Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Pa.: Law firm denied motion for summary judgment against legal assistant’s disability bias claims, (Nov 17, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employee stated that when she first arrived, she spoke with the law firm’s founder and let him know that she had anxiety and that, based on her condition, she “needed some time to learn the position.”

A law firm was denied its motion for summary judgment against the claims of a legal assistant, who suffered from anxiety/depression and who claimed that during training after being hired, the head of the firm accosted her verbally about her inability to learn the job. According to the employee, the verbal assaults “caused her to suffer exacerbated symptoms of anxiety in connection with her disability.” While the employee claimed that she was fired, the employer contended that she voluntarily quit. However, the employee adequately supported her prima facie case of discrimination based on her disability with sufficient evidence from which a rational factfinder could find for her. Therefore, the employee satisfied her initial burden at the summary judgment stage (Borhi v. Tsarouhis Law Group, LLC, No. 22-cv-3081 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2025)).

“Panic attacks.” Sometime around 2009, the employee was diagnosed with general anxiety disorder and depression. At that time, she began participating in counseling and taking prescription medication as treatment for her medical conditions. According to the employee, her anxiety and depression are “not managed,” and when she is “at a job and [she doesn’t] understand something,” she experiences “panic attacks.”

Legal assistant. From October 13, 2020, to October 21, 2020, the employee was employed by the law firm as a legal assistant. As of October 13, 2020—her first day of work with the employer—she was taking medication for her anxiety and depression. She stated that when she first arrived, she spoke with the law firm’s founder and let him know she had anxiety and that, based on her condition, she “needed some time to learn the position.” She did not provide any documentation of her diagnosis, however.

Employment experience. Thereafter, the employee began training with a legal assistant already employed by the employer. On October 19, 2020, less than one week after she began her employment, the firm’s founder “accosted” the employee in a common area in an “aggressive tone,” stating that she “need[ed] to learn the job quicker” because the firm was “a fast-paced environment.” According to the employee, the founder’s conduct caused her extreme embarrassment as his criticism occurred in the presence of her colleagues.

Two days later, the founder again “belligerently” confronted the employee, demanding to know who had completed a particular work assignment. When the employee admitted that she had been the one who had worked on the assignment, the founder yelled at her, letting her know that she had completed it “all wrong” and that she would have to redo everything. At that point, the employee started having a panic attack.

While attempting to correct the employee, the founder continued to speak in a hostile manner. According to the employee, his conduct “caused her to suffer exacerbated symptoms of anxiety in connection with her disability.” The employee told the founder that she needed to go home. The founder stated to the employee that “if you go home, then stay there.”

After the employee left the office, the founder stated that he “took it as she quit.” When questioned about the employee’s purported disability, he testified that she never notified him that she had anxiety or any other type of medical issue.

Disability claims. On August 4, 2022, the employee filed suit under the ADA and PHRA alleging that the employer “terminated her employment based on her... disabilities and/or record of impairment... and in retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodations for her disabilities.” On May 31, 2024, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment arguing, that (1) it was not an “employer” as defined under the ADA because it does not meet the numerosity requirements of that statute; (2) the employee does not have a disability as defined under both the ADA and PHRA; (3) she cannot recover under either statute because she failed to notify the employer of her alleged disabilities; and (4) she cannot recover under either statute because she voluntarily quit her job.

The employer challenged only whether the employee had made out a prima facie case of discrimination. Therefore, the court analyzed only whether she satisfied her initial burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Numerosity requirement. As a threshold matter, the employer argued that neither the ADA nor the PHRA applied to it because under the ADA, the term “employer” is defined as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such person.” The employer contended that because it only employed nine individuals during the relevant time period, “the ADA and PHRA do not apply to [Defendant.]”

However, the employer’s contention ignored competent evidence in the record to the contrary. The employer’s payroll summary was limited to only a six-week period during September and November 2020. However, the relevant test to determine whether an employer is covered under the ADA is whether the employer employed 15 or more individuals “for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” It was theoretically possible that the employer may have employed 15 or more individuals for the requisite 20 weeks during the calendar years of 2020 or 2019. Therefore, the employer’s argument on this point failed.

Prima facie case. The employer next argued that the employee could not point to adequate evidence in the record to prove her prima facie case of discrimination. It challenged whether the employee has a disability as defined by the ADA and PHRA, whether she gave the requisite notice to it about any such disability, and whether she in fact voluntarily quit her job.

To establish a prima facie case, an employee must establish that she “(1) has a ‘disability,’ (2) is a ‘qualified individual,’ and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of that disability.” The ADA provides that an individual has a disability if she: (1) has “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;” (2) has “a record of such an impairment”; or (3) is “regarded as having such an impairment.”

Here, the employee adduced sufficient evidence that would allow a rational factfinder to conclude that she is substantially limited by her anxiety and depression. She was diagnosed in 2009 with anxiety and depression, and her condition prevents her from accomplishing certain work tasks, concentrating, and that when she does not understand something she experiences panic attacks. Moreover, her doctor confirmed her diagnoses for major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, history of post-traumatic stress disorder, and history of borderline personality disorder. Further, she has been consistently treated with medical professionals and taken medication for her condition since 2009.

“A rational factfinder could reasonably conclude that, when compared to an average individual in the general population, [Plaintiff] is substantially limited in [her] ability to perform [workplace] tasks. Therefore, [Plaintiff] has established a genuine issue of fact as to [her] entitlement to protection under the ADA” and PHRA.

Credited evidence. The employer’s next two contentions simply amounted to disagreements about which evidence to credit. It contended that the employee never informed any of its employees of her anxiety, and that she never requested an accommodation for her anxiety. However, the employee contradicted the employer’s testimony, claiming that she did in fact inform the founder on her first day of work that she had anxiety that affected her ability to perform certain work tasks and that she required extra time to train in order to accommodate her anxiety. This was sufficient to create a genuine question of material fact regarding whether the employer had notice of her disability.

Voluntary quit. Finally, the employer contended that the employee voluntarily quit her job on her last day. However, a reasonable factfinder could find that the employee requested an accommodation for her disability—taking the rest of the day off in light of her panic attack that she was currently suffering—and that the employer refused, thereafter offering her an ultimatum regarding her continued employment with it. Thus, a rational factfinder could reasonably find that the employer’s refusal to accommodate the employee constituted discrimination in violation of the ADA and PHRA.

The case is No. 22-cv-3081.

Judge: Sitarski, L.

Attorneys: Sidney L. Gold (The Gold Law Firm) for Virginia Borhi. Paul S. Peters, III (The Peters Firm) for Tsarouhis Law Group.

Companies: Tsarouhis Law Group, LLC

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews