De Luca v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania
834 F. Supp. 2d 282
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- De Luca, former Patron Services Manager at the Annenberg Center, sues Penn for FMLA interference and retaliation.
- She took one week of continuous FMLA leave for the adoption of a child who was found to be opiate-addicted.
- After returning, Penn denied her request for intermittent FMLA leave and later issued a job-expectations document.
- De Luca resigned after a meeting reviewing the job expectations document, following ongoing disputes over her schedule and performance.
- Penn’s policy required medical certification for FMLA leave based on a serious health condition and designated leave provisionally as FMLA leave.
- The court grants summary judgment for Penn on both the interference and retaliation claims after evaluating notice under the FMLA and the McDonnell Douglas framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does De Luca adequately notice an FMLA proxy reason? | De Luca's notice apprised Penn she needed leave for adoption and the child’s condition. | Notice did not indicate a serious health condition or caregiving need; no sufficient notice. | Interference claim fails for lack of adequate notice. |
| Was Penn’s denial of intermittent FMLA leave improper? | denial was contrary to FMLA rights when caregiving for a child with a serious condition. | Notice was insufficient; employer could require additional information and determine eligibility. | No genuine issue; denial did not violate FMLA due to inadequate notice. |
| Is there a triable issue of fact on FMLA retaliation based on the job expectations document? | The document and its timing reflect retaliation for FMLA leave. | Proffered non-discriminatory reason (attendance/performance issues) is legitimate and not pretextual. | Penn entitled to summary judgment on retaliation claim. |
| Does temporal proximity support a retaliation claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework? | Timing after leave suggests motive. | Timing alone is insufficient; must show pretext or discriminatory motive. | No adequate pretext proven; no triable issue on retaliation. |
| Did the sham declaration by De Luca preclude summary judgment analysis? | Declaration contradicts prior testimony and should be considered. | Sham affidavit doctrine bars consideration of inconsistent statements. | Paragraph three of De Luca's declaration is disregarded; does not affect end result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc., 510 F.3d 398 (3d Cir.2007) (notice adequacy governs entitlement to FMLA benefits)
- Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass GmbH, 359 F.3d 950 (7th Cir.2004) (two-part notice: demand for leave and reason to believe entitlement)
- Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (6th Cir.2004) (caution against post hoc justification for leave requests)
- Jalil v. Avdel Corp., 873 F.2d 701 (3d Cir.1989) (temporal proximity may suggest discrimination when accompanied by corroborating facts)
- Conoshenti v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir.2004) (McDonnell Douglas framework applies to retaliation claims under FMLA)
- Erdman v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 582 F.3d 500 (3d Cir.2009) (retaliation claims under FMLA follow McDonnell Douglas with Section 825.220(c))
- Callison v. City of Philadelphia, 430 F.3d 117 (3d Cir.2005) (FMLA interference doctrine; entitlements under 29 U.S.C. § 2612)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)