2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-4-2005 

# S hult z v . P o s tm a s te r Ge ne ral P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4227

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S hultz v . P os tm as t e r Ge ne r al " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 736. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/736NOT 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. 04- 4227

DELLA SHU LTZ, A p p e llan t,

v. J OH N E. POTTER, POSTM ASTER G ENER AL OF T HE UNI TE D ST ATE S P OST AL S ERVI CE

ON A P P EAL F ROM AN O RDER OF THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C O U R T F O R T H E W E S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D i s t . C our tN o. 03- C V - 00090) U n ited S tate s M a g istra te J u d g e : K e ith A . P e sto Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y15, 2005 ( Fi l ed: A ugus t4, 2005)

B efor e: A L I T O , V A N A N T W E R PE N , and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udgesP l ai nti ffs can p rove t hat theyhav e a dis abil i tyi n thr ee w ay s. “D i sabi l i tym eans, 1 w ith re sp e c t to a n in d iv id u a l – (1 ) A p h y sic a l o r m e n tal im p a irm e n t th a t su b sta n tially l i m i t s one orm or e of the maj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es of s uch i ndi vi dual ; ( 2) A r ecor d of s uch im p a ir m e n t; o r ( 3 ) b e in g re g a rd e d a s h a v in g s u c h a n im p a ir m e n t.” 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 3 0 .2 (g ). Shul t z foc us es on the fi r s tdefi ni t i on. She obl i quel yr efe r ence s the s econd, and does not m ent i on the thi r d i n herappel l at e br i ef orhercompl ai nt . W e ther efor e conc l ude thats he is n o t a d v a n c in g a “ re g a rd e d a s ” c la im . 

### 2 P E R C U R I A M: D e lla S h u ltz s u e d h e r e m p lo y e r, th e U n ited S tate s P o sta l S e rv ice , fo r d isa b ili ty di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entforthe P o sta l S e rv ice o n b o th c o u n ts. W e re v iew su m m a ryju d g m e n t g ra n ts d e n o v o , v iew in g a ll fac t s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o, and dr aw i ng al l j us t i fi abl e i nfer ence s i n favorof, t he n o n - mo v i n g p a r ty . An d e r s o n v . L i b e r tyL o b b y , I n c . , 4 7 7 U. S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 - 5 1 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . As w e w ri te s o le ly f

o r t h e p a rt ie s , w e n e e d n o t r e la te th e f a c ts . Shul t z ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed w hen i tdeni ed hercl ai m under§ 501 of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctof 1973, 29 U . S. C . § 791, w hi ch “f orbi ds [fe der al ] empl oy er s fr om di s cr i m i nat i ng agai ns tper s ons w i th di s abi l i t i es i n m att er s of hi r i ng, pl ace m ent , or a d v a n c e m e n t.” S h irin g v . R u n y o n , 9 0 F .3 d 8 2 7 , 8 3 0 -3 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). T o m a k e o u t a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on underthe R ehabi l i t at i on A ct , Schul t z mustfi r s tpr ove thats he has a “di s abi l i ty , ” as thatt erm i s defi ned bythe A ct . See M engi ne v. R uny on, 1 1 1 4 F . 3 d 4 1 5 , 4 1 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). H er e, Shul t z cont ends thats he has a “di s abi l i ty ” bec aus e s he has a form of d iab e tes . A c c o rd in g to th e D istric t C o u rt, th e “ o n lym a jo r life a c tiv ityth a t S h u ltzS u t t o n i n v o l v e s th e Ame r i c a n s wi th Di s a b i l i t i e s Ac to f 1 9 9 0 ( “ ADA ” ) , 4 2 U. S . C. 2 § 1 2 1 1 1 e t se q . “T h e R e h a b ili tatio n A c t p ro v id e s th a t th e sta n d a rd s o f th e [ A D A ] a re to be us ed i n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe R ehabi l i t at i on A cthas been vi ol at ed i n the e m p lo ym e n t c o n te x t.” B ra n h a m v . S n o w , 3 9 2 F .3 d 8 9 6 , 9 0 2 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); 2 9 U .S .C . § 7 9 4 (d ). 

### 3 t es t i fi ed w as aff

ect ed byherdi abet es i s eat i ng. ” A pp. at14a. B uthercondi t i on has no sign ifi ca n t eff

ec t on h er d iet : i t m ere lyreq u ir es h er “ to w atch w h at sh e e ats m o re c a re f u lly,” h a v e a s n a c k if

h e r b lo o d s u g a r i s lo w , a n d ta k e in s u lin if it b e c o m e s to o h ig h . I d. Shul t z has been hos pi t al i zed be caus e of di abet es thr ee t i m es i n fi ft een y ear s , and s he claim s tha t she “c am e c lose to p assin g o u t” w h il e o n the jo b just on ce , o v er f ive y ea rs a g o . Id . a t 3 3 a . “A per s on w hos e phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m enti s corr ect ed bym edi cat i on or otherm eas ur es does nothave a n i m pai r m entthatpr es ent l y‘ s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s ’ a maj or li fe ac ti v ity . ” S u tt o n v . U n it ed A irL ines , Inc . , 5 2 7 U . S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 2 -83 (19 9 9 ). In 2 cons i der ed di ctum , the Supr eme C our thas s t at ed thati t“i s contr aryt o both the l ett erand the spir i t ” of the A D A (and t herefore the R ehab i l i t at i on A ct ) t o d eem a “diabet i c w ho se i l l nes s does noti m pai rhi s orherdai l yact i vi t i es . . . di s abl ed s i m pl ybeca us e he ors he has di abet es . ” I d. at483- 84. Si nce Shul t z has notpr oduced s uffi ci entevi dence t o convi nce a re a s o n a b le ju ry th a t a n yo f h e r m a jo r l if e a c tiv itie s is s u b s ta n tia lly im p a ir e d , w e a f f ir m . E ven i f Shul t z w er e di s abl ed, hers upervi s oroffe r ed s ever al r eas onabl e al t ernat i ve l ocat i ons fort es t i ng herbl ood. See 29 C . F. R . 1630. 9( d) ( di s abl ed empl oy ee w i l l notbe c o n sid e re d a q u a lifie d in d iv id u a l w ith a d isa b ili tyif sh e “ re jec ts a re a so n a b le

### 4

acc om m odat i on”) . I ti s uncontr overt ed thathe off er ed us e of hi s ow n offi ce orthe w om en’ s r es tr oom , among ot herpl ace s , addi ng thathe w oul d “pr ovi de w hat evers he neede d” t o m ake the r es tr oom s ui t abl e fort es t i ng purpos es . A pp. at198a. Shul t z tur ned dow n thes e off

er s w i thouta r eas onabl e expl anat i on, and ther efor e ca nnotbe cons i der ed a “qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual w i th a di s abi l i ty . ” See K eeve rv. C i tyof M i ddl et ow n, 145 F. 3d 809, 8 1 1 -1 2 (6 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). S h u ltz a lso a rg u e s th a t h e r e m p lo y e r re talia ted a g a in st h e r f o r “ e n f o rc in g h e r rig h ts w ith the E q u al E m p loym en t O p p o rtu n ityO ff ice.” A p p . at 36 a. T h e D istri ct C o u rt pr oper l yl i m i t ed Shul t z’ s al l egat i ons t o tw o papers us pens i ons , beca us e thes e w er e the onl yi nci dent s r ai s ed i n heradmi ni s tr at i ve compl ai nt . See Spence v. St r aw , 54 F. 3d 196, 20 0-01 (3d C i r. 19 95 ); H ai thco ck v . F rank, 95 8 F . 2d 67 1, 67 6 (6t h C i r. 19 92 ). T he fir st su sp e n sio n w a s n o t re talia to ryb e c a u se it t o o k p lac e b e f o re sh e c o m p lain e d o f

d isa b ili ty di s cr i m i nat i on, notaft er . A nd, as the D i s tr i ctC our tfound, Shul t z’ s s econd s us pens i on w as i m pos ed bec aus e s he w as atfaul ti n a mot orvehi cl e ac ci dentand l eftthe s cene w i thoutfol l ow i ng pr operpr ocedur es . See A pp. at9a- 10a. T hough Shul t z pr oduced evi dence thatot herempl oy ees w ho comm i t t ed s i m i l artr ans gr es s i ons w er e notgi ven p a p e r s u s p e n s io n s , n o n e o f th e m h a d a p ri o r h is to ry o f d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n s . Id . a t 2 1 a . W ith o u t add it ion al ev iden ce , n o rea so n ab le j u ryco u ld ign o re the P o stal S erv ice’s l egi t i m at e r eas ons forthe s us pens i on i n favorof Shul t z’ s uns uppor t ed al l egat i ons of re ta lia tio n .F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt is a f

f ir m e d .