434 F.Supp.3d 284
E.D. Pa.2020Background
- Plaintiff Mary Jo May was a PNC branch manager who began employment in 2009 and was terminated in September 2017 after an internal investigation found she directed a subordinate to request fee refunds on a joint personal account.
- May took three weeks of FMLA leave in April–May 2017 after a pregnancy loss and informed her supervisor, regional manager Raymond DiSandro, of a subsequent high‑risk pregnancy in June 2017; she discussed potential post‑birth FMLA leave with HR.
- Between June and her termination, May attended pregnancy‑related medical appointments and alleges DiSandro made repeated negative remarks about her absences and opportunities, creating a pattern of antagonism.
- Employee Relations investigator Valerie Walton‑Singer concluded May violated the Code of Ethics; Walton‑Singer recommended termination, DiSandro escalated and ultimately agreed with termination; May’s subordinate received a written warning rather than termination.
- Procedurally, PNC moved for summary judgment on May’s remaining claims: Title VII sex and pregnancy discrimination, FMLA retaliation, and FMLA interference; the court granted summary judgment only on the Title VII sex claim and denied it as to pregnancy discrimination and both FMLA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII — Pregnancy discrimination (pretext) | May: termination followed pregnancy/FMLA notices and DiSandro’s disparaging comments — raises inference and pretext | PNC: terminated for legitimate Code of Ethics violation after investigation | Denied summary judgment — genuine dispute on inference and pretext; claim proceeds |
| Title VII — Sex discrimination | May: sex (apart from pregnancy) motivated firing; points to comparator treatment and feeling “talked down to” | PNC: comparator is not similarly situated; comments are subjective/insufficient | Granted summary judgment for PNC — sex claim dismissed |
| FMLA — Retaliation | May: she took/invoked FMLA; temporal proximity + pattern of antagonism show causation and pretext | PNC: termination was for ethics violation, not because of FMLA use or invocation | Denied summary judgment — triable issues on causation and pretext |
| FMLA — Interference | May: was entitled to FMLA benefits and was denied them because she was fired before taking post‑birth leave | PNC: May lacked entitlement/notice; claim duplicative of retaliation; termination for other reasons | Denied summary judgment — court finds notice/entitlement issues and redundancy are factual; interference claim may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (permits mixed‑motive Title VII instruction without direct evidence)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (explains plaintiff's burden to show employer pretext under McDonnell Douglas)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden and standards)
- Conoshenti v. Public Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (defines FMLA retaliation prima facie elements)
- Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc., 510 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2007) (explains notice requirements for FMLA entitlement)
- Egan v. Delaware River Port Authority, 851 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2017) (applies mixed‑motive theory to FMLA retaliation)
- Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) (discusses McDonnell Douglas application in FMLA context)