P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 4684

_____________ E D S U L IM A ,

A ppel l ant

v. TOB YH AN NA AR M Y D EPOT; J O H N M C H U G H , S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E A R M Y , U .S . D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A R M Y ; D EFEN SE SU PPO RT SER V I CE S, LLC , db a D S2

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 00415) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R i char d P. C onaboy

A r gued J anuary29, 2010

B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d J O R D A N , C ir c u it J u d g e s ,2 and PR A T T E R , D i s tr i ctJ udge* ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 12, 2010)

_________ C yn th ia L . P o llic k , E s q . [ ARGUE D] T h e E m p loym en t L aw F irm 363 L aur el St r eet Pi t t s t on, PA 18640 C ouns el f orAppel lant K a te L . M e rs h im e r, E s q . [ ARGUE D] O ffi ce of the U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 228 W al nutSt r eet , P. O

. B ox 11754 22 0 F ederal B uil ding and C ou rtho use H arr i s bur g, PA 17108 J enni ferW al s h, E s q. U fber g & A s s oci at es 310 Penn A venue Scr ant on, PA 18503 C ou nself

or App el lan t

s Tobyhanna A r my D epot , John M

cH ugh, U

. S. D ept
. A r my, S e c r e ta r

y o f th e A r my

__________________
* H onor abl e G ene E. K

. Pr att er , J udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .3 S te p h a n ie E . L e w is , E s q . [ ARGUE D] A ndr eas N

. Sat t er fi el d, J r . , E s q. M art i n J

. Saunder s , E s q. Ja c k so n L e w is 55 B eatt i e Pl ace , Sui t e 800 G r eenvi l l e, SC 29601 C ouns el f orAppel lant D ef ens e Suppor tSer vi ces , LLC, dba D S2

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge

. E d S u li m a a p p ea ls from th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s O rde rs gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm ent w i th r es pect t o hi s cl ai m s underthe A m eri cans w i th D i sabi l i t i es A ct(“A D A ”), i n fav or of D efen se S u pp ort S ervi ces, L L C (know n as “D S 2”), and dis m i ssi n g h is cl ai m s underthe R ehabi l i t at i on A ct( “RA”) , whi c h w er e br ought agai ns ts ever al fede r al g o v ernm entdefe ndant s , i ncl udi ng T obyhanna A r m yD epot , the Secr et aryof th e A r m y , and the U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n to f th e A r m y ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, “Toby hanna” )

. T hr oughoutm os tof 2005, Sul i m a w as empl oy ed byD S2 and w o rkin g atthe Tobyhanna A r m yD epot pur s uant t o a contr act betw een T obyhanna and D S2. A ft er Sul i m a t ook part i n a vol unt aryl ay off i n D ece m berof 2005, he br oughts ui tagai ns tD S2 an d T obyhanna unde rthe A D A and R A

. Speci fi cal l y , Sul i m a cl aim s thathe w as for ced i nt o the layof f b e c a u se h e w a s d isa b led , w a s re g a rd e d a s d isa b led b yh is empl oy er , orw as r et al i at ed aga i ns tfor r eques t i ng an4 a c c o m m o d a tio n f

o r a d isa b ili tyth a t h e b e liev e d in g o o d f a ith e x is te d

. T he bas i s forSul i m a’ s cl ai m s l i es i n the s i de ef fec t s of m edi cat i ons he w as t aki ng t o tr eathi s obes i tyand s l eep apnea. T h u s , w e m u s t c o n s i d e rw h e th e rth e m e a n i n g o f “ d i s a b i l i ty” u n d e r th e A D A c a n e n c o m p a ss a n im p a irm e n t re su lti n g so lely fr om the s i de ef

fec t s of m edi cat i on, w hether o r notthe u n d e rly in g h e a lth p ro b lem s a re d isa b lin g . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls forthe Seventh C i r cui thas cons i der ed thi s i s s ue i n det ai l , and held that these si de ef fect s m ay , un der cert ai n co nd i t i on s, c o n s titu te a d is a b lin g im p a ir m e n t u n d e r t h e A D A

. See C hr is t i an v. St. A nthony Med. C tr. , 1 1 7 F

. 3 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 1 -52 (7th C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e re a so n in g o f th e S e v e n th Ci r c u i t , b u tf

o u nd t h a tth e s i d e e f

f e c t s e x p e r i e n c e d b yS u l i ma di d notcons t i tut e a di s abl i ng i m pai r m ent
. Fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as the D i s tr i ct C our t , w e w i l l adoptthe C hr is t i an s t andar d. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C our t thatSul i m a has not sati sfied h is bu rde n u n d e r th is st an d ard , an d w e w il l th ere fo re a f f ir m th e o rd e rs o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. I . Backg r ound A cc o rdin g to the o p inion o f h is trea ti n g p h y sici an , D r. G uyM i chael F asci ana, S uli m a i s m orbi dly ob ese. S uli m a al so s uffe r s fr om s l eep apnea, l i kel yr el at ed t o hi s obes i ty . T he s l eep ap n ea ca u ses h im to o cc asio n all ystop b rea thing fo r sho rt per i ods w hi l e s l eepi ng, att i m es r equi r i ng hi m t o us e a machi ne t o hel p hi m br eathe w hi l e he s l eeps . A ft erD r . Fas ci ana not i ced sign s o f slee p ap n ea in A u g u st 20 0 5 , h e re fe rred S u li m a to D r. J ohn D el l a R os a, w ho confi r m ed the s l eep apnea di agnos i s and5 sp o k e w ith S u lim a a b o u t p o ss ib le s u rg ica l o p tio n s to re d u c e its eff ect s . D r . D el l a R os a re comm ended t hatSul i m a l os e w ei ght in o rd e r t o re d u c e th e s e v e ri ty o f th e s le e p a p n e a . Sul i m a had be en t aki ng w ei ght

- l os s m edi cat i ons for s e v e r a l y e a r s . I ti s u n c l e a re x a c t l ywh i c h m e di c a t i o n s S u l i ma w a s ta k in g in late 2 0 0 5 , the tim e p e rio d a t issu e in th is a p p e a l. H ow ever , Sul i m a had be en t aki ng w ei ght

- l os s m edi cat i ons for se v e ra l y e a rs, in c lu d in g X e n ica l, a m e d ica tio n th a t is n o w so ld overthe count eras “A l l i

. ” X eni cal as s i s t s i n w ei ghtl os s by b i ndi ng s om e of the fa ti n a per s on’ s di et , pr event i ng i tfr om bei ng abs orbed i nt o t he body

. B eca us e the fa ti s notabs orbed, i tl e a v e s th e b o d y a s a n o i l y d i s c h a r g e i n th e s t o o l

. Af t e rS u l i ma c o n s u lte d w ith D r. D e lla R o s a , h e b e g a n ta k in g L a c tu lo s e , a la x a t i v e s o m e tim e s s o ld u n d e r t h e b ra n d n a m e “ K ri s ta lo s e .” S u li m a re ce ived this m ed icati o n eith er a s sam p les fro m D r. F asci ana o r as a prescr i p tio n . In add i t i on , D r. F asci ana als o p re s c ri b e d d ie th y lp ro p io n , k n o w n b yits b ra n d n a m e , “ T e n u a te ,” a s a n a p p e tite s u p p re s s a n t. I n J anuary2005, w hi l e empl oy ed by D S2, Sul i m a bega n w or ki ng atT obyhanna A r m yD epoti n the posit i on of E l ectr oni cs T echni ci an I I , a pos i t i on cr eat ed through a U ni t ed S tate s A ir F o rc e c o n tra c t w ith D S 2 to p ro v id e w o rk e rs to T obyhann a. T h e medi cat i on thatSul i m a bega n t aki ng i n the l at ter m o n ths of

2005 caus ed hi m t o need t o us e the r es tr oom f re q u e n tly. O n O ct ober28, 2005, the D S2 t eam l eade r , J oe J ohns on, o bserved S uli m a l eaving h i s w ork st at i on several t i m es, rem ainin g in the restroo m fo r a t o tal o f ap p rox im atelytw o h o u rs6 dur i ng hi s s hi ft

. W hen J ohns on s poke w i th Sul i m a aboutthe fre q u ent br eaks , Sul i m a t ol d hi m that they w er e due t o a m e dicat i on he w as t aking. John son tol d S uli m a t o g eta no te fr om a doct or , and t h e n ex tdaySul i m a br oughti n a not e fr om D r. F a sc ian a , d a ted O c to b e r 2 9 , w h ich sa id : “D u e to gas tr oi n te s t i nal di s or derE d [Sul i m a] m ayneed t o us e the r e s tr o o ms mo r e th a n th e us ua l

. ” Ap p . 4 7 6

. Af t e rS u l i ma b r o u g h ti n th e n o t e , h i s s u p e r v i s o r s p r e p a r e d a s h e e to f two w ri t t en q uest i on s r egardi ng his m edical con dit i on . In r espon se t o the ques t i ons , Sul i m a w r ot e t hat he w as nots ur e how l ong he wo u l d n e e d t h e me d i c a t i o n , b u t th a t h e wa s “ g o i n g b a c k t o my doct ort o s ee i f he can gi ve m e di ffe r ent m edi cat i on. ” A pp. 477. A f te r S u l i m a c o n tin u e d to ta k e f re q u e n t lo n g b re a k s , a T obyhanna s upervi s oras ked D S 2 to t r ans ferSul i m a t o a d if f e re n t w o rk a re a . W h e n m a d e a w a re o f th e tra n sf

e r re q u e st, Sul i m a s poke w i th D r . Fas ci ana and br ought D S2 a not e, dat ed D ece m ber9, w hi ch i ndi cat ed t hat Sul i m a’ s m edi cat i on had bee n change d and he w as now abl e t o w or k w i thoutneedi ng fr equent l ong br eaks

. D S2 nonethel es s deci ded t o tr ans ferSul i m a, but ther e w as no other w or k ar ea w i thi n T obyhanna a vai l abl e atthat tim e . S u lim a a c c e p ted a layof f o n D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , in a d v a n c e o f

a g e n e ra l ro u n d o f layof f s s c h e d u led to tak e e f

f e c t in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 6

. A lth o u g h w h e n h e w a s la id o f f S u lim a w a s to ld thathe w as el i gi bl e t o be r ehi r ed, he w as notcont act ed aga i n by D S2, an d h e d i d n o ti n q u i r e a b o u ts i mi l a ra d v e r t i s e d p o s i t i o ns th a tl a t e rb e c a me a v a i l a b l e . He i s c u rr e n t l ye mpl o y ed e ls e w h e re .7 Sul i m a fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC our t , al l egi ng s ever al vi ol at i ons of the A D A and R A

. T he compl ai ntnamed b o th D S 2 an d T o b yh an n a a s d ef en d an ts: D S 2 as S u li m a’s pr i m aryempl oy erand Tobyhanna a s a “j oi ntempl oy er . ” The compl ai ntal l eged thatSul i m a had be en tr ans fer r ed and s ubs equen tl yl ai d off be caus e he w as di s abl ed, or , i n the al t ernat i ve, beca us e hi s empl oy er s r egar ded hi m as di s abl ed. S u lim a a ls o c laim e d th a t h e w a s tra n sf e rre d b yD S 2 in r et al i a t i o n f

o rh a v i n g r e q u e s t e d e x tr a t i me t o u s e th e r e s tr o om dur i ng w or k hour s , an ac comm odat i on he cl ai m s he w as ent i t l ed t o r eques tbeca us e he be l i eved, i n good fai th, thathe had a d i s a b i l i tywi th i n th e me a n i n g o f th e ADA. T obyhanna moved t o di s m i s s orfors um m aryj udgm ent on the gr ounds thati tw as notSul i m a’ s “j oi ntempl oy er , ” and ther efor e nota r es po ns i bl e partyunderthe A D A

. T he D i s tr i ct C our tagr eed, gr ant i ng the mot i on i n i t s O r der of A pr i l 11, 2008. D S 2 sub sequen t l ym ov ed fo r sum m ary j ud gm ent on the m eri t s. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed thi s m ot i on i n i t s O r derof O ct ober 30, 2 0 0 8 , fi ndi ng t hatSul i m a had “ notpr oduced s uffi ci ent evidence” to succeed i n the l i t i gati on . A pp . 40

. T hat or der al so d e n ied S u lim a ’s m o tio n to re in sta te T o b yh a n n a a s a d e f e n d a n t, rul i ng thateven i f the D i s tr i ct C our t w er e t o fi nd thatT obyhanna jo in tlye m p lo y e d S u lim a , S u lim a ’s c laim s w o u ld f a il o n th e ir me r i t s f o r th e s a me r e a s o n s th a t S u l i ma ’ s c l a i ms a g a i n s t D S2 fai l ed. S uli m a app eal s.

I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T he D i s tr i ct C our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthes e A D A and R A cl ai m s pur s uant t o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i onT he D i strictC ou rtfi rs tdis m i ssed the clai m s agai nst 1 T o b yh a n n a in its o rd e r o f A p ril 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 . S u lim a m o v e d to re in sta te T o b yh a n n a ; th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th is m o tio n in its o rde r of O ctob er 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , w h ich a lso g ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f D S 2

. 8 of Sul i m a’ s appea l fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi nal or derof O ct ober30, 2008, gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o D S2, under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. W e al s o concl ude that w e have j ur i s di ct i on ov er Suli m a’s app eal w i th regar d to hi s cl ai m s agai nst T o b yh a n n a , alth o u g h T o b yh a n n a a rg u e s th a t S u lim a ’s f a ilu re to s peci fi cal l yr efe rt o the O r derof A pr i l 11 , 2 0 08 ( fi ndi ng for T obyhanna on the “j oi ntempl oy er ” i s s ue) i n Sul i m a’ s N ot i ce of A p p e a l is f

a ta l to h is a p p e a l o f

th a t O rd e r. W e have juri sd ict ion o v er “ fin al” d ec isi o n s o f th e D istr i ct C our t
. 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1291. W hen an of fi ceroragenc yof the U ni t ed St at es i s a partyt o a l aw s ui t , a N ot i ce of A ppeal m us tbe fi l ed “w i thi n 60 day s aft er the orde r or j udgm entappea l ed fr om i s ent er ed. ” Fed. R

. A pp. P. 4( a) ( 1) ( B )

. Foran ac t i on i nvol vi ng cl ai m s agai nstm u lt i ple par t i es, a j ud gm ent that r esol ves l ess th a n a ll o f

th e c laim s a g a in st a ll o f th e p a rties is n o t a “ f

in a l” j udgm ent unl es s the cour t “expr es s l y det erm i nes thatther e i s no j ustrea so n f

or del ay . ” F ed. R

. C i v. P

. 54 (b)

. T his i ncludes a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch a c our tgr ant s s um m aryj udgm entas t o one of s e v e ra l d e f

e n d a n ts
. S e e , e .g ., B uz

z ar d v. R oadr unnerTruc ki ng , 9 6 6 F .2 d 7 7 7 , 7 7 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h e re d id n o t m ak e su ch a c erti fica ti o n , an d there fo re th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s j udgm entdi d notbecome “fi nal ” unt i l i t s or dero f O ct ober30, 2008. Sul i m a fi l ed hi s N ot i ce o f A ppeal on N ovember29,

19 2 0 0 8 , w ith in th e s ix ty-d a ylim ita tio n . Sul i m a’ s fai l ur e t o ful l ys peci fy h is int entt o appea l the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’ s O r derof A pr i l 2008 i n the N ot i ce of A ppeal does notpr ecl u d e o u r exe r ci s e of j ur i s di ct i on. A N ot i ce of A ppeal m us t s peci fy the “j udgm ent , or der , orpartther eof be i ng appea l ed. ” Fed. R

. A pp. P. 3( c) ( 1) ( B )

. H er e, Sul i m a’ s or i gi nal N ot i ce of A ppeal s t at ed t hat he w as appea l i ng fr om the “O ct ober 30, 2008[, ] O r der a nd D eci s i on i s s ued byJ udge C onaboy d en y i ng Sul i m a’ s r i ghtt o a j urytr i al on cl ai m s underthe A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct
. ” A pp. 3. T hi s N ot i ce l i s t ed both D S2 and T oby h an na as part i es t o the appe al

. L at er , on A u g u st 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 , S u lim a f iled a n A m e n d e d N o tice o f A p p e a l, w hi ch s t at ed thathe w as appea l i ng fr om th e “O rder s and D eci s i ons of A pr i l 11, 2008, [and] O ct ober30, 2008[, ] i s s ued by J u d g e Co n a b o yd e n y i n g S u l i ma ’ s r i g h t t o a j u ry tr i a l o n c l a i ms undert he A m er icans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ctal ong w i th the J u d g m e n t e n te re d o n O c to b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 .” A p p . 1

. I f an appea l i s t aken onl yfr om a s peci fi ed j udgm ent , the courtdoes notacqui r e j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew otherj udgm ent s not s p e c if ie d o r “ f a ir ly in f e rr e d ” b yth e N o tic e . E l

f m an Mot ors , I

nc. v. C hr ys l erC or

p. , 5 6 7 F

. 2 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 4 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 7 ). H ow ever , “[o] urj ur i s prudence l i ber al l ycons tru es not i ces of appea l

. ” D r in kw a te rv . U n io n C a r b id e C o r

p ., 904 F. 2d 853, 858 ( 3d C i r . 1990)

. I n thi s vei n, w e ha v e hel d thatw e ca n exer ci se juri s di ct i on overor der s nots peci fi ed i n the N ot i ce of A ppeal i f: “( 1) ther e i s a connect i on betw een t he s peci fi ed and uns peci fi ed or der s ; ( 2) the i nt ent i on to ap p eal the uns peci fi ed or deri s appar ent ; and ( 3) the oppos i ng p art yi s notpr ej udi ced an d h as a ful l oppor tuni tyt o br i ef the i s s ues . ” Po l o n s k iv.10 T ru mp T aj M ah al Assocs. , 1 3 7 F. 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 1998) ( c i t i n gWi l l i a ms v . Guz z a r di , 8 7 5 F

. 2 d 4 6 , 4 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 9 )). T h e s e c o n d itio n s a re s a tis f ie d h e re . W h ile S u lim a ’s o rig in a l n o tice o f a p p e a l o n ly d ir e c tly refer enced the O ct ob er 30 O rder , i t al so nam ed T ob yhan na as a partyt o t he appe al

. A s not ed above, the A pr i l 11 O r derdi d not reso lve a ll o f th e c lai m s ag ains t al l of the p arti es, a n d there fo re d id n o t b ec o m e fin al u n ti l the issua n ce o f th e O ctob er 3 0 O rde r. A s w e have pr evi ous l y hel d, beca us e “onl ya fi nal j udgm entor o rd e r is a p p e a lab le, th e a p p e a l f ro m a f in a l ju d g m e n t d ra w s in ques t i on al l pr i or non- fi nal or der s and rul i ngs . ” E l f m an Motors , 567 F. 2d at1253. T her efor e, beca us e the A pr i l 11 O r derdi d not become fi nal unt i l the i s s u an ce of the O ct ober30 O r der , and b e c a u se th e O c to b e r 3 0 O rd e r d e n ied S u lim a ’s m o tio n to re in sta te T o b yh a n n a a s a d e f e n d a n t, th e o rd e rs a re su f f icie n tly c o n n e c te d

. See D rinkw at er , 904 F. 2d at858 ( fi ndi ng a connec t i on w hen, even though a pr evi ous or derhad di s m i s s ed one cl ai m , the orde r s peci fi ed i n the N ot i ce of A ppeal di s cus s ed in d etail the m erit s o f th e d ism issed claim ). Sul i m a’s N ot i ce of

A ppeal al s o demonstr at ed hi s i nt ent t o appea l the A pr i l 11 O r der

. W e have pre vi ous l yhel d thatan a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f

a mot i o n f

o rr e c o n s i der at i on d e m o n stra tes a n in ten t to a p p e a l th e u n d e rly in g d ism iss a l. L eB o o n v. L a n ca ster Je w ish C m ty. C tr. A ss’n , 503 F. 3d 217, 2 2 5 n . 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i ng Mat ut e v. P r ocoas tN av. Ltd. , 928 F

. 2 d 6 2 7 , 6 2 9 -30 (3 d C ir

. 1 9 9 1 )). In th e sa m e w ay , S u li m a’s sp e c if ica tio n o f th e O c to b e r 3 0 O rd e r in h is N o tice o f A p p e a l, in w h ich th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied S u lim a ’s m o tio n to re in sta te T obyhanna a s a def

endant , demonstr at es an i nt entt o appea l the11 under l y i ng di s m i s s al of Sul i m a’ s cl ai m s agai ns tT obyhanna. Fi nal l y , T obyhanna ha s notal l eged a nyform of p rejud ice, an d h as f

u ll yb ri ef ed the d ispu ted i ssu es, so the th ir d p ro n g o f

th e te s t is s a tis f

ie d

. M C

I Tel ecom m . C or

p. v. Te l e c o n c e

p ts , I nc. , 7 1 F

. 3 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 9 3 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 5 )

. We ther efor e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr ant of s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D S2 and it s d is m i s s al of the c la im s a g a in s t T o b yh a n n a . W hen r evi ew i ng a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s summ aryj udgm ent deci s i on i n an A D A cas e, w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew , appl y i ng th e s a m e s ta n d a rd a s th e d i s t r i c t c o u rt
. Turne rv. Hers hey Cho c o la t e U. S

. A. , 4 4 0 F

. 3 d 6 0 4 , 6 1 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m ary j ud gm ent i s approp ri at e i f, view i ng the r ecord i n the li gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng party , ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac t and t he m ovi ng party i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a ma t t e r o f l a w. F e d

. R. Ci v . P

. 5 6 ( c )

. W e r e v i e w de novo a D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s pur s uant to R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ). B al l ent i ne v. U ni t ed Stat es , 486 F. 3d 806, 808 (3 d C ir .2 0 0 7 ). I I I . Di s a b i l i t y Di s c r i mi n a t i o n Un d e r t h e ADA Sul i m a fi r s tcont ends thathi s tr ans ferand s ubs equent l ay off c ons t i tut ed unl aw ful empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on. T he A D A prohibi t s covered em ploy ers from dis cri m i nati ng againstT he A D A w as amended i n 2008; the amendm ent s t ook 2 eff ecton J anuary1, 2009. A D A A m endment s A ctof 2008, Pub. L

. N o. 110- 325, 122 St at
. 3553, 3553- 59. T he part i es her e have not ar gued t hat thes e am endment s have r etr oact i ve ef fec t
. T he ci t at i ons i n t hi s opi ni on ar e t o the s t atut e and r egul at i ons as they e x is te d d u ri n g th e e v e n ts in q u e s tio n . 12 d i s a b l e d i n d i v i d u a l s . 4 2 U. S. C. § 1 2 1 1 2 ( a ) ( 2 0 0 6 )

. To 2 est abli sh a p ri m a facie cas e of d i scr i m i nati on , a plai nti ff m ust s how ( 1) that he i s di s abl ed w i thi n the m eani ng of t he A D A , ( 2) thathe i s otherw i s e qual i fi ed forthe j ob, w i th orw i tho ut r eas onabl e ac comm odat i ons , and ( 3) thathe w as s ubj ect ed t o an adver s e emp loy m entdeci s i on as a r es ul tof di s cr i m i nat i on. T a y lo r v . P h o e n ixv ill e Sc h . D ist. , 1 8 4 F

. 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 6 (3d C ir

. 1999)

. A n i ndi vi dual i s di s abl ed i f he has “a phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m entthats ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one orm or e of the maj orl i fe a c tiv itie s o f

s u c h in d iv id u a l.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 2 (2 ) ( 2 0 0 6 ). E qual E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”) r egul at i ons defi ne an i m pai r m entas “[a ] nyphy s i ol ogi cal di s or der , orcondi t i on . . . aff ect i ng one or m or e of the fol l ow i ng bo dysy st em s: neu rol og i cal , m usculoskel et al , sp eci al sense o rga n s, resp ir atory(i n c lud ing sp ee ch o rga n s), ca rdio v asc u lar, r epr oduct i ve, di ges t i ve, geni t o- ur i nary , hemi c and l ym phat i c, s ki n, and endoc r i ne. ” 29 C

. F. R

. § 1630. 2( h) ( 1) ( 2006)

. “M aj or l i fe a ct i vi t i es ” i n clude “ funct i ons s uch as car i ng forones el f, per form i ng m anua l t as ks , w al ki ng, s eei ng, hear i ng, s peaki ng, br eathi ng, l earni ng, and w or ki ng. ” Id

. § 1630. 2( i )

. A m aj orl i fe a c tiv ityis s u b sta n tially l im ited if a n in d iv id u a l is u n a b le to per form i t or i s “[s ] i gni fi cant l y r es tr i ct ed as t o the c o ndi t i on,13 m anner or dur at i on” underw hi ch i ti s per form ed, as compar ed to a n a v e ra g e p e rs o n in th e g e n e r a l p o p u la tio n . Id

. § 1630. 2( j ) ( 1)

. I n det erm i ni ng w hether a s ubs t ant i al l i m i t at i on exis t s, the regu l at i on s r equ i re t he con si derat i on of thr ee factor s: 1. the “na tur e and s ever i tyof the i m pai r m ent ”; 2

. t he “dur at i on or e x p e c t e d d u r a t i o n o f t he i m pai r m ent ”; 3

. the a ctua l o r e x p e c te d “p erm an en t or l o n g term im p a c t” re s u ltin g f

ro m th e im p a ir m e n t. Id

. § 1630. 2(

j ) ( 2)

. A nonperm anentort empora rycondi t i on c a n n o t b e a s u b s ta n tia l im p a ir m e n t u n d e r th e A D A

. W i l l i am s v. P hi la. H ous . A uth. , 3 8 0 F .3 d 7 5 1 , 7 6 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). F o r purpos es of s um m aryj udgm ent , the D i s tr i ctC ourt focus ed on Sul i m a’ s gas tr oi nt es t i nal di ffi cul t i es as the natur e of hi s al l eged di s abi l i ty , fi ndi ng that Sul i m a had notpr es ent ed any e v id e n c e to sh o w th a t eith e r h is o b e sityo r sle e p a p n e a d ire c tly s ubs t anti all yl i m i t ed a maj orl i fe a ct i vi ty . N ext , the D i s tr i ct C our tnot ed thatSul i m a di d n o t argue thatthe gas tr oi nt es t i nal pr obl ems w er e caus ed byanythi ng otherthan the medi cat i ons he w as t aki ng. T her efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatSul i m a w as c laim in g to b e su b sta n tiallyim p a ire d so lelyd u e to sid e e f f e c ts fr om hi s presc r i bed medi cat i ons . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s concl us i on. B eca us e Sul i m a i s cl ai m i ng an i m pai r m ent bas ed on the side effect s from m ed icati o n , the f ac tual situ ati o n p rese n ted h ereT h is i s u n li k e th e s ce n ario the S u p rem e C o u rt 3 cons i der ed i n Sut t on v. U ni t ed Stat es , w her e i thel d that the eff ect s of m edi cat i on and ot herm i t i gat i ng m eas ur es us ed bythe pl ai nt i ff mustbe t aken i nt o acc ountw hen deci di ng w hetheran under l y i ng i m pai r m ent , t ow ar ds w hi ch the mi t i gat i ng m eas ur es a r e d i r e c t e d , a c t u a l l y s u b s t a n t i a l l y l i m i t s a m a j o rl i f e a c t i v i ty. 5 2 7 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 2 (1 9 9 9 ). O n e o f th e e x p re ss p u rp o se s o f th e A D A A m e n d m e n ts A c t o f 2 0 0 8 w a s to o v e rtu rn th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in Sut t on . § 2( b) ( 3) , 122 St at
. at3554. T he s t atut e now cont ai ns a provis i on d e c lar in g th a t w h e th e r a n im p a irm e n t is su b sta n tially l i m i t i ng m us tbe j udged “w i thout r egar d t o the amel i or at i ve e f f e c t s o f mi t i g a t i n g me a s u r e s . ” 4 2 U

. S. C. § 1 2 1 0 2 ( 4 ) ( E) ( 2010)

. T hi s s t atut orypr ovi s i on does notaff ectthe cl ai m her e, w her e the pl ai nt i ff i s cl ai m i ng a di s abi l i ty onl y as a re s ul tof the sid e e f f e c ts o f m e d ica l tre a tm e n t f o r a he a lth p ro b lem w h ich is n o t its e lf c la im e d to b e d is a b lin g . O ne r eas on the Supr eme C our tgave forr equi r i ng co n side rati o n o f m it igating m ea su res w as th e p o tential lysev ere s i de ef fec t s r es ul t i ng fr om the tr ea tmentof an unde r l y i ng c o n d itio n . Sut t on , 527 U

. S. at484. T hes e con ce rns w ere not addr es s ed byC ongr es s i n the A D A A m endment s A ctof 2008

. See § 2( b) ( 3) , 122 St at
. at 3553. T he r es ul t i ng s t atut orys ect i on onl ypr ohi bi t s the cons i der at i on of am el i or at i ve m it igato ry 14 i s s om ew hatdi ffe r entfr o m a typ ic al A D A cl ai m . Sul i m a has h e a l th p r o b l e ms th a tp r o mp tth e u s e o f me d i c a t i o n , b u tc l a i ms thathi s i m pai r m entunderthe A D A i s bas ed sol el yon a di s or der orcondi t i on r es ul t i ng fr om the medi cat i on, notfr om the u n d e rly in g h e a lth p ro b lem th a t th e m e d ica tio n is m e a n t to tre a t. 3m e a su re s, a n d d o e s n o t ad d re ss p o ten tiallyn e g a tiv e sid e e f f e c ts o f m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t. See 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 2 (4 )( E ) ( 2 0 1 0 ). 15 A few of our si s t erC our t s of A ppeal s have c ons i der ed thi s i ssue . I n C hr is t i an , the pr i nci pal cas e r el i ed upon bythe D i stri c t C o u rt , the p l ai nti ff clai m ed thatshe w as fi red becau se o f h e r a n ticip a ted m e d ic a l trea tm e n t f o r h yp e rc h o les ter o lem ia (i.e. h ig h b lo o d c h o les ter o l). 1 1 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 1 -5 2 . T h e S e v e n th C i r cui tC our t of A ppeal s , al though ul t i m at el ynotrul i ng i n favor of the pl ai nt i ff, concl uded that“the tr eatm entof a c ondi t i on that i s noti t s el f di s abl i ng” m ay be a di s abi l i ty w i thi n the m eani ng of th e A D A

. Id . at 1 0 5 2

. In a sim ilar c a se f ro m th e E ig h th C irc u it Co u r t o f Ap p e a l s , a p l a i n t i f f c l a i me d a d i s a b i l i tyu n d e rth e ADA based both on herhypert ens i on and on s i de ef fec t s r es ul t i ng f ro m th e in ter a c tio n b e tw e e n p re sc rib e d h yp e rte n sio n a n d p a in m e d ic a tio n s . Hi l lv. Kan. C i t y Area Tr ans

p. A uth. , 181 F. 3d 891, 894 ( 8th C i r . 1999)

. A l though al s o notrul i ng i n favorof the pl ai nt i ff, th e E igh th C i r cui ttr eat ed thes e tw o condi t i ons s epar at el y , acknow l edgi ng thateac h coul d cons t i tut e an im p a ir m e n t u n d e r t h e A D A

. S e e id

. ( r efe rr i ng t o the s i de e f f e c t s f r o m t h e me d i c a t i o n s a s a n “ a l l e g e d p h y s i c al i m pai r m ent ”)

. L i kew i s e, al though fi ndi ng thatthe pl ai nt i ff w as n o t d isa b led w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e A D A , the E lev e n th C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s di d notr ej ectthe not ion thatthe pl a i n t i f f c o u l d c l a i m a n i mpa i r me n tr e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e s i de eff ect s of che m other apytr eatm ent s i n r es pons e t o canc erw hi ch w a s n o t itse lf d is a b lin g . G ordo n v. E

. L

. H am m & A ssocs. , 100 F .3 d 9 0 7 , 9 1 2 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T o eval uat e Sul i m a’ s i m pai r m entforpurpos es of16 as s es s i ng w hetherhe w as d is abl ed w i thi n the meani ng of the A D A , the D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e re a so n in g o f th e S e v e n th C i r cui ti n C hr is t i an i n r ecogni zi ng as di s abl i ng the effec t s of a tr eatm entfora condi t i on thati s noti t s el f di s ab li n g , as l ong as the pl ai nt i ff c an s how th at (1 ) the tr eatm enti s r equi r ed “i n the prudentj udgm entof the medi cal pr ofes s i on, ” ( 2) the tr eatm ent i s notj us tan “a t tr act i ve opt i on, ” and ( 3) thatthe tr eatm enti s not r equi r ed sol el y i n ant i ci pat i on of an i m pai r m entr es ul t i ng fr om th e p la i n t if

f ’s v o lu n ta ry c h o ic e s . C hr is t i an , 117 F. 3d at1052. A ppl y i ng t he C hr is t i an s t andar d, the D i s tr i ctC our thel d that Sul i m a w as notdi s abl ed w i thi n the meani ng of the A D A

. T he Di s tr i c t Co u r t f

i r s ta s s u me d f

o rth e s a k e o f

a r g u me n tth a tS u l i ma had ade quat el y s how n thatthe medi cat i on’ s s i de ef fec t s , i

. e. Sul i m a’ s gas tr o int es t i nal di ffi cul t i es , actual l ycons t i tut ed a su b sta n ti a l li m itatio n o n a m a jo r life a c tiv ity . E v e n w ith th is as s um pt i on, the D i s tri ct C our ts t i l l found thatSul i m a w as not d isa b led , b e c a u se th e m e d ica tio n s w e re n o t “m e d ica lly nece s s ary . ” A pp. 23. I n r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on, the D i s tr i ct C o u rtp o inted o u t th a t D r. F asc iana d isco n ti n u ed S u li m a’s m edi cati o n in D ece m beraft erhe w as m ade a w ar e of the pr obl emat i c s i de ef

fec t s . I n the abs ence of anyevi dence t o the contr ary , the D i s tr i ct C our t found t hat the medi cat i on w as thus notr equi r ed “i n the prudentj udgm entof the medi cal p r o f e s s i o n , ” a s r e q u i r e d b yt he C h ris t i an te s t. C hr is t i an , 117 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 2 . T h e D istric t C o u rt f u rth e r h e ld th a t th e tw o -m o n th per i od betw een the si de ef fec t s begi nni ng and D r . Fas ci ana di s con t i n u i n g th e me d i c a t i o n s — a s s u mi n g th e yc o u l d be deemed m edi cal l y nece s s ary dur i ng that t i m e — w as nota l ong e n o u g h d u r a t i o n t o q u a l i f yf o r“ d i s a b i l i ty ” u n d e rth e ADA. W e agr ee w i th the Seventh C i r cui t thats i de ef fec t s fr om17 m edi cal tr eatm entm aythemsel ves cons t i tut e an i m pai rm ent u n d e r th e A D A . H o w e v e r, as th e S e v e n th C irc u it n o ted , this ca tego ryo f d isab il ityclaim s is s u b ject t o li m it ati o n . F o r a tr eatm ent ’ s s i de ef

fec t s t o cons t i tute an i m pai r m entunderthe A D A , i t i s not enough t o s how j us t thatthe pot ent i al l ydi s abl i ng m edi cat i on orcour s e of tr eatm ent w as pre s cr i bed or r ecomm ended bya l i cense d m edi cal pr ofes s i onal

. I ns t ead, fol l ow i ng the C hr is t i an t es t , the medi cat i on orcour s e of tr eatm entm us tbe r equi r ed i n the “prudentj udg m entof the m e d ica l p ro f

e ss io n ,” a n d th e re m u st n o t b e a n a v a ilab le a ltern a tiv e th a t is e q u a llye f f ica c io u s th a t lac k s s im ilarly dis abli ng si de ef

fect s. C hr is t i an , 117 F. 3d at1052. T he conc ept of “di s abi l i ty ” connot es an i nvol unt arycondi t i on, and i f one ca n al t er or r emove the “i m pai r m ent ” t hr ough an equa l l yeff i cac i ous cour s e of tr eatm ent , i ts houl d notbe cons i der ed “di s abl i ng. ” W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s h o lding that S u li m a’s gas tr oi nt es t i nal pr obl ems di d notm eetthi s s t andar d, beca us e he di d notdemonstr at e thathi s pr es cr i bed medi cat i on w as r equi r ed i n t he prudentj udgm entof the m edi cal pr ofes s i on. A ft erbei ng con front ed b yhis em ploy er r egardi ng his frequen tl on g b reaks, Sul i m a cont act ed hi s doct or , D r . Fas ci ana, w ho r ecomm ended thatSul i m a s t op t aki ng the m edi cat i on that w as caus i ng the s i de eff ect s . I n hi s depos i t i on, D r . Fas ci ana t es t i fi ed thati f a pa t i ent r eport ed pr obl ems w i th the medi cat i ons that Sul i m a w as t aki ng, “[w ] e w ou ld h av e sto p p ed ” p resc ri b ing tho se m ed icati o n s. A p p. 9 6 4 . T h e re is n o th in g in th e re c o rd to c o n tra d ict th is a ss e ss m e n t. A d d iti o n a lly , th e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd to s how thatthe s peci fi c m edi cat i ons caus i ng the s i de ef fec t s w er e, i n the j udgm ent of t he medi cal pr ofes s i on, the onl yeff i cac i ous m ed icati o n s fo r S u li m a. T h ere is al so n o ev iden ce in th e re co rd18 t o demonstr at e thatal l otherequal l yeff i ca ciou s cour s es of treatm en t w o u l d h ave ca used si m i l arl ydis abli ng si de ef fect s. S ee C hr is t i an , 1 1 7 F. 3 d a t1 0 5 2 ( s t a t i n g th a t“ th e d i s a b l i ng tr eatm ent[m us t ] be trul ynece s s ary , and not m er el yan attr act i ve o p tio n ” ); se e a lso Hill , 1 8 1 F .3 d a t 8 9 4 (f in d in g n o e v id e n c e in the r ecor d thatthe pl ai nt i ff’ s “phy s i cal condi t i on com pel l ed her t o t ake a combi nat i on o f m ed i cat i ons [thatcaus ed the s i de e f f e c ts]” (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l)). T h e re f o re , b e c a u se S u lim a d id n o t d e m o n stra te th a t th e m e d ica tio n s th a t w e re c a u sin g h is pr obl ems w er e medi cal l ynece s s ary , thei r s i de effec t s cannotbe c o n s id e re d a s im p a ir m e n ts w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e A D A

. I V . W het her Sul i m a W as “R egarded A s ” D i s abl ed Sul i m a nextar gues that , even i f he i s found n o t t o have a dis abil i tyw i thin the m eaning o f t he A D A , the st atute al so pr ot ect s fr om di s cr i m i nat i on i ndi vi dual s w ho ar e “r egar ded as h a v in g s u c h a n im p a ir m e n t” b yth e ire m p lo y e r . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 2 (2 )(C ) (20 0 6 ). T o p rev ail o n a claim o f th is k ind , a p lain tiff m u s t sh o w th a t th e e m p lo y e r e ith e r “ m ista k e n ly bel i eved that[the empl oy ee ha s ] a phy s i cal i m pai r m entthat s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one orm or e m aj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es ” or “mi s t akenl yb el i eved thatan ac tual non- l i m i t i ng i m pai r m ent s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one orm or e maj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es . ” W i l s on v. M V M , Inc. , 4 7 5 F

. 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( quot i ng Sut t on , 5 2 7 U .S

. a t 4 8 9 ); s ee al s o 29 C

. F. R

. § 1630. 2( l ) ( 1) , ( 3) ( 2006) (de fin ing “re g ard ed as h av ing su ch an im p airm en t”). W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt that S u li m a’s e m p loy ers d i d n o tr e g a r d h i m a s d i s a b l e d wi th i n th e me a n i n g o f th e ADA. In p a rticu lar , S u lim a d id n o t alle g e a n yf a c ts to su p p o rt a19 co n c lu s io n that h is em p loy ers tho u g h t th at S u li m a’s gas tr oi nt es t i nal pr obl ems w er e goi ng t o l as t for an ext ended p e ri o d o f tim e , a s re q u ir e d u n d e r t h e A D A

. See Wi l l i a ms , 380 F .3 d a t 7 6 5

. S u lim a c lea rlysp e c if ied to h is e m p lo y e rs th a t h is pr obl ems w er e a r es ul t of a s i de ef fec tfr om m edi cat i on he w as t aki ng, and i ndi cat ed thathe coul d gethi s m edi cat i on change d. U nl i ke medi cat i ons fora pe rm anentheartcondi t i on, the m e d ica tio n h e re w a s d e sig n e d to e n a b le h im to lo se w e ig h t, w hi ch, i f s ucce s sfu l, w oul d al l evi at e the nee d forthe m ed icati o n . In a d d it ion , the D ec em b e r 9 n o te f rom D r. F asc iana , g iven to h is e m p loy ers, i n d icated that S u li m a’s m edi cat i on had i n fac tbeen c hanged a nd thathe w o u ld no lo n g e r n e e d f

re q u e n t l o n g b re a k s . T hi s does nots uppor tthe pr opos i t i on thathi s empl oy er s r egar ded S ul i m a as s uffe r i ng fr om a non- t empora r yi m pai r m ent , and ther e ar e no fac t s i n the re c o rd th a t w o u ld c re a te a n is s u e in th is re g a rd

. V . W het her Sul i m a H ad a G ood F ai t h B el i ef t hat H e W as D i s abl ed S u lim a ’s c o m p lain t al s o in c lu d e d a re talia tio n c laim under the A D A

. E ven i f S ul i m a w er e found nott o be di s abl ed orr egar ded as di s abl ed underthe A D A , he ar gues that , i n the a ltern a tiv e , h e w a s tra n sf e rre d a n d su b se q u e n tly la id o f f in re talia tio n f

o r h a v in g re q u e ste d a n a c c o m m o d a tio n f ro m h is em p l oy er . Forpurpos es of thi s cl ai m , Sul i m a al l eges thatthe Oc t o b e r9 n o t e fr om Dr

. F a s c i a n a , wh i c h a s s e r t e d th a tS u l i ma w ou l d h ave to use t he restroom m ore than usu al , con st i tutes a r eques tforan accom m odat i on, and thathi s tr ans ferand l ay off w e re in re talia tio n f

o r th is re q u e st.20 Pr ohi bi t ed di s cr i m i nat i on underthe A D A i ncl udes r e t a l i a t i o n a g a i n s t a n e mpl o y e e f or r eques t i ng an a c c o m m o d a tio n . E .g ., Shel l enber g er v. Su m m i tB an corp , 318 F. 3d 183, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. I n Wi l l i a ms , w e not ed thatunl i ke a g e n e ra l A D A d isc rim in a tio n c laim , a n A D A re talia tio n c laim d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t th e p lain tiff d e m o n stra te a d isa b ili tyw ith in the m eaning o f t he A D A , bu ton l ythat the p l ai nti ff h as a “reas on a b le, go od fai th b el i ef t hat [he] w as ent i t l ed to r equ est the r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on [he] r eques t ed. ” 380 F. 3d at759 n .2

. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound that w hen S ul i m a r eques t ed the acc om m odat i on he di d not have a good fai th bel i ef that he w as d i s a b l e d wi th i n th e me a n i n g o f th e ADA

. W e a g r e e th a tS u l i ma l acke d a good fa i th bel i ef t hathe w as di s abl ed. T her e i s no evi dence i ndi cat i ng thatSul i m a bel i eved hi s condi t i on t o be a n yth i n g b u tt e mp o r a ry . As th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tn o t e d, S u l i ma k n e w th a t h is g a stro in tes tin a l p ro b lem s w e r e c a u se d b yh is w ei ght -l o ss m edi cat i on, thathi s m edi cat i on had bee n change d in th e p a st, a n d th a t th e m e d ica tio n c o u ld b e c h a n g e d a g a in if nece s s ary . T hi s i s appar ent fr om the fac t that w hen Sul i m a w as c o n f ro n ted b y h is em p lo y e r, h e w e n t d ire c tly to D r. F a sc ian a to seek a m edicat i on chan ge i n order to eli m i nate t he si de ef fect s. B ase d o n thes e f

ac ts, w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s concl us i on thatSul i m a co u ld n othave ha d a good fa i th bel i ef thatthes e s i de ef

fec t s w er e anythi ng butt empo rary , and ther efor e he coul d not have had a good fai th bel i ef thathe w as d is a b le d w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e A D A

. V I . C l ai m s A ga i ns t Tobyhanna21 W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatther e i s no m at er i al diff e r e nc e be tw e e n Su l i ma’ s c l a i ms a ga i ns tD S2 a nd tho se ag ains t T o b yh an n a. B ec au se w e f ind that the D is tr ic t C o u rt c o rre c tlyh e ld th a t S u lim a ’s c laim s w e re w ith o u t m e rit, th e re is no r eas on t o r eac h the ques t i on of w hether T oby h an n a w as S u lim a ’s jo in t e m p lo y e r.

V I I . C oncl usi on Forthe r eas ons s etfor th above, w e w il l A FFIRM the O rd e rs o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.