Lichtenstein v. UNIV. OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER
805 F. Supp. 2d 190
W.D. Pa.2011Background
- Lichtenstein was hired in October 2005 and transferred to UPMC Braddock on September 10, 2007, with disagreement over whether her transfer carried a probationary period.
- Upon transfer, she received an orientation about the unit's call-off procedure and an attendance policy linking tardiness and unauthorized absences to potential discharge.
- From late 2007 to early 2008, Lichtenstein repeatedly sought schedule changes for school-related activities, including a December 1, 2007 request and late January 2008 requests related to her mother’s illness.
- On December 30, 2007 she arrived late and left early without clear authorization; on January 3, 2008 she called off, citing her mother in the hospital, and later sought a more formal leave on January 8, 2008 to care for her mother.
- Defendants terminated Lichtenstein on January 10, 2008 for absenteeism, tardiness, and scheduling difficulties; she asserted FMLA claims (interference and retaliation).
- The court granted summary judgment to Defendants on both Counts, concluding no viable FMLA interference or retaliation claim was proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Lichtenstein asserts termination occurred because she sought FMLA leave for her mother. | Termination was based on chronic attendance and scheduling problems, not FMLA rights. | Granted to Defendants; no triable issue of retaliation. |
| Whether the interference claim survives summary judgment | Defendants denied FMLA rights by improperly treating January 3 and related absences as non-FMLA leave. | January 3 absence did not qualify as FMLA leave; there was no denial of FMLA rights. | Granted to Defendants; no viable interference claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (employer's burden to articulate legitimate reason in retaliation framework)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (pretext inquiry does not permit credibility determinations at initial stage)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (pretext standard and evidence evaluation in retaliation claims)
- Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc., 510 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2007) (direct evidence and causation framework under FMLA retaliation analysis)
- Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 500 (3d Cir. 2009) (retaliation analysis under FMLA after direct evidence considerations)
- Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (requirement to show invocation of FMLA rights for retaliation claims)
- Moorer v. Baptist Mem'l Health Care Sys., 398 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2005) (temporal proximity and interference with FMLA rights; causation considerations)