Kocher v. Borough of Kingston, 400 F.Supp.3d 138

Kocher, a long‑time Kingston police officer, injured his left knee on June 8, 2015, underwent arthroscopic surgery, received temporary work restrictions, and was ultimately released to full duty in January 2016. He collected workers’ compensation/Heart and Lung benefits while off work.
A detective vacancy arose in January 2016. Civil Service certified three candidates: McTague (1), Kocher (2), Anthony (3). The Mayor (Haggerty) had discretion to choose among the top three; Kocher was not interviewed and Anthony was appointed.
Kocher filed a union grievance (denied), an EEOC charge (denied), and then sued in federal court asserting: (1) state common‑law retaliation for filing workers’ compensation, and (2) ADAAA and PHRA claims for disability discrimination and retaliation for requesting accommodation/leave.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Kocher was not disabled under the ADAAA, failed to establish retaliation causation or pretext, and that the Mayor’s selection was a legitimate, non‑discriminatory exercise of discretion.
The court granted summary judgment to defendants on all federal claims (ADAAA and PHRA) and dismissed the state common‑law retaliation claim without prejudice, finding (a) Kocher did not show a qualifying disability at the time of the promotion decision, and (b) no causal link or pretext evidence to support retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Kocher retaliated against under the ADA for requesting accommodation/filing workers’ comp when he was not interviewed/promoted?	Kocher: his leave request/workers’ comp were protected; being skipped for interview and promotion was retaliatory.	Defs: No causal connection; Mayor unaware of specifics of Kocher’s leave; decision based on legitimate, non‑retaliatory factors.	Held: No prima facie retaliation; no causal link or pretext; summary judgment for defendants.
Was Kocher disabled under the ADAAA at the time of the adverse action?	Kocher: knee injury limited walking and work duties for months.	Defs: Injury was temporary, non‑chronic, resolved after surgery; not a substantial limitation.	Held: Not disabled as a matter of law (temporary limitation); discrimination claim fails.
Were compensatory/punitive damages available for ADA retaliation?	Kocher sought compensatory and punitive damages.	Defs: Courts limit remedies; compensatory/punitive not recoverable for ADA retaliation claims in this Circuit.	Held: Request for compensatory/punitive damages for ADA retaliation dismissed with prejudice.
Should the court retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state common‑law retaliation claim?	Kocher wanted his state claim to proceed.	Defs: Federal claims dismissed; court should decline supplemental jurisdiction.	Held: Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; state claim dismissed without prejudice.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)
Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir.) (standards for proving pretext at summary judgment)
Rinehimer v. Cemcolift, Inc., 292 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2002) (temporary, non‑chronic impairment generally not an ADA disability)
Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999) (elements of ADA discrimination claim and parity with PHRA)
Parrotta v. PECO Energy Co., 363 F. Supp. 3d 577 (E.D. Pa.) (measuring disability at time of adverse action; reliance on medical evidence)
Sampson v. Methacton Sch. Dist., 88 F. Supp. 3d 422 (E.D. Pa.) (knee injuries with months‑long limitations not ADA disabilities)