Plaintiff Anastasia Balaskas Herda sued Centene Corporation, her former employer, raising claims of age and disability discrimination, as well as FMLA interference. Centene moved to dismiss.
Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations
Herda was employed as a Special Investigations Unit Investigator since September 2016. In 2020, following a medical incident and a subsequent lung cancer diagnosis, she took FMLA leave and returned to work in August 2020 without restrictions. Despite receiving positive performance reviews in 2020 and 2021, she was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in December 2021 for purported poor work performance and was terminated in March 2022. Herda alleges that the reasons for her PIP and termination were not fact-based and instead were pretextual. She also suggests that Centene’s actions were retaliatory due to her exercising FMLA rights.
Court’s Analysis of Legal Issues
Counts I and III – Age Discrimination: The court found Herda’s allegations sufficient to state claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). Herda, over forty at the time, highlighted her qualifications through positive performance reviews and pointed out the replacement of her position by a significantly younger employee. The court ruled that these allegations could plausibly suggest age discrimination, thus denying Centene’s Motion to Dismiss for these counts.
Counts II and IV – Disability Discrimination: Regarding the disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the PHRA, the court did not find sufficient grounds in Herda’s complaint. While acknowledging her lung cancer as a potential disability, the court noted the lack of allegations that suggest discrimination based on this disability. The complaint did not indicate that Herda’s termination or placement on the PIP was due to her cancer. Thus, these claims were dismissed.
Count V – FMLA Interference: For the FMLA interference claim, the court determined that Herda failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a causal link between her FMLA leave and the adverse employment actions. The complaint lacked details beyond the occurrence of her FMLA leave in 2020 and the later PIP placement in 2021, with over a year’s gap between these events. As a result, this claim was also dismissed.
Schrag on Law 