Defendant's Attorney: Brad M. Kushner, Alexander V. Batoff, Brandon Shaby Shumtob, Wade D. Albert

Description: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania civil litigation, Lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant Family Medical Leave Act violation theory.


Plaintiff Rodriquez suffers from severe migraines with auras. SEPTA SUMF He began working for Defendant Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) in 2015. After prior attendance issues, Rodriquez accumulated two negative attendance points on June 8, 2018, pushing him over the permitted limit.

On June 26, 2018, SEPTA held an “informal hearing” in which the “proposed resolution” was “discharge.” Rodriquez claims that the hearing officer dissuaded Rodriquez from filing for Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave. Rodriquez visited a physician regarding his migraines on July 3, 2018. Two days later, Rodriquez's doctor filled out the paperwork supporting his FMLA claim for migraines. Rodriquez submitted that FMLA paperwork to SEPTA's third-party FMLA administrator on July 11, 2018. On July 12, 2018, SEPTA held a formal hearing in which Rodriquez mentioned he thought he was qualified for FMLA leave. The hearing resulted in Rodriquez's termination being approved, but final paperwork was not completed until later. On July 13, 2018, the third-party FMLA administrator approved Rodriquez for FMLA leave for the dates of June 28, 2018 until December 27, 2018. On July 16, 2018, the officer who oversaw the formal hearing completed the paperwork approving Rodriquez's discharge. Rodriquez stopped working for SEPTA on July 17, 2018.

Rodriquez alleges that SEPTA interfered with his rights under the FMLA (the “Interference Claim”) and retaliated against him for exercising those same rights (the “Retaliation Claim”).

SEPTA moves for summary judgment on both claims. Asserting that Rodriquez was terminated on June 8, 2018, as soon as he had accumulated a set number of attendance points, SEPTA argues that Rodriquez's Interference Claim fails because Rodriquez cannot show that he had a “serious health condition” , and because Rodriquez did not exercise or give notice that he intended to exercise his FMLA rights until after he had been terminated. SEPTA also argues that Rodriquez's Retaliation Claim fails because:

1. Rodriquez did not evoke his FMLA rights until after he had been fired;

2. Rodriquez cannot show causation between the alleged June 8 discharge and the July 13 FMLA approval;

3. SEPTA had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for his discharge, namely that SEPTA was justified in terminating him on the basis of his attendance points; and

4. Rodriquez cannot show that SEPTA's legitimate reason for discharge was pretextual Rodriquez responds that summary judgment would be inappropriate because there are a number of genuine disputes of material facts. Response (ECF 29). He argues that his termination was not effective until July 17 and that, regardless, there is a dispute of material fact on that issue. Id. at 10. He also argues that whether he had a serious health condition is a question of fact, not law, and is a material fact under dispute. Id. at 13-15. Rodriquez argues that SEPTA had adequate notice that his migraines were potentially FMLA-qualifying well before he was discharged but failed to notify him about his FMLA rights. Id. at 17-25. Finally, he argues that SEPTA attempted to prevent him from exercising his FMLA rights and then retaliated against him for seeking FMLA approval in July. Id. at 31-36. SEPTA replies, contesting a number of facts that Rodriquez asserts in his Response.

Outcome: AND NOW, this 2nd day of November, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant's Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and Plaintiff's responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Civil Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on June 7, 2023, is VACATED, and that judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all claims and causes of action. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Liquidated Damages is therefore also necessarily DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: