MELILLI v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, 2:10-cv-05865

Melilli worked as a body mechanic for SEPTA from 1987 until 2008 and was discharged for attendance issues after a 2004 last-chance agreement.
SEPTA administers FMLA through AmeriHealth using a rolling 12-month, 1250-hour eligibility method.
Plaintiff sought FMLA leave in January 2008 to care for his wife; the request was not finally approved and he was dropped.
In August 2008, Melilli received intermittent FMLA leave for his own health condition (panic/anxiety); AmeriHealth approved 3–5 days per month through Feb 2009.
In September 2008 Melilli allegedly sought FMLA leave, left work under medical leave, and was told by a supervisor to return to work; disputes exist about whether this was a denial of leave.
On October 16–21, 2008 Melilli was found sleeping on a bus, leading to a formal termination on October 31, 2008; Melilli pursued federal suit on Oct. 29, 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether January 2008 FMLA interference is barred by limitations	Melilli asserts willfulness; claims timely if willful.	Melilli’s January 2008 action not timely; not willful.	Barred by 2-year statute of limitations.
Whether September 2008 interference claim survives	Defendant interfered with FMLA rights on Sept. 23, 2008.	Time-barred or not properly proven; no willfulness shown.	Genuine dispute; summary judgment denied for September 2008 interference.
Whether October 2008 interference claims are time-barred or willful	Two October interferences; potential willfulness extends period.	Claims barred by 2-year limitations; willfulness not shown for timing.	Interference claims barred by statute of limitations.
Whether October 2008 retaliation claim survives	Discharge tied to protected FMLA leave; may be willful.	Defendant articulated nondiscriminatory reason (sleeping on duty); pretext issues for jury.	Retaliation claim survives; proceed to trial on causation/pretext issues.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifts at movant step)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute requires favorable view of record evidence)
Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2006) (defines genuine dispute and material facts for summary judgment)
Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (elements of a retaliation claim under the FMLA)
Capilli v. Whitesell Co., 271 F. App’x 261 (3d Cir. 2008) (McDonnell Douglas framework for FMLA retaliation)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)