2010 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 3-23-2010 

# Fromm v . MVM Inc 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 . 06-1410

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_2010

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 2010 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 " F r omm v . MVM Inc " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1672. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1672NOT 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. 06- 1410

____________ A L A N J . F R O MM, A ppel l ant v. M V M , IN C . ; A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es i n h i s offici al capac i tyas A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es and C hi ef A dm i ni s tr at i ve O ffi cerof the

U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce; D i r ect orof the U ni t ed St at es M ar s hal Ser vi ce

____________ O n 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 . N o. 04- cv- 01315) 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 N ovember30, 2009 B e f o re : F IS H E R , H A R D IM A N a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 23, 2010) J eff r eyC . D ohr m ann ( A r gued) R i eders, T ravi s, H um ph rey , H arr i s, W at er s & W aff

ens chmi dt 161 W es tT hi r d St r eet P. O . B ox 215 W i l l i amspor t , PA 17701 C ouns el f orAppel lant2

Ja so n M . B ra n c if

o rte K ather i ne A . G oet zl ( A r gued) L i t t l erM endel s on 1150 17th St r eet , N . W . , Sui t e 900 W as hi ngt on, D C 20036 C ouns el f orAppel l ee, M V

M , I nc. M ar l ei gh D . D over E r i c Fl ei s i g- G r eene ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce C i vi l D i vi s i on, R oom 7214 9 5 0 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20530 C ouns el f orAppel l ees , A t t or ney G ener alof

the U ni t ed Stat es and U ni t ed Stat es M

ars halSer vi ce

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . P lain tiff A lan F ro m m w a s te rm in a ted f ro m h is e m p lo ym e n t as a c o u rt se c u rity o f f ic e r f o llo w in g h is m e d ic a l d is q u a lif ic a tio n f o r a h e a ri n g im p a ir m e n t in h is ri g h t e a r. F ro m m a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f a ll d e f e n d a n ts o n h i s c l a i ms u n d e rth 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. §§ 12101- 12213, the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct , 29 U . S. C . § 794, the Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ct( “PH R A ”) , 43 P. C . S. A . § 955( a) , and the pr ocedur al due pr oces s cl aus e of th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d h e re in , w e w ill a f f irm in p a rt, rev e rse in part , and rem and for further proceedings.3 I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. A l an Fr om m w as empl oy ed byM V M , I nc. ( “M V M ”) fr om February1998 thr ough O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 , as a c o u rt se c u rityo f f ice r (“ C S O ” ) a t th e f

e d e ra l co u rth o u se in W i l l i amspor t , Penns y l vani a. M V M pr ovi ded s ecur i tys ervi ces forfede r al court s i n the T h ir d C ir c u it th ro u g h its c o n tr a c t w ith th e U n ite d S ta te s M a rs h a ls S e rv ic e (“ U S M S ” ). T he contr acts et s for th m edi cal s t andar ds fori ndi vi dual C SO s and gi ves U SM S “the r i ght atal l t i m es t o det erm i ne the s ui t abi l i tyof anyC ontr act orempl oy ee t o s erve as a C SO . ” ( A pp. 107. ) U nderthe contr act , “[a ] nydeci s i on t o cont i nue a Cont r act orempl oy ee i n a C SO capa ci tyw i l l be made s ol el yby[U SM S] . ” (I d. ) Fr om m , w ho has s uffe r ed fr om r educe d hear i ng i n hi s r i ghtear , per form ed hi s dut i es as a C SO w i thoutthe as s i s t ance of a hear i ng ai d. In 200 2, U S M S i nst i tuted a new m edical requi rem ent that C S O s had to po sses s cert ai n hear i ng capa ci t i es w i thoutthe us e of a hear i ng ai d. T he new m edi cal s t andar ds w ere developed byD r. R i chard M i l l er, D i rect or of L aw E nfo rcem ent M edical P rogram s, atthe r eques tof the J udi ci al C onfer ence of the U ni t ed St at es . D r . M i l l eri dent i fi ed tw enty - ni ne C SO j ob funct i ons , s i x of w hi ch r el at ed t o hear i ng: compre hendi ng s peec h dur i ng fac e t o fac e conve r s at i ons , overthe t el ephone, overthe r adi o, and out s i de the4

r ange of s i ght ; hear i ng s ounds thatr equi r e i nves t i gat i on; and det erm i ni ng the l ocat i on of s ound. A ccor di ng t o D r . M i l l er , eac h of the hea r i ng funct i ons m us tbe metw i thoutthe us e of a hear i ng ai d. H ow ever , i f a CS O pas s es the hea r i ng t es t s unai ded, he maybe pe r mi t t e d t o wea ra he a r i ng a i d o n the j ob . I n 2 00 1, the J ud i c i a l Conf e r e nc e a nd U SM S r evi ew ed and a dopt ed the M i l l erR eportas the new m edi cal s t andar ds forC SO s ( the “C S O h ea ri n g stan d ard s”). P u rsu a n t to th e C S O h e a rin g sta n d a rd s, a g o v e rn m e n t p h y sic ian in iti a lly determ i ned on A pri l 30 , 20 02 , that From m w as no long er m edical l yqu al i fi ed to serve as a C S O b a se d o n th e re d u c e d h e a rin g in h is rig h t ea r. F ro m m to o k a se c o n d h e a rin g tes t, and hi s r es ul t s w er e r evi ew ed bya new governm entphy s i ci an on O ct ober3, 2002, w ho al s o det erm i ned thatFr om m w as m edi cal l ydi s qual i fi ed underthe new C SO hear i ng s t a n d a r d s . Af

t e rUS M S n o t i f

i e d M VM o f

i t s d i s q u a l i f

i c a t i o n d e t e r mi n a t i o n , M VM t erm i nat ed Fr om m on O ct ober17, 2002. U n d e r th e ter m s o f

M V M ’s c o n tra c t w ith U S M S , a C S O re m o v e d f o r f a ilu re to m e e t m e d ica l re q u ire m e n ts is a f f o rd e d n o n o tice a n d h e a rin g . N o n e th e les s, F ro m m se n t a l ett err eques t i ng r evi ew of hi s t erm i nat i on t o St eve G ot tr i ch, M V M ’ s Seni orO per at i ons C oor di nat or , on O ct ober23, 2002. A ddi t i onal l y , i n N ovember2002, Fr om m obt ai ned a h e a ri n g a id a n d s e n t M V M th e re s u lts o f a h e a ri n g te s t th a t h e to o k w ith h is h e a ri n g a id . Fr om m ar gued thatthe new t es tr es ul t s demonstr at ed he c oul d m eetthe hea r i ng funct i ons r equi r ed of a C SO . M V M s ubm i t t ed the r es ul t s of thi s t es tt o the M ar s hal s Ser vi ce onFr om m al s o fi l ed a c om pl ai ntunderthe R ehabi l i t at i on A ctw i th the D epart m entof 1 L a b o r O f

f ice o f F e d e ra l C o n tra c t C o m p lian c e P ro g ra m s o n o r a b o u t Ju ly7 , 2 0 0 3 . T h is c o mp l a i n twa s c l o s e d b e c a u s e F r o mm h a d f i r s tf i l e d wi th th e EE OC. 5 D ece m ber3, 2002, and r eques t ed thatthe age ncyr econs i deri t s deci s i on t o di s qual i fy Fr om m fr om w or ki ng as a C SO . G ot tr i ch cont act ed U SM S byt el ephone a nd w as i nform ed thatFr om m ’ s m edi cal di s qual i fi cat i on w oul d notbe r econs i der ed. Fr om m fi l ed an a dm i ni s tr at i ve compl ai ntagai ns tM V M w i th the Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”) and the Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons C om m i s s i on ( “PH R C ”) on N ovember19, 2002, al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of the A D A and the P H R A . In A u g u st 2 0 0 3 , F ro m m w ro te to th e E E O C se e k in g to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t to

1 i ncl ude the M ar s hal s Ser vi ce, the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce, and the U ni t ed S tate s A tto rn e yG e n e ra l as re sp o n d e n ts. T h e E E O C re p lied th a t itlac k e d a u th o rityto i nves t i gat e di s cr i m i nat i on byfede r al ent i t i es and enc l os ed a f or m expl ai ni ng the a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e d u re s f o r su c h a c o m p lain t, w h ich in v o lv e d f ili n g a c o m p lain t w ith th e Eq u a l Em p l o yme n tOf f i c e ( “ EE O” ) f

o rth e a p p r o p r i a t e f

e d e r a l d e f

e n d a n t . F r o mm n ev er f il ed an ad m inistrati v e c o m p lai n t un d er the R eh ab il it ati o n A ct w ith the U S M S ’s E E O. In Ju n e 2 0 0 4 , F ro m m f iled su it i n th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a aga i ns tM V M , as w el l as the D i r ect orof U SM S and the A t t or ney G e n e ra l o f

th e U n ited S tate s (c o llec tiv e lyth e “ F e d e ra l D e f e n d a n ts” ), alle g in g h is t erm i nat i on vi ol at ed the A D A , the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct , and the PH R A , as w el l as theU nderthe A D A , an “i ndi vi dual w i th a di s abi l i ty ” i ncl udes notonl yan i ndi vi dual 2 w ho “has a phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m entw hi ch s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one orm or e of s uch per s on’ s m aj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es , ” butal s o an i ndi vi dual w ho “i s r egar ded as havi ng s uch an im p airm en t. ” 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 2 1 0 2 (3). T h e D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yli m it ed F rom m ’s th eo ry t o the l att er“r egar ded as ” di s abi l i tybeca us e hi s hear i ng i m pai r m enti s m i t i gat ed by c o rr e c tiv e m e a s u re s . See Sut t on v. U ni t ed Ai rLi nes , I

nc. , 527 U . S. 471, 487 ( 1999) su p e rs e d e d

b y sta tu te , A D A A m e n d m e n ts A c t o f 2 0 0 8 , P u b . L . N o . 1 1 0 -3 2 5 , 1 2 2 S tat. 3 5 5 3 (20 0 8 ). 6 s u b s ta n tiv e a n d p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s p ro te c tio n s o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. Fr om m v. M V M , I nc. , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 3 3 5 4 0 , at *1 (M . D . P a. Jan . 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt dis m i ssed a nu m ber of the cl ai m s, bu tperm i t t ed F rom m t o p roceed to the m eri t s agai nst M V M u n d e r th e A D A , R e h a b ili tatio n A c t, an d P H R A a n d a g a in st th e F e d e ra l D e f e n d a n ts u n d e r t h e R e h a b ilita tio n A c t a n d p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s . I d. T h e se c laim s w e re a ll l i m i t e d t o h i s th e o r y t h a th e w a s d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s tf o ra “ r e g a r d e d a s ” d i s a b i l i ty. I d. 2 Fol l ow i ng di s covery , M V M and the Feder al D efe ndant s eac h fi l ed a mot i on for s um m aryj udgm enton t he r emai ni ng cl ai m s . B oth m ot i ons w er e gr ant ed. T he D i s tr i ct C ou rtreas on ed thatthe R ehab i l i t at i on A ctcl ai m s agai nstal l defe nd ants fai l ed b ecause Fr om m had fa i l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci entevi dence thathe coul d per form the es s ent i al f u n c tio n s o f

th e jo b , w h e re o n e o f

th o se e ss e n tial f

u n c tio n s w a s u n a id e d h e a rin g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e C S O h e a ri n g s ta n d a rd s . I d. at*4- 6. B eca us e the r emai ni ng d isab il ityclaim s ag ains t M V M u n d er the A D A an d P H R A w ere p rem ised o n U S M S ’s deci s i on t o di s qual i fyFr om m , thos e cl ai m s w er e di s m i s s ed as w el l on the theorythat M V M c o u ld n o t b e liab le f o r c o m p ly in g w ith U S M S re q u ire m e n ts if th o se re q u ire m e n ts7

w e re n o t th e m s e lv e s u n la w f u l. I d. at*6. Fi nal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our thel d thatthe proced ural du e process cl ai m fai l ed b ecause U S M S provided F rom m suffici ent pr ocess th ro u g h th e c o n s id e ra tio n o f a d d itio n a l h e a ri n g te s ts . I d. at*7. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. II. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 4 3 , a n d 1 3 6 7 . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. In r eview i ng a dis tri ctcou rt ’s grantof sum m aryj ud gm ent, w e app l ythe sam e t est th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a p p lie d . Saldana v. Km ar tC or p. , 2 6 0 F .3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is p ro p e r w h e n , v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to the non- m ovi ng partyand dr aw i ng al l i nfer ence s i n thatparty ’ s favor , ther e i s no genui ne is s u e o f m a te ri a l f

a c t a n d th e m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . I d. at 23 2 ; Fe d . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). III . O n a p p e a l, F ro m m ra ise s th re e p rin c ip le a rg u m e n ts: (1 ) th a t h e e x h a u ste d a ll admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es know n t o hi m and s houl d be exc us ed fr om anyfur therexhaus t i on r equi r ement s ; ( 2) thathi s i nabi l i tyt o appea l the bas i s forhi s t erm i nat i on depr i ved hi m of p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss ; an d (3 ) th a t lette rs s u b m itt e d o n h is b e h a lf b yc o u rt o f

f icia ls demonstr at i ng he had s ucce s s ful l yper form ed hi s C SO pos i t i on cr eat ed a ge nui ne i s s ue of8

m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w h e th e ru n a i d e d h e a r i n g w a s a n “ e s s e n t i a l f u n c t i o n ” o f

th e j o b . We w i l l addr es s thes e ar gum ent s i n turn. A . A dm i ni s tr at i ve Exhaust i on A partyfi l i ng a cl ai m under§ 501 of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctm us tfi r s texhaus tt he a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s e s ta b lis h e d u n d e r T itle V II o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 . See 2 9 U .S .C . § 7 9 4 a (a )(1 ) (in c o rp o ra tin g T itl e V II “ re m e d ies , p ro c e d u re s, a n d rig h ts” in to the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct ) . A n i ndi vi dual w ho bel i eves he has s uffe r ed a vi ol at i on of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctm us tcont actan age ncy ’ s E E O couns el orw i thi n for ty - fi ve day s of the compl ai ned of i nci dent . 29 C . F. R . § 1614. 105( a) ( 1) . T hi s cont acts et s i nt o m ot i on a chai n of eve nt s w hi ch w i l l l ead t o ei theran i nform al r es ol ut i on of the cl ai m ora di s m i s s al bythe EE O , atw hi ch poi ntan empl oy ee maycont actthe EE O C and s eek the r i ghtt o s ue i n di s tr i ctcourt . 29 C . F. R . §§ 1614. 106- . 108. F ro m m d o e s n o t c o n te s t th a t h e h a s f a ile d to a v a il h im s e lf

o f th e s e re q u ir e d s te p s . R ather , he s eems t o ar gue thatadmi ni s tr at i ve exhaus t i on w oul d have be en fut i l e bec aus e, a s th e U S M S E E O c o u n se lo r su b m itt e d to th e C o u rt, “E E O c o u n se lo rs a re n o t q u a lifie d to r evi ew the s ubs t ance of m edi cal det erm i nat i ons . ” ( A pp. 212- 13. ) T hus , Fr om m ar gues

“ th e re w a s n o re a l E E O p ro c e s s a v a ila b le to [ h im ] a g a in s t th e U S M S .” (F ro m m B r. 1 1 .) A l though Fr om m ci t es no l aw forhi s ar gum ent s , w e hel d i n W i l s on v. M V

M , I nc. , 4 7 5 F . 3 d 1 6 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), that the R eh ab il it ati o n A ct’s ex h au sti o n req u ir em en ts w ere p rud en ti al as o p p o sed to jurisdicti o n al an d there fo re su b ject t o a f

u ti li tyex ce p ti o n w h ere9

a p a rt yp ro v id e s “ a c le a r a n d p o s itiv e s h o w in g ” o f f u tilit y . I d. at175. Fr om m offe r s no s uch s how i ng her e. W hi l e EE O couns el or s atU SM S coul d notr evi ew the s ubs t ance of m ed ical de term ination s, theyat l ea st ha d the a u tho ri tyto inv esti g ate the rea so n s fo r a m ed ical disq u ali fica ti o n o r co rrect an yerro rs i n the p roc ed u res u sed to ev alua te F rom m ’s hear i ng. T o fac i l i t at e thes e ends , Fr om m w as s peci fi cal l yi nform ed bythe EE O C of the p ro c e ss f o r f ili n g a R e h a b ili tatio n A c t co m p lain t ag a in st th e F e d e ra l D e f e n d a n ts. H is o p in io n th a t p a rta k in g o f th e a v a ilab le p ro c e ss w o u ld n o t h a v e re su lted in a f a v o ra b le out come does notexcus e pr ocedur al non- compl i ance . A ccordi ng l y , w e ho l d thatF rom m fai l ed to exh austhis adm i nis trat i ve rem edies , and w e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o the Feder al D efen dan t s on the § 5 01 R ehab i l i t at i on A ctcl ai m s. B . P rocedu ral D ue P rocess Fr om m cl ai m s thatM V M ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de a s ubs t ant i ve appe al of hi s m edi cal d is q u a lif ic a tio n v io la te d h is ri g h t to p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s u n d e r t h e F if th A m e n d m e n t. W e cons i der ed and r ej ect ed an i dent i cal ar gum enti n W i l s on and accordingl yw i l l add res s it o n ly b ri e f

ly h e re . See 475 F. 3d at177- 79. A s w e have r epea t edl ynot ed, ata mi ni m um , due pr oces s r equi r es not i ce a nd a h e a ri n g . I

d. at178. H ow ever , the ext entof the not i ce a nd hear i ng depends on bal anci ng thr ee i nt er es t s : ( 1) the pr i vat e i nt er es tats t ake, ( 2) the r i s k of err ori n the pr ocedur e us ed co m p are d w ith the d eg ree o f a cc u rac yo f a d d it ion al pro ce d u res, an d (3) the g o v ern m en t’ sI n addr es s i ng the mer i t s of Fr om m ’ s di s abi l i tydi s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s , w e nee d not 3 di s t i ngui s h betw een the thr ee appl i cabl e s t atut orys chemes . W e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hat th e A D A a n d th e R e h a b ilita tio n A c t a p p ly th e s a m e s ta n d a rd to d e te rm in e lia b ility, A nt ol v. P erry , 82 F. 3d 1291, 1299 ( 3d C i r . 1996) , and thatthe A D A and PH R A ar e i nt erpr et ed c o e x te n s iv e ly, 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 . 1 9 9 9 ). 10 in te re s t. I

d. ( ci t i ng Mathew s v. E ldr i dge , 424 U . S. 319, 334- 35 ( 1976) ) . M V M not i fi ed Fr om m thathe w as pot ent i al l ys ubj ectt o m edi cal di s qual i fi cat i on, pr ovi ded a medi cal eval uat i on, and perm i t t ed Fr om m t o pr ovi de an a ddi t i onal eval uat i on fr om a phy s i ci an of hi s choos i ng. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthataddi t i onal pr ocee di ngs w oul d not h a v e in c re a s e d th e a c c u ra c yo f th e m e d ic a l r e v ie w . See i d. at179 ( “A m or e r i gor ous pr oces s w oul d nots i gni fi cant l yenhanc e the ac cur acyof the medi cal qual i fi cat i on p roc ess.”). W e w i l l ther efor e af

fi r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton F r o mm’ s p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. C. Re h a b i l i t a t i o n Ac t , ADA, a n d P HR A C l a i ms Ag a i n s tM VM A n empl oy ee a s s ert i ng a cl ai m fordi s abi l i tydi s cr i m i nat i on m us ts how ( 1) thathe has a di s abi l i ty , ( 2) thathe i s otherw i s e qual i fi ed t o per form the es s ent i al funct i ons of the j ob, w i th orw i thoutr eas onabl e ac comm odat i on bythe empl oy er , and ( 3) thathe w as te rm in a te d . Shi r i ng v. R unyon , 9 0 F . 3 d 8 2 7 , 8 3 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt 3 gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entbeca us e i thel d thatFr om m had fa i l ed t o demonstr at e he coul d per form the “e s s ent i al funct i ons ” of the j ob – s peci fi cal l ythathe coul d notm eett he C S O h e a rin g sta n d a rd s w ith o u t th e u se o f a h e a rin g a id . F ro m m a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t h is11

p a st s a tisf

a c to ryp e rf

o rm a n c e o f

th e C S O jo b f

u n c tio n s w ith o u t th e u se o f a h e a rin g a id w h ile s u f

f e rin g f ro m re d u c e d h e a rin g in h is rig h t ea r c re a tes a q u e stio n o f f a c t as to w hetherthe unai ded hea r i ng s t andar ds ar e an “ es s ent i al funct i on” of the C SO pos i t i on. W e agr ee w i th Fr om m that , bas ed on the r ecor d i n thi s cas e, he has cr eat ed a di s put e of mat er i al fac toverw hetherthe unai ded hea r i ng r equi r ement s ar e an e s s ent i al f u n c tio n o f

th e C S O p o s itio n s u c h th a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th a t b a s is w a s im p ro p e r. F rom m su b m itted d ep o sit ion test im o n yo f su p erv isors at M V M co n firm ing F rom m ’s s at i s fac t oryj ob per form ance , as w el l as hi s ow n t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s pr i or p e rf o rm a n c e , an d lette rs f

ro m v a rio u s c o u rt o f

f icia ls a ttes tin g th a t h e h a d su c c e ss f u lly p e r f o r m e d h i s C S O f

u n c t i o n s f

o ra n u m b e ro f

y e a r s w i th th e u s e o f

a h e a r i n g a i d . We have pr evi ous l yhel d t hatevi dence of s ucce s s ful j ob per form ance m ays uffi ce t o cr eat e a di s put e of mat er i al fac toverw hatcons t i tut es an “e s s ent i al funct i on. ” See Ske rs k iv . T i me W ar nerC abl e C o. , 257 F. 3d 273 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I n Sker s ki , a ca bl e i ns t al l erw as t erm i nat ed fornotcl i m bi ng l adder s as a the r es ul tof an a nxi etydi s or dereven though he h a d b e e n p e rf

o rm in g th e jo b f

o r a n u m b e r o f

y e a rs w ith o u t c lim b in g . I d. at276- 77. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent , concl udi ng thatcl i m bi ng w as an “e s s ent i al funct i on” of the ca bl e i ns t al l at i on pos i t i on, bas ed i n parton the w r i t t en j ob des cr i pt i on of the ca bl e i ns t al l erpos i t i on w hi ch i ncl uded “r epet i t i ve . . . pol e cl i m bi ng . . . and l adder cl i m bi ng. ” I

d. at275, 277. W e r ever s ed, hol di ng, “Sker s ki ’ s abi l i tyt o per form as an in sta ller te c h n icia n f

o r m o re th a n th re e y e a rs w ith o u t clim b in g m ig h t lea d a re a so n a b le12

ju ro r to in f

e r th a t S k e rsk i’s in a b ili tyto c lim b h a d n o a d v e rse c o n se q u e n c e s f o r h is empl oy er , a fa ct orthati s r el evantt o det erm i ni ng w hati s an es s ent i al funct i on. ” I d. at 283. U SM S ar gued ator al ar gum entthatthe unai ded hea r i ng s t andar ds ar e an e s s ent i al funct i on of the C SO pos i t i on beca us e theyt es ta C SO ’ s abi l i tyt o per form i n emer gency s i tuat i ons w her e a he ar i ng ai d coul d m al funct i on orbecome di s l odged. U SM S poi nt s out thatFr om m ’ s abi l i tyt o per form i n the or di narycour s e does notr efut e i t s pos i t i on thathe w oul d be unabl e t o per form i n an emer gency . W hi l e def i ni ng the s cope of

the es s ent i al funct i on as “unai ded hea r i ng i n the eve ntof an e m er gency ” mayw el l change the s um m aryj udgm entcal cul us , ar gum ent s ar e notevi dence , and w e fi nd no s uppor ti n the rec o rd f o r th is po sit ion . U S M S h as p rese n ted n o ev iden ce that the h ea ri n g stan d ard s w ere i nt ended f

oremer gencys i tuat i ons , nordemonstr at ed thatemer gencys i tuat i ons ar e ce nt r al o r i m p e ra tiv e to th e C S O p o s itio n . See 29 C . F. R . § 1630. 2( n) ( 3) ( i i i ) ( “es s ent i al funct i ons ” underthe A D A i ncl ude cons i der at i on of “[ t ] he amountof t i m e s penton the j ob per form i ng the func t i on”) . A nd even i f w e ac cept ed thatthe hea r i ng s t andar ds themsel ves w er e i m per at i ve t o an emer gencys i tuat i on, U SM S has pr ovi ded l i t t l e bey ond c o n j e c tu r e i n s u p p o r to f

i t s a r g u m e n tth a tth o s e s t a n d a r d s c a n n o tb e a c c o m m o d a t e d b y a hear i ng ai d. I n fac t , M V M has cons i s t ent l ym ai nt ai ned thati t“di d notbel i eve that Fr om m w as unqual i fi ed t o cont i nue w or ki ng as a C SO beca us e of hi s hear i ng l os s . ” ( M V M B r . at8. ) A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d that , underthe evi dence pr es ent ed i n thi s cas e,13

Fr om m has cr eat ed a di s put e of mat er i al fac tas t o w hetherthe unai ded hea r i ng s t andar ds ar e an “ es s ent i al funct i on” of the C SO pos i t i on. W e turn then t o anotherpr ong of the di s abi l i tydi s cr i m i nat i on anal y s i s – w hether Fr om m w as “di s abl ed” w i thi n the meani ng of the appl i cabl e s t atut es . A cl ai m antunder the A D A and the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctm us tpr ove thathe has a phy s i cal i m pai r m entthat l i m i t s a maj orl i fe a ct i vi ty , has a r ecor d of s uch i m pai r m ent , ori s “r egar ded as ” havi ng s u c h a n i mp a i r me n t . 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 2 1 0 2 ( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 8 ) ( ADA ) ; 2 9 U. S . C. § 7 0 5 ( 2 0 ) ( B) (2 0 0 8 ) (R e h a b ili tatio n A c t). F ro m m a lleg e s th a t M V M a n d th e F e d e ra l D e f e n d a n ts “re g ard ed ” h im as b eing im p aired , m ea n ing they“m ist ak en lyb eli ev e[ d ] th at [F rom m ], has a phy s i cal i m pai r m entthats 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 ” or “mi s t akenl ybel i eved thatan ac tual , nonl i m i t i ng i m pai r m ents ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one or m or e maj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es . ” Sut t on , 527 U . S. at489. A s w e hel d i n W

i l s on , M V M , thr ough i t s ow n conduct , di d not“r egar d” Fr om m 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: T h e u n d isp u ted e v id e n c e sh o w s th a t M V M d id n o t co n sid e r th e a p p e llan ts i n anyw aydi s abl ed and w oul d have r ei ns t at ed them i m m edi at el yi f the US M S wo u l d h a v e d e t e r mi n e d th e a p p e l l a n t s we r e me d i c a l l yq u a l i f i e d . As a mat t erof l aw , M V M di d notr egar d the appe l l ant s as i m pai r ed w i thi n the me a n i n g o f

th e ADA. 4 7 5 F .3 d a t 1 7 9 . T h is c o n c lu sio n , o n id e n tica l re lev a n t f a c ts, a b so lv e s M V M o f liab ili ty underthe def

i ni t i on pr ovi ded by42 U . S. C . § 12112( b) ( 3) , w hi ch forbi ds an empl oy er14

fr om “ut i l i zi ng s t andar ds , cr i t er i a, orm ethods of admi ni s tr at i on [] thathave the ef fec tof d is c ri m in a tio n o n th e b a s is o f d is a b ility.” Fr om m corr ect l ynot es , how ever , thatthe A D A i m pos es l i abi l i tynotonl yforan empl oy er ’ s di r ectdi s cr i m i nat orys t andar ds , butfordi s cr i m i nat i on carr i ed outvi a a contr actual agr eementw i th a thi r d party . Sect i on 12112( b) ( 2) defi nes i l l egal di s cr i m i nat i on as “part i ci pat i ng i n a contr actual orotherarr angementorr el at i ons hi p t hat has the ef

fec tof s ubj ect i ng a cove r ed ent i ty ’ s qual i fi ed appl i cantorempl oy ee w i th a d isa b ili tyto th e d isc rim in a tio n p ro h ib ited b yth is s u b c h a p ter .” T h e p u rp o se o f th is pr ovi s i on i s t o ens ur e thatan empl oy er“maynotdo thr ough a contr actual orother r el at i ons hi p w hati ti s pr ohi bi t ed fr om doi ng di r ect l y . ” 29 C . F. R . pt . 1630, A pp. § 1630. 6. I f M V M , vi a i t s contr actw i th U SM S, has s ubj ect ed Fr om m t o “di s cr i m i nat i on pr ohi bi t ed by[the A D A ] , ” i tcannotr es ton bl i nd contr actual compl i ance t o es cape lia b ility f o r d is c ri m in a tio n . See H ol i day v. C i t

y of C hat tanooga , 2 0 6 F .3 d 6 3 7 , 6 4 5 (6 th C i r . 2000) ( “Em pl oy er s do notes cape thei rl egal obl i gat i ons underthe A D A by c o n tra c tin g o u t ce rta in h irin g a n d p e rso n n e l f u n c tio n s to th ird p a rties .”); cf . P ow ers v. A la. D ept . of

E duc. , 8 5 4 F . 2 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 9 4 -95 (11 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (ho lding u n d er T it le V II that“an e m pl oy ercannotdel egat e s ever al as pect s of i t s pr om ot i on pr ocedur e t o anotherT h e p o ten tial a p p lica tio n o f § 1 2 1 1 2 (b )(2 ) w a s n o t ad d re ss e d b yth is C o u rt in 4 W i l s on . A c c o rd in g ly , tho u g h w e a g re e w ith o u r d iss e n tin g c o llea g u e th a t W i l s on pr es ent ed “i ndi s t i ngui s habl e fa ct s , ” w e ar e ca l l ed i n thi s i ns t ance t o addr es s a di s t i nct l e ga l a r gu ment : M V M ’ s po t e nt i a l l i a bi l i tyvi a i t s c on tr a c tw i th USM S. W e r es pect ful l ydi s agr ee w i th the di s s ent ’ s r el i ance on the N i nth C i r cui tdeci s i on 5 i n W al t on v. U. S. M

ars hal s Ser vi ce , 492 F. 3d 998 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . T he courti n W al t on , r el y i ng on the Supr eme C our tdeci s i on i n Sut t on , hel d thatdi s qual i fi cat i on underthe U S MS h e a r i n g s t a n d a r d s c a n n o tr a i s e a d i s p u t e o f m a t e r i a l f

a c t s a s t o w h e th e rU S MS re g a rd s th a t e m p lo y e e a s d is a b le d in a m a jo r l if e a c tiv ity. I

d. a t 1 0 0 7 . Sut t on , h o w ev er, s ay s onl ythatan empl oy er ’ s i m pl ement at i on of phy s i cal r equi r ement s al one does not su f f ice to su p p o rt a c laim o f “ re g a rd e d a s” d isa b ili tyb e c a u se m a n ysu c h q u a lific a tio n s, if notm et , w i l l not“r i s e t o the l evel of an i m pai r m ent . ” 527 U . S. at490. T he C our tgoes on t o hol d, “A n empl oy erruns afoul of the A D A w hen i tm akes an empl oym entdeci s i on bas ed on a phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m ent , r eal ori m agi ned, thati s r egar ded as s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t i ng a maj orl i fe a ct i vi ty . ” I d. I tw oul d be pr ematur e, atthi s s t age, for 15 ag en cysu ch as S P D an d then esc ap e li ab il ityif th at ag en cyd ev elop s d iscri m inato ry p rac ti ce s” a n d co ll ec ti n g ca ses). 4 T h u s, ev en tho u g h U S M S is pro p erlyd ism issed fro m the c ase d u e to F rom m ’s f a ilu re to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s , th e q u e s tio n o f M V M ’s lia b ility tu rn s o n , i nt er a lia , w hetherU S M S eng aged i n “d i scr i m i nati on prohibi t ed b y[t he A D A . ]” B ecause var i ous as pect s of U SM S’ s al l egedl ydi s cr i m i nat oryconduct , i ncl udi ng the ques t i on of w hetherU SM S “r egar ded” Fr om m as di s abl ed, w er e notar gued bef or e thi s C our tand not cons i der ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tbel ow , w e w i l l r emand forfur thercons i der at i on of w hetherM V M i s l i abl e for“part i ci pat i ng i n a contr actual orotherarr angementor r el at i ons hi p t hathas the ef fec tof s ubj ect i ng a cove r ed ent i ty ’ s qual i fi ed appl i cantor e mp l o y e e wi th a d i s a b i l i tyt o th e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n p r o h i b i t e d b y[ th e ADA . ] ” 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 2 1 1 2 (b)(2 ). 5u s to d ec ide w h at th e D istri ct C o u rth as n o t: w h ethe r U S M S b eli ev ed that F rom m ’s

hear i ng l os s cons t i tut es an i m pai r m ent“s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t i ng a maj orl i fe a ct i vi ty . ” B eca us e thi s ques t i on goes t o U SM S’ s m ot i vat i ons and pot ent i al bi as es , i tcannotbe a n s we r e d b yr e s o r tt o e v i d e n c e o f M VM ’ s wi l l i n g n e s s t o e mp l o yF r o mm.

16 I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m s um m aryj udgm entforthe Feder al De f e n d a n t s , r e v e r s e s u mma r yj u d g me n tf o rM VM o n F r o mm’ s ADA , RA, a n d P HRA cl ai m s , and r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.STA PLE TO N , C i r cui tJudge, dis s ent i ng : W hi l e I agr ee w i th i ni t i al l yal l thati s s ai d bythe C ourt , I neverthel es s concl ude thats um m aryj udgm entforM V M w as appr opr i at e. W e expl ai ned the l aw thati s contr ol l i ng her e i n W i l s on v. M V

M , I nc. , 475 F. 3d 16 6, 17 9 (3d C i r. 20 07 ) ( brackets i n o ri ginal ), a case w i th indi st i ng uis hab l e facts : I n or dert o pr evai l on a cl ai m underthe A D A , a cl ai m antm us tpr ove thathe i s di s abl ed w i thi n t he meani ng of the s t atut e, pr ovi ng thathe has a phy s i cal i m pai r m entthatl i m i t s a maj orl i fe a ct i vi ty , has a r ecor d of s uch an im p a ir m e n t, o r i s “ 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. 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 2 (2 ); 2 9 U .S .C . § 7 0 5 (2 0 )(B ). T h e a p p e llan ts c a n n o t p ro v e th a t th e ir im p a irm e n ts a re n o t m iti g a ted b yc o rre c tiv e m e a su re s, th u s b a rrin g a c laim th a t th e yh a v e im p a ir m e n ts th a t lim it a m a jo r l if e a c tiv ity. Sut t on v. U

ni t ed A i rLi nes , I

nc. , 527 U . S. 471, 487, 119 S. C t . 2139, 144 L . E d. 2d 450 ( 1999) . T her efor e, theycan onl ypr evai l i f theys how thatM V M “r egar ded” them as be i ng i m pai r ed. T o m eetthi s s t andar d, M V M m us thave “mi s t akenl ybel i eved that[the appe l l ant s ] have a phy s i cal i m pai r m entthat su b sta n tiallylim its o n e o r m o re m a jo r life a c tiv iti e s” o r “ m ista k e n ly bel i eved thatan ac tual non- l i m i t i ng i m pai r m ents ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one or m or e maj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es . ” Id . at489, 119 S. C t . 2139. I ti s i ns uffi ci entfor th e a p p e l l a n t s t o s h o w th a tM V M th o u g h tth e y w e r e , i n s o m e w a y, im p aired . R athe r, the a p p ell an ts m u st sho w that M V M tho u g h t th eyw ere di s abl ed “w i thi n t he meani ng of the s t atut e. ” R i nehi m erv. C em col i f t , I nc. , 2 9 2 F . 3 d 3 7 5 , 3 8 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I n W i l s on , w e conc l uded thatthe undi s put ed evi dence s how ed thatM V M bel i eved onl ythatthe cl ai m ant s di d notm eetthe r equi r ement s es t abl i s hed bythe J udi ci al C onfer ence fors ervi ce a s a C SO . T her e w as no evi dence thattheyw er e r egar ded as havi ng an i m pai r m entw hi ch “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 . ” Id . S u m m aryjud g m en t fo r M V M w as a cc o rdin g lyap p rop ri ate. A s the S u p rem e C o u rt emphasi zed i n Mur

phy v. U ni t ed Parce lSer vi ce, I

nc. , 527 U . S. 516 ( 1999) , a cl ai m ant m u st s h o w th a t h e r e m p lo y e r re g a rd s h e r a s s u b sta n tiallylim ited in a m a jo r life a c tiv ity2

and notj us tunabl e t o m eetthe r equi r ement s of a pa r t i cul arj ob. L i ke the cl ai m ant s i n W i l s on , F ro m m d o e s n o t cla im to b e a c tu a llyd isa b led . H is s ol e cl ai m i s thathe w as “r egar ded as ” di s abl ed. M or e s peci fi cal l y , i n r es pons e t o the fo ll o w ing interrog atory , h e g av e the fo ll o w ing an sw er: I n t e r r o g a t o r y 8 Id e n tifyw h a t ac tiv ityo r a c tiv iti e s y o u b e liev e M V M e rro n e o u sly r egar ded y ourhear i ng l os s as l i m i t i ng. R espon se P l ai nti ff’s abi l i tyt o p erform the C S O res po nsi bil i t i es and d uti es. A pp. at350, 359. M V M does nother e di s put e thati tr egar ds Fr om m as unabl e t o m eetthe req u ir em en ts establishe d b ythe J u d ici al C o n fe ren ce fo r serv ice a s a C S O , an d the C o u rt c o rr e c t l y c o n c l u d e s , a s d i c t a t e d b y W i l s on , that as a “m att er o f law , M V M d id n o t r eg ard [Fr om m ] as i m pai r ed w i thi n the meani ng of the A D A . ” W i l s on , 475 F. 3d at179. A ft er s o co ncludi ng , the C ou rtfi nd s that this do es not end the m at t er because Fr om m , i n hi s r epl ybr i ef, s ugges t s thatthe contr actual r el at i ons hi p betw een M V M and th e M a r s h a l s S e r v i c e “ h a s th e e f f e c to f s u b j e c t i n g a [ n ] . . . e m p l o ye e w i th a d i s a b i l i ty [ i . e. , F ro m m ] t o th e d is c ri m in a tio n p ro h ib ite d b y ” th e A D A in v io la tio n o f 4 2 U .S .C . § 12112( b) ( 2) . R epl yB r . at3. T he pr obl em w i th thi s new l yconce i ved ar gum enti s , of cour s e, thatFr om m has t ender ed no evi dence thatei therof the appe l l ees r egar ded hi m as di s abl ed w i thi n t he meani ng of the A D A . T he undi s put ed evi dence s how s thattheFr om m ’ s br i efi ng does notpurpor tt o di s t i ngui s h W i l s on . R a th e r, h e “ re sp e c tf u lly 1 s ubm i t s thatthe W

i l s on panel err ed i n i t s i nt erpr et at i on of the A D A . ” R epl yB r . at3. O ur panel cannotoverrul e W i l s on . 3 M a rsh a ls S e rv ice , li k e M V M , b e liev e d o n lyth a t F ro m m c o u ld n o t m e e t th e re q u ire m e n ts es t abl i s hed bythe J udi ci al C onfer ence fors ervi ce a s a C SO . A s w i th M V M , ther e i s no evi dence thatthe M ar s hal s Ser vi ce r egar ded Fr om m as havi ng anyi m pai r m entw hi ch “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 . ” A ccor di ngl y , § 12112( b) ( 2) does n o ta l t e rth e p r o p r i e tyo f th e s u mm a ryj u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f M VM . Fr om m appea r s t o as s um e thatthe M edi cal R evi ew For m s of the M ar s hal s Ser vi ce r ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hetheri tbel i eved he w as s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed in a m a jo r life a c tiv ity . S tan d in g a lo n e , h o w e v e r, F ro m m ’s f a ilu re to m e e t th e M a rsh a ls Ser vi ce he ar i ng s t andar ds does notr ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hethert he M arsh als S erv ice reg ard ed that im p airm en t as su b stan ti all yli m it ing h im in o n e o r m o re m aj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es . T he C our tof A ppeal s forthe N i nth C i r cui ts o hel d i n W al t on v. U. S. Mars hal s Ser vi ce , 4 9 2 F . 3 d 9 9 8 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), a c ase ind ist ing u isha b le fro m F rom m ’s and i nvol vi ng the s ame Judi ci al C onfer ence r equi r ement s forC SO s ervi ce. I n s hor t , the C our tt odayhol ds bas ed on W i l s on th a t, as a m a tter o f

law , M V M d id notr egar d Fr om m as i m pai r ed w i thi n the meani ng of the A D A . I tneverthel es s r emands 1 s o th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt c a n c o n s id e r w h e th e r t h e M a rs h a ls S e rv ic e s o re g a rd e d h im . H o w ev er, si n ce the in fo rm ati o n av ail ab le t o the M arsh als S erv ice reg ard ing F rom m ’s h e a rin g w a s p re c ise lyth e sa m e a s th e in f o rm a tio n a v a ilab le to M V M , itn e c e ss a rily4

f o llo w s f ro m th e C o u rt’s h o ld in g th a t th e M a rsh a ls S e rv ice c o u ld n o t h a v e re g a rd e d h im as di s abl ed w i thi n the meani ng of the A D A . Forthatr eas on, I w oul d aff i r m r atherthan rem and for further proceedings.