2009 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 Third C irc uit 7-24-2009 

# Jamie B i sk e r v . G G S Info S e r Inc P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4277

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Jamie B i ske r v

. G GS Info S e r Inc " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 951. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/951NOT 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- 4277 J AM I E C. BI S KER,

A ppel l ant v. GGS I NFORM ATI ON SE RVI CES , I NC.

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 A ct i on N o. 1- 07- cv- 01465) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

A r gued J ul y8, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y24, 2009) J os eph C . K or s ak, E s qui r e ( A r gued) L aw O ffi ce of

J os eph C . K or s ak 33 N or th Q ueen Str eet Y ork, PA 17403- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant V i ncentC andi el l o, E s qui r e ( A r gued) C l audi a W i l l i ams, E s qui r e P o st & S c h e ll 17 N or th 2nd St r eet , 12th Fl oor2

H arr i s bur g, PA 17101- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee
OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge J ai m i e C . B i s ker , w ho s uffe r s fr om m ul t i pl e s cl er os i s ( “M S”) , br oughtan ac t i on agai ns therempl oy er , G G S I nform at i on Sy s t ems, I nc. ( “G G S”) , i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, al l egi ng a fa i l ur e t o acc om m odat e herdi s abi l i tyi n vi ol at i on of both the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) , 42 U . S. C . § 1201 et s eq. , an d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia H u m a n R e la tio n s A c t ( “ P H R A ” ), 4 3 P .S . § 9 5 1 , et s eq. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o G G S, hol di ng that , due t o the r epr es ent at i ons B i s kerhad made abouthercondi t i on i n herm ul t i pl e appl i cat i ons fordi s abi l i tybenef i t s , s he w as “barr ed by j udi ci al es t oppel fr om pur s ui ng herA D A and PH R A cl ai m s . ” B is ke rv . G G S In fo . Se r v s ., I nc. , N o. 1:C V -07-146 5, 20 08 W L 43 72 92 7, at*3 (M . D . P a. S ept. 22 , 20 08 ). B ecause w e d o n o t believe that jud ici al estop p el ap p li es in this case , w e v ac ate the D istri ct C o u rt ’s or derand r emand so thatthe mer i t s of B i s ker ’ s fai l ur e- t o- acc om m odat e cl ai m s m aybe s quar el yaddr es s ed. I. Si nce w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , w e r eci t e onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our di s pos i t i on. I n 1999, B i s kerbegan w orki ng atG G S, a Y ork, Penns y l vani a companythatPr i ort o herfi r s tacc om m odat i on r eques t , one of Bi s ker ’ s s upervi s or s , Patr i ck 1 C ar l t on, had conduc t ed a “ fea s i bi l i tyt es t ” t o det erm i ne w hetherB i s ker ’ s w ork coul d be c o m p lete d f

ro m a re m o te lo c a tio n . C a rlto n c o n c lu d e d th a t itw o u ld n e ith e r b e d if f icu lt norcos t l yt o s etup a comput eri n B i s ker ’ s hom e i n s uch a w aythati tw oul d r epl i cat e her comput eratw ork. T h e p a rt ie s d is p u te h o w s e ri o u s ly G G S to o k B is k e r’ s re q u e s t f o r a n a c c o m m o d a tio n . 2 A s w e ar e notr eac hi ng the mer i t s of B i s ker ’ s fai l ur e- t o- acc om m odat e cl ai m , w e do not re c ite a ll th e f

a c ts re le v a n t to th a t d is p u te . 3 s p e c ia liz e s in m a k in g p a rt s c a ta lo g u e s . A s o f 2 0 0 6 , s h e w a s w o rk in g a s a “ P a rt s L is te r,” a job that inv o lved rev iew ing “e n g inee ri n g inf o rm ati o n , ” a n d , w ith the a id o f a co m p u ter, pr oduci ng t echni cal i l l us tr at i ons of the var i ous part s . I n A pr i l of thaty ear , B i s ker req u ested an d rec eive d leav e f rom w o rk u n d er the F am il yM ed ical L ea v e A ct. B iske r’s a p p lica tio n f

o r le a v e in c lu d e d a c e rtific a tio n f ro m h e r p h y sic ian , D r. A lex R a e -G ra n t, w h ic h d e s c ri b e d h e r a s “ c u rr e n tly u n a b le to w o rk d u e to m u ltip le s c le ro s is s ym p to m s [ ,] i ncl udi ng w eakne s s , fat i gue, pai n [and] s t i ffne s s . ” Thats ame m onth, B i s kerappl i ed for a nd r e c e i ve d p r i va t e s ho r t - t e r m di s a bi l i tybe ne fi t s thr ou gh G G S. In M a y2 0 0 6 , B isk e r m e t w ith so m e o f h e r su p e rv iso rs to d isc u ss b e in g a llo w e d to w ork fr om hom e t o acc om m odat e herdi s abi l i ty . N o fi nal deci s i on w as m ade a tthat 1 m e e tin g , alth o u g h (a c c o rd in g to B isk e r’s d e p o sitio n ) sh e w a s re p e a ted lye n c o u ra g e d to a p p l yf o rS o c i a l S e c u r i tyDi s a b i l i tyI n s u r a n c e ( “ S S DI ” ) i n l i e u o f a t t e mp t i n g t o r e s u me w ork i n s om e capaci ty . W hi l e B i s kerw ai t ed on a f i nal ans w eraboutw orki ng fr om 2 hom e, s he made addi t i onal r eques t s forpr i vat e di s abi l i tybenef i t s . I n J ul y2006, s he su b m itted a n ap p li ca ti o n to ex tend h er sh o rt -t erm d isab il ityb en ef it s. In D r. R ae -G ran t’ s4

a c c o m p a n y in g c e rtific a tio n , h e n o ted th a t, w h ile B isk e r w a s h o p e f u l th a t sh e w o u ld e v e n tu a lly b e a b le to re tu rn to w o rk , s h e “ c o n tin u e s to c o m p la in o f m u ltip le s ym p to m s [ ,] in c lu d in g o v e rw h e lm in g f a tig u e , w e a k n e ss a n d stif f n e ss in th e leg s, d if

f icu lty c o n c e n tra tin g , p a in a n d p a re sth e sia s o f leg s.” T h a t sa m e m o n th , B isk e r su c c e ss f u lly appl i ed forpr i vat e l ong- t erm di s abi l i tybenef i t s . I n herappl i cat i on, B i s kercont ended that h er c o n d it ion “[ v ]aries [f rom ] da yto d ay , ” tha t she h ad n o t at tem p ted to resu m e a n yw o rk si nce leavi ng her j ob , and that s he d oes no t“kn ow ” w hethershe w i l l return t o h er “l ast o c c u p a tio n .” O n Ju ly2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , M ark O b erd ick, G G S ’ H u m an R eso u rce s D ir ec tor, w rote to D r. R ae- G r ant , i nqui r i ng w hether , “[b] as ed on [Bi s ker ’ s ] condi t i on, . . . s he ca n per form the es s ent i al funct i ons of herj ob athom e as des cr i bed i n herj ob des cr i pt i on and Phy s i cal D emands A nal y s i s W orks heet . ” I n addi t i on, O ber di ck’ s l ett ercl ai m ed thatB i s ker ’ s “j ob h a s c h a n g e d sin c e A p ril, ” a n d th a t, “[ a ]s a re su lt, th e d a ilyd e m a n d s to m e e t ce rta in d e a d lin e s in [ B isk e r’s ] P a rts L iste r p o sitio n w ith th e 8 -h o u r w o rk d a yh a v e sig n if ica n tly in c re a se d .” O n A u g u st 8 , 2 0 0 6 , D r. R a e -G ra n t re sp o n d e d , co n ten d in g th a t B isk e r “ is phy s i cal l yunabl e t o per form the es s ent i al funct i on of herj ob as des cr i bed i n herphy s i cal d e m a n d s a n a ly sis w o rk sh e e t,” b u t th a t sh e w o u ld lik e lyb e a b le to d o h e r jo b if a llo w e d to w ork fr om hom e and gi ven s even da y s t o compl et e 40 hour s of w ork. O ber di ck then s ent a l ett ert o B i s ker( dat ed A ugus t15, 2006) form al l ydeny i ng herr eques tforan acc om m odat i on. I n the l ett er , O ber di ck cont ended thatchange s i n the Part s L i s t er5

pos i t i on— i n part i cul ar , the s hi ft i ng of i t s focus aw ayfr om per form i ng the t echni cal ill u stra tio n s o n site a n d to w a rd o v e rse e in g ill u stra tio n w o rk b e in g d o n e in In d ia— m a d e it i m pos s i bl e t o per form the j ob offs i t e and out s i de the conf i nes of the norm al fi ve- day w orkw eek. S h o rtlya f

terre c e iv in g O b e rd ick ’s le tter r e jec tin g h e r a c c o m m o d a tio n re q u e st, Bi s k e rp u ti n a n a p p l i c a t i o n wi th th e S o c i a l S e c u r i tyAd mi n i s tr a t i o n ( “ S S A” ) f o rS S DI b en ef it s. In h er a p p li ca ti o n , sh e stated that sh e “ b ec am e u n ab le t o w o rk b ec au se o f [ h er] d isab li n g co n d it ion o n A p ri l 18 , 2 0 0 6 , ” a n d d esc ri b ed h erse lf as “ sti ll d isab led.” In re sp o n se to th e q u e stio n , “H o w d o y o u r illne ss e s, in ju rie s, o r c o n d iti o n s lim it y o u r a b ili ty t o w or k?, ” s he w r ot e:

I ’ m r equi r ed t o s i tata comput er8 hour s a day . I r eques t ed acc om m odat i on t o w ork athom e, w as deni ed. I need t o be abl e t o m ove ar ound w hen myl egs / arm s go num b/ s t i ff. I f I h a v e a m u sc le s p a sm , I n e e d to b e a b le to tak e m u sc le r el axer s /pai n pi l l s and us e a mas s ager . W hen I [t ake] pi l l s at w o rk a n d tr yto k e e p w o rk in g , th e ya f f e c t m yp e rf

o rm a n c e . I getfat i gued t o the poi ntthatI need t o l aydow n and t ake a nap. I n Sept ember2006, B i s kers uppl ement ed herSSD I appl i cat i on. I n r es pons e t o a ques t i on ab o u t w h ethe r pa in af

fe cts h er “ ab il ityto think an d co n ce n tr ate,” sh e w rote tha t “I can ’t conce ntr at e w hi l e havi ng a s pas m and dea l i ng w i th the pai n i tcaus es . ” I n r es pons e t o a q u e stio n a b o u t w h e th e r h e r m e d ica tio n w a s c a u sin g h e r a n ysid e e f f e c ts, sh e w ro te th a t it

“ [ p ]u ts m e in la -l a la n d .” In O c to b e r 2 0 0 6 , th e S S A re je c te d B is k e r’ s c la im f

o r b e n e f its . O n N o v e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , B isk e r a p p e a led th e d e n ial. In h e r a p p e a l su b m iss io n , sh e w ro teT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overB i s ker ’ s A D A cl ai m under28 U . S. C . § 1331 3 and j ur i s di ct i on overherPH R A cl ai m under28 U . S. C . § 1367. W e have j ur i s di ct i on over th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n b o th c la im s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r r e v ie w o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. See E l sm ere P ark C l ub , L . P . v. T

ow n o f E l sm ere , 5 4 2 F . 3 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). B is k e r’ s P H R A c la im is a n a lyze d u n d e r th e s a m e f ra m e w o rk a s h e r A D A c la im . See 4 T a y lo r v . P h o e n ixv ille Sc h . D ist. , 184 F. 3d 296, 306 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . Foreas e of r e f e r e n c e , we h e r e a f

t e rr e f e re x c l u s i v e l yt o h e rADA c l a i m.

6 th a t “b e c a u se I a m n o t su re d a yto d a yh o w b a d m yd isa b ili tyis . . . [ ,] I a m u n a b le to w ork, ” and i ndi cat ed thats he had “ no addi t i onal evi dence t o s ubm i t . ” I n J ul y2007, her SSD I benef

i t s r eques tw as gr ant ed. In A u g u s t 2 0 0 7 , B is k e r b ro u g h t th e a c tio n th a t is th e s u b je c t o f th is a p p e a l. Fol l ow i ng ext ens i ve di s covery , both part i es m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent . I n Sept ember 2 0 0 8 , th e D is tr ic t C o u rtg ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to G G S b a s e d o n ju d ic ia l e s to p p e l. B is ker , 2008 W L 4372927, at*3. B i s kert i m el yappea l ed. 3 II. T o p re v a il o n h e r A D A c la im , B is k e r m u s t s h o w , in tera lia , th a t “ [ s ]h e is . . . q u a lifie d to p e rf

o rm th e e ss e n tial f

u n c tio n s o f

th e jo b , w ith o r w ith o u t re a so n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n s .” T

a y lo r v . P h o e n ixv ille Sc h . D ist. , 1 8 4 F .3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 4 T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded that , havi ng obt ai ned SSD I benef i t s on the bas i s of her a ss e rtio n th a t sh e w a s “ u n a b le to w o rk b e c a u se o f [ h e r] d isa b lin g c o n d iti o n ,” B isk e r c o u ld n o t th e n tu rn a ro u n d a n d c la im to b e a b le to w o rk f o r A D A p u rp o s e s . B is ker , 2 0 0 8 WL 4372927, at*3. M or e s peci fi cal l y , the C our t , appl y i ng C l eve land v. P ol i cy M anagem ent7

Sys t em s C or

p. , 526 U . S. 795 ( 1999) , hel d thatB i s ker ’ s fai l ur e “t o offe rs uffi ci ent e x p lan a tio n s f

o r th e in c o n sis ten c ies ” b e tw e e n w h a t sh e a ss e rte d in h e r d isa b ili tyb e n e f its appl i cat i ons and w hats he mustas s erti n or dert o pr evai l i n herA D A s ui tbarr ed herfr om p u rs u in g h e r A D A c la im . B is ker , 2008 W L 4372927, at*3. W e d isag ree . Itis true that, u n d er C l eve land , an A D A pl ai nt i ff mustacc ountfor anyi ncons i s t enci es betw een r epr es ent at i ons m ade i n an SSD I appl i cat i on and the e le m e n ts n e c e s s a ry to p re v a il o n th e A D A c la im o r e ls e f a c e ju d ic ia l e s to p p e l. See C l eve land , 526 U . S. at807. H er e, how ever , ther e w as no contr adi ct i on thatneede d t o be e x p la in e d a w a yin th e f ir s t p la c e . C l eve land

m ak es c lear tha t th ere is no n ec essa ry i ncons i s t encyi n s i m ul t aneous l yr epr es ent i ng ones el f as unabl e t o w ork forSSD I purpos es y e t a b le to w o rk f

o r A D A p u rp o s e s . See i d. at797–98, 802–03. T hati s beca us e “w hen the S S A determ i nes w hetheran indi vidual i s di sabl ed fo r SS D I purposes i tdo es n o t t ake th e p o ss ib ili tyo f

‘re a so n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n ’ in to a c c o u n t, no r n e e d a n a p p lica n t re f e r to the pos s i bi l i tyof r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on w hen s he appl i es forSSD I . ” I d. at803 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). T h u s, B isk e r’s g e n e ra l as se rtio n (in h e r S S D I su b m iss io n s) th a t sh e is u n a b le to w o rk d u e to h e r d isa b ili tyd id n o t co m m it h e r to a n yp o sitio n a s to w h e th e r sh e c o u ld w o rk if re a s o n a b ly ac c o m m o d a te d . See Turne rv. Hers hey Chocolat e U SA , 440 F. 3d 604, 609–10 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . I n fac t , B i s kers peci fi cal l yqual i fi ed heras s ert i on of di s abi l i tyby m ent i oni ng ( i n heri ni t i al SSD I s ubm i s s i on, atl eas t ) thats he had be en deni ed a pr i or8

req u est t o w o rk f

rom h o m e. T h e D istri ct C o u rtw as th ere fo re inc o rrect t o tr ea t B iske r’s g e n e ra l cla im s a b o u t b e in g to o d isa b led to w o rk a s a f f e c tin g h e r su b se q u e n t ab ili tyto b r i n g a n ADA c l a i m. T he pr operfocus of the j udi ci al es t oppel anal y s i s i s noton B i s ker ’ s gener al cont ent i on thats he i s unabl e t o w or k, butr atheron the s peci fi c fa ctual r epr es ent at i ons s he m a d e in s u p p o rto f

th a t c o n te n tio n . See O

ps t een v . Kel l erStr uctur es , I nc. , 408 F. 3d 390, 392 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( “[A ] per s on w ho appl i ed fordi s abi l i tybenef i t s m us tl i ve w i th the f a c tu a l r e p re s e n ta tio n s m a d e to o b ta in th e m , a n d if th e s e s h o w in a b ility to d o th e jo b [ ,] th e n a n A D A c laim m a yb e re jec ted w ith o u t f

u rth e r in q u iry .”); Mo tley v . N e w J e rs e y S ta te P ol i ce , 196 F. 3d 160, 167 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( s ame) . B utthe pi ctur e B i s kerpai nt ed of he r condi t i on i n herSSD I s ubm i s s i ons i s notanydi ffe r entfr om the one s he pai nt ed i n her ac co m m o d ati o n req u est. In th o se S S D I sub m issi o n s, B iske r st ated that sh e is n o t “su re dayt o dayhow bad [he r ] di s abi l i tyi s , ” and that , w hen s he i s havi ng bad day s , s he fi nds h e rs e lf to o f a tig u e d o r t o o a f

f e c te d b yh e r p a in m e d ic a tio n to c o n c e n tr a te o n h e r w o rk . T hati s cons i s t entw i th how s he depi ct ed hercondi t i on foracc om m odat i on purpos es — namel y , as one thatpr event s herfr om w orki ng on a r egul ars chedul e, but w oul d al l ow hert o puti n 40 hour s a w eek i f s he w er e gi ven s even da y s t o do s o. N othi ng c h a n g e s if

th e f o c u s is sh if

ted f ro m h e r S S D I su b m iss io n s to h e r a p p lica tio n s f o r p riv a teA l though C l eve land deal ts peci fi cal l yw i th the ef fec tof an A D A pl ai nt i ff’ s pr i or 5 r epr es ent at i ons i n an appl i cat i on forSSD I benef i t s , court s have ge ner al l yhel d thatthe C l eve land

a n a lysis a p p lie s to s u b m is s io n s f o r p ri v a te d is a b ility b e n e f its a s w e ll. See Turne r , 4 4 0 F .3 d a t 6 0 7 ; O ps t een , 4 0 8 F .3 d a t 3 9 0 ; H ol t z claw v. D SCC om m c’ ns C or p. , 2 5 5 F . 3 d 2 5 4 , 2 5 8

– 5 9 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 9 di s abi l i tybenef

i t s , as , i n thos e appl i cat i ons , B i s kers i m i l ar l ys t at ed thathercondi t i on 5 “[v] ar i es [fr om ] dayt o day , ” and thati toft en ca us es herw eakne s s , fat i gue and pa i n. In su m , b e c a u se B isk e r d id n o t as se rt a n yth in g in h e r d isa b ili tyb e n e f its appl i cat i ons thati s i ncons i s t entw i th w hats he as s ert ed i n herA D A acc om m odat i on r eques t , j udi ci al es t oppel does notcome i nt o pl ay . H ercas e turns s i m pl yon w hetherthat acc om m odat i on r eques t , w hi ch G G S deni ed, w as r eas onabl e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not r e a c h th a ti s s u e a n d we d e c l i n e t o d o s o i n th e f i r s ti n s t a n c e o n a p p e a l . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entbas ed on j udi ci al es t oppel and r emand forfurtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.