Ronald Ross v. Kevin Gilhuly, 755 F.3d 185

Ross, an at-will Continental employee, becomes ADM3 and works from Philadelphia with substantial travel.
Ross reports to Gilhuly; communication occurs via biweekly calls, email, and phone, with ongoing interaction.
Ross faces performance concerns from a major client, Betz of Reliable Tire, prompting management to consider a PIP.
A Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is drafted in fall 2011, outlining deficiencies and extension possibilities; Ross signs a six-month plan.
Ross is diagnosed with prostate cancer in late 2011; Continental temporarily extends the PIP timeline to accommodate treatment.
Ross returns from FMLA leave in March 2012; Continental extends and then issues an addendum to the PIP, delaying full evaluation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ross proved FMLA interference by Gilhuly	Ross argues interference by failure to conclude initial PIP and post-leave Addendum.	Ross received all FMLA benefits and was reinstated; no denial of entitlements occurred.	No interference; Ross received FMLA benefits and was reinstated.
Whether Ross proved FMLA retaliation via McDonnell Douglas	Addendum and termination were causally linked to FMLA leave.	Non-discriminatory, performance-based reasons support termination; no pretext shown.	No causal link; no pretext; judgment affirmed for defendants.

Lichtenstein v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) (defines interference and retaliation boundaries under FMLA)
Callison v. City of Philadelphia, 430 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2005) (to show deprivation of entitlements; no McDonnell Douglas burden for interference)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Ref. Corp., 72 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 1995) (timing evidence must be unusually suggestive to infer retaliation)
Shaner v. Synthes, 204 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 2000) (causal links in retaliation claims require showing pre- and post-activity evaluations)
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court 2009) (mixed-motive framework limits on certain claims; discussed in context of FMLA)