Discrimination lawsuit against Proficient Business System settled

CHARLESTON - A lawsuit against Proficient Business System Inc. for wrongful termination and discrimination has been settled and dismissed.

Deloitte Consulting Extended Business Services LLC; Deloitte Consulting LP; Deloitte Consulting LLP; and Deloitte Consulting Product Services LLC were also named as defendants in the suit.

On Sept. 13, both parties "have prepared this Agreed Dismissal Order and represent to the Court that all matters and controversies pending in this action have been resolved and settled between them, and therefore the parties jointly move the Court to dismiss this civil action with prejudice," the agreed dismissal order states.

Usha Sangani was hired by ProBys on May 1, 2001, to provide full-time services as a computer consultant to ProBys, according to a complaint filed Dec. 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston.

Sangani claimed the client to whom he was assigned by ProBys was Deloitte and from May 2001 until approximately March 2012, he worked in Deloitte's offices in Charleston under the direction and control of the Deloitte supervisors.

Pursuant to the terms of her employment, the Deloitte defendants could remove her for cause, resulting in termination of her employment by ProBys and she was employed by the defendants until her employment was abruptly and unlawfully discharged in March 2012, according to the suit.

Sangani claimed her employment was terminated in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act.

In August and/or September 2011, Sangani notified her Deloitte supervisor that she was experiencing health complications with her knee and the complications were so disabling that she had to have knee surgery in October 2011 and that she would have to miss several weeks of work following the surgery, according to the suit.

Sangani claimed when she returned to work, she continued to require physical therapy for her knee and the defendants discriminated against her by continuing to assign her usual work to other employees and by refusing to assign her available work to do.

When Sangani requested her usual work and/or any addition work, her requests were denied, according to the suit.

Sangani claimed in January 2012, she had to have another procedure on her knee related to the same disability and was again denied available work on upon returning to work, although she made several requests that she be given work to do.

As a result of her disability, Sangani required continuous physical therapy for her knee and in March 2012, her employment was terminated without warning for not being productive, according to the suit.

Sangani was seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. She was being represented by Maria W. Hughes and Mark Goldner of Hughes & Goldner PLLC.

The defendants were represented by Justin M. Harrison of Bowles Rice LLP.

The case was assigned to District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston case number: 2:12-cv-09143