University Times

A former employee is suing the University, charging harassment and discrimination based on his disability.

The University denies the allegations, a Pitt spokesperson said.

Eugene Heinack, who worked in the Graphics, Marketing and Printing department's printshop and bindery from June 1983 until he resigned his position in May 1999, alleges that co-workers harassed and humiliated him over a period of years, causing him to quit his job.

Heinack, who suffers from mental retardation, is suing the University under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Heinack's allegations against co-workers include intimidation, repeated verbal and physical abuse, threats of physical retaliation and failure of his supervisor to address the problems after he reported them.

The prolonged harassment caused Heinack to seek emotional counseling and, eventually, to quit his job, the suit contends.

Heinack further alleges that although he performed his job competently he was denied pay increases, promotions and overtime opportunities because of his disability.

On Sept. 7, 1999, Heinack filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC).

Suits filed at the state level are automatically dual-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), according to an EEOC official.

The EEOC issued a notice of the right to sue in October 2000, according to court documents.

Pitt's director of News and Information Ken Service said that the University was informed by the EEOC that Heinack's complaint had been dismissed as "untimely," that is, filed after more than 300 days from when the alleged harm took place.

Attorneys Samuel Cordes and Kathleen Davies, who are representing Heinack in the suit, said the suit was filed in a timely manner. "We have copies of the EEOC filed complaint, dated Oct. 8, 1999," Davies said. "We believe the EEOC lost the complaint," Cordes said. He added that courts routinely overlook procedural errors in favor of a plaintiff who alleges discrimination.

The EEOC cannot discuss particulars of a case, the commission official said. But he noted the EEOC can issue a right to sue, even in cases it has previously ruled as untimely filed.

Pitt's Service said, "The University believes there has not been discrimination in this case. Carol Mohamed [Human Resources director of employee relations] received a phone call from [Heinack] in November 1999, more than six months after the employee resigned his position. He was invited to a meeting with her, but declined the invitation. Carol investigated the matter fully and could not confirm his allegations."

The plaintiff's attorneys, however, contend that Heinack "tried to contact Ms. Mohamed several times by phone, leaving messages for her, before he resigned his position in May 1999, and she did not return any of his phone calls until November 1999."

Cordes added that, under Pitt's policies, Heinack's supervisor was compelled to report complaints to the appropriate authorities and failed to do so.

The federal civil action against the University was filed Jan. 30 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The University has 120 days to respond, a court official said.

The suit asks for compensatory damages, reimbursement of litigation costs, lost wages and benefits, and job reinstatement.

The case has been assigned to Senior District Judge Maurice B. Cohill Jr.

–Peter Hart