NOT PRECEDENT IAL UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIRC UI T

N o. 08- 2368 JOHN BLAKE, Appe llant

v. U PM C P A SS A V A

N T H O SP IT A L ; JO E K

U Z MA , ind ivi dua lly

a nd i n hi s ca pa ci ty a s aD ep ar

tm en t S upe rv iso r w ith U PM C P as sa va nt H ospi ta l; BRIA N K OO ROS , individu ally and in his capacity

as a H um an Resources Representative w ith UPMC Passavant Hospital

On Appeal from

the United State s District Court fo r the W es te rnD istri ct

of P en nsy lva nia D istri ct Co urt N o. 2- 06- cv -0 0193 D i s t r i c t J u d g e : Th e Ho n o r a b l e Te rr e n c e F

. M c V e rry

Subm itted Pursuant to Third Circuit L .A .R. 34.1(a)

Se pte m be r 16, 201 0 Befo re: SLOVITER, BARRY, an d S MITH, Circuit Judges

(F ile d: S ep te m

be r 17, 201 0)

OPINIONThe District Court had j urisdictio n und er 28 U.S .C

. § 1331 for the f ederal 1 cl ai m s an d§ 1 3 6 7 fo r t h e s t at e l aw cl ai m s , an d we h av e ju ri s d i ct i o n u n d er § 1 2 9 1 . We ha ve pl en ary rev ie w o ve r th e Dis tri ct Co ur t’s en try of s um m ary jud gm en t. Spe ci alt y Surf ac es I nt’ l, I nc . v. Co nti ne nta l C

as. Co

. , 609 F. 3d 22 3, 229 n.1 (3d Cir. 2010 ). Beca use Blake does not challenge the entry of sum m ary j u d g m en t on his state law c l a i ms , w e d o n o t a d d r e s s t h e m. 2 SMI TH, Ci rc uit

J udge

. J o h n B l a k e w a s e m

p l o y e da s ap h l e b o t o m i s ta td e f e n d a n tU P M C P a s s a va nt H ospi ta l (“ U PM C” ). D ur ing his ini tia l 180- da y pr oba tio na ry pe ri od, he w as abse nt fr om w ork anum

be r of ti m es . H is ab se ntee ism w as a ddr es se d a s ac onc er n by supe ri or s a nd a

le av e pla n w as w orked out. A ft er qui te af ewm or e ab se nc es , he inf orm ed his sup er ior s th at he suf

fe re d fr om bip ola r dis or de r an d ot he r m al ad ie s a nd would contin ue to be in need of irregular a bsences. He continu ed to c all out of work

er ra tic al ly , w hic h U PM C a ddressed w ith pr ogr es siv e w ar nin gs, c onsi ste nt w ith it s d i s c i p l i n a ry p o l i c y. B l a k e wa s e v e n t u a l l y t e rmi n a t e dc o n s i s t e n twi t h t h a tp o l i c y. Blake filed this action seeking recovery under the Am erica ns with Disabilities Act, 4 2 U.S.C. § § 1 21 01 , et se q. ( “ A D A ”) , the F am ily a nd M ed ic al L ea ve Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 26 01 , et

se q. ( “ FM L A ”) , an d va ri ous sta te la w c au se s of a ct ion

. T he D istri ct Co urt gr an te d a ll de fe nda nts ’ m oti on f or sum m ary judg m en t, a nd B la ke ap pe al s. 1 The A DA prohibit s discrim ination against q u al ified indivi duals, defined as3

those able, w ith or without reasonable accom m odation , to perf

o rm the essential fu nc ti on s o f th e job . 42 U.S.C. §§ 12 11 2( a), 1 21 11 (8 ). Lik ewi s e , th e FMLA prohibi ts interfer ence with certa in rights of i ndiv iduals able t o perform the essential fu nc ti on s of th ei r po si ti on s. Rinehime r v. Cem colift, Inc. , 292 F. 3d 37 5, 384 (3d Cir. 2002 ) (c iti ng 2 9 C

. F. R. § 82 5. 214( b) ( 2001 ))

. T hus, unde r ea ch sta tut e the abil ity to pe rf orm the e sse nti al f

unc tio ns o f the j ob i s a

pr er equis ite to pr ote ct ion

. Blake w as unpredictably absent f rom work on num erous day s. H e adm its that his c ondi tio n gi vin g r ise to su ch ab se nces is pe rm an en t a nd h is a bse nc es w ill thu s

co nti nue . T he D istri ct

Co urt co rr ec tly co nc lud ed tha t B la ke w as not

qua lif ie d f or his po si ti on as a ph l e b o t o mi st be cau se he co ul d n ot att en d wo rkreg ul arl y . Smith v. D av is , 248 F. 3d 24 9, 251 (3d Cir. 2001 ) (“ An em ploy ee w ho do es not com e to work on a regular basis is not ‘qualified. ’ ”) ( citation om itted). Ther efore, his claim s under the A D A a nd F ML A m

ust f ai l. T hus, w e w ill a ff

irm the j udgm en t of

the D istri ct

Co urt.