The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a lower court's dismissal of an employment retaliation lawsuit brought by a former physician assistant against her medical practice employer. In *Wolf v. Progressive Pain Management LLC*, decided Feb. 5, 2026, the appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants after finding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under federal and state disability laws.
Renee Wolf worked as a physician assistant at Progressive Pain Management LLC from September 2016 until her employment ended. During her tenure, she worked four days per week under the supervision of the practice's owner, Dr. Brian Bannister. Between 2016 and 2021, Wolf was the only physician assistant or doctor working at the practice besides Dr. Bannister.
Wolf filed suit in 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Progressive Pain Management LLC, Dr. Brian Bannister, and the practice's Human Resources Director Penelope Bannister retaliated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The case was assigned to District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi.
Following the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Wolf could not prove the essential elements of her retaliation claims. Summary judgment allows courts to resolve cases without trial when there are no genuine disputes about material facts and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The district court granted the defendants' motion and ordered the case closed. Wolf appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit, which heard arguments under the court's Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a), a procedure used for cases that may be decided without oral argument.
In its non-precedential opinion, the Third Circuit panel consisting of Circuit Judges Bibas, Scirica, and Smith unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. Circuit Judge Smith authored the opinion for the court.
The appeals court's analysis focused on whether Wolf had established a prima facie case of retaliation under the relevant disability discrimination statutes. To prove retaliation under both the ADA and NJLAD, plaintiffs must typically show they engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.
The court determined that Wolf failed to meet this initial burden, though the opinion excerpt does not detail the specific factual or legal deficiencies in her claims. The ruling represents a complete victory for the medical practice and its principals.
Retaliation claims under disability discrimination laws protect employees who oppose unlawful practices or participate in proceedings related to disability rights. The ADA, enacted in 1990, prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities and includes anti-retaliation provisions to protect those who assert their rights under the law.
Similarly, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination provides state-level protections against disability discrimination and retaliation in employment. New Jersey courts often look to federal ADA precedent when interpreting parallel provisions of state law.
The Third Circuit's decision was designated as non-precedential, meaning it does not constitute binding precedent under the court's Internal Operating Procedures. Such opinions resolve the specific case before the court but do not establish legal principles that must be followed in future cases.
This designation is common for appeals court decisions that apply well-established legal principles to particular factual circumstances without breaking new legal ground. The court submitted the case under its streamlined procedures, indicating the legal issues were sufficiently straightforward to resolve without full briefing and oral argument.
The case highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in proving retaliation claims, particularly establishing the causal connection between protected activity and adverse employment actions. Courts require more than temporal proximity between these events to infer retaliation.
For healthcare employers, the decision reinforces the importance of documenting legitimate business reasons for employment decisions and maintaining clear policies regarding disability accommodations and anti-retaliation protections.
The ruling also demonstrates the effectiveness of summary judgment as a tool for resolving employment disputes when plaintiffs cannot establish essential elements of their claims through admissible evidence developed during discovery.
Wolf's case began in the district court in 2023 and concluded with the Third Circuit's affirmance in early 2026, reflecting the typical timeline for federal employment litigation that proceeds through trial court discovery and appellate review.
The decision leaves Wolf without recourse in federal court, as the Third Circuit's affirmance of summary judgment represents a final judgment on the merits of her retaliation claims under both federal and state law.