561 F.Supp.3d 508
W.D. Pa.2021Background
- Burbach, a licensed attorney, worked for Arconic and—after an April 1, 2020 corporate spinoff—Arconic Corporation; he alleges joint employment with Howmet.
- In mid‑March 2020 Burbach developed COVID‑19, was hospitalized, and requested medical leave; he alleges he was not informed of his FMLA rights.
- While ill (March 20–April 3, 2020) Burbach alleges he was required to perform work and was repeatedly contacted by his supervisor, Diana Toman.
- Burbach requested a temporary accommodation to work remotely from Slovenia (initially approved, then revoked); he was terminated on April 3, 2020.
- He sued for FMLA interference and retaliation, ADA failure to accommodate, ADA discrimination and ADA retaliation; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The magistrate judge denied the motion to dismiss on all counts, concluding Burbach plausibly pleaded each claim and factual disputes are for later stages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference (failure to notify/required to work while ill) | Burbach says COVID‑19 was a serious health condition, he sought leave, was not told of FMLA rights, and was required to work while on medical leave | Defendants say he was not denied FMLA benefits and suffered no prejudice from lack of notice | Denied dismissal — complaint plausibly alleges entitlement to FMLA leave and prejudice (issue for discovery) |
| FMLA retaliation (termination for taking FMLA‑qualifying leave) | Burbach invoked FMLA leave, suffered termination, and termination was temporally linked to leave | Defendants say he sought only general leave, wasn’t qualified, and there’s no causal link | Denied dismissal — pleaded invocation, adverse action, and plausible causation (temporal proximity/antagonism) |
| ADA discrimination (disabled/qualified/termination) | Burbach alleges breathing impairment from COVID‑19 and that he was regarded as disabled; he could perform essential functions with accommodation | Defendants say COVID‑19 was temporary/non‑chronic, symptom‑free by March 28, and relocation makes him unqualified | Denied dismissal — ADAAA requires individualized assessment; disability and qualification are factual questions not resolved on pleadings |
| ADA failure to accommodate (request to work from Slovenia) | Burbach requested temporary remote work as an accommodation; it was initially approved then revoked | Defendants argue international relocation for childcare/childcare access is not a reasonable ADA accommodation | Denied dismissal — plaintiff made a prima facie showing reasonable accommodation may be possible; burdens/hardships are factual defenses for later |
| ADA retaliation (firing for requesting accommodation/contracting COVID) | Burbach requested accommodation in good faith and was fired in retaliation | Defendants say the request was motivated by childcare, not disability, so not protected | Denied dismissal — plaintiff plausibly pleaded protected activity; motive is factual and for later stages |
| Claims against Howmet (employer status) | Burbach pleads joint/employer status and that Howmet was involved pre‑spinoff | Howmet says it was not the employer at termination (post‑spinoff) | Denied dismissal — employer status disputed; factual question for discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (employer's failure to notify of FMLA rights requires showing of prejudice)
- Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) (elements of FMLA retaliation claim)
- Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc., 510 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2007) (FMLA interference principles)
- Matthews v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., [citation="613 F. App'x 163"] (3d Cir. 2015) (ADAAA effects; duration of impairment is one factor and disability is individualized)
- Shiring v. Runyon, 90 F.3d 827 (3d Cir. 1996) (employer burden/affirmative defenses in accommodation context)
- Mengine v. Runyon, 114 F.3d 415 (3d Cir. 1997) (good faith, interactive accommodation requirement)
- Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc., 318 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2003) (accommodation requests must be made in good faith to receive ADA retaliation protection)