Leese v. Adelphoi Village, Inc., 1:10-cv-00813

Plaintiffs Judy Leese and Douglas Leese, Sr. sue Adelphoi Village, Soltys, Perkins, and Matko alleging FMLA violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium; filed April 16, 2010.
Leese started as an MST Therapist at Adelphoi in 2000 and progressed to a supervisory role with documented performance deficiencies beginning 2006-2007.
Defendant Matko created a performance action plan after ongoing deficiencies and issued a written reprimand on December 11, 2007.
In 2008, an investigation into summer 2007 client cases led to the decision to terminate Leese; a meeting was scheduled for April 18, 2008 to discuss misconduct and termination.
Leese claimed disability on April 17, 2008; medical leave extended to May 1, 2008, and she attended the May 1 meeting where she was terminated for performance and policy violations.
The court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation granting summary judgment to Defendants, addressing equitable estoppel, FMLA retaliation and interference, and the emotional distress and loss of consortium claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether equitable estoppel bars ineligibility defense under FMLA.	Leese relied on eligibility representations to take leave.	Defendants are not estopped from raising ineligibility.	No detriment shown; estoppel not applicable.
Whether FMLA retaliation claim survives.	Terminating after requesting/using FMLA leave constitutes retaliation.	Termination based on prior performance and policy violations; not causally linked to leave.	Plaintiffs failed to show causal connection; judgment for Defendants.
Whether FMLA interference claim survives.	Interference with benefits evidenced by leave timing and denial of benefits.	Termination for legitimate performance reasons; no recoverable wage loss post-termination.	No actionable interference; judgment for Defendants.
Whether intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is viable.	May 1, 2008 meeting conduct was extreme and outrageous.	Single improper remark does not meet the extreme/outrageous standard.	No genuine issue of material fact; claim fails.
Whether loss of consortium claim survives.	Leese's spouse alleges derivative damages from Leese’s claims.	Derivative claim cannot survive absent underlying claims.	Dependent on underlying claims; underlying claims fail; loss of consortium denied.

Conoshenti v. Public Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (to prove FMLA retaliation elements)
Callison v. City of Philadelphia, 430 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2005) (prima facie burden for interference claims; need damages)
Baker v. United Defense Indus., 403 Fed. App’x 751 (3d Cir. 2010) (employer actions preexisting contemplated lines not evidence of causality)
Sinacole v. iGate Capital, 287 Fed. App’x 993 (3d Cir. 2008) (no estoppel where no detriment shown)
Heckler v. Comm. Health Servs. of Crawford Cnty., 467 U.S. 51 (1984) (equitable estoppel framework origin)
Lapham v. Vanguard Cellular Sys., Inc., 102 F. Supp. 2d 266 (M.D. Pa. 2000) (damages required for FMLA interference claim)