Employee failed to establish causal connection between request for future leave and termination when employer immediately offered employee a salary increase and suggested she join its medical insurance plan when she informed employer she may have cancer.

The plaintiff alleged that she was retaliated against in violation of the ADA after she advised her employer that she may have cancer and may need time off in the future for medical treatments and was laid off approximately three months later. In affirming the decision that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between her alleged protected activity and the employer's decision to terminate her employment, the Third Circuit noted that the plaintiff "[d]iscounts the undisputed fact that, once informed of the possibility that [plaintiff] could have cancer on July 7, 2008, the [employer's] immediate response was to suggest that she join the [company's] medical insurance plan and to offer her a $3.00 hour raise." Moreover, the Third Circuit further reasoned that the employer's cost reduction efforts, including the effect that it had on the employer's personnel, were well-documented on the record and, as a result, it found that no reasonable juror "[c]ould find that the [employer's] decision to terminate [plaintiff] was motivated in whole or in part by her request for time off to tend to her ailments." In particular, the Third Circuit expressly noted that the plaintiff's "[a]ttempts to claim retaliatory motives after [the employer] tried to support her by offering her a medical insurance plan to cover any cancer treatments and an hourly raise is patently frivolous." Significantly, the Third Circuit did not address whether the plaintiff's request for future time off was a protected "[r]equest for a reasonable accommodation." In light of the ADAAA's current focus on reasonably accommodating employees' disabilities and engaging in the interactive process, employers will have to continue to take note of whether a request for "future leave" will be deemed "protected activity" by the courts, resulting in further exposure of retaliation claims from these employees.

Case Law Alert - 2nd Quarter 2013