Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tolliver v. Highmark BSBSD, Inc.

Superior Court of Delaware

May 10, 2018

M. DENISE TOLLIVER, Plaintiff,
v.
HIGHMARK BSBSD, INC., Defendant.

          Submitted: March 23, 2018

         Upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

         Granted in part; With a Limited Right to File an Amended Complaint.

          Ms. M. Denise Tolliver, pro se Plaintiff.

          Geoffrey G. Grivner, Esquire of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware; attorney for the Defendant.

          ORDER

          WILLIAM L. WITHAM. JR. RESIDENT JUDGE.

         Upon consideration of M. Denise Tolliver's Complaint, [1] Highmark BSBSD, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, and Ms. Tolliver's Response, it appears that:

         1. On August 6, 2014, Highmark BSBSD, Inc. (hereinafter, "Highmark") offered, in writing (hereinafter, the "Hiring Letter"), to hire Ms. Tolliver as an Associate Customer Service Representative. Upon acceptance of Highmark's offer, the Hiring Letter provided that Ms. Tolliver's at-will employment relationship with Highmark would begin.

         2.Although the exact date of acceptance is unclear, the parties agree that Ms. Tolliver accepted Highmark's offer of employment.

         3.On August 20, 2014, Ms. Tolliver contends that she requested permission from Highmark to attend pre-arranged medical appointments, related to her disability, that coincided with her forthcoming mandatory employment training.

         4.On August 25, 2014, as stipulated in the Hiring Letter, Ms. Tolliver reported for the first day of her employment at Highmark. During this first day, Ms. Tolliver again requested permission to attend the pre-arranged medical appointments related to her disability.

         5.On August 26, 2014, Highmark allegedly terminated Ms. Tolliver.[2]

         6.On June 11, 2015, Ms. Tolliver filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Delaware Department of Labor (hereinafter, "DDOL") alleging that: (a) Highmark "failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation after she requested time off due to her disability;" and (b) that she was terminated "for requesting days off for her disability."

         7.On June 18, 2015, Dan McGannon, an administrator for the DDOL's Office of Anti-Discrimination, advised Ms. Tolliver that her previously filed Charge of Discrimination was transferred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (hereinafter, "EEOC") office in Philadelphia because Ms. Tolliver's charge alleged adverse employment which occurred beyond the 120-day statute of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.