RICHETTI v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC.
Filing
67
ORDER denying 53 Motion for Summary Judgment and adopting Report and Recommendation 63 dated May 28, 2013. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 7/18/2013. (acs)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEAH C. and FRANK RICHETTI ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAKS & COMPANY, d/b/a
SAKS FIFTH AVENUE
SAKS INCORPORATED, d/b/a
SAKS INC., and SAKS FIFTH
AVENUE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 11-256
Judge Cathy Bissoon
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial
proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A) and (B), and
Rules 72.C and 72.D of the Local Rules for Magistrates.
On May 28, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 63)
recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53) be denied. Service of
the Report and Recommendation was made on the parties, Defendants timely filed Objections
(Doc. 64) and Plaintiffs filed a Response (Doc. 66).
After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the
Report and Recommendation, Objections thereto and Response, it is hereby ORDERED that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy dated May 28, 2013 is adopted as the opinion of the
Court.1
s/ Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge
July 18, 2013
cc:
All attorneys of record (via CM/ECF e-mail).
1
The Court will address two arguments raised in Defendant’s Objections. See Doc. 64,
¶¶ 10, 15-16. First, Saks argues that Plaintiff Richetti’s deposition testimony about her past
leaves, her 2004 application for FMLA leave, and its 2009 paperwork indicating that she was
FMLA eligible do not create a genuine and material dispute regarding her FMLA estoppel claim.
Id. at ¶ 10. If Richetti emerged from discovery armed only with her personal belief that she was
entitled to FMLA leave, Saks’s argument might have merit. That is not the case. Instead,
Richetti has supplemented her personal recollections and understanding with documents that
were drafted and produced by Saks, all of which give conflicting accounts of what Saks allegedly
led her to believe regarding her leave status. When viewed in the light most favorable to
Richetti, as it must be on summary judgment, this documentary evidence lends credence to her
version of events above a speculative level. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
255; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
Second, Saks argues that the timeline of events between August and October of 2009
cannot imply the existence of the causal connection and pattern of antagonism required for a
workers’ compensation retaliation claim. Doc. 64 at ¶¶ 15-16. During these two months, it is
undisputed that Richetti’s second worker’s compensation claim was successful, Saks appealed,
lost its appeal bond, and Richetti’s employment ended under disputed circumstances. Saks’s
objections merely emphasize certain events over others to elongate the timeline and winnow a
finding of causation and antagonism. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently
reversed in part a district court’s grant of summary judgment for engaging in a similar weighing
and parsing analysis. See Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 168 (3d Cir. 2013).
In light of these undisputed facts and the applicable legal standard, denial of Saks’s motion for
summary judgment is appropriate.
-2-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
