Full Initial Complaint of Philip Shropshire v. Elisabeth Wheeler and Pivot Physical Therapy

So it looks like this case is beginning to start. Generally, its never about the work where I lose these jobs. Usually it has to do with being uppity. Or perceived as being uppity. That usually means a black person speaking in complete sentences. Anyway, I'm thinking of using Elisabeth of Pivot Therapy, Zachary Reider of Fieldworks (A company whose behavior during the lawsuit has been nothing short of bizarre. It looks like they're trying to ignore the civil suit and risk a default judgement. I'm okay with that....) and Donald Trump as examples of really bad bosses. They could all be described as insecure (Elisabeth Wheeler was too cowardly to even show me my evaluation. I didn't see it until I read Pivot's EEOC statement.), mediocre, dimwitted sociopaths. Just my opinion. And, if the revolution comes,  I truly believe that the at will system should be replaced with just cause and progressive discipline.

Anyway here's the initial complaint which was finally filed and accepted by the court.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Philip Shropshire         Civil Action No:

vs.

Elisabeth Wheeler

Pivot Physical Therapy (Formerly known as Allegheny Chesapeake)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PRO SE CIVIL COMPLAINT

1. Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S. Code § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the amended Civil Rights Act of 1991, as well as Pennsylvania's Human Relations Act or the PHRA. We are filing under the counts of discrimination based on race.

2. The plaintiff has satisfied all procedural and administrative prerequisites to sue under the PHRA, Title VII and 42 U.S. Code § 1981, He received his right to sue letter on Nov. 23, 2017 from the EEOC for the permission to sue Elizabeth Wheeler and Allegheny Chesapeake rehabilitation, since bought out by Pivot Rehabilitation.  The complaint also is also timely under Section 1981 which gives you four years to file a complaint after the termination date. (May 2016).

3. Defendants Elizabeth Wheeler and Fieldworks are employers under Title VII, PHRA and 42 USC 1981. It's also a defense they never attempted in their somewhat voluminous 20 page statement that was sent to the EEOC. (Please place that into the record here as well. I understand there are perjury laws that can be enforced under this venue. And they shall be.)

II Venue

4. We believe the venue is proper because defendants have resided and/or conducted business in this judicial district and/or because all of the acts giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in this judicial district.

III. Parties

5. Plaintiff Philip Shropshire is an African American male who resides at 740 Franklin Avenue, Pgh. PA 15221.

6. Defendant Pivot Technology have an office at 7501 Penn Avenue, Pgh. PA 15208.  Defendant Elisabeth Wheeler works at that office, last time I checked online. We are naming Elisabeth Wheeler as a defendant and we're suing her in both her professional and personal capacity.

IV. Factual Background

7. Paragraphs one through six are incorporated herein by reference as though set in full.

8. I received an offer letter Feb. 8  2016. from the then Allegheny Chesapeake which also included an employee handbook. My last day of employment was May 31st, 2016. I was hired as kind of an in house taxi driver who delivered patients to and from the Penn Avenue clinic and back to their homes. The employment handbook I was given with my acceptance letter included a four prong test. In their voluminous 20 page letter to the EEOC it is clear that I never reached sanction three and its debatable that I ever reached sanction two or in many cases even sanction one. What's also missing from their EEOC statement is that I successfully completely anywhere from 70 to 100 delivery trips without error or complaint. My time sheets, which proves this, are mysteriously missing from their exhibit list. We will certainly ask for them in any discovery process. I believe I was the lone African American that worked for them in any capacity.

9. I believe I was fired over the phone, always a classy move and never leads to lawsuits, about a week after May 31st, for an incident that was clearly the fault of Elisabeth Wheeler and the then named Allegheny Chesapeake. Wheeler, or one of her employees, gave me the wrong address for a client and then blamed me for being late! In fact, after reading through Pivot's EEOC statement its probable that their motivations were premeditated and had nothing to with my work record. Or even that event. In fact, to put this in a non legal way, I was most likely fired for being an uppity negro, which I'm proud of, but which I also don't think is grounds for legal termination under prevailing civil rights law.

Count 1

Title VII, PHRA and Section 1981

Race Discrimination

10. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 9.

11. Plaintiff believes he was fired for his race for a host of pretextual reasons including but not limited to: lying in wait, post hoc rationalizations, using a hypercritical standard not applied to white workers,  treating white workers better and holding them to a lesser standard, false information in defendant's EEOC position statement and a whole bunch of "weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies or contradictions" as written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hardy v. S.F. Phosphates Ltd. Co. , 185 F.3d 1076, 1080 (10th Cir. 1999). We plan to save Pivot's unsigned evaluation, a two page parade of pretext, presented to the EEOC but never before seen by me, for either a rebuttal or perhaps even an amended complaint.

12. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Philip Shropshire demands judgment pursuant to Title VII, Section 1981 and the PHRA as follows, included but not limited to:

1. That Defendants be required to compensate Plaintiff for the full value of wages he would have received had it not been for the Defendant's illegal treatment of Plaintiff with interest since his termination in May 2016.

2. That Defendants be required to provide Plaintiff with front pay if the court decides reinstatement is not feasible. (I would only want to be reinstated under contract with clear definitions of work responsibilities, and with an enshrined code of progressive discipline (enforced this time.), as well as clear First Amendment Rights, not to mention compensatory damages being paid upfront.)

3. That Defendants be required to compensate Plaintiff for lost benefits, including profit sharing and/or pension benefits until Plaintiff’s normal retirement date. That defendants be awarded compensatory damages of at least $35,000 or an amount to be determined at trial.


4. That Defendants be ordered to pay, each, $1.5 million dollars in punitive damages or an amount to be determined at trial.

5. That Pro Se Plaintiff be awarded against Defendant the costs and expenses of this litigation.

6. That Plaintiff be granted such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Summary

13. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully restated.

14. I look forward to seeing the rebuttal by Defendants. It will be thoroughly debunked, probably line by line.

Respectfully submitted,

Pro Se Plaintiff Philip Shropshire

(I edited out my personal address and phone number.)

2 21 2018

*Note to the court again: We will send papers to defendants to waive service within the next week or so.