Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCHARGE—E.D. Pa.: Kidney transplant recipient may proceed with ADA discrimination, FMLA claims, (Jan 5, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D.

She suffered from IgA nephropathy, a chronic kidney disease that worsened over time.

A former employee with kidney disease who needed time off for a transplant and sued her employer after she was terminated as part of a reduction in force may proceed with an ADA discrimination claim FMLA claims, a federal district court found. As to the ADA discrimination claim, credibility determinations and the resolution of contradictory evidence are questions reserved for the jury, and that the employer’s inability to clearly explain why the plaintiff was selected supported a finding of pretext. Concerning FMLA retaliation and interference, although plaintiff had not submitted a formal FMLA request, the court held that a November 2022 email sufficiently notified the employer of her intent to take qualifying leave in the future. However, the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s ADA failure-to-accommodate and ADA retaliation claims, holding that the plaintiff failed to properly request accommodations (Pavlicin v. CapTech Ventures, Inc., No. 24-5415 (E.D. Pa. Dec.18, 2025)).

Consulting. The plaintiff began working for the defendant technology consulting firm in May 2017 as a manager in its management consulting practice. She suffered from IgA nephropathy, a chronic kidney disease that worsened over time, and by 2021, her condition had progressed to the point that she would require a kidney transplant.

Kidney condition disclosed. She disclosed her medical condition to several coworkers, including her assigned “coach,” who played a quasi-supervisory and career development role. In anticipation of a future kidney transplant, she emailed the employer’s Benefits Department on November 2, 2022, seeking information about long-term leave. She explained that she would require approximately three months of recovery time but did not know when the transplant would occur. Human Resources responded with information about short-term disability and FMLA leave procedures, advising her that she could wait to initiate a formal claim until leave dates were known, but the plaintiff did not submit a formal leave request at that time.

Unassigned. At the end of December 2022, the plaintiff’s client contract expired, and she was placed “on the bench,” meaning she remained employed but unassigned to a client. In January 2023, the employer’s leadership initiated a reduction in force (RIF) to reduce costs associated with bench employees, with a management consultant responsible for selecting employees for termination using factors such as time on the bench, performance, skill set, and business needs. The plaintiff was included in the list for termination, with the stated reasons including “skill surplus,” “time at level,” and an unexplained category labeled “other.”

Fired. On February 1, 2023, the plaintiff was informed that her employment was terminated, then reminded management that she had previously contacted HR regarding her upcoming transplant and anticipated leave. Later that day, the employer rescinded the termination and placed the plaintiff back on payroll during internal discussions occurred, later presenting her with options including short-term disability, unpaid medical leave, or termination with severance. The plaintiff did not select an option, maintaining that she was ready and able to work, but on April 7, 2023, the employer formally terminated her employment.

Lawsuit. The plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging ADA and FMLA violations. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment.

Analysis. The federal district court addressed the procedural issue under rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reviewing whether there were no material facts at issue, so that the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court analyzed the ADA discrimination and retaliation claims, along with the FMLA retaliation and interference claims using the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework.

ADA discrimination. As to the ADA discrimination claim, the court found that the plaintiff easily satisfied the prima facie elements: she was disabled, qualified for her position, and suffered an adverse employment action. The central dispute was whether her termination occurred because of her disability. The employer argued that the management consultant, who was the sole decision-maker regarding the RIF, was unaware of the plaintiff’s medical condition when he selected her for the RIF. However, the court identified substantial conflicting testimony from multiple employees suggesting that the decision-maker was aware of her impending transplant and anticipated leave. The court emphasized that credibility determinations and the resolution of contradictory evidence are questions reserved for the jury. The employer’s inability to clearly explain why the plaintiff was selected supported a finding of pretext, the court stated, denying summary judgment on the ADA discrimination claim.

Other ADA claims. However, the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s ADA failure-to-accommodate and ADA retaliation claims, holding that the plaintiff failed to properly request accommodations. Merely requesting information about leave did not constitute a request for an accommodation, the court stated, pointing out that the plaintiff herself testified that she did not believe she needed accommodations at the time.

FMLA claims. Turning to the FMLA claims, the court denied summary judgment on both retaliation and interference. Although the plaintiff had not submitted a formal FMLA request, the court held that her November 2022 email sufficiently notified the employer of her intent to take qualifying leave in the future. Terminating an employee after such notice but before leave can be taken may constitute both retaliation and interference, the court held, and the timing of the RIF, combined with evidence suggesting concern over staffing employees who require leave, allowed a reasonable jury to infer a causal connection. Accordingly, those claims were permitted to proceed to trial.

The case is No. 24-5415.

Judge: Savage, T.

Attorneys: Laura Carlin Mattiacci (Console Mattiacci) for Tracey Pavlicin. Renee N. Smith (Jackson Lewis) for CapTech Ventures, Inc.

Companies: CapTech Ventures, Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Discharge PennsylvaniaNews