PHILADELPHIA (LN) — U.S. District Judge John M. Gallagher denied the City of Lancaster’s motion for summary judgment on Tuesday, refusing to dismiss claims that the city violated the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act when it eliminated Rosa Gallego-Feliciano’s position less than two weeks after she sought leave to care for her daughter.
The opinion traces a tight timeline. Chief of Police Richard Mendez learned on January 6, 2023, that Gallego-Feliciano had submitted a request for intermittent FMLA leave to care for her daughter, who required a craniotomy and ongoing treatment for a brain tumor diagnosed in late 2022. Six days later, on January 12, 2023, Mendez decided to eliminate her position, according to the record. The city formally notified her of the termination on February 7, 2023, effective February 17, 2023.
The city argued that Gallego-Feliciano’s position was eliminated for legitimate budgetary reasons unrelated to her leave request or her daughter’s disability. But the court found sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer otherwise.
“The close temporal proximity, the asserted inconsistencies in Defendants’ explanations, and the surrounding circumstances could permit a reasonable jury to find that Plaintiff’s caregiving obligations were a motivating factor to eliminate her position,” Gallagher wrote.
On the FMLA claim, the court found that Gallego-Feliciano produced enough evidence to create a genuine dispute over causation. The record showed that the 2023 budget was approved without eliminating her position, that Mendez continued efforts to revise her duties throughout 2022 and into January 2023, and that only after her FMLA approval did he pivot to eliminating the position entirely. The city never counseled her about workload deficiencies, never warned her that her position was in jeopardy, and never referred concerns to human resources, the opinion notes.
The court also declined to dismiss Gallego-Feliciano’s ADA claim, which proceeds under the statute’s association provision that prohibits terminating employees because of their relationship with a disabled individual. The city argued she cannot claim disability discrimination because she is not herself disabled. But the association provision requires no such showing—only that the adverse action was motivated by her daughter’s disability.
The court similarly declined to dismiss Gallego-Feliciano’s request for injunctive relief, including reinstatement to her former position, finding the question premature until liability is determined.
The case will proceed to trial on all claims.