363 F. Supp. 3d 577
E.D. Pa.2019Background
- Michael Parrotta, a PECO senior engineer, underwent foot surgery (Oct 31, 2016), was cleared for full duty by his podiatrist on Jan 10, 2017, and later tested positive for marijuana on a random drug test (sample collected May 15, 2017).
- PECO's drug policy classifies marijuana as illegal drug use; for exempt employees a first positive test can result in termination but the policy also requires referral to an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and permits management discretion; participation in EAP does not guarantee continued employment.
- After the positive test PECO removed Parrotta from duty, required EAP participation (May 19–Aug 12, 2017), and ran that leave concurrently with short-term disability/FMLA as the company treated it internally; Parrotta testified he did not request FMLA — the company assigned it.
- PECO held a fact-finding meeting on Aug 16, 2017 where Parrotta admitted he used marijuana to treat foot pain; PECO then conducted consensus and executive calls and terminated him effective Aug 30, 2017 for violating its drug policy.
- Parrotta sued alleging ADA and PHRA disability discrimination and retaliation, FMLA retaliation, and tortious interference with his later employment; PECO moved for summary judgment on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parrotta was "disabled" under the ADA at termination | Parrotta says ongoing foot pain from plantar plate tear substantially limited walking | PECO points to medical clearance for full duty on Jan 10, 2017 and no evidence of limitations at termination | Court: Not disabled — medical records show full-duty clearance >7 months before termination; plaintiff's testimony alone insufficient |
| Whether PECO discriminated/retaliated under ADA/PHRA | Parrotta contends timing, investigatory gaps, and longer retention before firing show pretext | PECO says termination was for confirmed positive drug test per neutral policy; process (EAP, fact-finding) was followed | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; PECO provided legitimate non-discriminatory reason; plaintiff failed to show pretext or disparate treatment |
| Whether Parrotta invoked FMLA rights and can bring FMLA retaliation claim | Parrotta argues PECO placed him on FMLA leave for EAP and then fired him shortly after return | PECO says Parrotta never requested FMLA; the company assigned FMLA concurrently with EAP and plaintiff did not invoke federal rights | Court: No FMLA retaliation — plaintiff did not invoke FMLA rights; employer-assigned leave without employee request does not support FMLA retaliation claim |
| Whether federal court should retain state tortious interference claim | Parrotta asserts PECO improperly blocked his contractor job under a rehiring policy | PECO defends policy application and justification | Court: Dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction after federal claims were resolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526 (3d Cir. 2017) (summary judgment standard and viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 500 (3d Cir. 2009) (FMLA retaliation requires invocation of FMLA rights)
- Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (timing and causation in FMLA retaliation analysis)
- Eshelman v. Agere Sys., Inc., 554 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2009) (short-term absence without long-term impairment insufficient to create a record of disability)