Mona Fiorentini v. William Penn School District, 665 F. App'x 229

Background

Fiorentini, hired in 2001 as a literacy coach/reading specialist, lacked a Pennsylvania elementary teaching certificate and did not have public-school classroom teaching experience under such a certificate.
In fall 2009 Fiorentini disclosed a biopsy and was later diagnosed with breast cancer; she alleges adverse treatment by her supervisor thereafter (reassignment to grades 3–6, exclusion from meetings).
The District approved medical leaves and a sabbatical (Feb 2010–Apr 2011); during that sabbatical the District reorganized and eliminated reading specialist/literacy coach positions.
The District created new classroom-focused positions requiring Pennsylvania teaching certification; Fiorentini did not apply for or was told she was unqualified for those positions and ultimately was furloughed in August 2011.
Fiorentini sued under the ADEA, FMLA, ADA, and PHRA; the district court granted summary judgment to the School District, and the Third Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADEA: Did reassignment and/or furlough constitute adverse employment actions and support an age-discrimination claim?	Reassignment to testing grades and later furlough were adverse and motivated by age/treated younger employees better.	Reassignment was not materially adverse (no change in title, pay, benefits); furlough resulted from legitimate, non-discriminatory reorganization and Fiorentini lacked required certification/experience.	Reassignment not an adverse action; furlough an adverse action but no inference of age discrimination and no pretext shown — ADEA claim fails.
FMLA retaliation: Was the reassignment retaliatory for invoking FMLA?	Reassignment followed disclosure/medical need and was retaliation for taking FMLA leave.	Reassignment occurred before invocation of FMLA and in any event was not an adverse employment action.	Reassignment not an adverse action; FMLA retaliation claim fails.
ADA: Was Fiorentini a qualified individual and was disability a determinative factor in furlough?	Cancer qualifies as a disability; District discriminated by furloughing her because of health.	Fiorentini was not qualified for available positions (no PA teaching certificate); furlough decisions were driven by objective qualification requirements and prior notice of risk.	Fiorentini was disabled but not a qualified individual for available roles; no evidence disability was a determinative factor — ADA claim fails.
PHRA/state-law claims: Do state-law analogues survive if federal claims fail?	(Not separately argued on appeal.)	PHRA follows federal standards; federal claims fail.	PHRA claims fail for same reasons as federal claims.

Key Cases Cited

Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir.) (standard of appellate review of summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (plaintiff must prove but-for causation in ADEA claim)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard — genuine dispute of material fact)
Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251 (3d Cir.) (definition of materially adverse employment action)
Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789 (3d Cir.) (use of comparators to infer discrimination)
Galabya v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 202 F.3d 636 (2d Cir.) (lateral reassignment without material change not adverse)
Watson v. SEPTA, 207 F.3d 207 (3d Cir.) (need to show protected characteristic was determinative factor for pretext/causation)
Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 500 (3d Cir.) (elements of an FMLA retaliation claim)