11 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). Thus, “[e]ven where a federal question is involved, the state court is not required to follow a federal court and can determine whether or not the federal court decision is persuasive.” Id. Accordingly, neither Brown- nor Conjour are binding on this Court. We do, however, find the Brown analysis persuasive. As noted by the trial court, a number of United States district court opinions emanating from the Third Circuit have cited Brown or its progeny for the proposition that the allegedly stigmatizing statements must go beyond allegations of improper or inadequate performance, incompetence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. This proposition is also long-standing precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, see, e.g., Mercer, 308 F.3d at 845 (<HOLDING>), and the United States Court of Appeals for
holding that comments eoncerning exemployees ability to perform job could not be construed to suggest stigmatizing traits holding that the record should contain evidence that the employee had demonstrated an ability to perform adequately holding that statements plaintiff made to obtain disability insurance were binding admissions that he could not perform the essential functions of his job holding an employee must be able to perform essential job functions at the time of termination holding that under pwdcra the inability to perform a particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation instead the impairment must significantly restrict an individuals ability to perform at least a wide range of jobs