Pujols, P. v. Good Shepherd Rehabilitation Network
Pujols, P. v. Good Shepherd Rehabilitation Network No. 3078 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Patricia Pujols worked as a certified nursing assistant at Good Shepherd and sustained a work-related injury.
- After periods of modified duty and disability leave, Good Shepherd terminated her employment; Pujols does not contest that termination.
- Pujols received workers’ compensation benefits for about two years; a WC judge later found her fit for work and suspended benefits, a decision Pujols appealed (and later lost).
- After the WC finding, Pujols applied to be rehired in her former position; Good Shepherd asked for a new medical clearance showing ability to perform duties without restrictions; Pujols did not provide one and was not rehired.
- Pujols sued alleging retaliatory refusal to rehire (public-policy/Shick) and PHRA disability discrimination; after a non-jury bench trial the court entered judgment for Good Shepherd.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, holding Pujols waived her JNOV claim by not moving for a directed verdict at trial and otherwise reviewing the merits in favor of Good Shepherd.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refusal to rehire after exercise of workers’ compensation rights violates public policy (Shick) | Pujols: Good Shepherd refused to rehire in retaliation for her WC appeal, violating Shick public policy | Good Shepherd: Employer lawfully required medical clearance and did not retaliate; also procedural waiver of JNOV | Court: Affirmed for Good Shepherd; Pujols waived JNOV by not moving for directed verdict; no relief granted |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by entering judgment for employer in retaliatory-rehire claim | Pujols: Judgment improper because benefits termination was result of WC proceedings and she was exercising rights | Good Shepherd: No abuse; lawful rehiring prerequisites; no unlawful retaliation proven | Court: No abuse found; judgment affirmed (waiver of JNOV) |
| Whether employer’s inquiries/consideration of WC history and perceived disability violated disability discrimination law (PHRA and ADA regs) | Pujols: Employer inquired about disability, relied on WC history, perceived her as disabled and refused to hire without accommodation | Good Shepherd: Required medical clearance; nondiscriminatory, job-related inquiry to ensure ability to perform duties | Court: No relief; plaintiff’s post-trial JNOV waived; trial court’s judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Whether post-trial JNOV/new trial should be granted | Pujols: Requested JNOV or new trial after bench verdict | Good Shepherd: Pujols failed to preserve JNOV by not seeking directed verdict; new trial not warranted | Court: JNOV request waived; judgment affirmed; new trial not granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Shick v. Shirey, 716 A.2d 1231 (Pa. 1998) (recognizes public-policy wrongful discharge framework related to workers’ compensation rights)
- Phillips v. Lock, 86 A.3d 906 (Pa. Super. 2014) (post-trial relief requires preservation of grounds at trial)
- Youst v. Keck's Food Servs., Inc., 94 A.3d 1057 (Pa. Super. 2014) (to preserve JNOV, a litigant must move for directed verdict or request binding jury charge)
- Nikole, Inc. v. Klinger, 603 A.2d 587 (Pa. Super. 1992) (directed verdict rule applies in non-jury cases)
- Lanning v. West, 803 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2002) (new trial is sole remedy for verdict against weight of evidence)