HEIT v. PENN DENTAL MEDICINE
2:16-cv-02929
E.D. Pa.Nov 29, 2017Background
- Heit, a 48-year-old Jewish former administrative coordinator at Penn Dental, was terminated on Nov. 30, 2015 after an investigation concluded she submitted a timesheet showing she worked on a day she had been absent.
- Heit had worked at Penn since 2007; she took intermittent FMLA leave in 2015 for anxiety/depression and had temporary coverage by a younger employee, Tory O’Neill.
- Heit testified about prior (mostly hearsay) incidents from 2010–2013 involving Dean Kinane (insensitive remarks about Jews, alleged inappropriate conduct with other employees/students) but conceded most events were not directed at her and were not witnessed by her.
- Defendants investigated the timesheet after questioning indicated she was not in the office the day she reported; Farero and Graves confronted Heit and Graves signed the termination letter, citing falsified records and prior performance problems.
- Heit sued alleging age discrimination (ADEA, PHRA), sex and religious discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation (Title VII), and disability discrimination (ADA). Defendants moved for summary judgment; Heit sought additional discovery to depose former provost Vincent Price under Rule 56(d)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination (ADEA/PHRA) | Heit contends firing was pretextual and replacement by a substantially younger employee supports age bias | Penn says termination was for falsified timesheet and prior poor performance; O’Neill had been covering while Heit took FMLA | Court: Grant summary judgment for defendants; no evidence that age was the but-for cause of termination |
| Title VII disparate treatment (sex, religion) | Heit argues Dean Kinane’s comments and conduct indicate discriminatory animus that led to her firing | Defendants say Kinane was not involved in termination decision; stated non-discriminatory reasons (timesheet/performance) | Court: Grant summary judgment for defendants; no evidence tying firing to sex or religion, plaintiff’s assertions are speculative |
| Title VII retaliation & hostile work environment | Heit asserts she complained about Kinane (protected activity) and was later terminated in retaliation; alleges hostile environment from Kinane’s conduct | Defendants: no record that decision-makers knew of her complaints; incidents were isolated, often hearsay and not directed at Heit | Court: Retaliation—grant summary judgment (no causal link, hearsay); Hostile environment—grant summary judgment (insufficient severe/pervasive or directed at plaintiff) |
| ADA disability discrimination | Heit says anxiety/depression (FMLA leave) made her a disabled individual and termination was discriminatory | Defendants: decision based on falsified timesheet and performance; decision-makers did not know medical details | Court: Court finds Heit qualifies as disabled but grants summary judgment because there is no evidence termination resulted from disability/FMLA |
| Rule 56(d)(2) discovery request | Heit sought additional discovery (deposition of former provost Price) to show a nexus between complaints and termination | Defendants oppose; record includes Price declaration denying knowledge and Kinane testimony denying awareness | Court: Denies 56(d)(2) motion; plaintiff offered no new basis and existing record shows lack of nexus |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment may be granted where nonmoving party lacks evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires but-for causation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (hostile work environment requires severe or pervasive conduct)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (standard for hostile work environment)
- Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789 (speculation and denials insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, 130 F.3d 1101 (ADEA burden-shifting in Third Circuit)