Urspringer V Pizza Luce ADA Discrimination Complaint
Urspringer V Pizza Luce ADA Discrimination Complaint
Matthew Urspringer,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
(Jury Trial Demanded)
V.
Defendants.
1.
corporation with a registered office address of 119 North 4th Street, City of Minneapolis,
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
3.
Defendant Pizza Luce VII, Inc. d/b/a/ Pizza Luce is a Minnesota domestic
corporation with a registered office address of 119 North 4th Street, #210, City of
Minneapolis, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
4.
office at 401 2nd Avenue North, Suite 210, City of Minneapolis, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota.
5.
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 12111(4) and Minn. Stat. 363A.03(15) and
Defendants were his "employer" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 12111(5) and Minn.
Stat. 363A.03 (16).
This action arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C
Plaintiff brings additional claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act,
Minn. Stat. 363A.O 1, et seq. ("MHRA"). Supplemental jurisdiction is proper for such
claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367.
8.
events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Minnesota.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff's Employment with Defendants
9.
10.
single employer or joint employers and had substantial control over significant aspects of
his employment.
11.
Plaintiff led the new store openmg m Hopkins and m doing so, was
13.
Hopkins location.
14.
In or about May 2012, the CEO of Pizza Luce, Julie "JJ'' Haywood and
another member of the corporate office, Laura Hanson, asked if Plaintiff was interested in
opening a new location in Richfield, Minnesota.
15.
Sales remained strong at the Hopkins and Richfield locations, and in fact,
both locations consistently had the strongest in-store sales out of all of the Pizza Luce
locations in Minnesota.
Plaintiff Obtains Treatment for Alcoholism after Serious Motorcycle Accident
17.
for alcoholism.
19.
Plaintiff also advised Ms. Haywood and Area Manager, Dennis Janowski,
October 1, 2013.
21.
In October 2013, the corporate office and other general managers of Pizza
Luce attended a "Pizza Tour", which entailed visiting local competitors during happy
hour to assess the competitive landscape.
22.
Because the "Pizza Tour" involved drinking, Plaintiff chose not to attend
the initial tours given his battle with alcoholism. Plaintiff did, however, attend the last
tour, which was October 22, 2013.
23.
Following dinner with the team on October 22, 2013, Plaintiff experienced
Plaintiff called Mr. Janowski on the evening of October 22, 2013, and
25.
In a meeting to discuss his evaluation with Mr. Janowski, Plaintiff told him
it was very clear that they were intentionally trying to make his performance look
negative and asked him to please be honest with him.
4
28.
While Plaintiff did not agree with Mr. Janowski's assessment of his
Approximately two weeks after this evaluation, Mr. Janowski told Plaintiff
his store.
32.
another relapse.
33.
Plaintiff also called Mr. Janowski the next day to confirm he suffered a relapse and
planned to go to treatment again.
34.
Mr. Janowski said something to the effect of, "Don't worry about going into work tonight
or Saturday."
35.
Plaintiff reiterated that he was fine and perfectly capable to work but he
again told the Plaintiff his shifts were covered. During this phone call, Mr. Janowski told
Plaintiff that he and Ms. Haywood wanted to meet with him on Monday.
36.
On Sunday, April 5, 2014, Plaintiff went into work on his day off (as he did
The very next day, Ms. Haywood and Mr. Janowski fired him. Defendants
told Plaintiff that he was fired, in part, for coming into work on Sunday despite the fact
that he was never told he wasn't permitted to come in.
38.
investigation regarding a verbal altercation between two of his employees, despite the
fact that he conducted the investigation as instructed by Jackie Engell at the Corporate
Office.
39.
Janowski told Plaintiff he was one of the best operators he had ever seen.
40.
Commission ("EEOC") on or about May 21, 2014, alleging discrimination on the basis of
disability in violation of the ADA and the MHRA.
41.
Plaintiff.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, AS
AMENDED, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
(DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION)
42.
reference.
43.
that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record
of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impainnent (as described
in paragraph (30))." 42 U.S.C. 12102(1).
46.
broad coverage of individuals under this chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by the
terms of this chapter." 42 U.S.C. 12102(4)(A).
4 7.
Major life activities include, but are not limited to "caring for oneself,
perfonning manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting,
bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating,
and working." 42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A).
48.
50.
has suffered loss of past and future income, mental anguish, emotional distress and other
damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00.
reference.
53.
54.
characteristic that renders a person a disabled person. A disabled person is any person
who (1) has a physical, sensory, or mental impairment which materially limits one or
more major life activities; (2) has a record of such impairment; or (3) is regarded as
having such an impairment."
56.
58.
Plaintiff has suffered loss of past and future income, mental anguish, emotional distress
and other damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00.
As a result,
For an award of compensatory relief and damages arising from past and
future loss of income, benefits, emotional distress and other damages in
excess of $75,000;
B.
C.
D.
For all relief available under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101, as amended, et
seq., including punitive damages;
E.
For all relief available under the MHRA, Minn. Stat. 363A.01, et seq.,
including treble damages, punitive damages and a civil penalty against
Defendants;
F.
G.
For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.