Circuit Affirms Dismissal of City Tech Manager's FMLA Retaliation Suit
The lawsuit was brought by a former technology manager working for Philadelphia who claimed she faced retaliation for taking sick leave to address mental health issues.
April 29, 2020 at 11:55 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
A federal appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a former technology manager working for the city of Philadelphia who claimed she faced retaliation for taking sick leave to address mental health issues.
In Gardiner v. City of Philadelphia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected plaintiff Christina Adenike Gardiner's appeal. Her lawsuit alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Previously, U.S. Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that Gardiner failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether she can meet her evidentiary burden to establish FMLA retaliation.
Gardiner worked as a project manager in the city's Office of Innovation and Technology for four years. After defendant Michel Washington became her supervisor, Gardiner alleged he began to micromanage her and to express a belief that she could not adequately do her job.
According to Judge Julio Fuentes' April 23 opinion, Gardiner took a few days off to rest. When she returned, she was surprised to learn that she'd be leading a meeting in front of the chief innovation officer, Charles Brennan. She was unprepared to do so, Fuentes said, so Washington took over.
Washington sent Gardiner an email saying she seemed "indifferent, aloof and uncommitted," and that he hoped she would "show positive changes immediately."
Gardiner consulted with her doctor, who recommended she take sick leave, Fuentes said. She emailed Washington saying she was taking leave due to a stressful work environment and "medical issues," but did not elaborate.
She later received a letter from the city terminating her employment. Her subsequent lawsuit failed when the judge held that calling in sick without further information did not qualify as adequate notice to her employer under the FMLA and therefore did not trigger any obligations on the city's part under the act. The Third Circuit agreed.
"The email only conveyed to Washington that Gardiner's doctor suggested she take 'sick leave' for a few days because of a 'stressful work environment' and 'other medical issues' and that she hoped to return to work the following week," Fuentes said. "Gardiner did not identify the 'other medical issues' in the email, nor did she advise Washington of what these medical issues were. Instead, it was later learned that the 'other medical issues' referred to Gardiner's self-diagnoses of depression, anxiety, and stress, for which she never received a diagnosis or any treatment. Further, Gardiner failed to discuss her medical issues or her request for sick leave with the city's human resources department."
Wayne Ely, Gardiner's lawyer, did not respond to a request for comment.
The city also did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250