Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.
Americas+1 212 318 2000
EMEA+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.
Americas+1 212 318 2000
EMEA+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
By Christopher Brown
Philadelphia-area personal injury firm Saltz, Mongeluzzi & Bedensky PC must face a former employee’s lawsuit alleging the firm disclosed her medical information to a news service without her consent in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal court ruled.
Plaintiff Desiree Purvenas-Hayes successfully pleaded that the firm’s requirement that she provide information related to her Covid-19 vaccination status was an “inquiry” under the ADA that triggered the statute’s confidentiality protections, Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said Dec. 15.
Her allegation that she suffered embarrassment and emotional distress from the disclosure also was a tangible injury sufficient to survive the firm’s motion to dismiss, Wolson said.
Purvenas-Hayes’ lawsuit arose from her employment with SMB as a litigation paralegal until July 2021. She sued the firm a year later, alleging it failed to pay her for overtime work. Firm founder Roger Mongeluzzi gave an interview about the lawsuit shortly after, telling a Philadelphia legal news service that she left the firm because she didn’t wish to receive the Covid-19 vaccination.
She then filed a second lawsuit against the firm, alleging it violated the confidentiality requirements of the ADA in making statements about her confidential medical information to the news service.
In its motion to dismiss the ADA lawsuit, SMB argued that its request for Covid-19 vaccination information wasn’t an “inquiry” covered by the statute, but Wolson disagreed.
The firm argued that “inquiry” in the ADA was limited to requests for information concerning whether an employee was disabled, but that was based on a too-narrow reading of the statute, he said.
The statute prohibited inquiries into disabilities, but allowed them into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions, suggesting that the reach of the ADA extended to inquiries not directly related to disabilities, the judge said.
And once SMB requested information about her medical history and vaccination status, it had an obligation to treat the information as a confidential medical record, he said, rejecting the firm’s argument that the ADA’s confidentiality requirements applied only to disability-related inquiries.
Wayne A. Ely of Richboro, Pa., represents Purvenas-Hayes. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP represents the firm.
The case is Purvenas-Hayes v. Saltz, Mongeluzzi & Bedensky PC, E.D. Pa., No. 2:23-cv-02403, 12/15/23.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.
Ex-Paralegal Advances ADA Suit Against Personal Injury Firm – Bloomberg Law
Visited 4 times, 1 visit(s) today
[mc4wp_form id="5878"]
