139 F. Supp. 3d 684
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Plaintiff Tanika Sowell, an educational recruiter, worked for Kelly Services from 2010–2013 and was terminated on July 31, 2013.
- Sowell had medical conditions (anemia, polycystic ovarian disease, hypertension, dysfunctional uterine bleeding) leading to hospitalizations, an April 2013 surgery, intermittent medical absences in spring/summer 2013, and a planned second surgery after termination.
- Sowell asked management and HR about FMLA leave in July 2013; HR left a voicemail but never provided individualized FMLA notice; she was terminated within days of requesting FMLA information and shortly after notifying management she would need two weeks for surgery.
- Employer contemporaneously cited performance, insubordination, and unprofessional conduct (meetings/emails in July 2013) as the reasons for termination.
- Sowell also requested workplace accommodations (time off and cleaner restroom) and alleges she was discouraged from taking leave; she returned to similar employment shortly after termination.
- Procedural posture: Defendant moved for summary judgment; court denied summary judgment on FMLA and ADA claims and granted summary judgment on PHRA disability claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference — notice and denial of benefits | Sowell gave adequate notice (medical absences, informed supervisors, requested FMLA info from HR) and was denied individualized FMLA notice and discouraged from leave | Kelly says it was unaware of FMLA-qualifying leave or was not triggered; never denied leave for earlier absences | Denied summary judgment: factual disputes on notice, individualized notice re: second surgery, discouragement, and denial via termination survive |
| FMLA retaliation (termination causation) | Temporal proximity and manager awareness show causal link; termination was a negative reaction to FMLA invocation | Termination was for legitimate non‑retaliatory reasons (insubordination, professionalism, time management) | Denied summary judgment: timing plus disputed credibility create triable issue of causation and pretext |
| ADA discrimination (disability and qualified individual) | Sowell’s conditions (collectively) substantially limit major life activities; requested leave is a reasonable accommodation | Kelly contends impairments are temporary and that absenteeism prevented essential job performance | Denied summary judgment: under ADAAA (broad view) factual disputes on substantial limitation, regarded‑as, reasonable accommodation, and pretext remain for jury |
| ADA retaliation (requesting accommodation) | Requests for leave and restroom accommodation are protected activity; termination was retaliatory | Kelly contends termination was for non‑discriminatory reasons and leaving building (not complaint) was the issue | Denied summary judgment: protected activity, temporal proximity, and disputed facts on causation and pretext survive |
| PHRA disability discrimination | Sowell argues PHRA claim mirrors ADA; she was disabled or regarded as such | Kelly argues PHRA uses the narrower pre‑ADAAA disability standard and Sowell lacks sufficient evidence of substantial limitation | Granted summary judgment for Kelly: under PHRA’s narrower pre‑ADAAA standard Sowell failed to show actual or regarded‑as disability |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standard and view of evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial standard)
- Marzano v. Computer Sci. Corp., Inc., 91 F.3d 497 (employment cases and summary judgment caution)
- Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (FMLA interference and retaliation framework)
- Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (prejudice inquiry and FMLA notice/leave accommodation principles)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (pretext standard for rebutting employer’s nondiscriminatory reason)
- Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 761 F.3d 314 (FMLA employer individual notice requirements)