Jakomas v. City of Pittsburgh
342 F. Supp. 3d 632
W.D. Pa.2018Background
- Dawn Jakomas, an at-will Administrator who had been serving temporarily as Acting Manager (with higher "acting pay"), took City‑approved medical/FMLA leave beginning Feb. 21, 2014, for treatment of potentially cancerous tumors. The City knew of her condition.
- One day before leave began (Feb. 20, 2014) Jakomas was relieved of Acting Manager duties and acting pay; the City and Jakomas both understood the Acting assignment to be temporary.
- While on leave Jakomas filed an EEOC Charge (Nov. 7, 2014). She returned to work Feb. 9–10, 2015 without physical restrictions.
- After returning she was assigned reduced supervisory duties and non‑job tasks (e.g., office cleaning to "assess her skills"). New office policies were implemented and Jakomas received a series of reprimands and progressive suspensions in March–April 2015 for alleged insubordination and timekeeping violations.
- Jakomas was suspended pending termination and the City terminated her effective April 9, 2015. She sued under the ADA alleging disability discrimination and retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2014 reversion from Acting Manager was an ADA adverse action | Reversion/cessation of acting pay was a demotion and adverse action tied to her medical condition | Acting Manager status/pay was temporary under City policy; reversion restored status quo and was not an adverse action | Court: Not an adverse action — summary judgment for City as to all pre‑2015 acts |
| Whether post‑return (2015) changes to duties, discipline, and termination support ADA discrimination | Changes, humiliating tasks, and rapid progressive discipline occurred after return and because City regarded her as disabled | Termination and discipline were for legitimate non‑discriminatory reasons: insubordination and progressive discipline | Court: Jury question exists — Plaintiff raised prima facie discrimination showing and causation; summary judgment denied on 2015 discrimination claims |
| Whether Jakomas was "regarded as" disabled under the ADAAA | Knowledge of her medical condition and actions to "assess" her upon return show City regarded her as impaired | Employer awareness alone is insufficient; Third Circuit precedent (pre‑ADAAA) required more | Court: ADAAA supersedes narrow pre‑ADAAA rule; employer awareness can create a factual dispute on "regarded as," but plaintiff still must show causation — here a fact question exists |
| Whether filing an EEOC charge (Nov. 2014) supports an ADA retaliation claim | Temporal proximity, altered duties on return, supervisor comments about the charge, and disparate discipline infer retaliatory motive | Four‑month gap and independent disciplinary reasons break causation; actions were legitimate progressive discipline | Court: Fact issue exists — plaintiff established prima facie retaliation and raised questions about pretext; summary judgment denied on retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (non‑movant evidence and inferences at summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Gaul v. Lucent Techs., 134 F.3d 576 (ADA prima facie elements)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (showing pretext under McDonnell Douglas)
- LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Comm. Ctr. Ass'n, 503 F.3d 217 (retaliation causation and temporal proximity)
- Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc., 318 F.3d 183 (retaliation under ADA does not require disability showing)
- Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403 (demotion/adverse action discussion)
- Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (surviving summary judgment by showing employer reason unworthy of credence)