Summary
rejecting argument that disciplinary letter that resulted in no materially adverse consequences was an action that would dissuade a reasonable employee from taking a protected action
Summary of this case from Grooms v. City of Phila.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-05562
03-27-2012
LINDSAY FLECK, Plaintiff, v. WILMAC CORPORATION, WILMAC MEDICAL INSURANCE PLAN, ATTLEBORO ASSOCIATES, LTD., ATTLEBORO NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, and SUSAN MITCHELL, Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 27thday of March, 2012, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 22), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 23), and Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 24), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 22) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment related to Plaintiff's claims under the ADA is GRANTED to the extent the claim is based upon Defendants' alleged issuance of a written disciplinary notice to Plaintiff;
2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment related to Plaintiff's claims under the FMLA is GRANTED to the extent the claim is based upon Defendants' alleged issuance of a written disciplinary notice to Plaintiff;
3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in all other respects.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
_____________
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.