BERRIDGE v. NALCO COMPANY, 1:10-cv-03219

Berridge is Nalco's Senior Account Manager with Hess account responsibilities; he took FMLA leave from January 2009 for family care and returned January 26, 2009.
Nalco argues Berridge’s Hess account removal and post-FMLA PIPs were due to performance issues, not retaliation or interference.
Berridge alleges Nalco interfered with FMLA rights and retaliated for taking leave by removing the Hess account, placing him on PIPs, and ultimately terminating him.
Court denied in part Nalco’s summary judgment on some retaliation theories but granted summary judgment on both interference and retaliation claims.
Plaintiff acknowledges his alleged claims are limited to FMLA interference and retaliation, with the defense focusing on legitimate non-discriminatory justifications for actions taken against him.
Final disposition: Court grants Nalco summary judgment on both interference and retaliation claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nalco interfered with FMLA rights	Berridge asserts failure to reinstate to equivalent position and other actions impeded FMLA rights	Nalco argues no denial or hindrance of FMLA benefits; actions were due to performance/PIP	Interference claim failed; no evidence Nalco prevented FMLA entitlements
Whether Nalco retaliated against FMLA leave	Temporal proximity and pattern of antagonism suggest retaliation	Reasons were legitimate, nondiscriminatory performance-based actions; no pretext shown	Retaliation claim failed; no causal link established and reasons not pretextual

Conoshenti v. Public Svc. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (establishes causation and prima facie elements for FMLA retaliation/interference)
Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc., 510 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2007) ( interference standard requires inability to obtain FMLA benefits)
Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (pretext standard for retaliation (conceptual framework))
Burdine v. D.C. Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (McDonnell Douglas framework for proving discrimination)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
DiCampli v. Korman Communities, 257 F. App’x 497 (3d Cir. 2007) (materially adverse action standard for retaliation)
Kachmar v. SunGard Data Sys., 109 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1997) (temporal proximity can establish causation in prima facie case)
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (definition of tangible employment action)