Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 1 of 18 15 44 (Rev. 06/17) purpose of initiating the civii docket sheet. 51?; CIVIL COVER SHEET The ES 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neithe1 1e lace nor su provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Cone erence of th (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM) lement the ?lin and service of pleadings 01' other papers as required by law, except as nited States to epternber 1974, 15 required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the I. Christopher Welsh County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Philadelphia DEFENDANTS (EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES) (0) Attorneys (Fit in Name. Addt ess and I?elepitone Number) Caren N. Gurmank in, Esq. ., Console Mattiacci Law 1525 Locust Street, 9th Fioor, Phila. PA 19102 215-545-7676 NOTE: Attorneys (If Known) Defender Association of Philadelphia County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Philadelphia (IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE HE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an in One Box Only) (For Diversity Cases Only) CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an in One BoxforP/ainti? and One Boxfor Defendant) 1 US. Government 2? 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (US. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State Cl 1 1'3 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 Cl 4 of Business In This State 2 US. Government C1 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 13 2 Cl 2 incorporated and Principal Place 5 Cl 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship qf?Partt?es in Item of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a if] 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 Cl 6 Foreign IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place :11er tn One Box Only) Click here 101: Nature oi Suit Code Descri lions SLIBANKRUPTCY STATUTES 10 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY Cl 625 Drug Related Seizure 1'3 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 El 375 False Claims Act 121 120 Marine Cl 310 Airplane El 365 Personal Injury of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal Cl 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 1:1 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a)) El 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 367 Health Care/ 1'3 400 State Reapportionment Cl 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel Pharmaceutical ii; El 410 Antitrust Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 430 Banks and Banking El 151 Medicare Act El 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability El 830 Patent I3 450 Commerce El 152 Recoveiy of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation Student Loans 13 340 Marine injury Product New Drug Application C1 470 Racketeer In?uenced and (Excludes Veterans) Cl 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations Cl 153 Recovely ovaell)aytnerrt Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY . CIAUSE 13 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran?s Bene?ts 350 Motor Vehicle E1 370 Other Fraud El 710 Fair Labor Standards Cl 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV 13 160 Stockholders? Suits E1 355 Motor Vehicle [3 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Comrnodities/ 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal C1 720 Labor/Management CI 863 (405(g)) Exchange 0 195 Contract Product Liability CI 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 3811) Title XVI Cl 890 Other Statutory Actions CI 196 Franchise Injury 13 385 Propeny Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 (405(g)) I3 891 Agricuttural Acts 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability if] 751 Family and Medical C3 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice ZRIGH P- CI 440 Other Civil Rights 13 441 Voting (X 442 Employment 443 Housing] Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 13 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - Other Cl 448 Education Cl 210 Land Condemnation CI 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease Ejecttnent Cl 240 Torts to Land Cl 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property Habeas Corpus: Cl 463 Alien Detainee 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 530 General 535 Death Penalty Other: [1 540 Mandatnus Other 13 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition CI 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement NS'r'i: El 790 Other Labor Litigation Cl 462 Naturalization Application Leave Act 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act if?? IMMIGRATION 465 Other Immigration Actions . I: C) 870 Taxes (US. Plaintiff or Defendant) Cl 87] [RS?Third Party 26 USC 7609 895 Freedom of lnfonnation Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes V. ORIGIN (Place an in One Box Only) Ml Original 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court 3 Remanded from 4 Appellate Court VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief descri tion of cause: Reinstated or Reopened Another (8116603)) Plaintif is alleging FMLA violations and retaliation. 5 Transferred from District Transfer Cite the US. Civil Statute under which you are ?ling (Do not clt?ajurt'sdt'cttotml statutes unless diversity): 29 USC. 62601. et seq. and 43 PS. 81421. at sea. CI 6 Multidistrict Litigation- El 8 Multidistrict Litigation Direct File REQUESTED IN Cl CHECK IF THIS rs A CLASS ACTION DEMAND CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: UNDER RULE 23, in excess of $75,000 JURY 19; Yes 0N0 RELATED IF ANY (See instructions): A JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER DATE SIGNEEOF ATTORNEY REC RD 29/14/2017 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Caren N. Gurma - Esquire RECEIPT it AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 2 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APPENDIX FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate calendar. Christopher Welsh, Philadelphia, PA 19129 Defender Association of Philadelphia, 1441 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102 Address of Plaintiff: Address of Defendant: Place of Accident, Incident or Trans action: (Use Reverse Side For Additional Sauce) Does this civil action involve a nongovemm ental corporate party with any parent corporali on and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock? (Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.161)). YesE3 Noll Does this case involve multidistriet litigation possibilities? Yes RELATED CASE, Case Number: Fudge Date Terminated: Civil cases are deem ed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions: 1. Is this case relatedto property inclu dedin an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yesm N061 2. Does this case involve the same issue effect or grow out of the same transaction as aprior suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? YesD Neg] 3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? YesD New CIVIL: (Place t/ in one CATEGORY ONLY) A. Federal Question Cares: B. thrisdie?on Cases: 1. Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts 1. Insurance Contract and Other Contracts 2. El FELA 2. Airplane Personal Injury 3. Jones Act-Personal Injury 3. Assault, Defamation 4, Antitrust 4. El Marine Personal Injury 5. [3 Patent 5. Motor Vehicle Personal Injury 6. LaboruManagernent Relations 6. Other Personal Injury (Please specify) 7. Civil Rights 7. i3 Products Liability 8. El Haber-15 Corpus 8. Products Liability Asbestos 9. El Securities Act(s) Cases 9. All other Diversity Cases 10. Cl Social Security Review Cases (Please specify) 11. Cl All other Federal Question Cases (Please specify) ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION (Check appropriate Category) I, Caren . Gurmankln, counsel ofrecord do hereby certify: Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section that to the best ofmy knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceedthe sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs; Relief other than monetary damages is sought. DATE: Sept. 14? 2017 205900 Attomey-at-La'w Attorney me NOTE: A trial de novo will be atrial by Ju only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38. I ratify that, to my knowledge, thewithin case is not related to any case new pending or within 0 year previously terminated action in this court except as noted above. WE: Sept. 14,2017 7 Caren N. Guygnkin, Esquire-um. 205900 Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 3 of 18 APPENDIX I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM Christopher Welsh . CIVII ACTION v' Plaintiff, Defender Association of Philadelphia Defendant. NO. In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of ?ling the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (S ee 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form .) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its ?rst appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a case management track designation form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned. SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS: Habeas Corpus Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. ?2241 through ?2255. Social Security Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Bene?ts (0) Arbitration Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. Asbestos Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos. Special Management Cases that do not fall into tracks through that are comm only referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special management cases.) Standard Management Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks. C) C) C) (X) Sept. 14, 2017 (is: Plaintiff, Christopher Welsh Date Alimony/law Attorney for Plaintiff 4215) 545-7876 (215) 5 5-9853 qurmankin@consolelaw.com Telephone FAX Number E-Mail Address (Civ. 660) mm Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 4 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CHRISTOPHER WELSH Philadelphia, PA 19129 CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff, v. DEFENDER ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA 1441 Sansom Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Christopher Welsh, brings this action against his employer, Defender Association of Philadelphia (?Defendant?). When Plaintiff, a twelve (12) year veteran of Defendant, discovered that one (1) of Defendant?s attorneys had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (representing hundreds of Defendant?s juvenile clients over an approximately six (6) month period) while that attorney was administratively suspended, Plaintiff immediately reported the same to the Chief Defender, Keir Bradford-Grey, and the First Assistant Defender, James McHugh. Bradford?Grey?s response was to yell at Plaintiff; tell him that she did not trust him and that he was not part of the team; chastise him for ?investigating? the attorney engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; and, Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 5 of 18 tell him that, ?you better hope no one goes poking around the skeletons in your closet.? Defendant did not take action to correct and/or remedy the situation that Plaintiff brought to its attention regarding the unlicensed attorney representing Defendant?s juvenile clients. Instead, just over two (2) months after Plaintiff reported the situation with the unlicensed attorney practicing law, he was issued a "Final Disciplinary Warning Performance Improvement Plan It was the first time in Plaintiff?s twelve (12) year career with Defendant that he had ever been disciplined for any performance?related issues. As a result of Plaintiff?s severe stress and anxiety resulting from Defendant?s hostile and retaliatory conduct, he took leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act On the same day that Plaintiff returned to work upon the conclusion of his FMLA leave, he was demoted. To date, Defendant has refused to inform Plaintiff what, if anything it has done regarding the situation with the unlicensed attorney engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (representing juveniles) that Plaintiff reported earlier this year, and what, if anything, it has done regarding his complaints of retaliation. Defendant has violated Plaintiff?s rights pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. ?2601, et seq. and the Whistleblower Law, 43 PS. ?1421, et seq., as amended Plaintiff seeks relief, as set forth below, including his attorneys? fees and costs. Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 6 of 18 ll. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Christopher Welsh, is an individual and a citizen of the Commonwealth of He resides in Philadelphia, PA. 2. Plaintiff has been employed with Defendant for over twelve (12) years. Plaintiff was employed for at least twelve hundred and fifty (1,250) hours of service during his last twelve (12) month period. 3. Defendant is an independent, non~profit corporation that is incorporated in the Commonwealth of and is located at 1441 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 4. Defendant provides legal representation, connection to social services, and reentry support to adults and juveniles in Philadelphia. it represents about seventy percent of all individuals arrested in Philadelphia, and focuses on three main practice areas: child advocacy (for abused and neglected children); juvenile delinquency (for children between the ages of ten (10) and eighteen (18) accused of both misdemeanor and felony crimes); and, criminal (for adults age eighteen (18) and above, who are accused of misdemeanors, felonies, and capital level crimes). 5. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and the Municipal Court of Philadelphia make all determinations as to when Defendant should be appointed as counsel to indigent individuals. 6. Defendant is governed by a Board of Directors, some of whom are directors representing the City of Philadelphia. Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 7 of 18 7. Defendant receives almost all of its funding through a contract with the City of Philadelphia to provide legal services to indigent criminal defendants. The City of Philadelphia Operating Budget included that, in 2016, the City?s obligations to Defendant exceeded $42 million. 8. At all times material hereto, Defendant acted as an employer within the meaning of the statutes which form the basis of this matter. 9. At all times material hereto, Defendant employed more than fifty (50) employees at Plaintiff?s workplace. 10. At all times material hereto, Defendant acted by and through its authorized agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant and in furtherance of Defendant?s business. 11. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant within the meaning of the statutes which form the basis of this matter. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. The causes of action which form the basis of this matter arise under the FMLA and the PAWBL. 13. The District Court has jurisdiction over Count I (FMLA) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. ?2617(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. ?1331. 14. The District Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count II (PAWBL) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?1367. 15. Venue is proper in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. ?1391(b). Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 8 of 18 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 16. Plaintiff has spent his entire legal career with Defendant. He started working for Defendant as an Assistant Defender in around August 2005, right after his graduation from law school. 17. Plaintiff graduated from Temple University Beasley School of Law magna cum laude in May 2005. He has been a member of the bar, and a fully licensed attorney, since 2005. 18. While in law school, Plaintiff was a Legal intern in the Public Housing Unit at Community Legal Services in Philadelphia. Priorto attending law school, Plaintiff worked as a Community Organizer at the Northwest Bronx Community Clergy Coalition in Bronx, New York. Plaintiff has dedicated his entire working life to public service. 19. When Plaintiff joined Defendant, he rotated through its various divisions as part of the three (3) year rigorous training program for new Assistant Defenders. After Plaintiff?s training, he served in the Majors Trial Unit, the Juvenile Special Defense Unit, as Municipal Court Rotating Supervisor, and in the Mental Health Unit. In around June 2009, Plaintiff was promoted to Municipal Court Rotating Supervisor. 20. In around late 2012, Plaintiff was promoted to Assistant Chief Central Zone. Within a few months, Defendant also assigned Plaintiff to oversee the Municipal Court Domestic Violence Courtrooms. in that capacity, he supervised approximately thirty (30) attorneys, investigators, and administrative staff handling all aspects of representation for those clients arrested in the Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 9 of 18 Central Division and those arrested for domestic violence across the city. 21. in or around August 2016, Plaintiff was told that he was being promoted into the position of Deputy Defender Practice Operations and Systems Development (effective October 2016). 22. As Deputy Defender Chief of Practice Operations and Systems Development, Plaintiff reported directly to Bradford-Grey and McHugh. Pursuant to Plaintiff?s job description, his primary responsibility was ?for the ongoing assessment and continual improvement of all methods, processes, protocols and procedures related to the professional services (Legal Representation, Social Services and Child Advocacy) delivered to all of the Association?s clients, so as to facilitate the realization of the Association?s vision.? 23. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff has performed his job duties in a highly competent manner. 24. On or about February 16, 2017, Plaintiff discovered, in the course of confirming attorneys? bar numbers for the court system and at the request of the Administrative Office of Courts, that the status listed for one (1) of Defendant?s attorneys was ?Administrative Suspension.? 25. Plaintiff immediately advised that attorney (?Unauthorized Attorney John Doe?), and then McHugh, of his discovery. McHugh told him that they should hold off, temporarily, on advising Bradford?Grey of the issue, as she was then on vacation. 26. On or about February 21, 2017, Plaintiff gave the following memorandum to Defendant: Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 10 of 18 27. On Friday, February 17, 2017 I became aware that [Unauthorized Attorney John Doe] seemingly engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 42 Pa. C.S. ?2524 representing a few hundred juvenile clients between October 21, 2015 and April 11, 2016. He did not have a valid license to practice law in because his license was administratively suspended on October 21, 2015. His license is currently suspended to this day. I learned this information because the AOPC asked me to verify the bar numbers for a few of our lawyers. [Unauthorized Attorney John Doe] was one of those lawyers. notified [Unauthorized Attorney John Doe] immediately when I found out. notified Jim of the situation Friday afternoon and we decided to meet to discuss it with Keir on Tuesday morning. I also notified Lori Friday afternoon. I am concerned that this discovery has many potential consequences for the Defender Association. [Unauthorized Attorney John Doe]?s actions could result in liability issues with our former clients and with our malpractice insurance carrier. I am also concerned that the Defender Association might have an ethical duty to report [Unauthorized Attorney John Doe] to the Disciplinary Board because of his actions. I hope am wrong about the seriousness of this situation but I am concerned that I am not. I think we should contact our employment lawyers and ask to speak with their attorney who specializes in professional ethics to advise us on how to address this situation. There is a schedule of documents attached that explain the situation and my reasoning in more detail. Plaintiff attached to his memorandum several documents, including the documents showing Unauthorized Attorney John Doe?s administrative suspension status; Plaintiff's email to Unauthorized Attorney John Doe advising of the status that was listed as administrative suspension; the statute demonstrating that the unauthorized practice of law was a crime; and, guidance from the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of to lawyers who have been administratively suspended. Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 11 of 18 28. The statute that Plaintiff believed that Unauthorized Attorney John Doe violated, as he reported to Defendant, 42 Pa. C.S. ?2524, states that it is a misdemeanor of the third degree for a person, not currently admitted to practice law, to represent himself to the public as being entitled to practice law, or to give the impression that he is a practitioner of the law of any jurisdiction. 29. The Standard Guidance to Lawyers Who Have Been Administratively Suspended, as issued by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of requires that any individual who does not resolve his noncompliance prior to the effective date of his administrative suspension give notice of his administrative suspension to all clients represented in pending matters, or in litigation or administrative proceedings, and the attorneys for each adverse party. The Guidance also requires that such individuals also notify ?any other tribunal, court, agency, orjurisdiction in which you are admitted to practice.? 30. On Februaryv21, 2017, after Plaintif had submitted the above- referenced memorandum to Defendant, he met with Bradford-Grey and McHugh regarding the same. During the meeting, Plaintiff was treated with hostility, including being yelled at; being chastised for ?investigating? Unauthorized Attorney John Doe without telling them; being told that they did not trust him and he was not part of the team; and, being told that ?you better hope no one goes poking around the skeletons in your closet.? Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 12 of 18 31. On April 28, 2017, Bradford?Grey told Plaintiff that he was going to be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan, and that he would receive the same during the following week. 32. On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff received a ?Final Disciplinary Warning Performance Improvement Plan That was the first time in Plaintiff?s career with Defendant that he was ever disciplined in connection with his performance. 33. On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff sent the following email to Bradford? Grey; David Rudovsky, Chair of the Board of Directors of Defendant; and, Mark Sappir, Human Resources Director: David, Keir and Mark, believe that I am being retaliated against for my reporting that [Unauthorized Attorney John Doe] engaged in criminal conduct by representing our juvenile clients when [Unauthorized Attorney John Doe] did not have a valid license to practice law ([whose] license was administratively suspended in October 2015). On February 21st, I sent the attached memo reporting this issue to Keir and Jim McHugh. In a meeting with Keir and Jim regarding this issue later that same day, was treated with hostility and threatened including: being yelled at; being chastised for ?investigating? [Unauthorized Attorney John Doe] without telling them; told that they didn?t trust me and that I was not part of the team; and, told that, ?you better hope no one goes poking around the skeletons in your closet.? On April 28th, Keir told me that was going to be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan, with an unknown end date, and that I would get the plan, in writing, during the following week. On May 4th, I received a ?Final Disciplinary Warning -- Performance Improvement Plan That is the first time in my twelve year career with the Defender Assoc. that I have ever received any disciplinary actions for my performance. To my knowledge, no action has been taken regarding my reporting Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 13 of 18 that [Unauthorized Attorney John Doe] practiced law (and represented hundreds of our juvenile clients) without a valid license, and my recommendation that the Association take immediate action to look into, and remedy, this situation. My only goals here have been to make sure that I am doing the right thing for the Defenders? Association and the right thing forthe clients whom we serve, and to keep my job, which I love and to which I have been dedicated for the past twelve years. 34. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff?s May 11th email. 35. As a result of Defendant?s retaliatory and hostile conduct, Plaintiff went out on approved leave pursuant to the FMLA for hypertension; anxiety; and, acute stress disorder. 36. On June 12, 2017, Sappir advised Plaintiff that Defendant had retained an attorney to investigate his complaints of retaliation (that Plaintiff had made one (1) month earlier). 37. At Defendant?s request, Plaintiff met with its investigator on or about July 12, 2017. He provided documentation to the investigator prior to the meeting which demonstrated that the Performance Improvement Plan on which he had been placed was retaliatory. At the meeting with the investigator, Plaintiff responded fully and completely to all of her questions. 38. To date, no one at Defendant has informed Plaintiff regarding the results of the investigation into his complaints of retaliation. 39. Plaintiff returned to work from FMLA leave effective August 23, 2017. 40. On the same day that Plaintiff returned to work, he was told that he was no longer on the Performance improvement Plan on which he had been 10 Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 14 of 18 placed shortly before he went out on FMLA leave. 41. Plaintiff was also told that he was being demoted in that his direct reports were being removed from his supervision and reassigned because he was out on leave (for his medical pursuant to the he was being placed into a project-level position, and the only project to which he was assigned was to oversee scanning and digitalizing the Defender Association?s files; and, that he no longer had the authority that he had as Deputy Defender. 42. Plaintiff complained that Defendant?s actions violated his rights pursuant to the FMLA. 43. Since Plaintiff?s return to work, Bradford?Grey has continued to treat him in a hostile manner, including making false accusations regarding his conduct; yelling at him and cutting him off in a meeting; and, ignoring him, including refusing to make contact with him or address him, when she sees him at the office. 44. Since Plaintiff?s return to work from his FMLA leave, he has asked Defendant, repeatedly, what actions it has taken regarding the situation with Unauthorized Attorney John Doe having engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; what actions it has taken regarding Plaintiff?s complaints of retaliation; the results of the investigation that Defendant?s investigator conducted regarding Plaintiff?s May 11th complaint that his placement on the Performance Improvement Plan was retaliatory; and, what actions it has have taken regarding Plaintiff?s complaints that Defendant violated his rights pursuant to the FMLA. 1?1 Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 15 of 18 45. Defendant has refused to answer any of Plaintiff?s questions, as set forth above. 46. Defendant has failed to provide a legitimate, non?discriminatory reason for placing Plaintiff on a ?Final Disciplinary Warning Performance Improvement Plan 47. Defendant has failed to provide a legitimate, non?discriminatory reason for demoting Plaintiff. 48. Defendant interfered with Plaintiff?s rights to take FMLA leave by failing to place him into an equivalent position upon his return from FMLA leave. 49. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising his rights to FMLA leave. 50. Plaintiff?s use of protected leave under the FMLA was a determinative and/or motivating factor in Defendant?s discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of Plaintiff, including its demotion of Plaintiff. 51. Plaintiff?s reporting the situation with Unauthorized Attorney John Doe engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by representing Defendant?s juvenile clients was a determinative and/or motivating factor in Defendant?s retaliatory treatment of Plaintiff, including placing Plaintiff on a ?Final Disciplinary Warning Performance Improvement Plan and demoting Plaintiff. COUNT FMLA 52. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 51 above, as if set forth herein in their entirety. 12 Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 16 of 18 53. By committing the foregoing acts against Plaintiff, Defendant has violated the FMLA by interfering with Plaintiff?s rights. 54. By committing the foregoing acts against Plaintiff, Defendant has retaliated against Plaintiff and violated the FMLA. 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant?s violation of the FMLA, Plaintiff has suffered losses set forth herein and has incurred attorneys? fees and costs. 56. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, and to incur attorneys? fees and costs, as a result of Defendant?s violations of the FMLA unless and until the Court grants the relief requested herein. 57. No previous application has been made for the relief requested herein. COUNT ll PAWBL 58. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 57 as if set forth herein in their entirety. 59. Defendant was aware that Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the PAWBL by making a good faith report to Defendant that one (1) of its attorneys had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing juvenile clients while administratively suspended from the practice of law. 60. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff because he engaged in protected activity under the PAWBL. 61. The actions of Defendant, through its agents, servants and employees, are in violation of the PABWL. 13 Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 17 of 18 62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant?s violation of the PAWBL, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys? fees and costs. 63. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, and to incur attorneys? fees and costs, as a result of Defendant?s unlawful acts unless this Court grants the relief requested herein. EHEE WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages and legal and equitable relief in connection with Defendant?s improper conduct, and specifically prays that the Court grant the following relief to the Plaintiff by: Declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of the Declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of the (0) Ordering Defendant to: (1) Reinstate Plaintiff to the Deputy Defender position that he had priorto his FMLA leave, including reassigning him to all responsibilities that he had prior to his leave; reassigning his direct reports to report to him; and, restoring the authority that he had as Deputy Defender; and, (2) Cease and desist from any conduct that is retaliatory towards Plaintiff for reporting that Unauthorized Attorney John Doe was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; entering judgment against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff; 14 Case Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 18 of 18 awarding Plaintiff the costs of suit, expert fees and other disbursements, and reasonable attorney?s fees; and, granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper, or equitable including other equitable and injunctive relief providing restitution for past violations and preventing future violations. CONSOLE MATTIACCI LAW x? ,e at?? Dated: 09/14/2017 BY: If! Stephen G. Con Esq. Caren N. Gurm in, Esq. 1525 Locust St, 9th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 545-7676 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Christopher Welsh 15