TT&H Attorney Christopher Scott Wins Employment Law Appeal Before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

In a case involving claims of employment disability discrimination and interference/retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Christopher Scott recently won an appeal before a panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court’s ruling affirmed the entry of summary judgment by Judge Jennifer Wilson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The action stemmed from the termination of a juvenile probation officer by Chris’s client, a local county.  Claiming wrongful termination, the Plaintiff’s suit contained several counts of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), as well as interference/retaliation under the FMLA, citing issues related to infertility.  After the District Court entered summary judgment on all counts and dismissed the case, the Plaintiff appealed to the Third Circuit.  Regarding the FMLA interference claim, the Plaintiff argued that her FMLA rights were violated when her request for two weeks off following a medical procedure was denied.  In relation to the discrimination/failure to accommodate claims, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants violated the ADA by denying her accommodation requests.  She further claimed that her termination was due to discrimination and retaliation under the FMLA and the ADA.

For his part, Chris first persuaded the Third Circuit to apply a plain error standard of review, rather than de novo review, due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation during the District Court proceedings.  Turning to the FMLA interference claim, Chris then convinced the Court that the Plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of her intention to take leave, leading to a decision to uphold the entry of summary judgment as to that claim.  As for the discrimination and failure to accommodate claims, Chris convinced the Court that the Plaintiff did not effectively participate in the interactive process necessary to determine reasonable accommodations, and that her requests were either unclear or unreasonable.  Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the Court also found that the Defendants had provided a legitimate reason for termination – specifically, the Plaintiff’s repeated failure to timely update case files.  As the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that this reason was pre-textual, the Court upheld the entry of summary judgment on both the discrimination and failure to accommodate claims.

Questions about this case can be directed to Christopher Scott at (717) 237-7111 or cscott@tthlaw.com.