A federal agency was told the role was obsolete - then a job ad surfaced, she claims
Penn told a federal agency the job was gone. Then, a fired worker says, her boss posted it on LinkedIn.
That is the heart of a lawsuit filed May 30, 2026, in federal court in Philadelphia by Kristin Weaver, a former program coordinator at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. For HR leaders, it is a case study in how the reasons you put in writing can come back to be measured against each other.
Weaver worked at Wharton from June 2022 until her firing on October 15, 2024. According to the complaint, she went more than two years without a single written warning - until she asked for medical leave.
On June 4, 2024, Weaver requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for her own serious health conditions, which the filing describes as an exacerbation of her cerebral palsy and covered mental health conditions. The same day, she says, she lodged a complaint accusing her supervisor of discriminating and retaliating against her over the request.
Penn approved the leave. But the complaint alleges that after Weaver moved her start date from June 19 to June 24, her supervisor gave her an Employee Counseling Form on June 21 - her first-ever written discipline, the filing says. Weaver alleges the timing was deliberate, pointing to an email she attributes to him. According to the complaint, he wrote, "Apologies for that, but because you pushed back your leave date, we are starting it now."
The complaint also points to Penn's HR department. It alleges that in July 2024 a benefits specialist questioned whether Weaver had a "true disability" and asked for more documentation. According to the filing, the specialist wrote, "These details are needed to determine your eligibility for medical leave and to show evidence of true disability as required for short-term disability." Weaver alleges Penn's own policies never use that phrase.
Then comes the part HR readers will linger on. In a position statement to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dated October 2, 2025, Penn said, according to the complaint, that after reviewing her role and finding tasks "obsolete or redundant," it eliminated the position, and that the role "has not been filled and has not been posted - it was eliminated for business reasons and Ms. Weaver is not being replaced."
Weaver says that was not true. The complaint alleges her supervisor posted the same coordinator job on LinkedIn around January 2025 - "Come join my team! We are currently looking for a temporary program coordinator" - and that the role was posted, filled, and that she was replaced. She says she captured a screenshot.
The suit brings three FMLA claims, for retaliation and interference, and a claim under Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act tied to her short-term disability leave. Her supervisor is named individually on the FMLA counts; the ERISA count names only the university. Weaver seeks reinstatement, a neutral reference, and damages above $150,000 per count.
The takeaway for employers is not glamorous, but it is sharp: consistency is a compliance control. The reason given to an agency, the documentation behind a disability question, the date a write-up lands relative to a leave request, and what a manager posts online can all end up side by side in a courtroom. When they don't line up, a plaintiff calls it pretext.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The defendants have not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled.
