Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—M.D. Pa.: Fired warehouse worker, who complained about disability discrimination, can proceed with some claims, (May 6, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The one-month period between his complaint and termination showed a causal connection.

A 52-year-old warehouse worker can proceed to trial with his state and federal age and disability discrimination claims where he presented evidence that the employer’s reason for terminating him—that it understood he was headed to jail soon—was pretext, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled. The company’s reliance on his possible jail sentence was pretextual because it knew he was potentially facing jail when it hired him, and he never said he had been sentenced to jail. His retaliation claim based on reporting disability discrimination also advanced, but his age-related claim did not because his testimony disavowed that he made an age discrimination complaint. In addition, the court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment on his hostile work environment claims (Dunyan v. Eagle Graphics, Inc. dba Eagle Graphics, No. 1:23-CV-354 (M.D. Pa. May 5, 2025)).

The 52-year-old employee began his employment as a press operator with Eagle Graphics in September 2021. He had a DUI charge pending against him when he was hired and had disclosed this to the company’s president during the interview. That October, because he injured his finger in the workplace in a manner that limited the use of his right hand, he was transferred to a position in bindery.

Disclosed disabilities. The employee alleged that during the last several months of his employment, he disclosed a leg and foot injury to his manager and disclosed a double hernia to HR. He alleged that his manager made several discriminatory comments about him, such as “Can you do the job?” and “the young guy is running circles around you, are you able to keep up?” The employee testified that he reported these comments to the company’s president.

Termination. In August 2022, the employee called out of a work shift because of a court appearance related to his DUI charge. He claimed he said, “I’ll be in [for my shift on] Thursday if I don’t go to jail.” Eagle Graphics then terminated him because it understood he was headed to jail soon.

Complaint filed. Thereafter, the employee filed a complaint against Eagle Graphics alleging claims of discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under the ADA, ADEA and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Eagle Graphics filed this motion for summary judgment.

Age claims. The court denied Eagle Graphics’ motion for summary judgment on the employee’s age discrimination claims under the ADEA and the PHRA. The court found he met his prima facie burden and presented evidence of pretext.

The court rejected Eagle Graphics’ arguments that the employee was not qualified and was not replaced with a younger employee. The employee was qualified because he worked as a binder for roughly 10 months, but was only once verbally counseled on performance, was never written up, and was not terminated for his lack of ability. In addition, he alleged that two individuals replaced him, one of whom was 33 years old when he was hired just three days after the employee’s termination. Therefore, he met his prima facie burden to show age discrimination.

Nondiscriminatory reason, pretext. Shifting the burden to Eagle Graphics to show a nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s termination, the court found the company provided a legitimate reason: his impending jail sentence.

The employee argued this justification was pretextual because: (1) Eagle Graphics made inconsistent statements about who was responsible for the termination; (2) the timing between his complaint and termination was unduly suggestive; and (3) the company’s reliance on his possible jail sentence was pretextual because it knew he was potentially facing a jail sentence when it hired him and because he never said he had been sentenced to jail. The court concluded that these circumstances, taken together, could allow a jury to find Eagle Graphics’ proffered reason was pretextual. Thus, the court denied the motion for summary judgment on the age discrimination claims.

Disability claims. Likewise, the court denied Eagle Graphics’ motion for summary judgment on the employee’s claims that he was terminated in violation of the ADA and the disability component of the PHRA. Regarding his prima facie case, although the employee presented no evidence that any of his major life activities were limited, he testified his manager was aware of his impairment. That was sufficient to show that Eagle Graphics regarded him as impaired. The court also found, as discussed previously, that he was qualified and could perform the essential functions of the job.

Regarding the company’s proffered legitimate reason and the employee’s claims of pretext, the parties relied on the same arguments they presented for the ADEA claims and, thus, the court said the analysis was the same. As such, it denied Eagle Graphics’ motion on these claims.

Retaliation claims. Turning to the employee’s retaliation claims, the court granted Eagle Graphics’ motion for summary judgment as to the claims based on age discrimination but denied the motion as to those based on reporting disability discrimination.

The employee contended he engaged in protected activity when he made a simultaneous complaint of age and disability discrimination to the company’s president, and that this complaint resulted in his termination. His testimony established that he complained, and the complaint was related to his manager’s comments about his physical impairments.

However, his testimony explicitly disavowed that he made an age discrimination complaint to the president or anyone else. He presented no other evidence that he engaged in protected activity related to his age. Thus, given his testimony, the court concluded a reasonable jury would not be able to find that he engaged in protected activity related to age discrimination. His testimony, however, was sufficient to show he engaged in protected activity related to his disability.

Causation. In addition, the employee showed causation between his protected activity and the adverse action. He testified he complained in late July or early August, and he was terminated in late August. One month is sufficient temporal proximity to infer a causal connection, the court said. In addition, the employee asserted that the company ignored his complaints. Thus, the totality of the circumstances established a causal connection between his protected activity and his termination. Accordingly, the court denied Eagle Graphics’ motion as to the retaliation clam based on reporting disability discrimination.

Hostile work environment claims. Finally, the court granted Eagle Graphics’ motion for summary judgment on the employee’s hostile work environment claims because he failed to establish that two off-hand comments were so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of his workplace. The employee pointed to comments such as, “Can you do the job?” and “the young guy is running circles around you, are you able to keep up?” These comments were insufficient to show severe or pervasive conduct and, thus, he failed to establish a hostile work environment claim.

The case is No. 1:23-CV-354.

Judge: Bloom, D.

Attorneys: Ari R. Karpf (Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti) for Warren Dunyan. James Thomas Podgorney (Morcom Law) for Eagle Graphics, Inc.

Companies: Eagle Graphics, Inc.; Eagle Graphics

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims PennsylvaniaNews