PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge denied an employer's motion for summary judgment in a case alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Judge Petrese B. Tucker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment Inc.'s motion for summary judgment should be denied on the ADA and Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (PHRA) claims because there were contrasting reasons for the plaintiff Michael Napoli's termination that presented a material issue of fact, according to a Nov. 25 memorandum.
"Defendant argues that plaintiff’s request for an indefinite leave of absence did not constitute a reasonable accommodation defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act," Tucker wrote. "Thus, defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s request and subsequent termination of employment, was not a violation of the ADA nor the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act."
Michael Napoli was a part-time employee with defendant Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment and was diagnosed with diastolic heart failure in January 2017, according to the memorandum. He underwent a left and right heart catheterization that was unsuccessful and he lost feeling in his arm and was then diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis.
Napoli claims his physician said he needed seven to eight weeks off of work and provided him with a doctor's note, and when he went to meet with his supervisor regarding the need to be off for seven to eight weeks, his supervisor told him the request could not be accommodated and he would need to resign.
The plaintiff contacted Rebecca Carr, who worked in human resources with Greenwood, and she told him that he didn't qualify for any type of leave because he'd been with the company for less than one year.
Napoli contended he was informed he would be made inactive in the defendant's system, which "amounts to termination" and that, because of that, he did not feel that the defendant valued him and he did not reapply to work when he was able to return to work, the ruling states.
Tucker wrote that the request for definite leave constituted a reasonable accommodation.
"Plaintiff’s request was for a finite period, leave was a reasonable accommodation, and it follows that plaintiff would have been able to perform the essential functions of his job in the near future," Tucker wrote.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case number 18-2993