Judge Allows Associational Discrimination Claims to Proceed, Dismisses Hostile Work Environment and FMLA Counts

PHILADELPHIA (LN) — U.S. District Judge John M. Gallagher granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment in a disability discrimination case, allowing a former LB Water employee’s associational discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed while dismissing his hostile work environment and FMLA claims.

The court ruled on May 12 that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding whether LB Water, LB Water Services, Inc., and manager Adam White terminated Jonathan Rideout because of his association with his two disabled children.

Rideout, who had previously undergone surgeries for plantar fasciitis, was hired in June 2021 and took medical leave in June 2023. He returned to work in August 2023 with medical clearance, having been cleared to resume duties without restrictions.

Days after his return, White announced at a warehouse meeting that Rideout would be required to carry an emergency on-call phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week, a duty that had previously been shared among employees on a rotating basis.

Rideout informed White he could not assume sole on-call duties due to his caregiving obligations to his nonverbal daughter, who requires five therapy sessions a week, and his son, who has Autism. He requested a return to the prior rotation.

Defendants refused the request and terminated Rideout’s employment on September 1, 2023.

Gallagher wrote that a reasonable jury could find the defendants took adverse action because of Rideout’s association with his disabled children, noting that Rideout testified the defendants were aware of the disabilities of his employment.

The judge also rejected the defendants’ argument that Rideout failed to engage in protected activity because he never formally requested an ADA accommodation, stating that whether his statements constituted a request for accommodation is a factual question for the jury.

However, Gallagher granted summary judgment on Rideout’s hostile work environment claim, ruling that the sequence of events did not meet the "severe or pervasive" standard required under the ADA and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

The court found that Rideout’s allegations amounted to a workplace disagreement concerning his refusal to accept on-call duty and the subsequent termination decision, rather than discriminatory intimidation or ridicule.

Because the hostile work environment claim failed, the court also dismissed Rideout’s aiding and abetting claim against White, noting that liability under that theory requires a cognizable predicate offense.

The judge granted summary judgment on Rideout’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims, ruling that he failed to provide evidence that he was an eligible employee under the FMLA or that he requested leave under the statute.