Jon Tirk v. Dubrook Inc, 673 F. App'x 238

Jon Tirk worked for Dubrook as a maintenance employee from 2003–2013 and had a history of left-knee injuries, surgeries, workers’ compensation claims, and temporary work restrictions which Dubrook accommodated.
On July 29, 2013, Tirk reinjured his knee in a workplace fall, filed an accident report the next day, but did not miss work; his physician imposed temporary light-duty restrictions.
On August 27, 2013 Dubrook decided as part of a reduction-in-force (RIF) to terminate Tirk (termination effective August 30, 2013); Dubrook cited economic losses and the ability of remaining staff to absorb his duties.
After the termination Dubrook did not replace Tirk and existing employees performed his duties. The company had eliminated overtime and reported a substantial 2013 financial loss.
Tirk sued under the ADA (claiming he was perceived as disabled) and under Pennsylvania law for retaliatory discharge for filing a workers’ compensation/accident report. The District Court granted summary judgment for Dubrook; Tirk appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA discrimination (perceived-as-disabled) — causation and pretext	Tirk argues temporal proximity (≈1 month after accident report) and employer’s perceived disability caused termination; seeks to show Dubrook’s economic reason was pretextual	Dubrook says termination was a legitimate RIF driven by financial losses and that remaining employees absorbed Tirk’s duties; no evidence termination was due to perceived disability	Affirmed for Dubrook: Tirk failed to prove causation from temporal proximity alone and produced no evidence undermining Dubrook’s economic RIF explanation (no pretext)
Pennsylvania retaliatory discharge for filing workers’ compensation/accident report	Tirk contends his accident report (one of two in 2013) supports an inference of retaliation	Dubrook points to lack of adverse treatment for prior claims, many other pending injury claims, and the company’s economic rationale for the RIF	Affirmed for Dubrook: record permits only the nondiscriminatory economic explanation; no reasonable jury could find retaliation

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177 (sets ADA prima facie elements)
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (burden of production to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271 (temporal proximity alone is not always sufficient to infer causation)
Thomas v. Town of Hammonton, 351 F.3d 108 (short gaps can be insufficient to establish causation)
Shick v. Shirey, 716 A.2d 1231 (Pa. law prohibiting termination for filing workers’ compensation claim)