2006 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 6-27-2006 

# M uh ammed v . P hi l a P ri son Sys 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 . 05-3112

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " M uh amme d v

. P hi l a P r i s on Sys " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 834. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/834The Honorable John C. L ifland, Senior District Judge of the United States District Court * for the D istrict of NewJ ersey , sitti ngby designation. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 05- 3112 SALI H M UH AM M ED A ppel l ant

v. CI T Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A, PRI SON SYSTEM A p p e a l f ro m th e U n ited S tate D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o: 04- cv- 03418 D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S tew a rt D a lze ll Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay15, 2006 B e f o re : M c K E E a n d G A R T H , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n d L IF L A N D , S e n io r D is tr ic t J u d g e . * ( fi l ed: J une 27, 2006) OP I NI ON M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge. Sal i h M uhamm ed appe al s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o t he C ityo f P h ilad e lp h ia P riso n S y ste m in th e su it h e b ro u g h t u n d e r th e A m e ric a n s W ith Di s a b i l i t i e s Ac t( ADA ) . F o rt h e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m.For an explanation of the subtle distinctions between c laim prec lusion, iss ue pre clusion, 1 and re s ju dic ataand, see Gregory v. Chehi , 843 F.2d 111, 115 ( 3d Cir. 1988). 2 I. Si nce w e ar e w r i t i ng pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t hi s di s put e, w e nee d onl ys etfor t h t he pr ocedur al and fa ctual backgr ound t o the ext entthati s hel pful t o o u rb r i e f

d i s c u s s i o n . O u rr e v i e w o f a n o r d e rg r a n t i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n ti s p l e n a r y. W e th e re f

o re a p p ly th e s a m e te s t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e a p p lie d . Hi nes . v. C o n s o lid a te d

R a il C o r p ., 926 F. 2d 262 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr oper w h e n th e re a re n o g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a ter ial f

a c t an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law w h e n th e e v id e n c e is v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e o p p o s in g p a rt y . Id

a t 2 6 6 . B ot h par t i es devot e a port i on of thei rappel l at e ar gum entt o di s cus s i ng w hetheror nott he di s t r i ctcour tw as corr ecti n concl udi ng thatM uhamm ed’ s A D A cl ai m i s barr ed by hi s fai l ur e t o r ai s e i ti n t he pr ocee di ngs befor e the C i vi l Ser vi ce Com m i s s i on. W e nee d notr es ol ve thos e i s s ues of cl ai m ori s s ue pr ecl us i on beca us e i ti s cl earon t hi s r ecor d t hat M uhamm ed has notes t abl i s hed a pr i m a f aci e c a s e f

o rr e l i e f u n d e rth e ADA. 1 A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of the def

endant , and aga i ns tt he pl ai nt i ff.

A. Th e Di s c r i mi n a t i o n Cl a i m. M uhamm ed att empt s t o bas e hi s cl ai m of a pr ot ect ed di s abi l i t yon hi s m ent alM uhamm ed al s o al l eges t hatthe Li eut enantvi ol at ed hi s pr i vacybydi s cl os i ng 2 c o n f id e n tia l m e d ic a l in f

o rm a tio n , s ee A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at28. H ow ever , on t hi s r ecor d, he c a n n o te l e v a t e t h a tt o a c l a i m u n d e rth e ADA. 3 d isorientati o n in the em erg en cyroo m , an d the A D A ’s restr ict ion s o n an em p loy er’s a b ility to o rd e r m e d ic a l e x a m in a tio n s . See A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at20 e t. s e q . H o w e v e r, itis undi s put ed thatM uhamm ed w as t erm i nat ed bec aus e he t ol d L i eut enantPi er et t i thathe had i nges t ed i l l egal drugs and M uhamm ed ther eaf t erfai l ed t o r epor tfora drug t es tas r equi r ed byper s onnel pol i cy . A 165. 2 I n or dert o es t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie c a s e o f d i s c r i mi n a t i o n u n d e rth e ADA, M uhamm ed mustes t abl i s h t hathe i s 1) di s abl ed w i t hi n t he meani ng of the A ct , 2) ot herw i s e qual i fi ed t o per form t he es s ent i al funct i ons of hi s j ob, and 3) has s uffe r ed an a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t d e c is io n a s a re s u lt o f h is d is a b ility. D ean e v. P oco no Med. C tr. , 142 F. 3d 138, 142 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . A l t hough M uhamm ed ca n cl ear l yes t abl i s h t he r equi r ed a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t d e c isio n , h e c a n n o t es tab lish th a t h e is “ d isa b led ,” a n d h e c a n n o t, th e re f o re , cla im th e p ro tec tio n o f th e A c t. I ti s undi s put ed thatM uhamm ed t ol d L t . Pi er ett i thathe w as notw i l l i ng t o s ee a c ity d o c to r b e c a u s e “ I’ m g o in g to c o m e u p p o s itiv e f o r c o c a in e o r h e ro in o r s o m e th in g .” A6 8 . We h a v e a l r e a d yh e l d t h a t“ c u r r e n t ” d ru g u s e i s n o tp r o t e c t e d u n d e rth e ADA. Sal l ey v . C i r cui tC i t

y St or es , 160 F. 3d 977 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . I n Sa lle y , w e expl ai ned that t h e p r o t e c t i o n s o f

t h e A D A d o n o te x t e n d t o “ c u r r e n td ru g u s e . ” 1 6 0 F . 3 d a t9 8 0 n . 2 . We hel d t hatt he pl ai nt i ff ther e coul d notr ecove rbeca us e no r eas onabl e j urycoul d concl ude4

t hatt he empl oy er ’ s j us t i fi cat i on forfi r i ng hi m w as a pr et extfordi s abi l i t y - bas ed di s cr i m i nat i on. T he s ame i s t rue her e. M u h a m m e d a lso c laim s h e w a s “ re g a rd e d a s” b e in g d isa b led a n d th a t h e is t her efor e pr ot ect ed under42 U . S. C . § 12114 ( b) ( 3) , w hi ch ext ends pr ot ect i on t o one w ho i s notus i ng drugs butw ho i s “err oneous l yr egar ded as engagi ng i n s uch us e. ” See A p p e llan t’s B r. at p 2 5 . H o w e v e r, M u h a m m e d w a s n o t e rr o n e o u sly r egar ded as us i ng drugs beca us e he a dm i t t ed thathe w oul d t es tpos i t i ve fordrug us e. Si nce c urr entdrug u se is n o t a p ro tec ted d isa b ili tyu n d e r th e A D A , an d sin c e h e w a s n o t e rr o n e o u sly vi ew ed a s u sin g d ru g s, h is a lleg a tio n s h e re sim p lyd o n o t b rin g h im u n d e r th e p ro tec tiv e u m b re lla of the A D A . T hi s r ecor d s uppor t s no concl us i on ot herthan thathe w as t erm i nat ed for re f u s in g to c o m p ly w ith a le g itim a te o rd e r t o s u b m it to a n e x a m in a tio n f o r d ru g u s e . 42 U . S. C . § 12114 ( b) ( 3) s peci fi cal l yal l ow s a “c over ed ent i t yt o adoptor admi ni s t err eas onabl e pol i ci es orpr ocedur es i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o drug t es t i ng d e s ig n e d to e n s u re th a t [ a n e m p lo y e e s u s p e c te d o f u s in g d ru g s is n o t u s in g th e m ].” “[T] hi s s ect i on w as i nt ended t o perm i t[ ] empl oy er s t o conductdrug t es t s ort ake re a so n a b le a c tio n s to e n su re th a t an in d iv id u a l is n o lo n g e r u sin g ill e g a l d ru g s. T h is pr ovi s i on gr ant s empl oy er s t he . . . r i ght. . . . t o conductdrug t es t s on . . . empl oy ees w i thout v io la tin g th is A c t . . .” . B u c k le y v C o n s o lida te d

E d is o n , C o ., 1 5 5 F . 3 d . 1 5 0 , 1 5 5 (2d C ir . 1998) ( quot i ng R epor tof the H ous e of Repr es ent at i ves C om m i t t ee on Educat i on and L ab o r, H . R . R ep . N o . 1 0 1 -48 5 (II ), at 77 -78 (19 9 0 ), re p rin tedin 1990 U . S. C . C . A . N . 303,We realiz e that Muhammed c laimed that “someoneput [ it] into my drink,” a nd that he 3 there forehad not intentionally inge sted illeg al drug s. However, that does not excuse his re fusal to report f

or a dr ugtest in violation of city personne l policy . 5 3 6 0 ) (b ra c k e ts a n d in ter n a l ellip se s in o rig in a l). T h e d ru g tes t th a t M u h a m m e d re f u se d to t ake i s j us ts uch a pr ocedur e. 3 B. R e t al i at i on. M uhamm ed’ s cl ai m of i l l egal r et al i at i on far es no bet t erthan hi s di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m . I n or dert o es t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie cas e of r et al i at i on underthe A D A , M uhamm ed m us ts how t hat( 1) t her e w as a pr ot ect ed empl oy ee a ct i vi t y ; ( 2) ther e w as adver s e ac t i on byt he empl oy erei t heraft er , orcont empora neous l yw i t h, the empl oy ee’ s pr ot ect ed act i vi t y ; and ( 3) t her e i s a ca us al connec t i on betw een hi s pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yand the e m p lo y e r’ s a d v e rs e a c tio n . Kr ous e v. A m er i can St er i l iz erC o. , 1 2 6 F . 3 d 4 9 4 , 5 0 0 (3d cir. 1 9 9 7 ). M u h a m m e d p o in ts to th e p rio r la w su it th a t h e f iled f o llo w in g h is te rm in a tio n in 2002. H e corr ect l ycl ai m s t hats ui tw as pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yand then tr i es t o for ge a l i nk betw een i tand the t erm i nat i on befor e us her e. H e ar gues thats i nce O ffi cerK i ng pr oces s ed the pape r w or k fort he pr i ordi s m i s s al , the empl oy erw as aw ar e thatM uhamm ed h ad fil ed the p ri o r l aw su it . H o w ev er, th at ge n era li ze d all eg ati o n is no t eno u g h to su p p o rt a f in d in g o f c a u s a tio n . See, R obi ns on v. C i t y of P i t t s bur gh , 120 F. 3d. 1286, 1302 ( 3d. C i r . 1997) . T he i ns t antadver s e j ob act i on w as i ni t i at ed byPi er et t i , notO ffi cerK i ng. M or eover , on t hi s r ecor d, t her e i s not hi ng t o s ugges tthatO ffi cerK i ng even ha d t he6

author i t yt o i ni t i at e ori nfl uence t he curr entt erm i nat i on. A ccor di ngl y , M uhamm ed has notes t abl i s hed thathi s pr i orl aw s ui thad anyi m pactw hat s oeveron hi s s ubs equent t erm i nat i on, and no r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d concl ude otherw i s e. III . Foral l t he r eas ons above, w e w i l l aff i r m the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or dergr ant i ng su m m a ryju d g m e n t.