JORDAN v. SEPTA, 2:10-cv-03470

Barbara Jordan, SEPTA employee since 1993, alleges discriminatory termination in retaliation for complaints about race and sex and seeks FMLA relief in Count Eight.
Plaintiff contends she could not work due to October 2009 injuries and that SEPTA’s termination while she was using sick benefits/FMLA was unlawful.
Defendants contend Jordan was not eligible for FMLA leave because she did not meet the 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months requirement.
SEPTA records show Jordan had 1,046 hours worked in the 12 months preceding December 3, 2009.
Jordan was terminated after she failed to report for a required panel physician visit and did not meet the employer’s procedural requirements for leave; the court applies standard summary judgment analysis to FMLA eligibility and entitlement.
Court grants defendants’ motion on Count Eight, denying plaintiff’s FMLA interference/retaliation claims as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Jordan eligible for FMLA leave based on hours worked in the prior 12 months?	Jordan asserts eligibility due to ongoing injuries and earlier sick leave.	Jordan did not meet 1,250 hours threshold; ineligible for FMLA.	Not eligible; FMLA claims barred as a matter of law.
Can an employee prevail on FMLA interference/retaliation if not eligible for FMLA leave?	SEPTA’s failure to inform of ineligibility before termination estops denial.	Ineligibility defeats entitlement; no protected FMLA rights.	Interference/retaliation claims fail because employee was not an eligible FMLA employee.
Did SEPTA’s failure to advise eligibility before leave commencement create liability for FMLA protections?	Regulatory guidance would create entitlement through estoppel.	Regulatory rulings do not expand eligibility; failure to advise does not create rights.	Regulatory guidance rejected; no expanded eligibility or liability.

Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine Service, Inc., 510 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2007) (interference requires entitlement and a causal link to adverse action)
Callison v. City of Philadelphia, 430 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2005) (definition of FMLA interference and entitlement framework)
Sinacole v. iGate Capital, 287 F. App’x 993 (3d Cir. 2008) (regulation expanding eligibility deemed invalid)
Woodford v. Community Action of Greene County, 268 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2001) (higher court rejection of reliance on non-enumerated eligibility expansion)
Dormeyer v. Comerica Bank-Illinois, 223 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2000) (regarding eligibility calculations under FMLA)
Brungart v. BellSouth, 231 F.3d 791 (11th Cir. 2000) (circuit discussions on FMLA notice and eligibility)