455 F.Supp.3d 160
E.D. Pa.2020Background
- Plaintiff Lee J. Drummer, an African‑American male, worked as a Unit Secretary at Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP); rehired in 2008 after a prior termination and settlement.
- From 2013–2015 Drummer accumulated repeated documented discipline for lateness and performance deficiencies, culminating in a 30‑day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in February 2015 with six required competencies.
- During the PIP Drummer repeatedly failed to meet competencies; after a March 2015 evaluation he requested stress leave and later applied for FMLA leave, which was ultimately approved through May 31, 2015.
- HUP warned Drummer to contact supervisors when paperwork was missing; he failed to respond timely, returned June 10, 2015, and was terminated for failing to successfully complete the PIP as of March 18, 2015.
- Drummer sued asserting Title VII (race & gender pay discrimination), § 1981 race discrimination, ADA disability discrimination and retaliation, and FMLA interference and retaliation. Defendant moved for summary judgment; Drummer did not respond to the motion.
- The court granted summary judgment for HUP, concluding Drummer presented no evidence creating a genuine dispute as to any material fact and failed to satisfy elements of his claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII / §1981 unequal pay (race & gender) | Drummer contends he was paid less than female and non‑Black Unit Secretaries (citing comparator "Michael"). | No admissible evidence that comparators were similarly situated or that pay differences were race/gender‑based; differences explained by differing duties/roles. | Summary judgment for HUP; Drummer failed to make prima facie case or show discriminatory motive. |
| FMLA interference | Employer denied or interfered with FMLA benefits/rights. | Drummer received approved FMLA leave, continued benefits, and reinstatement; no denial of FMLA benefits. | Summary judgment for HUP; interference fails because benefits were provided. |
| ADA discrimination / retaliation | Termination and denial of transfer/accommodation resulted from depression and anxiety and/or requests for leave. | Termination was for failure to complete PIP; supervisor who decided was unaware of alleged disability; transfer ineligibility due to discipline. | Summary judgment for HUP; defendant offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and Drummer produced no evidence of pretext. |
| FMLA retaliation | Termination was retaliation for invoking FMLA leave. | Adverse action was based on performance/PIP, not leave; leave was accommodated and termination postponed while leave arranged. | Summary judgment for HUP; no causal connection or evidence of pretext shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment requires no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (nonmoving party must point to record evidence creating genuine dispute)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (standards for proving pretext at summary judgment)
- Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of African American‑Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (2020) (§1981 claims require but‑for causation inquiry)
- Ross v. Gilhuly, 755 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2014) (elements for FMLA interference claim)