Wevodau v. Pennsylvania, Office of the Attorney General
Docket: Civil No. 1:16-CV-0743
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania; January 3, 2017; Federal District Court
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act and Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by placing him on involuntary paid administrative leave after his medical leave. The court is currently considering Defendants' motion to dismiss the FMLA retaliation claim against Defendant Kathleen Kane. The motion will be granted, and since only a state law claim remains, the case will be remanded to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff has been a Special Agent in Charge for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since January 2013. He previously worked for the FBI and claims that Defendant Kane suspected him of being an informant. In early 2014, Kane canceled a sting operation related to public corruption, alleging racial motives despite evidence to the contrary, which Plaintiff contested in a memo. Following this, the Philadelphia District Attorney pursued charges based on the evidence that Kane dismissed.
In late 2014, Plaintiff testified before a grand jury regarding potential criminal charges against Kane. A defamation suit was filed against Kane and Plaintiff in April 2015 concerning Kane's statements about the sting operation. Plaintiff sought separate legal representation, asserting that his interests diverged from Kane's. A newspaper article in May 2015 revealed Plaintiff's role in exposing Kane's falsehoods, leading to Kane becoming aware of his grand jury testimony.
On June 19, 2015, Kane allegedly threatened Plaintiff at her home, accusing him of being detrimental to the Attorney General's office and warning that his reputation and family could be at risk unless he resigned. Plaintiff refused to resign and continued to testify before the grand jury regarding Kane's intimidation tactics.
On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff requested a twelve-week leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) due to health issues, which the Defendants approved. After the leave ended around October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff sought to return to work but was informed by the Defendants that a fitness for duty evaluation was required. Although the Plaintiff agreed to the evaluation, the Defendants did not clarify the process, and subsequently classified the Plaintiff as being on administrative leave without providing a reason or an end date. As of the amended complaint's filing, the Plaintiff had been on administrative leave for about eight months, despite being medically cleared to return, claiming that this was retaliation for exercising FMLA rights and testifying against Defendant Kane.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on April 4, 2016, which was removed to federal court on May 3, 2016. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 9, 2016, which was followed by an amended complaint on June 28, 2016. The Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the FMLA retaliation claim on July 8, 2016, with the motion fully briefed and ready for decision.
The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim was insufficient, arguing that: (1) paid administrative leave is not an adverse employment action; (2) the Plaintiff delayed five weeks post-FMLA leave to seek reinstatement, and could be terminated after the leave expired; and (3) the Plaintiff did not provide facts linking his administrative leave to his FMLA leave. The Plaintiff countered that he was granted an extension of FMLA leave, promptly sought to return after the extension, that paid administrative leave constitutes an adverse action, and that the timing indicated a causal relationship with his FMLA leave. The court found the Defendants' second argument decisive, negating the need to consider the causation aspect further. For an FMLA retaliation claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate invocation of FMLA rights, an adverse employment decision, and a causal connection between the two.
Plaintiffs must demonstrate that a reasonable employee would perceive the challenged actions as materially adverse when pursuing retaliation claims in the Third Circuit. The Court finds that Burlington Northern's standards apply to establish whether an adverse employment action occurred. In this case, the Plaintiff's prolonged paid administrative leave, lasting over a year without explanation, meets the threshold for being materially adverse, as it could deter a reasonable employee from making discrimination claims. Such leave is not merely a trivial issue, as it can significantly impact an employee's emotional well-being and career advancement opportunities.
Regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's delay in attempting to return to work—five weeks after his FMLA leave expired—negates his entitlement to reinstatement. Plaintiff counters that he was permitted to extend his leave beyond the statutory twelve weeks and was thus entitled to reinstatement. However, the majority of courts maintain that employees lose FMLA protections once the twelve-week period elapses, even with employer consent for an extension. The Court aligns with this majority view, concluding that Plaintiff forfeited his FMLA protections when he exceeded the leave duration and thereby failed to state a claim under the FMLA.
With the FMLA claim dismissed, the remaining retaliation claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law lacks original jurisdiction, necessitating a decision on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Court retains discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction, particularly after dismissing all claims under original jurisdiction, weighing factors like judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in its analysis.
The Third Circuit mandates that if a district court dismisses a claim with original jurisdiction prior to trial, it must refrain from deciding related state claims unless justified by judicial economy, convenience, or fairness. In this case, the court found no such justification for retaining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim. The litigation is in its early stages, with minimal time or resources invested, and the Pennsylvania state court is deemed a more suitable venue for the state claim. Consequently, the court dismissed Count II of the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the FMLA and opted to remand the remaining state law claim to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Additionally, the defendants sought to strike a request for punitive damages, claiming it was unavailable under the relevant laws. However, since the amended complaint did not include a request for punitive damages and the plaintiff confirmed he was not pursuing such an award, the court deemed the motion to strike moot. The court also referenced a fictional character’s work environment to illustrate the context but did not indicate any legal relevance to the case.
