Tammy Conklin v. ABEC Inc

── Tammy Conklin v. ABEC Inc ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 01, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-1905 ____________ TAMMY CONKLIN, Appellant v. ABEC INC ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 5:24-cv-00857) District Judge: Honorable Gail A. Weilheimer ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 13, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, MASCOTT, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: May 1, 2026) ____________ OPINION* ____________ FISHER, Circuit Judge. Fired from her job, Tammy Conklin sued ABEC, Inc., alleging retaliation and * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. interference claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA).1 The District Court granted ABEC summary judgment. Conklin appeals. We will affirm.2 First, on the retaliation claim, Conklin argues that the District Court erred because there is a genuine factual dispute as to the existence of a causal connection between her request for FMLA leave and the termination of her employment. Summary judgment is warranted if no material fact is genuinely disputed and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3 To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the FMLA, Conklin must prove that (1) she invoked her right to FMLA leave, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) the two are causally related.4 Here, Conklin invoked her right to FMLA leave when she properly submitted FMLA paperwork to ABEC human resources personnel, and she suffered an adverse employment action when she was terminated. But we agree with the District Court that Conklin failed to adduce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between the two. We can infer causation when the “temporal proximity” between the FMLA- protected activity and the adverse action is “unduly suggestive.”5 But when the employee 1 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601–54. 2 The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary judgment orders de novo. Leonard v. Stemtech Int’l, Inc., 834 F.3d 376, 395 n.17 (3d Cir. 2016). 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). 4 Ross v. Gilhuly, 755 F.3d 185, 193 (3d Cir. 2014). 5 Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294, 307 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217, 232 (3d Cir. 2007)). 2 “relies upon the brevity of the time periods between the protected activity and alleged retaliatory actions to prove causation,” she must also show “that the decision maker had knowledge of the protected activity.”6 Conklin cannot overcome this latter hurdle. Although ABEC terminated Conklin either eighteen or twenty-nine days7 after she invoked her right to FMLA leave—possibly an unduly suggestive temporal proximity8— nothing in the record demonstrates that ABEC’s chief operating officer, who made the unilateral decision to terminate Conklin’