Bruce Gavurnik v. Home Properties LP
712 F. App'x 170
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Bruce Gavurnik, age 59, was hired in 2013 as a service technician at Racquet Club Apartments (managed by Home Properties) and was terminated on September 2, 2014.
- Job duties required overtime and extensive snow removal; employer treated overtime/snow removal as an essential function and safety priority.
- Gavurnik had chronic foot problems and provided a doctor’s note asking to avoid prolonged cold exposure and overtime; employer declined, citing essential job functions.
- Employer documented performance issues: an April 8 Conversation Note (failure to schedule a carpet cleaner), an August 8 Conversation Note (leaving items in a sink, no resident note), an August 17 incident leading to a written warning (arguing with a leasing consultant / delayed response), and a resident complaint about wet carpet in apartment M-23.
- Gavurnik alleged age discrimination (ADEA), disability discrimination and failure to accommodate/interactive process (ADA/PHRA), and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment to employer, and Gavurnik appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate treatment / retaliation (ADEA, ADA, PHRA) — pretext | Gavurnik argued employer’s stated reasons (poor performance) were pretextual; pointed to inconsistent treatment and managerial favoritism | Employer argued it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (documented performance issues) and comparators were not similarly situated | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to show weaknesses or inconsistencies sufficient to infer pretext or discriminatory/retaliatory motive |
| Comparator evidence | Gavurnik identified Rivera and Livingood as younger comparators who received favorable treatment | Employer showed Rivera was a supervisor and Livingood’s conduct was not sufficiently similar | Affirmed: comparators not similarly situated; favoritism alone not discrimination |
| Failure to accommodate (ADA/PHRA) | Gavurnik contended excusal from overtime/cold exposure was a reasonable accommodation | Employer argued overtime and snow removal were essential job functions and need not be eliminated | Affirmed: overtime was an essential function; excusing it was not a reasonable accommodation |
| Interactive process / fixing equipment as accommodation | Gavurnik argued repairing snow blowers would reduce cold exposure and make accommodation possible | Employer noted even with working blowers technicians sometimes worked long hours in cold and record lacked evidence how long plaintiff could tolerate cold | Affirmed: record insufficient to show a reasonable accommodation was possible |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (evidence required to show pretext)
- Capps v. Modelez Global, LLC, 847 F.3d 144 (ADA retaliation / prima facie framework)
- Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684 (prima facie burden in discrimination cases)
- Walton v. Mental Health Ass'n of Se. Pa., 168 F.3d 661 (employer not required to eliminate essential job functions)
- Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, 130 F.3d 1101 (standards for showing employer’s reason was pretext)
- Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410 (standard of review for summary judgment)