ABDELMASSIH v. MITRA QSR KNE LLC
2:16-cv-04941
| E.D. Pa. | Feb 28, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Magdy Abdelmassih (b.1950) worked as a KFC cook/manager from 2001 until Mitra QSR purchased the restaurants in 2012 and employed him until his termination in 2014. He has COPD and coronary artery disease.
- In March 2014 Abdelmassih took FMLA leave after chest pains; his son helped file the paperwork; area coach Rakesh Ramdass delayed submitting the forms to HR and Mitra did not provide required FMLA notices.
- After returning from leave Abdelmassih was reassigned to a struggling Montgomeryville location, placed on a 30‑day Action Plan, and terminated following "blind visit" observations by a regional trainer (who reported him changing time tags and yelling).
- Ramdass made age- and disability-related remarks (calling plaintiff "old"/saying he looked older without dentures) and told the trainer she had given him “what he needed” to terminate Abdelmassih; plaintiff alleges these comments show discriminatory/retaliatory motive.
- Claims asserted: ADEA (age discrimination), ADA (failure to accommodate and disability discrimination), PHRA, FMLA interference and retaliation, FLSA/WPCL/ERISA/COBRA/unjust enrichment; defendants moved for partial summary judgment.
- Court disposition on summary judgment: grants for ADA reasonable-accommodation claim and all individual claims against co-CEOs Manish and Pushpak Patel; denies summary judgment on ADEA, ADA discrimination, FMLA interference and retaliation, and corporate COBRA/FLSA/WPCL/other claims against Mitra remain for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA — reasonable accommodation | Abdelmassih contends Mitra knew of his conditions (FMLA form noted follow-ups/part-time) and should have engaged in interactive process | Mitra says no accommodation was requested when he returned; FMLA form only sought leave | Granted for defendants — plaintiff never requested accommodation, so no failure-to-accommodate liability |
| ADA/ADEA/PHRA — discrimination | Plaintiff argues adverse treatment and Ramdass’s age/disability comments show discriminatory motive and pretext for termination | Mitra proffers non-discriminatory reasons (policy violations, time‑tag issues, yelling, Action Plan, trainer’s observations) | Denied as to Mitra — genuine dispute of material fact exists; jury could find pretext and discriminatory motive |
| FMLA — interference | Plaintiff says Mitra failed to provide required FMLA notices and mishandled paperwork, impairing his FMLA rights; he returned earlier than doctor recommended due to job‑loss fear | Mitra characterizes failures as technical with no real effect; plaintiff was granted leave and reinstated | Denied as to Mitra — issues of notice, paperwork handling, and return‑to‑work timing create triable FMLA interference claim |
| FMLA — retaliation | Plaintiff says adverse actions (reassignment, exclusion from development plan, Action Plan, termination) followed FMLA leave and Ramdass’s statements show retaliatory intent | Mitra cites legitimate reasons for discipline/termination and contests causation; timing alone insufficient | Denied as to Mitra — combined evidence (post-leave adverse actions, manager statements) permits inference of retaliation |
| Individual liability (Manish & Pushpak Patel) — FMLA/FLSA/WPCL/COBRA/unjust enrichment | Plaintiff seeks to hold co-CEOs personally liable as employers or plan administrators and for unjust enrichment | Defendants contend the Patels were high-level owners with no direct supervisory role, no involvement in hiring/firing/pay, and not COBRA administrators | Granted for defendants — Patels too attenuated from day-to-day control; no evidence they supervised or administered benefits; no unjust-enrichment showing against them |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment allocation of burdens between movant and nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute and viewing evidence at summary judgment)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (proof required to show pretext in discrimination cases)
- Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (ADA failure‑to‑accommodate and interactive process requirements)
- Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Prob. & Parole, 667 F.3d 408 (standards for individual liability under FMLA/FLSA; economic‑reality factors)
- Conoshenti v. Public Service Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (FMLA interference; employer conduct that renders FMLA rights ineffective)
- Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (FMLA retaliation analyzed under McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC, 847 F.3d 144 (FMLA interference/retaliation elements and analysis)