Mary Kasper v. County of Bucks
514 F. App'x 210
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Kasper, white supervisor in Bucks County Domestic Relations (Feb 2008–Apr 2011), resigning in 2011.
- Cianfichi entered Kasper’s office without permission, removed her adopted son’s photo, copied it into a delinquent defendants list, and showed it to Kasper and another coworker.
- Kasper complained to LoBianco (supervisor); LoBianco took no disciplinary action against Cianfichi.
- Subsequently, Kasper faced an alleged ongoing harassment campaign and a disciplinary notice for improper use of sick days; LoBianco knew but did not intervene.
- Kasper filed suit in 2011 alleging §1983 equal protection, FMLA retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; district court dismissed with prejudice; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kasper’s §1983 claim survives dismissal. | Kasper alleges LoBianco’s acquiescence caused discrimination. | §1983 claims lack specificity and class-of-one theory does not apply. | §1983 claim affirmed to be implausible; failure to plead discrimination adequately. |
| Whether Kasper’s FMLA claim constitutes an adverse employment action. | Taking FMLA leave led to adverse action via Step I discipline. | Disciplinary Step I is not a materially adverse action. | FMLA claim dismissed; no materially adverse action. |
| Whether Kasper’s IIED claim against Cianfichi is viable. | Harassment conduct was extreme and outrageous. | Only a single prank alleged; not sufficiently outrageous. | IIED claim dismissed; conduct not extreme or outrageous. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying amendment or leaving deficiencies. | Kasper should have been allowed to amend. | Amendment would be futile given deficiencies. | Court did not abuse discretion in denying further amendment. |
| Whether Bucks County Common Pleas was properly implicated and immune. | Amended complaint added Bucks County Court of Common Pleas as a defendant. | Court not an appropriate §1983 defendant and immune; not responsive to §1983/FMLA claims. | District court’s dismissal on these grounds affirmed; further grounds not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469 (3d Cir. 1990) (disparate treatment required for §1983 equal protection claim)
- Argueta v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 643 F.3d 60 (3d Cir. 2011) (pleading requirements; specificity of discrimination)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (adverse action standard in FMLA/Title VII context)
- Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2010) (egregious conduct standard for IIED in context)
- Hoy v. Angelone, 554 Pa. 134 (1998) (Pennsylvania high bar for IIED extreme conduct)