United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 31)
ARTHUR J. SCHWAB, District Judge.
In an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff pled the following three counts: (1) Count I-denial of benefits and failure to reinstate, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"); (2) Count II-failure to accommodate, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, related to Plaintiff's bowel and waste elimination functions; and (3) Count III-disability discrimination, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Doc. No. 16. The Court dismissed Count III with prejudice, upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, because the claims set forth in the count were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and did not relate back to the claims of the original Complaint. Doc. No. 23. Defendant did not move this Court to dismiss Counts I or II. Doc. No. 18.
Presently before this Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment, in which Defendant moves this Court to enter summary judgment in its favor as to Plaintiff's remaining claims. Doc. No. 31. Plaintiff wholly opposes this Motion. Doc. No. 36. After consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the related filings from both Parties, Defendant's Motion will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, for the following reasons. Doc. Nos. 30-33, 36-38.
II. Statement of Facts
As noted in the Court's Memorandum Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, this case centers on interactions on July 8, 2012, between Plaintiff and her supervisors prior to and after she was informed that she would be subject to a drug and alcohol test. Doc. No. 23.
Defendant moves this Court to enter summary judgment in its favor as to Count I on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff was not eligible for FMLA leave because she did not have sufficient qualifying work hours; (2) Plaintiff did not notify Defendant of her need for FMLA leave; (3) Plaintiff did not have a serious health condition; and (4) Defendant had an independent reason for discharging Plaintiff.
As to Count II, Defendant argues that an entry of summary judgment in its favor is appropriate because: (1) individuals involved in Plaintiff's discharge did not know that she had a covered disability; and (2) Plaintiff did not request or suggest the need for an accommodation.
Defendant contends that there are no genuine issues of material fact that would preclude the entry of summary judgment as to either count.
III. Standard of Review
The Court shall grant summary judgment if, drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Melrose, Inc. v. Pittsburgh , 613 F.3d 380, 387 (3d Cir. 2010); Manolovich v. Park , 461 Fed.Appx. 187, 190 (3d Cir. 2012).
A fact is "material" if proof of its existence or non-existence might affect the outcome of the suit under applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, (1986); see also Smith v. Borough of Dunmore , 516 Fed.Appx. 194, 200 (3d Cir. 2013). Disputes must be both material, meaning concerning facts that will affect the outcome of the issue under substantive law, and genuine, meaning there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute "to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." In re Lemington Home for Aged , 659 F.3d 282, 290 (3d Cir. 2011); see also S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion School Dist. , 729 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2013).
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court does not make credibility determinations, and summary judgment is "inappropriate when a case will turn on credibility determinations." El v. Southeastern ...