KEYTANJIAN v. COUNTY OF CHESTER
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 2/14/2018. 2/14/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sme, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CHESTER,
FEBRUARY 14, 2018
Bryn Keytanjian was suspended the day after she told her employer about her bipolar
disorder. Despite this, the defendant moves for summary judgment arguing that (1) Ms.
Keytanjian was not disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act and (2) there was no
adverse employment action. Given that Ms. Keytanjian suffers from a serious psychological
disorder and was fired, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment on all claims with the
exception of the Family Medical Leave Act interference claim, which both sides agree should be
In 2007, Ms. Keytanjian started working for the County of Chester as a librarian.
Throughout her time with the County, she took Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave
numerous times, including twice in 2014 and twice in 2015, all relating to physical ailments. Her
leave was never denied.
The events giving rise to this lawsuit began in summer 2015. On June 30, 2015, Ms.
Keytanjian sent an angry email to her supervisor outlining complaints she had with her
supervisor’s management. In the email, she noted that “I am also too sensitive because I have
suffered deep depression since I was 12 and it is a disability I cannot help[.]” Given the tone of
the email, Ms. Keytanjian was called in for a meeting the next day to receive a written warning.
Ms. Keytanjian responded by yelling, reiterating that she had depression, and storming out of the
meeting. Immediately after this incident, the County suspended her without pay for a day and a
Shortly after her suspension, Ms. Keytanjian went on FMLA leave again, this time for
foot surgery that would keep her out of work from July 9 until October 30. On October 6, 2015,
three weeks before she was set to return from leave, the County sent a letter to Ms. Keytanjian.
The letter informed her that her position was being filled, but that she was free to apply to any
other position in the County’s job posting system for which she was qualified. Ms. Keytanjian
remained on a paid medical leave of absence until January 5, 2016, but never returned to work
and never applied for another job with the County.
Ms. Keytanjian brought suit against the county alleging four claims. 1 Her first two claims
are for discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Her
second two claims are for interference and retaliation under the FMLA.
Motion for Summary Judgment
A court shall grant a motion for summary judgment “if 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). An issue is “genuine” if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on
She also brings various state law claims that are duplicative of these four claims.
which a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Kaucher v. Cty. of
Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248 (1986)). A factual dispute is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the case under
governing law. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Under Rule 56, the Court must view the
evidence presented on the motion in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. However, “[u]nsupported assertions, conclusory allegations, or mere
suspicions are insufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment.” Betts v. New Castle
Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249, 252 (3d Cir. 2010).
The movant bears the initial responsibility for informing the Court of the basis for the
motion for summary judgment and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof on a particular issue, the moving party’s
initial burden can be met simply by “pointing out to the district court that there is an absence of
evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. After the moving party has met the
initial burden, the non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuinely disputed factual issue for trial by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,
stipulations . . . , admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials” or by “showing that the
materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c). Summary judgment is appropriate if the non-moving party fails to rebut by making a
factual showing “sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case,
and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting
Summary judgment motions such as these require application of the burden-shifting
analysis established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). This test first
places the burden on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case. After a plaintiff makes a prima
facie showing, “the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate non-retaliatory reason
for its conduct.” Carvalho-Grevious v. Delaware State Univ., 851 F.3d 249, 257 (3d Cir. 2017).
If the employer succeeds on this point, then “the burden shifts back to the plaintiff ‘to convince
the factfinder both that the employer’s proffered explanation was false . . . and that retaliation
was the real reason for the adverse employment action.’” Id. (citing Moore v. City of Phila., 461
F.3d 331, 342 (3d Cir. 2006)). Although the burden of production shifts under this analysis, the
burden of proof always stays with the plaintiff. Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 763.
If the defendant can make this showing, a plaintiff then “must point to some evidence,
direct or circumstantial, from which a factfinder could reasonably either (1) disbelieve the
employer’s articulated legitimate reasons; or (2) believe that an invidious discriminatory reason
was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employer’s action.” Fuentes,
32 F.3d at 764; see also Fakete v. Aetna, Inc., 308 F.3d 335, 339 (3d Cir. 2002).
To discredit the defendant’s proffered reason, the plaintiff cannot simply show that the
defendant’s decision was wrong or ill-conceived. The plaintiff must show that there is a genuine
dispute as to whether discrimination motivated the defendant’s actions. Id. at 765. In other
words, the relevant inquiry is the perception of the decision maker, not the plaintiff’s view of his
or her own performance. Billet v. CIGNA Corp., 940 F.2d 812, 825 (3d Cir. 1991) (citations
omitted); see also Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509 (3d Cir. 1993)
(pretext turns on the qualifications and criteria identified by the employer, not the categories the
plaintiff considers important).
ADA Claims 2
In the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the defendants challenge
Ms. Keytanjian’s prima facie case. “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA,
a plaintiff must show: (1) protected employee activity; (2) adverse action by the employer either
after or contemporaneous with the employee’s protected activity; and (3) a causal connection
between the employee’s protected activity and the employer’s adverse action.” Krouse v.
American Sterilizer Co. 126 F.3d 494, 500 (3d Cir. 1997). Here, the County disputes all three. It
disputes that (1) that Ms. Keytanjian was disabled under the ADA (2) that it took any adverse
actions against her and (3) that these actions were causally connected to her disability. All three
claims are meritless at the summary judgment stage.
A. Disability Under the ADA
To establish a claim of disability under the ADA at step 1 of the McDonnell Douglas test,
the plaintiff must show (1) a physical or mental impairment (2) that substantially limits one or
more major life functions and (3) that the plaintiff has, or is regarded as having, that type of
impairment. 43 U.S.C. §12112. The definition of a “physical or mental impairment” is quite
broad. A physical impairment is any “physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic
Given that all parties agree that the Rehabilitation Act and Philadelphia Human Relations Act (PHRA)
claims rise and fall with the ADA claims, the Court will only discuss the ADA claims here. These state
statutes are evaluated under the same legal standard as the ADA. Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 105
(3d Cir. 1996). The parties also agree that, given the factual predicate for the claims, the discrimination
and retaliation claims under the ADA rise and fall together.
disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems.” 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(h)(1). A mental impairment is “any mental or psychological disorder, such as an
intellectual disability (formerly termed ‘mental retardation’), organic brain syndrome, emotional
or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2). Likewise, the
definition of a major life activity is extremely broad. It includes “[c]aring for oneself, performing
manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting,
bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating,
interacting with others, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i).
The County agrees that Ms. Keytanjian has bipolar disorder, but argues that Ms.
Keytanjian has not produced evidence that this disorder substantially limits a major life function.
Ms. Keytanjian has produced letters from doctors regarding her disorder, and testified that it is
an “albatross that never leaves” and the “depression is dominant” in her life. 3 See Interrogatory
Number 7. Therefore, this argument fails as a factual matter. Even assuming this is true, it is
difficult to imagine a situation in which someone suffering from bipolar disorder as described
would not be limited under the applicable regulation. Ms. Keytanjian’s bipolar disorder, as
described, by its very nature, substantially limits major life functions because of the strong effect
it has on a person’s ability to function day to day. Therefore, a reasonable jury could find from
the evidence that Ms. Keytanjian was disabled for the purposes of the ADA, and this argument is
therefore without merit.
Ms. Keytanjian also suffers from migraines, which she describes as “particularly debilitating.” It is
unclear if these migraines are related to her bipolar disorder.
B. Adverse Employment Action Under the ADA
To prevail in her prima facie case, Ms. Keytanjian must show not only that she is
disabled, but also that she was discriminated against through an adverse employment action.
“Discrimination under the ADA encompasses  adverse actions motivated by prejudice and fear
of disabilities.” Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 306 (3d Cir. 1999). The Third
Circuit Court of Appeals has “described an adverse employment action ‘as an action by an
employer that is serious and tangible enough to alter an employee’s compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment.” Storey v. Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., 390 F.3d 760, 764
(3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted); see also Jones v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth.,
796 F.3d 323, 326 (3d Cir. 2015). The County argues that there was no adverse employment
action. But Ms. Keytanjian was suspended without pay for a day and a half and eventually fired.
Suspension without pay is an adverse employment action. See Jones v. SEPTA, 796 F.3d 323 (3d
Cir. 2015) (noting that a suspension with pay is not an adverse employment action but that a
suspension without pay meets the prima facie case). Although the County argues that Ms.
Keytanjian was suspended for her outburst at work, that argument is for a jury to evaluate and
weigh. Therefore, a suspension without pay is an adverse employment action, and the Court
finds this argument similarly meritless.
C. Causal Connection
The only remaining hurdle for Ms. Keytanjian is showing a causal connection between
the adverse action and the protected activity. This can be established by temporal proximity.
“Where the temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action is
‘unusually suggestive,’ it is sufficient standing alone to create an inference of causality and
defeat summary judgment.” LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217,
232 (3d Cir. 2007).
Here, the temporal proximity is only one day between when Ms. Keytanjian sent an email
to her supervisor requesting “flexibility and understanding” for her “deep depression” and when
she was suspended. She was also suspended immediately after her written warning the next day,
in which she told another manager that she was dealing with depression. The mere fact that Ms.
Keytanjian was suspended shortly after she told her managers that she required support for her
depression is enough “to create an inference of causality and defeat summary judgment.” Id.
Therefore, because a reasonable jury could find the elements of an ADA claim have been met,
both ADA claims will proceed past summary judgment.
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
The FMLA allows a cause of action for both interference and retaliation. The only claim
in dispute here is Ms. Keytanjian’s retaliation claim, 4 and the Court finds this claim can proceed
past summary judgment.
To meet the requirements for retaliation, Ms. Keytanjian must show that “(1) she invoked
her right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) she suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3)
the adverse action was causally related to her invocation of rights.” Lichtenstein v. Univ. of
Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir. 2012).
Ms. Keytanjian was fired while she was on FMLA leave, which is an adverse
employment action sufficient to meet the requirements for retaliation. The County argues that
Ms. Keytanjian does not dispute that she was always given FMLA leave she was entitled to, and does
not dispute the motion for summary judgment regarding FMLA interference. Therefore, the Court grants
summary judgment in favor of the County on Ms. Keytanjian’s FMLA interference claim.
there was never any adverse employment action, because even though the County filled Ms.
Keytanjian’s position, it offered her the opportunity to apply for a new position. However, even
though Ms. Keytanjian was offered the opportunity to re-apply, the termination of her current job
still meets the requirement of an adverse employment action. See, e.g., Williams v. St. Joan of
Arc Church, 226 F. App’x 180 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that a termination with the opportunity to
reapply for another job is an adverse employment action, despite the outstanding offer to reapply for another job). Therefore, the motion for summary judgment on the FMLA retaliation
claim is denied, but granted as to the interference claim.
For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment is denied for Ms. Keytanjian’s ADA
claims and FMLA retaliation claim. Summary judgment is granted for the FMLA interference
claim, given that both sides agree that the County never interfered with Ms. Keytanjian’s FMLA
BY THE COURT:
S/Gene E.K. Pratter
GENE E.K. PRATTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?