCRC issued Finch a Notice of Right to Sue on March 9, 2023, which is attached as
Exhibit A.
Finch exhausted all administrative remedies.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ,
All the material events alleged in this Complaint occurred in or around Lucas County,
Ohio.
10. Therefore, personal jurisdiction is proper over Defendant pursuant to R.C. § 2307.382(A)(1)
and/or (3).
ll Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and to Civ. R. 3(C)(1), (3), and/or
(6).
12. This Court is a court of general jurisdiction over the claims presented herein, including all
subject matters of this Complaint.
FACTS
13 Finch is a former employee of Neighborhood.
14 At all times noted herein, Finch was qualified for her position with Neighborhood.
15 At all times noted herein, Finch could fully perform the essential functions of her job, with
or without reasonable accommodations.
16. Finch suffers from anxiety and arthritis, placing her in a protected class for disability, and in
the alternative, her perceived disability.
17. Finch first joined Neighborhood on November 25, 2019.
18 Neighborhood paid Finch $16.00 hourly for her work as a scheduling coordinator.
19 Finch worked an average of 37 hours weekly for Neighborhood.
20. Finch participated in employee benefits provided by Neighborhood to include medical and
retirement programs.
21 Jeanette Barnes, whose title was patient access manager, was Finch’s supervisor.
22. Rebecca Shields, whose title was human resource manager, was Finch’s supervisor.
23 In August 2021, Finch applied for FMLA to care for her minor child’s serious health
condition.
24 Finch was approved for FMLA.
25 Almost simultaneously with the approval of FMLA, Neighborhood told Finch she was being
relocated to a larger, busier office called Nexus.
26 Finch told Barnes and Shields that relocating to her Nexus would negatively affect her own
health because she had severe anxiety.
27. Finch said that the busier office was much louder and required more interaction with people,
which would trigger her anxiety.
28 Finch said that the busier office was also much larger and required significantly more
walking which would exacerbate her arthritis.
29 Finch asked Barnes and Shields to not relocate her as a condition of using her FMLA.
30. Barnes and Shields told Finch if she wanted to participate in FMLA, she had to relocate to
Nexus.
31 Barnes and Shields were put on notice by Finch that she was disabled.
32. Barnes and Shields did not engage Finch in an interactive process to determine what, if any,
reasonable accommodations were available to Finch.
33 Finch requested a reasonable accommodation when she told Barnes and Shields that she did
not want to be relocated.
34 Barnes and Shields failed to accommodate Finch,
35 Failure to abide by reasonable accommodations is discrimination under the ADA.
36 Finch used vacation time off from work after notifying Barnes and Shields of her disability.
37. Upon Finch’s return from vacation, on or about August 10, 2021, she saw she was
scheduled to work at Nexus.
38. Finch went to a podiatrist appointment before returning to work 4t Neighborhood after her
vacation.
39, Finch’s podiatrist restricted her from working for two weeks.
40, The podiatrist’s restriction was based on Finch’s disability.
4l Finch told Neighborhood her return-to-work date was August 23, 2021.
42, While on medical leave, Finch saw a doctor for her anxiety.
43 Finch’s doctor restricted her from working for two weeks.
44 The doctor’s restriction was based on Finch’s disability.
45 Finch submitted her doctor’s notes to Shields.
46. Shields’s receipt of Finch’s doctor’s notes put Neighborhood on notice that Finch required a
reasonable accommodation for her disabilities.
47 Shields’s receipt of Finch’s doctor’s notes put Neighborhood on notice that Finch required
to be given notice of her FMLA eligibility.
48 On or about August 27, 2021, Shields contacted Finch and told her the doctor notes were
rejected by Neighborhood because one note was from a doctor who has a working
relationship with Finch through her job at Neighborhood.
49 Having a working relationship with a doctor through employment duties is not a valid
reason to refuse to accept that doctor’s medical treatment or restrictions.
50 Shields ordered Finch to return to work the following Monday.
51 Shields did not reject doctor notes from employees with physical injuries.
52 Shields did not reject doctor notes from employees who did not use FMLA.
53 Shields rejected Finch’s doctor note in retaliation for Finch’s request of FMLA.
54 Shields rejected Finch’s doctor note because she discriminated against Finch’s disability.
55. Finch called off from work on August 30, 2021, and August 31, 2021.
56 Finch sought treatment from a critical therapist who was not known to Finch through her
work at Neighborhood.
57 The critical therapist restricted Finch from working for one month.
58. The critical therapist’s restriction was based on Finch’s disability.
59 Finch submitted her critical therapist’s note to Barnes because the last two notes were
rejected by Shields.
60. On August 31, 2021, Barnes received the critical therapist’s note and told Finch to “reach
out to HR and request FMLA paperwork.”
61 Finch made multiple calls and sent multiple emails to Shields asking for an FMLA
application.
62. After not receiving a response from Shields, Finch wrote a complaint to Barnes and Shields
that her previous doctor notes were not accepted, and she had not been sent FMLA
notification or papers.(“Protected Activity”)
63 On September 1, 2021, Shields responded to Finch’s email that she would send the FMLA
application soon, but she did not include FMLA papers in that email.
64. Finch wrote a complaint to Barnes and Shields that Shields’ continued delay in providing
FMLA notice, or papers was an interference of her FMLA rights. (“Protected Activity”)
65 After Finch’s second complaint about FMLA violations, Shields sent FMLA documents to
Finch.
66. On September 11, 2021, Finch wrote a letter to Barnes and Shields complaining of disability
discrimination, FMLA retaliation, and FMLA interference.
67 On September 13, 2021, Finch’s therapist submitted the FMLA application to Shields.
68 After receiving Finch’s FMLA application from Finch’s therapist, Shields intentionally
delayed in approving Finch’s FMLA leave.
69 Shields sent requests to speak with Finch’s therapist on September 16, 2021, September 17,
2021, and September 20, 2021.
70 Shields’ calls to the therapist were to find out the details of Finch’s treatment plan.
71 Shields refused to approve Finch’s FMLA until she was personally satisfied with the medial
treatment plan.
72 Shields did not request medical treatment plans for employees who applied for FMLA as a
result of physical injuries.
73 Shields discriminated against Finch because her disability was mental impairment.
74. An employee is not mandated to provide a treatment plan in order to be approved for FMLA
leave.
75 Shields’s intentional delay to approve Finch’s FMLA without knowing the medical
treatment plan was interference with Finch’s FMLA rights.
76 After Finch’s FMLA was approved, Neighborhood retaliated against her for her complaints
of discrimination and FMLA retaliation and interference.
77 On or about November 17, 2021, Finch was supposed to return to work, but Neighborhood
did not place her on the schedule.
78 On or about November 17, 2021, Finch notified Neighborhood that she no longer needed to
use FMLA to care for her son’s medical condition, therefore the conditional placement at
Nexus was no longer a necessity.
79. On November 18, 2021, Shields told Finch she was scheduled to work at Nexus on
November 29, 2021.
80 Neighborhood scheduled Finch at Nexus as a calculated move to induce her to resign
because Shields knew Finch’s anxiety and arthritis would be aggravated.
81 Shields scheduled Finch for Nexus to intentionally deny her any reasonable
accommodations for her disabilities.
82. Shields made Finch wait an additional two weeks until November 29, 2021, to add her to the
work schedule as retaliation for her use of FMLA.
83 Shields made Finch wait an additional two weeks until November 29, 2021, to add her to the
work schedule in discrimination based on Finch’s disabilities.
84 . Shields discriminated against Finch based on her disabilities.
85 . Neighborhood discriminated against Finch based on her disabilities.
86 On December 10, 2021, Shields terminated Finch’s employment, just 10 days after her
return from FMLA.
87 Neighborhood has a progressive disciplinary system.
88 Finch had not been issued a verbal warning for absences or performance.
89 Finch had not been issued a written warning for absences or performance.
90. Finch had not been suspended for absences or performance.
91 Shields violated Neighborhood’s discipline policy when she terminated Finch’s
employment.
92 Shields does not violate the discipline policy when she terminates the employment of non
disabled employees.
93 Shields does not violate the discipline policy when she terminates the employment of
employees who have not made protected complaints.
94, Shields does not violate the discipline policy when she terminates the employment of
employees who have not used FMLA.
95 Skipping of disciplinary steps is an adverse action.
96. Shields skipped disciplinary steps to terminate Finch’s employment because she retaliated
against Finch for using FMLA.
97 Shields skipped disciplinary steps to terminate Finch’s employment because she
discriminated against Finch’s disability.
98 Termination of an employee because they used FMLA is a violation of law.
99 Termination of an employee based on their disability is disability discrimination under the
ADA and under R.C. 4112 et seq.
100. The termination of Finch’ employment constituted an adverse employment action.
101. The above facts demonstrate that Neighborhood engaged in a pattern and practice of
actual or perceived disability discrimination.
102. There was a causal connection between Finch’ disability or perceived disability and
Neighborhood’s termination of Finch.
103. There was a causal connection between Finch’s use of FMLA and Neighborhood’s
termination of her employment.
104. There was a causal connection between Finch’s protected activity and Neighborhood's
termination of her employment.
105. Neighborhood’s purported reason for Finch’ employment termination was pretextual.
106 Neighborhood terminated Finch’s employment in retaliation for her use of FMLA.
107 Neighborhood terminated Finch’ employment in an act of disability discrimination.
108 Neighborhood terminated Finch’ employment in retaliation for her protected complaints.
109. As a result of the above, Finch has suffered and will continue to suffer damages.
COUNT I: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 4112.01 ef seq.
110. Finch restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully
restated herein.
111. During her employment with Neighborhood, Finch suffered from and continues to suffer
from anxiety.
112. During her employment with Defendant, Finch suffered from and continues to suffer
from arthritis.
113. In the alternative, Neighborhood perceived Finch as being disabled.
114. Finch has a record of disability as a result of suffering from anxiety and arthritis.
115, Suffering from anxiety substantially impairs one or more of Finch major life functions,
including thinking and working.
116. Suffering from arthritis substantially impairs one or more of Finch major life functions,
including walking and working.
117. Despite any real or perceived disability, Finch could perform her essential job functions
with or without reasonable accommodations.
118. Neighborhood treated Finch differently than other similarly situated employees based on
her disabling conditions.
119. Neighborhood treated Finch differently than other similarly situated employees based on
her perceived disabling conditions.
120. Neighborhood violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. by discriminating against Finch based on
her disabling conditions.
121. Neighborhood violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. by discriminating against Finch based on
her perceived disabling conditions.
122. Neighborhood terminated Finch employment based on her disabilities.
123. Neighborhood terminated Finch employment based on her perceived disabilities.
124. Neighborhood violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. when it terminated Finch based on her
disabilities.
125. Neighborhood violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. when it terminated Finch based on her
perceived disabilities.
126. Finch suffered emotional distress as a result of Neighborhood conduct and is entitled to
emotional distress damages pursuant to R.C. § 4112.01 et seq.
10
127. Asa direct and proximate result of Neighborhood conduct, Finch suffered and will
continue to suffer damages, including economic and emotional distress damages
COUNT I: FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE UNDER R.C. 4112.01 et seq.
128. Finch restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully
restated herein.
129. Finch informed Neighborhood of her disabling condition.
130. Finch requested to work in a smaller, quieter location.
131, Finch requested not to be relocated to the larger, busier location known as Nexus.
132. Finch requested accommodations were reasonable.
133. There was an accommodation available that would have been effective and would have
not posed an undue hardship to Urban Ounce.
134. .Neighborhood failed to engage in the interactive process of determining whether Finch
needed an accommodation.
135. Neighborhood failed to provide an accommodation.
136. Neighborhood violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. by failing to provide Finch a reasonable
accommodation.
137. ' Finch suffered emotional distress as a result of Neighborhood conduct, and is entitled
emotional distress damages pursuant to R.C. § 4112.01 et seq.
138. Asa direct and proximate result of Neighborhood conduct, Finch suffered and will
continue to suffer damages, including economic and emotional distress damages.
COUNT Ill: RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 4112.02(1)
139, Finch restates each and every prior paragraph of this complaint, as if it were fully restated
herein.
11
140. Asa result of Neighborhood conduct described above, Finch complained about the
disability discrimination she was experiencing.
141, Subsequent to Finch reporting of disability discrimination, Neighborhood failed to
investigate her complaints.
142. Subsequent to Finch reporting of disability discrimination, Neighborhood failed to take
prompt remedial action.
143. Subsequent to Finch reporting of disability discrimination, Neighborhood ratified the
discrimination that she suffered.
144, Subsequent to Finch reporting of disability discrimination, Defendant terminated her
employment.
145. Neighborhood actions were retaliatory in nature based on Finch opposition to the
unlawful discrimination she was experiencing.
146. Pursuant to R.C. § 4112.02(1), it is an unlawful discriminatory practice “to discriminate
in any manner against any other person because that person has opposed any unlawful
discriminatory practice defined in this section...”
147. Finch suffered emotional distress as a result of Neighborhood conduct, and is entitled
emotional distress damages pursuant to R.C. § 4112.01 et seq.
148. Asa direct and proximate result of Neighborhood retaliatory discrimination against and
termination of Finch, Finch suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including
economic and emotional distress damages.
COUNT IV: AIDING DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 4112.02(J)
149. Finch restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully
restated herein.
12
150. Pursuant to R.C. § 4112.02(J), it is unlawful “[fJor any person to aid, abet, incite, compel,
or coerce the doing of any act declared by this section to be an unlawful discriminatory
practice...”
151. Defendant Sheilds aided, abetted, incited, coerced, and/or compelled Neighborhood’s
discriminatory adverse employment actions against Finch.
152. Defendants Sheilds aided, abetted, incited, coerced, and/or compelled Neighborhood’s
discriminatory treatment of Finch.
153. Defendants Sheilds violated R.C. § 4112.02(J) by aiding, abetting and inciting
discrimination.
154, Finch suffered emotional distress as a result of Defendants Sheilds’ conduct, and is
entitled emotional distress damages pursuant to R.C. § 4112.01 et seq.
155. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants Sheilds, Finch has suffered and will
continue to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness
damages.
156. In aiding, abetting and inciting discrimination against Finch based on age, race, and
gender discrimination, Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of
t
Finch, thereby entitling Rogers to an award of punitive damages.
COUNT V: UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH FMLA RIGHTS
157. Finch restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully
restated herein.
158. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., covered employers are required to provide
employees job-protected unpaid leave for qualified medical and family situations.
159. Neighborhood is a covered employer under the FMLA.
13
160. During her employment, Finch qualified for FMLA leave.
161 During her employment, Finch requested FMLA leave by asking Neighborhood for it.
162 Neighborhood failed to properly advise Finch of her rights under the FMLA.
163 Neighborhood unlawfully interfered with Finch’s exercise of her rights under the FMLA
in violation of Section 105 of the FMLA and section 825.220 of the FMLA regulations.
164. Shield’s delay in approving FMLA leave violated and interfered with Finch 's FMLA
rights.
165. Sheilds intentionally delayed to interfere with Finch’s FMLA rights.
166. Neighborhood violated section 825.300(c)(1) of the FMLA.
167. Asa direct and proximate result of Neighborhood conduct, Finch suffered and will
continue to suffer damages.
168. Asa direct and proximate result of Neighborhood conduct, Finch. is entitled to all
damages provided for in 29 U.S.C. § 2617, including liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney’s fees.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Jennifer Finch demands from Defendants the following:
(a) Issue a permanent injunction:
@ Requiring Neighborhood to abolish discrimination, harassment, and retaliation;
(ii) Requiring allocation of significant funding and trained staff to implement all changes
within two years;
(iii) Requiring removal or demotion of all supervisors who have engaged in discrimination,
harassment, or retaliation, and failed to meet their legal responsibility to promptly
14
investigate complaints and/or take effective action to stop and deter prohibited
personnel practices against employees;
(iv) Creating a process for the prompt investigation of discrimination, harassment, or
retaliation complaints; and
(v) Requiring mandatory and effective training for all employees and supervisors on
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation issues, investigations, and appropriate
corrective actions;
(b) Issue an order requiring Neighborhood to expunge Finch’ personnel file of all negative
documentation;
(c) Anaward against the Defendants of compensatory and monetary damages to compensate Finch
for physical injury, physical sickness, lost wages, emotional distress, and other consequential
damages, in an amount in excess of $25,000 per claim to be proven at trial;
(d) An award of punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $25,000;
(e) An award of reasonable attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs for Finch’ claims as allowable
under law;
(f) An award of the taxable costs of this action; and
(g) An award of such other relief as this Court may deem necessary and proper.
15
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patricia Brandt
Patricia Brandt (0099382)
Brian Spitz (0068816)
Spitz, THE EMPLOYEE’S LAW FIRM
25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Phone: (216) 291-4744
Fax: (216) 291-5744
Email: patricia.brandt@spitzlawfirm.com
brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com
Attorneys For Plaintiff Jennifer Finch
16
1 JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Jennifer Finch demands a trial by jury by the maximum number of jurors permitted.
/s/ Patricia Brandt
Patricia Brandt (0099382)
Brian Spitz (0068816)
Spritz, THE EMPLOYEE’S LAW FIRM
17
OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
Board of Commissioners: SEP Angela Phelps- White.
& Executive Director
Lori Barreras - Chair
WilliamW. Patmon, IIT aa
Eee
Madhu Singh Cee
Charlie, Winburn Rt
J. Rita McNeil Danish
Charging Party,
Jennifer L. Finch
Vv. Charge No.
Respondent, TOLB2(41614)08012022/22A-2022-03894C
Neighborhood Health Association of
Toledo, Inc:
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE.
Pursuant to.Ohio Revised Code 4112.051,.you may file a civil action against the Respondent(s)
alleging a violation of Ohio Revised Code 4112. The lawsuit may be filed in-any State of Ohio court that
has jurisdictions over the. matter. Ohio Revised Code 4112.052 and 4112.14 provides that such a civil
action must be filed within two years after the date of the alleged discriminatory practice. The time period
to file a civil action is tolled. during the pendency of the Commission investigation. You are adyised to
consult with an attorney to.détermine with accuracy the date by which a civil action must be filed. NOTE:
If you request reconsideration of the. Commissioni’s determination, this NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE will
be vacated. FOR FEDERAL COURT FILINGS: Notices of Right to: Sue utider‘federal law. will be issued
by the EEOC.
FOR THE COMMISSION
William Sachin,
William E. Baskin, Jr.
Acting Toledo Regional Director
640 Jackson St., Suite 936
Toledo, OH 43604.
419-245-2900
Date. mailed; March 9, 2023
Preview
LUCAS COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE DESIGNATION G-4801-Cl-0202304676-000 TO: Bernie Quilter, Clerk of Courts CASE NO. Judge Eric Allen Marks JUDGE The following type of case is being filed: Professional Malpractice Legal Malpractice (L) Medical Malpractice (M) CL] roduct Liability (B) Other Tort (C) By submitting the complaint, with the signature of the Attorney, the Attorney Workers' Compensation affirms that the name of person with State Funded (D) settlement authority and his/her direct Self Insured (K) phone number will be provided upon request to a party or counsel in this matter Administrative Appeal (F) Commercial Docket ct(-JAppropriation ther Civil Consumer Fraud (N{_]Forfeiture (P) [_] Court Ordered Other Civil (H) CIcertificate of Title [_ ]Copyright Infringement (W) This case was previously dismissed pursuant to CIVIL RULE 41 and is to be assigned to Judge , the original Judge at the time of dismissal. The previously filed case number was CI This case is a civil forfeiture case with a criminal case currently pending. The pending case number is, , assigned to Judge This case is a Declaratory Judgment case with a personal injury or related case currently pending. The pending case number is , assigned to Judge This case is to be reviewed for consolidation in accordance with Local Rule 5.02 as a companion or related case. This designation sheet will be sent by the Clerk of Courts to the newly assigned Judge for review with the Judge who has the companion or related case with the lowest case number. The Judge who would receive the consolidated case may accept or deny consolidation of the case. Both Judges will sign this designation sheet to indicate the action taken. If the Judge with the lowest case number agrees to accept, the reassignment of the case by the Administration Judge shall be processed. If there is a disagreement between the Judges regarding consolidation, the matter may be referred to the Administrative Judge. Related/companion case number. Assigned Judge Approve/Deny Date Approve/Deny Date Attorney Patricia Brandt Address 25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone (216) 291-4744 EFILED LUCAS COUN’ 12/15/2023 12:06 F COMMON PLEAS COU! BERNIE QUILTER, CLEI ENV#: 922 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO G-4801-Cl-0202304676-000 JENNIFER FINCH CASE NO. 47 Curwood Road Judge Eric Allen Marks Holland, OH 43528 JUDGE: Plaintiff, Vv. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF TOLEDO, INC. (JURY DEMAND ENDORSED 313 Jefferson Ave HEREIN) Toledo, OH 43604 Serve also: Carl E. Habekost, Esq. (Stat. Agent) 405 Madison Ave, Suite 1900 Toledo, OH 43604 -and- REBECCA SHIELDS 401 W Water St Oak Harbor, OH 43449 Defendants Plaintiff, Jennifer Finch, by and through undersigned counsel, as her Complaint against the Defendants, states and avers the following: PARTIES Finch is a resident of Lucas County, State of Ohio. Defendant Neighborhood Health Association of Toledo, Inc. (“Neighborhood”) is a corporation for non-profit that conducts business in the state of Ohio. The events underlying Plaintiff's claims in this Complaint took place at Neighborhood’s location at 117 Main Street, Toledo, Lucas County, OH 43605. Neighborhood is at all times hereinafter mentioned, Finch’s employer within the meaning of the Ohio Revised Code § 4112.01 et seq., Ohio Revised Code § 4123 et seq., and The Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C § 2601 ef seq. At all times referenced herein, Shields was a person within the meaning of R.C. §4112. Within 300 days of the adverse employment action described herein, Finch filed a dual- Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC”) against Neighborhood and Sheilds, Charge No. TOLB2(41614)08012022/22A-2022-03894C (“OCRC Charge”). The OCRC issued Finch a Notice of Right to Sue on March 9, 2023, which is attached as Exhibit A. Finch exhausted all administrative remedies. JURISDICTION AND VENUE , All the material events alleged in this Complaint occurred in or around Lucas County, Ohio. 10. Therefore, personal jurisdiction is proper over Defendant pursuant to R.C. § 2307.382(A)(1) and/or (3). ll Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and to Civ. R. 3(C)(1), (3), and/or (6). 12. This Court is a court of general jurisdiction over the claims presented herein, including all subject matters of this Complaint. FACTS 13 Finch is a former employee of Neighborhood. 14 At all times noted herein, Finch was qualified for her position with Neighborhood. 15 At all times noted herein, Finch could fully perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodations. 16. Finch suffers from anxiety and arthritis, placing her in a protected class for disability, and in the alternative, her perceived disability. 17. Finch first joined Neighborhood on November 25, 2019. 18 Neighborhood paid Finch $16.00 hourly for her work as a scheduling coordinator. 19 Finch worked an average of 37 hours weekly for Neighborhood. 20. Finch participated in employee benefits provided by Neighborhood to include medical and retirement programs. 21 Jeanette Barnes, whose title was patient access manager, was Finch’s supervisor. 22. Rebecca Shields, whose title was human resource manager, was Finch’s supervisor. 23 In August 2021, Finch applied for FMLA to care for her minor child’s serious health condition. 24 Finch was approved for FMLA. 25 Almost simultaneously with the approval of FMLA, Neighborhood told Finch she was being relocated to a larger, busier office called Nexus. 26 Finch told Barnes and Shields that relocating to her Nexus would negatively affect her own health because she had severe anxiety. 27. Finch said that the busier office was much louder and required more interaction with people, which would trigger her anxiety. 28 Finch said that the busier office was also much larger and required significantly more walking which would exacerbate her arthritis. 29 Finch asked Barnes and Shields to not relocate her as a condition of using her FMLA. 30. Barnes and Shields told Finch if she wanted to participate in FMLA, she had to relocate to Nexus. 31 Barnes and Shields were put on notice by Finch that she was disabled. 32. Barnes and Shields did not engage Finch in an interactive process to determine what, if any, reasonable accommodations were available to Finch. 33 Finch requested a reasonable accommodation when she told Barnes and Shields that she did not want to be relocated. 34 Barnes and Shields failed to accommodate Finch, 35 Failure to abide by reasonable accommodations is discrimination under the ADA. 36 Finch used vacation time off from work after notifying Barnes and Shields of her disability. 37. Upon Finch’s return from vacation, on or about August 10, 2021, she saw she was scheduled to work at Nexus. 38. Finch went to a podiatrist appointment before returning to work 4t Neighborhood after her vacation. 39, Finch’s podiatrist restricted her from working for two weeks. 40, The podiatrist’s restriction was based on Finch’s disability. 4l Finch told Neighborhood her return-to-work date was August 23, 2021. 42, While on medical leave, Finch saw a doctor for her anxiety. 43 Finch’s doctor restricted her from working for two weeks. 44 The doctor’s restriction was based on Finch’s disability. 45 Finch submitted her doctor’s notes to Shields. 46. Shields’s receipt of Finch’s doctor’s notes put Neighborhood on notice that Finch required a reasonable accommodation for her disabilities. 47 Shields’s receipt of Finch’s doctor’s notes put Neighborhood on notice that Finch required to be given notice of her FMLA eligibility. 48 On or about August 27, 2021, Shields contacted Finch and told her the doctor notes were rejected by Neighborhood because one note was from a doctor who has a working relationship with Finch through her job at Neighborhood. 49 Having a working relationship with a doctor through employment duties is not a valid reason to refuse to accept that doctor’s medical treatment or restrictions. 50 Shields ordered Finch to return to work the following Monday. 51 Shields did not reject doctor notes from employees with physical injuries. 52 Shields did not reject doctor notes from employees who did not use FMLA. 53 Shields rejected Finch’s doctor note in retaliation for Finch’s request of FMLA. 54 Shields rejected Finch’s doctor note because she discriminated against Finch’s disability. 55. Finch called off from work on August 30, 2021, and August 31, 2021. 56 Finch sought treatment from a critical therapist who was not known to Finch through her work at Neighborhood. 57 The critical therapist restricted Finch from working for one month. 58. The critical therapist’s restriction was based on Finch’s disability. 59 Finch submitted her critical therapist’s note to Barnes because the last two notes were rejected by Shields. 60. On August 31, 2021, Barnes received the critical therapist’s note and told Finch to “reach out to HR and request FMLA paperwork.” 61 Finch made multiple calls and sent multiple emails to Shields asking for an FMLA application. 62. After not receiving a response from Shields, Finch wrote a complaint to Barnes and Shields that her previous doctor notes were not accepted, and she had not been sent FMLA notification or papers.(“Protected Activity”) 63 On September 1, 2021, Shields responded to Finch’s email that she would send the FMLA application soon, but she did not include FMLA papers in that email. 64. Finch wrote a complaint to Barnes and Shields that Shields’ continued delay in providing FMLA notice, or papers was an interference of her FMLA rights. (“Protected Activity”) 65 After Finch’s second complaint about FMLA violations, Shields sent FMLA documents to Finch. 66. On September 11, 2021, Finch wrote a letter to Barnes and Shields complaining of disability discrimination, FMLA retaliation, and FMLA interference. 67 On September 13, 2021, Finch’s therapist submitted the FMLA application to Shields. 68 After receiving Finch’s FMLA application from Finch’s therapist, Shields intentionally delayed in approving Finch’s FMLA leave. 69 Shields sent requests to speak with Finch’s therapist on September 16, 2021, September 17, 2021, and September 20, 2021. 70 Shields’ calls to the therapist were to find out the details of Finch’s treatment plan. 71 Shields refused to approve Finch’s FMLA until she was personally satisfied with the medial treatment plan. 72 Shields did not request medical treatment plans for employees who applied for FMLA as a result of physical injuries. 73 Shields discriminated against Finch because her disability was mental impairment. 74. An employee is not mandated to provide a treatment plan in order to be approved for FMLA leave. 75 Shields’s intentional delay to approve Finch’s FMLA without knowing the medical treatment plan was interference with Finch’s FMLA rights. 76 After Finch’s FMLA was approved, Neighborhood retaliated against her for her complaints of discrimination and FMLA retaliation and interference. 77 On or about November 17, 2021, Finch was supposed to return to work, but Neighborhood did not place her on the schedule. 78 On or about November 17, 2021, Finch notified Neighborhood that she no longer needed to use FMLA to care for her son’s medical condition, therefore the conditional placement at Nexus was no longer a necessity. 79. On November 18, 2021, Shields told Finch she was scheduled to work at Nexus on November 29, 2021. 80 Neighborhood scheduled Finch at Nexus as a calculated move to induce her to resign because Shields knew Finch’s anxiety and arthritis would be aggravated. 81 Shields scheduled Finch for Nexus to intentionally deny her any reasonable accommodations for her disabilities. 82. Shields made Finch wait an additional two weeks until November 29, 2021, to add her to the work schedule as retaliation for her use of FMLA. 83 Shields made Finch wait an additional two weeks until November 29, 2021, to add her to the work schedule in discrimination based on Finch’s disabilities. 84 . Shields discriminated against Finch based on her disabilities. 85 . Neighborhood discriminated against Finch based on her disabilities. 86 On December 10, 2021, Shields terminated Finch’s employment, just 10 days after her return from FMLA. 87 Neighborhood has a progressive disciplinary system. 88 Finch had not been issued a verbal warning for absences or performance. 89 Finch had not been issued a written warning for absences or performance. 90. Finch had not been suspended for absences or performance. 91 Shields violated Neighborhood’s discipline policy when she terminated Finch’s employment. 92 Shields does not violate the discipline policy when she terminates the employment of non disabled employees. 93 Shields does not violate the discipline policy when she terminates the employment of employees who have not made protected complaints. 94, Shields does not violate the discipline policy when she terminates the employment of employees who have not used FMLA. 95 Skipping of disciplinary steps is an adverse action. 96. Shields skipped disciplinary steps to terminate Finch’s employment because she retaliated against Finch for using FMLA. 97 Shields skipped disciplinary steps to terminate Finch’s employment because she discriminated against Finch’s disability. 98 Termination of an employee because they used FMLA is a violation of law. 99 Termination of an employee based on their disability is disability discrimination under the ADA and under R.C. 4112 et seq. 100. The termination of Finch’ employment constituted an adverse employment action. 101. The above facts demonstrate that Neighborhood engaged in a pattern and practice of actual or perceived disability discrimination. 102. There was a causal connection between Finch’ disability or perceived disability and Neighborhood’s termination of Finch. 103. There was a causal connection between Finch’s use of FMLA and Neighborhood’s termination of her employment. 104. There was a causal connection between Finch’s protected activity and Neighborhood's termination of her employment. 105. Neighborhood’s purported reason for Finch’ employment termination was pretextual. 106 Neighborhood terminated Finch’s employment in retaliation for her use of FMLA. 107 Neighborhood terminated Finch’ employment in an act of disability discrimination. 108 Neighborhood terminated Finch’ employment in retaliation for her protected complaints. 109. As a result of the above, Finch has suffered and will continue to suffer damages. COUNT I: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 4112.01 ef seq. 110. Finch restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated herein. 111. During her employment with Neighborhood, Finch suffered from and continues to suffer from anxiety. 112. During her employment with Defendant, Finch suffered from and continues to suffer from arthritis. 113. In the alternative, Neighborhood perceived Finch as being disabled. 114. Finch has a record of disability as a result of suffering from anxiety and arthritis. 115, Suffering from anxiety substantially impairs one or more of Finch major life functions, including thinking and working. 116. Suffering from arthritis substantially impairs one or more of Finch major life functions, including walking and working. 117. Despite any real or perceived disability, Finch could perform her essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodations. 118. Neighborhood treated Finch differently than other similarly situated employees based on her disabling conditions. 119. Neighborhood treated Finch differently than other similarly situated employees based on her perceived disabling conditions. 120. Neighborhood violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. by discriminating against Finch based on her disabling conditions. 121. Neighborhood violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. by discriminating against Finch based on her perceived disabling conditions. 122. Neighborhood terminated Finch employment based on her disabilities. 123. Neighborhood terminated Finch employment based on her perceived disabilities. 124. Neighborhood violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. when it terminated Finch based on her disabilities. 125. Neighborhood violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. when it terminated Finch based on her perceived disabilities. 126. Finch suffered emotional distress as a result of Neighborhood conduct and is entitled to emotional distress damages pursuant to R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. 10 127. Asa direct and proximate result of Neighborhood conduct, Finch suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic and emotional distress damages COUNT I: FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE UNDER R.C. 4112.01 et seq. 128. Finch restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated herein. 129. Finch informed Neighborhood of her disabling condition. 130. Finch requested to work in a smaller, quieter location. 131, Finch requested not to be relocated to the larger, busier location known as Nexus. 132. Finch requested accommodations were reasonable. 133. There was an accommodation available that would have been effective and would have not posed an undue hardship to Urban Ounce. 134. .Neighborhood failed to engage in the interactive process of determining whether Finch needed an accommodation. 135. Neighborhood failed to provide an accommodation. 136. Neighborhood violated R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. by failing to provide Finch a reasonable accommodation. 137. ' Finch suffered emotional distress as a result of Neighborhood conduct, and is entitled emotional distress damages pursuant to R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. 138. Asa direct and proximate result of Neighborhood conduct, Finch suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic and emotional distress damages. COUNT Ill: RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 4112.02(1) 139, Finch restates each and every prior paragraph of this complaint, as if it were fully restated herein. 11 140. Asa result of Neighborhood conduct described above, Finch complained about the disability discrimination she was experiencing. 141, Subsequent to Finch reporting of disability discrimination, Neighborhood failed to investigate her complaints. 142. Subsequent to Finch reporting of disability discrimination, Neighborhood failed to take prompt remedial action. 143. Subsequent to Finch reporting of disability discrimination, Neighborhood ratified the discrimination that she suffered. 144, Subsequent to Finch reporting of disability discrimination, Defendant terminated her employment. 145. Neighborhood actions were retaliatory in nature based on Finch opposition to the unlawful discrimination she was experiencing. 146. Pursuant to R.C. § 4112.02(1), it is an unlawful discriminatory practice “to discriminate in any manner against any other person because that person has opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice defined in this section...” 147. Finch suffered emotional distress as a result of Neighborhood conduct, and is entitled emotional distress damages pursuant to R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. 148. Asa direct and proximate result of Neighborhood retaliatory discrimination against and termination of Finch, Finch suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic and emotional distress damages. COUNT IV: AIDING DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 4112.02(J) 149. Finch restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated herein. 12 150. Pursuant to R.C. § 4112.02(J), it is unlawful “[fJor any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any act declared by this section to be an unlawful discriminatory practice...” 151. Defendant Sheilds aided, abetted, incited, coerced, and/or compelled Neighborhood’s discriminatory adverse employment actions against Finch. 152. Defendants Sheilds aided, abetted, incited, coerced, and/or compelled Neighborhood’s discriminatory treatment of Finch. 153. Defendants Sheilds violated R.C. § 4112.02(J) by aiding, abetting and inciting discrimination. 154, Finch suffered emotional distress as a result of Defendants Sheilds’ conduct, and is entitled emotional distress damages pursuant to R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. 155. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants Sheilds, Finch has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness damages. 156. In aiding, abetting and inciting discrimination against Finch based on age, race, and gender discrimination, Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of t Finch, thereby entitling Rogers to an award of punitive damages. COUNT V: UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH FMLA RIGHTS 157. Finch restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated herein. 158. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., covered employers are required to provide employees job-protected unpaid leave for qualified medical and family situations. 159. Neighborhood is a covered employer under the FMLA. 13 160. During her employment, Finch qualified for FMLA leave. 161 During her employment, Finch requested FMLA leave by asking Neighborhood for it. 162 Neighborhood failed to properly advise Finch of her rights under the FMLA. 163 Neighborhood unlawfully interfered with Finch’s exercise of her rights under the FMLA in violation of Section 105 of the FMLA and section 825.220 of the FMLA regulations. 164. Shield’s delay in approving FMLA leave violated and interfered with Finch 's FMLA rights. 165. Sheilds intentionally delayed to interfere with Finch’s FMLA rights. 166. Neighborhood violated section 825.300(c)(1) of the FMLA. 167. Asa direct and proximate result of Neighborhood conduct, Finch suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 168. Asa direct and proximate result of Neighborhood conduct, Finch. is entitled to all damages provided for in 29 U.S.C. § 2617, including liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Jennifer Finch demands from Defendants the following: (a) Issue a permanent injunction: @ Requiring Neighborhood to abolish discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; (ii) Requiring allocation of significant funding and trained staff to implement all changes within two years; (iii) Requiring removal or demotion of all supervisors who have engaged in discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, and failed to meet their legal responsibility to promptly 14 investigate complaints and/or take effective action to stop and deter prohibited personnel practices against employees; (iv) Creating a process for the prompt investigation of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation complaints; and (v) Requiring mandatory and effective training for all employees and supervisors on discrimination, harassment, and retaliation issues, investigations, and appropriate corrective actions; (b) Issue an order requiring Neighborhood to expunge Finch’ personnel file of all negative documentation; (c) Anaward against the Defendants of compensatory and monetary damages to compensate Finch for physical injury, physical sickness, lost wages, emotional distress, and other consequential damages, in an amount in excess of $25,000 per claim to be proven at trial; (d) An award of punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $25,000; (e) An award of reasonable attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs for Finch’ claims as allowable under law; (f) An award of the taxable costs of this action; and (g) An award of such other relief as this Court may deem necessary and proper. 15 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patricia Brandt Patricia Brandt (0099382) Brian Spitz (0068816) Spitz, THE EMPLOYEE’S LAW FIRM 25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: patricia.brandt@spitzlawfirm.com brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Jennifer Finch 16 1 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Jennifer Finch demands a trial by jury by the maximum number of jurors permitted. /s/ Patricia Brandt Patricia Brandt (0099382) Brian Spitz (0068816) Spritz, THE EMPLOYEE’S LAW FIRM 17 OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Board of Commissioners: SEP Angela Phelps- White. & Executive Director Lori Barreras - Chair WilliamW. Patmon, IIT aa Eee Madhu Singh Cee Charlie, Winburn Rt J. Rita McNeil Danish Charging Party, Jennifer L. Finch Vv. Charge No. Respondent, TOLB2(41614)08012022/22A-2022-03894C Neighborhood Health Association of Toledo, Inc: NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE. Pursuant to.Ohio Revised Code 4112.051,.you may file a civil action against the Respondent(s) alleging a violation of Ohio Revised Code 4112. The lawsuit may be filed in-any State of Ohio court that has jurisdictions over the. matter. Ohio Revised Code 4112.052 and 4112.14 provides that such a civil action must be filed within two years after the date of the alleged discriminatory practice. The time period to file a civil action is tolled. during the pendency of the Commission investigation. You are adyised to consult with an attorney to.détermine with accuracy the date by which a civil action must be filed. NOTE: If you request reconsideration of the. Commissioni’s determination, this NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE will be vacated. FOR FEDERAL COURT FILINGS: Notices of Right to: Sue utider‘federal law. will be issued by the EEOC. FOR THE COMMISSION William Sachin, William E. Baskin, Jr. Acting Toledo Regional Director 640 Jackson St., Suite 936 Toledo, OH 43604. 419-245-2900 Date. mailed; March 9, 2023