FAGAN v. ELWYN, INC
2:17-cv-00393
E.D. Pa.Aug 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Fagan, an African American employee, worked for Elwyn from 2002 until his termination in August 2015; his supervisor was Ben Dourte.
- Fagan observed and alleged racially hostile treatment by Dourte, including accusations of theft and disparate application of policies.
- Fagan took FMLA leave from July 11–22, 2015 for a stress-related serious health condition; he alleges Elwyn knew he had applied or intended to apply for intermittent FMLA leave through the end of 2015.
- Shortly after returning from leave, Fagan was terminated and replaced by a non–African American who had not taken FMLA leave.
- Fagan brought five claims: FMLA interference (Count I), FMLA discrimination (Count II), FMLA retaliation (Count III), PHRA race discrimination (Count IV), and PHRA disability discrimination (Count V). Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Counts I, II, and V.
- The Court considered whether the complaint plausibly alleged (a) FMLA notice/interference and (b) a cognizable disability under the PHRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference: whether termination after FMLA use/intent to use supports interference | Fagan alleges Elwyn knew he applied/intended to take intermittent FMLA and that threats by Dourte show interference | Defendants argue completed leave plus firing does not amount to denial of FMLA benefits | Court: Denied dismissal. Allegations that employer knew of intent to take intermittent leave and then terminated him are sufficient at pleading stage to state an interference claim |
| FMLA discrimination: whether FMLA discrimination claim pleaded | Fagan asserted discrimination based on FMLA use | Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to plead elements | Court: Granted dismissal without prejudice (plaintiff conceded insufficient pleading) |
| PHRA disability (actual disability): whether inability to perform job establishes disability | Fagan alleges inability to work his job due to stress-related condition | Defendants argue plaintiff failed to plead impairment substantially limiting a major life activity (broad range/class of jobs) | Court: Dismissed claim. Allegations that he could not perform his specific job do not plead inability to work in a class/broad range of jobs |
| PHRA disability (regarded-as): whether employer perceived him as disabled | Fagan claims employer perceived impairment from his leave/condition | Defendants argue no facts show employer regarded him as substantially limited in major life activities | Court: Dismissed claim. Pleading fails to show Elwyn believed he had an impairment substantially limiting major life activities |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausible entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 500 (3d Cir.) (employee who requested FMLA and was then fired may state interference claim)
- Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc., 510 F.3d 398 (3d Cir.) (liberal notice standard for FMLA requests)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir.) (Rule 8 notice pleading principles)
- Macfarlan v. Ivy Hill SNF, LLC, 675 F.3d 266 (3d Cir.) (PHRA "regarded as" disability standard)
- Innella v. Lenape Valley Foundation, 152 F. Supp. 3d 445 (E.D. Pa.) (elements for FMLA interference)
- Campbell v. Jefferson Univ. Physicians, 22 F. Supp. 3d 478 (E.D. Pa.) (FMLA interference prohibition under §2615)