3rd Cir.

J’AMY KLUENDER v. UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., INC

March 10, 2026 ·25-1750 ·Panel Decision · By Aisha Johnson

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an insurance company against a former employee who alleged wrongful termination and failure to accommodate due to thyroid cancer. The court held that the employee failed to prove a public policy exception to at-will employment and could not establish pretext for retaliation or the ability to perform essential job functions.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 5:07

J’Amy Kluender, a pro se appellant, worked as a claims examiner for United States Liability Insurance Co., Inc. (USLI) starting in 2015. In 2018, she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Upon returning to work in November 2020, she requested accommodations to limit her hours to 35 per week, which USLI initially agreed to. In May 2021, she requested further workload adjustments, which her supervisor partially granted, but Kluender insisted on less work rather than different work. She subsequently took unpaid leave in May 2021. In September 2022, she filed a federal lawsuit alleging discrimination and retaliation. During a deposition in February 2023, Kluender admitted she had been paid by medical providers to serve as an expert witness and fact witness on claims handling practices in other cases while employed by USLI, without informing her employer. USLI terminated her shortly after, citing a violation of its conflict of interest policy. Kluender amended her complaint to include claims for retaliation and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and wrongful termination in violation of Pennsylvania public policy. The District Court dismissed the wrongful termination claim and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims, leading to this appeal.

The Third Circuit reviewed the District Court's dismissal of the wrongful termination claim and the grant of summary judgment on the ADA claims de novo. First, regarding the wrongful termination claim, the court analyzed whether Pennsylvania’s public policy exception to at-will employment applied. Kluender relied on a state statute criminalizing retaliation against witnesses, victims, or parties in civil matters. However, the court noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has interpreted this statute to apply only to witnesses in criminal cases, not civil proceedings. Furthermore, the court found no common law cause of action for wrongful termination in this context, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has limited such exceptions to circumstances threatening clear mandates of public policy, such as jury service in criminal cases. Kluender failed to explain how her work as an expert witness in a civil matter equated to jury service in a criminal case to support a private right of action. Second, the court addressed the ADA retaliation claim using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. While assuming Kluender could establish a prima facie case, the court found she failed to show that USLI’s stated reason for termination—violation of the conflict of interest policy regarding undisclosed outside work—was pretext for retaliation. The record indicated that USLI learned for the first time about her paid outside expert work and lack of consultation only after her deposition, and the timing did not suggest retaliation given that USLI had been aware of her lawsuit for months. Kluender’s personal belief that her actions did not violate the policy was insufficient to prove pretext. Finally, regarding the failure to accommodate claim, the court held that Kluender could not establish she was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job. Undisputed evidence, including her own testimony and that of her medical providers, showed she was unable to work at the time of her requested accommodations. Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted.

The decision affirms the lower court's judgment, leaving Kluender without a remedy for her claims. It reinforces that Pennsylvania’s witness protection statute does not extend to civil expert witnesses for the purpose of private damages, and it clarifies that an employee who cannot perform essential job functions cannot succeed on a failure to accommodate claim. The ruling also underscores that an employer’s enforcement of a conflict of interest policy regarding undisclosed outside work is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination, even if the employee disputes the policy's application.

Play