564 F.Supp.3d 362
E.D. Pa.2021Background
- Plaintiff Evaristo Campo, a long‑term MAP material handler, has diabetes and needs short, frequent snack/medication breaks to control blood sugar.
- After MAP’s change in ownership, supervisor Marvin Hinkle required employees to notify supervision before leaving their work station; MAP allowed medical breaks but required prior notification.
- Between March–Dec 2019 Campo received progressive discipline (warnings, suspension), was terminated in September 2019, reinstated under a Last Chance Agreement, then terminated again in December 2019; Campo filed a grievance and an EEOC charge.
- Campo alleges disability discrimination (wrongful termination), failure to reasonably accommodate, retaliation for requesting accommodations/complaints, and hostile work environment; MAP moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The court granted summary judgment to MAP on wrongful termination and hostile‑work‑environment claims, but denied summary judgment as to failure to accommodate and retaliation (issues remain for trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful termination (ADA/PHRA) | Campo says terminations were motivated by his diabetes and related breaks/complaints | MAP says terminations were for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (policy violations, insubordination) | Court: Judgment for MAP — plaintiff failed to show diabetes was a determinative factor or pretext for firing |
| Failure to reasonably accommodate | Campo says MAP did not engage in the interactive process and did not reasonably accommodate his need for short, frequent breaks | MAP says it accommodated by allowing breaks when employees notified a supervisor | Court: Denied summary judgment to MAP — genuine dispute whether MAP engaged in good‑faith interactive process and offered reasonable accommodations |
| Retaliation | Campo asserts discipline and termination followed his medical notes, grievance, and EEOC charge; timing and antagonism show causation and pretext | MAP cites nondiscriminatory reasons for discipline/terminations | Court: Denied summary judgment to MAP — temporal proximity and factual disputes permit a reasonable juror to find causation/pretext |
| Hostile work environment (ADA) | Campo claims supervisor’s harassment (scrutiny, following, humiliating remarks) was because of his diabetes/requests | MAP contends the supervisor’s conduct was supervision/safety‑related, not disability‑based or sufficiently severe/pervasive | Court: Judgment for MAP — no evidence harassment was because of diabetes and conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment: genuine‑issue and reasonable‑jury standards)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden on movant)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show genuine factual dispute)
- Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir.) (ADA: notice, interactive process, reasonable accommodation principles)
- Walton v. Mental Health Ass’n of Se. Pa., 168 F.3d 661 (3d Cir.) (ADA hostile‑work‑environment elements and causation requirement)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir.) (pretext proof standards under McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271 (3d Cir.) (retaliation causation and use of circumstantial evidence)
- Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir.) (temporal proximity can be unduly suggestive for causation)
- Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc., 318 F.3d 183 (3d Cir.) (close temporal proximity supports causal inference)
- Ball v. Einstein Community Health Assocs., Inc., [citation="514 F. App'x 196"] (3d Cir.) (to show pretext plaintiff must do more than show employer was wrong or mistaken)