Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), filed suit against Defendant, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, alleging that the Defender Association failed to provide “M.P.” with a reasonable accommodation for her disability and terminated her employment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). EEOC filed a motion to exclude the Defender Association’s expert, Irene Mendelsohn.
In July 2017, Megan Perez, after holding various attorney positions with Defendant for over a decade, began a medical leave of absence from her position as Supervisor of the Juvenile Special Cases Section, which required her to work on cases involving sex crimes. The leave was necessary due to Perez being diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depression Disorder and requiring intensive treatment. On September 13, 2017, Perez, on the recommendation of her therapist, Laurie Patterson, requested two reasonable accommodations: (i) to remain on medical leave until January 2018, and, (ii) upon her return, to be transferred to a position that did not require her to work on cases involving sex crimes.
While Perez was on leave, Patterson submitted a report (the “October 2017 Medical Memorandum”) to Lincoln Financial (“Lincoln”), Defendant’s short-term disability (“STD”) and long-term disability (“LTD”) insurance carrier. Despite the stated plan for Perez to return in January 2018, Defendant terminated her based entirely on Lincoln approving her for LTD benefits.
Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Witness
Irene Mendelsohn provides vocational assessments and vocational counseling including interviewing, transferable skills analysis, vocational testing, and labor market and vocational research.
Discussion by the Court
The Defender Association has produced the five-page expert report of Irene Mendelsohn, a vocational counselor, and sought to offer her expert testimony at trial. Although the Defender Association originally stated that this report would opine on whether M.P. could perform the essential functions of her job, the report instead discussed the reasonableness of Defendant’s decision to terminate M.P. (“the Termination Opinion”) and M.P.’s mitigation efforts after her termination (“the Mitigation Opinion”).
A. The Termination Opinion
Mendelsohn opined that the Defender Association’s decision to terminate M.P. was “reasonable” because “[M.P.’s] diagnoses amounted to a disability that made her unable to work as an attorney.”
Mendelsohn provided four reasons to undergird her opinion that the termination of M.P. was “reasonable”: (1) In late November 2017 when the termination was decided, M.P. was not able to work due to her disability; (2) M.P. or her therapist, Laurie Patterson, could have objected to the termination prior to its actual occurrence, but neither did; (3) M.P. had been approved for STD and LTD benefits, which meant that she could not work as an attorney when she was terminated; and (4) M.P. continued to receive LTD benefits until the fall of 2018 and that “while it was obviously unknown by [Defendant] at the time of termination how long [M.P.] would remain disabled from working as an attorney, the length of time now known that she was disabled from engaging in that work lends strong support to the appropriateness of the decision.”
The Court believed that the fact that M.P. received disability benefits does not in itself establish that she could not perform the essential functions of a job with reasonable accommodation after a certain time. Moreover, relying on the LTD benefits M.P. received after her termination is improper because it depends on information unknown to the Defendant at the time of M.P.’s termination and discounts potentially new reasons for her continuation of LTD benefits.
The Court held that Mendelsohn relied on largely irrelevant facts, did not state a methodology, and reached a conclusion that would be unhelpful to a jury.
The Mitigation Opinion
Mendelsohn concluded that M.P.’s mitigation efforts were below appropriate job search efforts. Mendelsohn stated that her opinion is based on “multiple factors including the very low unemployment rate (particularly for individuals with higher levels of education), and that according to data provided by both the U.S. Department of Labor, the Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projects, and Chron., employment opportunities for attorneys were projected to grow at a high-very high rate.” Mendelsohn opined that M.P. should have obtained full-time employment within three to six months after she stopped receiving LTD benefits in November 2018. Mendelsohn did not clarify whether the “multiple factors” that she relied on were solely the data from the mentioned sources or whether she used additional factors. Nor did Mendelsohn attach the specific rates and data that she relies upon, leaving the Court in the dark as to how she employed the data in her analysis.
Held
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the report and recommendation of Irene Mendelsohn.
Key Takeaways:
- Since Mendelsohn relies on largely irrelevant facts, does not state a methodology, and reaches a conclusion that would be unhelpful to a jury, her opinion on the reasonableness of the Defender Association’s termination decision will be excluded.
- Mendelsohn did not articulate any methodology for reaching her conclusion. Instead, the Court must guess how “multiple factors” led her to conclude that M.P. should have been employed within three to six months after she stopped receiving benefits. Because the mitigation opinion is conclusory and will not assist the trier of fact, it will be excluded.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission V. Defender Association Of Philadelphia |
| Docket Number: | 2:19cv1803 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern |
| Order Date: | August 29, 2024 |
Leave a Reply