Fogleman v. Mercy Hospital, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
283 F.3d 561 (2002)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
Sterril Fogleman was an employee of Mercy Hospital (Mercy) (defendant) in Pennsylvania for 17 years. In 1993, Sterril resigned from his position in lieu of demotion. Soon thereafter, Sterril filed a lawsuit against Mercy claiming age and disability discrimination. Sterril’s son, Greg Fogleman (plaintiff), was also an employee of Mercy. In 1996, while Sterril’s lawsuit was pending, Greg, who was the supervisor of security for Mercy, was terminated following an incident in which he allegedly used a key to enter the gift shop of the hospital to check on an elderly volunteer who worked there, in violation of hospital policy. There was conflicting testimony as to whether Greg was routinely allowed to do this. Greg filed a lawsuit against Mercy, alleging violations of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Pennsylvania Human Resources Act (PHRA). Greg alleged that he had been terminated in retaliation for Sterril’s lawsuit and because Mercy thought he had been assisting with Sterril’s lawsuit even though he had not. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mercy, ruling that Greg had not engaged in a protected employee activity. Greg appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Becker, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.