prathyushreddy1991/legalMVP · Datasets at Fast360

text stringlengths 0 6.19k
case_11124462 (unknown)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEREMY SPAK, : No. 24cv185
Plaintiff :
: (Judge Munley)
v. :
THE OSCAR SMITH COMPANY; and :
CLIFFORD MUENCH, owner and :
president of Oscar Smith, :
Defendants :

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Jeremy Spak asserts claims against his former employer, the
Oscar Smith Company (“Oscar Smith’), for disability discrimination and retaliatior
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§
12101, et seg. (‘ADA’) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 PA. STAT.
§§ 951, et seg. (‘PHRA’). Spak also alleges that Defendant Clifford Muench,
Oscar Smith’s owner and president, is liable for unlawful and discriminatory
employment practices under the PHRA’s aiding and abetting provisions.
Before the court is a motion filed by defendants to dismiss Spak’s
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 7).
Defendants’ motion is ripe for disposition.

Background
At the heart of this case are Spak’s allegations that defendants unlawfully
terminated his employment with Oscar Smith because of his history of drug
abuse—a decision he contends was driven by discriminatory bias rather than

legitimate business reasons. Defendants hired Spak as a general laborer in the

Oscar Smith’s office located in Swoyersville, Pennsylvania in June 2022.‘ (Doc.
1, Compl. J 15). Spak performed his job well, without any misconduct, for
approximately six (6) months. (Id. 16). As alleged, during his employment with

Oscar Smith, Spak received positive feedback. (Id.)
Plaintiff contends that he voluntarily checked himself into an in-patient
rehabilitation program for opiate addiction more than six (6) months before
commencing his employment with Oscar Smith. (Id. \| 17). According to Spak’s
complaint, he was in rehab from the first week of November 2021 until
Thanksgiving of 2021. (Id. J 18). It is alleged that Spak had not used opiates or
other illegal drugs since completing rehabilitation. (Id. \| 19). Specifically, Spak
avers that he did not engage in the use of illegal drugs during his employment
with Oscar Smith. (Id.)

1 These background facts are derived from plaintiffs complaint. At this stage of the
proceedings, the court must accept all factual allegations as true. Phillips v. Cnty, of
Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted}. The court makes no
determination, however, as to the ultimate veracity of these assertions.

At the time of his hiring nor at any point during his employment, did Spak
voluntarily disclose his history of addiction to Oscar Smith or its owner and

president, Defendant Muench. (Id. {\| 20). However, as alleged, he may have

alluded to his history of addiction during a conversation with Defendant Muench’s

son, Kevin Muench. (Id. 21). The conversation concerned Kevin Muench's

sister—also Defendant Muench’s daughter— and focused on her repeated stints

in rehabilitation programs. (Id,) According to Spak, he may have remarked that

he could relate to her situation, but did not reveal that he also had undergone
rehabilitation for substance abuse. (ld. J 22). The complaint does not state when

the conversation between Kevin Muench and Spak took place.
On December 12, 2022, Defendant Muench, Oscar Smith’s owner and

president, instructed Spak through a text message to attend work early in the

morning. (Id. 9] 23). When Spak arrived to work, Muench was the only one

present at the shop. (Id. / 24). Muench informed Spak that he would provide the
transportation to the job site. (Id.) While on the road, Defendant Muench
allegedly inquired about Spak’s drug recovery and whether he was attending
“any meetings or doing anything else to stay sober.” (Id. {[ 25). In response,
Spak explained that he was a “one and done” case as he had voluntarily
committed himself to rehabilitation when he decided to end his drug use. (Id. □
26). Spak further explained to Defendant Muench that he did not believe he

needed to attend sobriety meetings. (Id.) Spak also emphasized that each

individual is different. (Id.) Per Spak, he thought the conversation went well as

he continued the rest of the workday without incident. (ld. {J 27-28).
The following day, however, Defendant Muench instructed Spak that the

“job was cancelled and therefore there was no work for him.” (Id. {] 29). Then, on

December 14, 2022, when Spak called Defendant Muench to inquire whether he

was needed at work, Muench responded in the negative and told him that he

would call him later. (Id. ] 30). That same day, Muench called Spak to terminate

his employment. (id. 31). Muench allegedly told Spak over the phone that he

could not trust him any longer since he was not attending any sobriety meetings.

case_11124462 (unknown)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEREMY SPAK, : No. 24cv185

Plaintiff :

: (Judge Munley)

v. :

THE OSCAR SMITH COMPANY; and :

CLIFFORD MUENCH, owner and :

president of Oscar Smith, :

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Jeremy Spak asserts claims against his former employer, the

Oscar Smith Company (“Oscar Smith’), for disability discrimination and retaliatior

pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§

12101, et seg. (‘ADA’) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 PA. STAT.

§§ 951, et seg. (‘PHRA’). Spak also alleges that Defendant Clifford Muench,

Oscar Smith’s owner and president, is liable for unlawful and discriminatory

employment practices under the PHRA’s aiding and abetting provisions.

Before the court is a motion filed by defendants to dismiss Spak’s

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 7).

Defendants’ motion is ripe for disposition.

Background

At the heart of this case are Spak’s allegations that defendants unlawfully

terminated his employment with Oscar Smith because of his history of drug

abuse—a decision he contends was driven by discriminatory bias rather than

legitimate business reasons. Defendants hired Spak as a general laborer in the

Oscar Smith’s office located in Swoyersville, Pennsylvania in June 2022.‘ (Doc.

1, Compl. J 15). Spak performed his job well, without any misconduct, for

approximately six (6) months. (Id. 16). As alleged, during his employment with

Oscar Smith, Spak received positive feedback. (Id.)

Plaintiff contends that he voluntarily checked himself into an in-patient

rehabilitation program for opiate addiction more than six (6) months before

commencing his employment with Oscar Smith. (Id. | 17). According to Spak’s

complaint, he was in rehab from the first week of November 2021 until

Thanksgiving of 2021. (Id. J 18). It is alleged that Spak had not used opiates or

other illegal drugs since completing rehabilitation. (Id. | 19). Specifically, Spak

avers that he did not engage in the use of illegal drugs during his employment

with Oscar Smith. (Id.)

1 These background facts are derived from plaintiffs complaint. At this stage of the

proceedings, the court must accept all factual allegations as true. Phillips v. Cnty, of

Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted}. The court makes no

determination, however, as to the ultimate veracity of these assertions.

At the time of his hiring nor at any point during his employment, did Spak

voluntarily disclose his history of addiction to Oscar Smith or its owner and

president, Defendant Muench. (Id. {| 20). However, as alleged, he may have

alluded to his history of addiction during a conversation with Defendant Muench’s

son, Kevin Muench. (Id. 21). The conversation concerned Kevin Muench's

sister—also Defendant Muench’s daughter— and focused on her repeated stints

in rehabilitation programs. (Id,) According to Spak, he may have remarked that

he could relate to her situation, but did not reveal that he also had undergone

rehabilitation for substance abuse. (ld. J 22). The complaint does not state when

the conversation between Kevin Muench and Spak took place.

On December 12, 2022, Defendant Muench, Oscar Smith’s owner and

president, instructed Spak through a text message to attend work early in the

morning. (Id. 9] 23). When Spak arrived to work, Muench was the only one

present at the shop. (Id. / 24). Muench informed Spak that he would provide the

transportation to the job site. (Id.) While on the road, Defendant Muench

allegedly inquired about Spak’s drug recovery and whether he was attending

“any meetings or doing anything else to stay sober.” (Id. {[ 25). In response,

Spak explained that he was a “one and done” case as he had voluntarily

committed himself to rehabilitation when he decided to end his drug use. (Id. □

26). Spak further explained to Defendant Muench that he did not believe he

needed to attend sobriety meetings. (Id.) Spak also emphasized that each

individual is different. (Id.) Per Spak, he thought the conversation went well as

he continued the rest of the workday without incident. (ld. {J 27-28).

The following day, however, Defendant Muench instructed Spak that the

“job was cancelled and therefore there was no work for him.” (Id. {] 29). Then, on

December 14, 2022, when Spak called Defendant Muench to inquire whether he

was needed at work, Muench responded in the negative and told him that he

would call him later. (Id. ] 30). That same day, Muench called Spak to terminate

his employment. (id. 31). Muench allegedly told Spak over the phone that he

could not trust him any longer since he was not attending any sobriety meetings.