Wilkie v. Luzerne County
207 F. Supp. 3d 433
M.D. Penn.
2016

Background

  • Don Wilkie (plaintiff) was a Luzerne County 911 dispatcher represented by AFSCME (the Union); he sought 30 days from the Union’s collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) "sick day bank" to obtain counseling for anxiety in Nov–Dec 2011.
  • Plaintiff submitted applications on Nov 15, 2011 and Dec 12, 2011; the sick bank committee reviewed the first on Dec 9 (tabled for more information) and denied the second on Dec 20; an appeal was denied in Feb 2012.
  • Plaintiff alleged the Union violated the ADA and PHRA by denying sick-bank leave; Counts VII–VIII assert disability discrimination by the Union. The Union moved for summary judgment on those claims.
  • At summary judgment the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for circumstantial-evidence ADA claims and considered whether (1) Wilkie was disabled under the ADA, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, (3) the Union proffered legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, and (4) those reasons were pretextual.
  • Key factual disputes include: whether Wilkie’s anxiety substantially limited a major life activity (thinking), whether denial of sick-bank leave constituted an adverse employment action, and whether the Union’s stated reasons for denial (insufficient accrued sick hours and that Wilkie worked while requests were pending) were pretextual.

Issues

Issue Wilkie's Argument Union's Argument Held
Whether Wilkie is disabled under the ADA Anxiety substantially limits "thinking"; daily episodes and physician/counseling evidence show impairment Argued he is not disabled under ADA standards Court: Genuine fact issue exists; reasonable jury could find disability
Whether denial of sick-bank leave is an adverse employment action Denial altered terms/privileges of employment by withholding paid leave needed for treatment Denial was an internal benefits decision, not a serious tangible employment action Court: Denial could be an adverse action; fact issue exists for jury
Whether Union offered legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for denial Reasons were pretextual given meeting minutes and delay in processing Denial based on CBA rules: lacked required sick-hour balance and Wilkie worked while leave was pending Court: Union met light burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reasons
Whether Union's reasons are pretext for discrimination Committee minutes, timing, and the nature of mental-health treatment support inference of pretext Proffered objective CBA-based grounds (insufficient hours; worked during requested leave) Court: Genuine disputes of material fact on pretext; summary judgment denied

Key Cases Cited

  • Knabe v. Boury, 114 F.3d 407 (3d Cir. 1997) (summary judgment standard overview)
  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute and materiality for summary judgment)
  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant may show nonmovant lacks evidence to carry burden)
  • Int'l Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 898 F.2d 946 (3d Cir. 1990) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
  • Shiring v. Runyon, 90 F.3d 827 (3d Cir. 1996) (use of McDonnell Douglas framework in ADA cases)
  • Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (pretext standards under McDonnell Douglas)
  • Abramson v. William Patterson Coll., 260 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2001) (employer burden to proffer nondiscriminatory reason)
  • Tomasso v. Boeing Co., 445 F.3d 702 (3d Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must contradict core facts of employer’s reason)
  • Storey v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., 390 F.3d 760 (3d Cir. 2004) (definition of adverse employment action)
  • Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 198 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 1999) (less than discharge can be adverse action)
  • Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999) ("thinking" is a major life activity)
  • Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) (minimal employer burden at second McDonnell step)
  • Burton v. Teleflex Inc., 707 F.3d 417 (3d Cir. 2013) (pretext burden articulation)
  • Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 2008) (summary judgment and pretext principles)
  • Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 130 F.3d 1101 (3d Cir. 1997) (employer’s reason must be plainly wrong to show pretext)
  • Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684 (3d Cir. 2009) (burden-shifting in ADA disparate treatment claims)
  • Gafliardo v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 311 F.3d 565 (3d Cir. 2002) (PHRA claims analyzed like ADA claims)
Read the full case