227 F. Supp. 3d 410
E.D. Pa.2017Background
- Bruce Gavurnik, age 59, worked as a service technician for Home Properties at a large apartment complex where overtime (especially for snow removal) was an essential job function.
- Gavurnik suffered vascular and musculoskeletal conditions (Raynaud’s, rheumatoid arthritis, bunions) and requested two accommodations: podiatric shoes (granted) and no mandatory overtime (denied/ignored).
- Despite his conditions, Gavurnik testified he could walk "as a normal person" and for more than an hour; he received “meets expectations” on a February 2014 performance review after a heavy snow season.
- From April–August 2014, supervisors and residents lodged multiple performance complaints and disciplinary warnings against Gavurnik (failure to call cleaners, trash removal, arguing about service prioritization, retaining keys, mishandling a leak).
- Home Properties terminated Gavurnik on September 2, 2014 and replaced him with a substantially younger employee; Gavurnik then sued under the ADEA, ADA, and PHRA asserting age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation.
- The court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion, finding Gavurnik was not disabled under the ADA and that Home Properties’ stated reasons for termination were legitimate and not pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination (ADEA prima facie & qualification) | Gavurnik was over 40, qualified, fired, and replaced by a younger worker | Overtime is an essential job function; requested no-overtime accommodation would make him unqualified | Court found Gavurnik met prima facie (qualified inference), but defendant offered legitimate reasons and plaintiff failed to show pretext; ADEA claim dismissed |
| Disability discrimination (ADA — actual disability) | Conditions substantially limited walking/standing (major life activities) | Gavurnik’s testimony and evaluations show he could walk/stand comparably to others; no substantial limitation | Court held Gavurnik was not disabled under the ADA; ADA discrimination claim fails |
| Disability discrimination (ADA — regarded-as) | Employer knew of his conditions and hospitalization; thus regarded him as disabled | Awareness of impairment and request for clearance does not show employer regarded him as disabled | Court held employer did not regard him as disabled; claim fails |
| Retaliation (ADEA and ADA) | Termination retaliatory for requesting accommodations and for complaining about equipment/snow blowers | Accommodation requests concerned disability (not age); long gap between accommodation request and termination undermines causation | ADEA retaliation fails (no protected age-based protest); ADA retaliation fails for lack of causal nexus (long temporal gap and no other evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show specific facts creating genuine issue)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (role of credibility and inference of discrimination at summary judgment)
- Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684 (application of McDonnell Douglas to ADEA in the Third Circuit)
- Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (PHRA and ADA standards aligned)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (proof required to show pretext under McDonnell Douglas)
- LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Cty. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217 (retaliation causation, temporal proximity analysis)
- Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494 (ADA retaliation protections for non-disabled accommodation requests)
- Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102 (standard for "regarded as" disabled under the ADA)