Thought Leadership

The plaintiff sued her employer, alleging that they had violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance (PFPO). The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that her employer terminated her employment on October 15, 2016, because of three cerebral aneurysms she had suffered a year earlier on October 15, 2015. The district court, in considering the employer’s motion for summary judgment, found that disputes of material fact existed and denied summary judgment. However, the employer then moved for reconsideration, and the court granted its motion. In granting summary judgment for the employer, the court noted that the plaintiff’s opposition to the motion relied on little more than a self-serving and conclusory declaration from the plaintiff herself. By contrast, the record evidence demonstrated that the employer had handled the plaintiff’s circumstance in a manner entirely consistent with the governing collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff then appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding her declaration to be insufficient to create a dispute of material fact. The Third Circuit disagreed and affirmed. In doing so, the court noted that, while a “single, non-conclusory affidavit or witness’s testimony, when based on personal knowledge and directed at a material issue is sufficient to defeat summary judgment[,]” in the instant case, the plaintiff’s declaration was wholly conclusory, contrary to the established facts, and not material to the issues presented. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}