Kelly v. University of Pennsylvania Health Systems
708 F. App'x 60
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Brenda Kelly worked at Penn Medicine from 1991 until her termination in June 2015 as an operator responsible for emergency overhead announcements.
- Kelly suffered from medical conditions (osteoarthritis, Hepatitis B, morbid obesity) and repeatedly used FMLA and Penn Medicine’s Other Medical Leave, exhausting FMLA in 2011 and 2014.
- Beginning in 2014 Kelly entered a five-step disciplinary plan: Coaching → First Written Warning → Second Written Warning → Final Warning → termination for any further violation within 12 months.
- Between April 2014 and June 2015 Kelly received a First Written Warning, a Second Written Warning, and a Final Warning (after which she was later demoted for a separate incident).
- In June 2015 Kelly, while on a personal call, sent a rapid-response overhead announcement to the wrong hospital by entering the wrong code; four months after the Final Warning she was terminated.
- Kelly sued under the FMLA, ADA, and PHRA alleging retaliation and disability discrimination; the District Court granted summary judgment for Penn Medicine and the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA retaliation: Was termination causally linked to protected leave? | Kelly contends termination was retaliation for frequent FMLA/medical leave and return from extended leave. | Penn Medicine contends termination resulted from legitimate disciplinary history culminating in a Final Warning; termination followed a clear policy after a subsequent error. | Affirmed for employer — plaintiff showed prima facie but failed to prove pretext. |
| ADA/PHRA discrimination: Was termination due to disability? | Kelly argues adverse action was motivated by her physical ailments and need for leave. | Penn Medicine maintains discipline was based on work performance and rule violations, not disability. | Affirmed for employer — no evidence that legitimate reasons were pretext for disability discrimination. |
| Pretext: Do weaknesses in employer’s stated reason permit an inference of discrimination/retaliation? | Kelly points to timing after return from leave, demotion instead of termination earlier, and general comparator assertions. | Penn Medicine points to proximate, documented warnings, coworker affidavit admitting the final mistake, and lack of specific comparator evidence. | Affirmed for employer — Court found timing and record cut against pretext; plaintiff failed to identify specific comparators or create material factual dispute. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to create a triable issue at summary judgment | Kelly relies on her testimony and coworker affidavit denying some prior misconduct and alleging unequal treatment. | Penn Medicine emphasizes lack of first‑hand contradictory evidence, admission that Kelly erred in the final incident, and adherence to progressive-discipline policy. | Affirmed for employer — no material evidence undermined the articulated nondiscriminatory reason. |
Key Cases Cited
- Budhun v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 765 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2014) (FMLA retaliation framework and burden-shifting application)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (standard for proving pretext through inconsistencies, implausibilities, or contradictions)
- EEOC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 778 F.3d 444 (3d Cir. 2015) (elements of a prima facie retaliation claim)
- Walton v. Mental Health Ass’n of Se. Pa., 168 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 1999) (ADA discrimination analysis)
- Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 1997) (ADA retaliation principles)