Sine v. Rockhill Mennonite Home
275 F. Supp. 3d 538
E.D. Pa.2017Background
- Rockhill Mennonite Home employed Plaintiff Michele Sine as a floor technician from June 12, 2014; she was terminated May 27, 2015, ~two weeks before her one-year anniversary.
- In January 2015 Sine told HR she needed a hysterectomy to prevent cancer and requested 2–3 weeks of medical leave; HR said she was ineligible for FMLA because she had not been employed 12 months and Sine canceled the February surgery.
- In late April 2015 Sine again informed HR (via two HR representatives) she needed a hysterectomy and requested FMLA paperwork; the requested paperwork was not provided.
- Sine alleges she informed the employer that the surgery would be scheduled after her one-year work anniversary (i.e., post-eligibility), and that her later termination was connected to these requests.
- Claims in the FAC: FMLA interference, FMLA discrimination and retaliation (Counts I–III); ADA and PHRA failure-to-accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation (Counts IV–IX).
- District court assessed plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss all claims, finding Sine adequately pleaded protected notice of future FMLA leave and a plausible disability-based adverse-action inference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA eligibility for protection after pre-eligibility notice | Sine put employer on notice of intent to take FMLA leave after her one-year anniversary; that notice is protected even if given before eligibility | Rockhill: Sine was not yet an "eligible employee" (12 months), so FMLA claims fail | Court: Pre-eligibility notice of future FMLA leave can be protected; plausible that Sine’s April request was for post-eligibility leave and survives dismissal |
| FMLA interference and retaliation | Sine gave notice, was denied FMLA benefits, and was terminated; termination causally related to her invocation of FMLA rights | Rockhill: No entitlement because Sine was not eligible | Court: Elements plausibly pleaded (notice, adverse action, causal link); interference and retaliation claims survive |
| ADA/PHRA—whether Sine pleaded a disability or "regarded as" disability | Sine’s need for a preventative hysterectomy (and temporal proximity of termination) permits inference employer perceived impairment as disabling | Rockhill: Preventative hysterectomy is not a cognizable/ substantial impairment; insufficient pleading | Court: Allegations and temporal proximity permit an inference that Rockhill regarded Sine as disabled; ADA and PHRA claims survive |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility framework for complaints)
- Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc., 666 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012) (pre-eligibility notice can be protected)
- Skrjanc v. Great Lakes Power Serv. Co., 272 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2001) (employees may give notice of foreseeable future FMLA leave)
- Gleaton v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 719 F. Supp. 2d 623 (D.S.C. 2010) (adopting approach protecting pre-eligible notice)
- Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) (elements of FMLA retaliation)
- Macfarlan v. Ivy Hill SNF, LLC, 675 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2012) (ADA discrimination elements)
- Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 1996) (employer awareness alone insufficient to show "regarded as" disabled)