Tito v. Davis Archway Ctrs. for Addiction Treatment, Inc.

Full title: ROXANNA TITO, Plaintiff, v. DAVIS ARCHWAY CENTERS FOR ADDICTION TREATMENT, INC., Defendant

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PITTSBURGH

Date published: Mar 4, 2021

Facts

Davis Archway employed Ms. Tito as its business manager from August 13, 2014, until November 20, 2017. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 9). Ms. Tito has alleged that Davis Archway fired her because of her age and disability. Id. at ¶ 21. In her Complaint, Ms. Tito alleged that in 2017, Davis Archway employed more than twenty (20) employees for each working day of the calendar year. Id. at ¶ 8. Shortly after it filed an Answer, Davis Archway filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the basis that, because it did not employ the statutory minimum of twenty (20) employees during the relevant period, it could not be held liable under the ADEA. (ECF No. 10). The parties engaged in bifurcated discovery (ECF No. 21) on the sole issue of whether Davis Archway employed twenty (20) or more individuals “for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” 29 U.S.C.A. § 630(b). In discovery, Davis Archway’s records demonstrated that even accounting for employees provided by a temp agency, it would only meet the criteria under Section 630 if its President, Chet Leech, is considered an employee. (ECF Nos. 12-1 and 33-1).

Issue

Decision

Upon review of the foregoing, Davis Archway’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment will be granted. Ms. Tito’s ADEA claim will be dismissed. A separate order will follow.

Related Articles

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

10 + sixteen =