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 3-4-2005 

# C ar a cc iolo v

. B ell Atl P A 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 . 03-4472

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 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 " C ar a c c io lo v

. Be ll Atl P A Inc " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1477. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/14771 

### NO T P RE CE DENT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 03- 4472 FRAN CE S M . CA RA CC I OL O

Appe l l ant v. BELL ATLANTI C- PENNSYLVANI A, INC. Ap pell ee OnAp pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court f o r th e WesternD istrict o f P enn sylv an ia (D .C . N o . 0 0 -cv -0 0 2 7 2 J) Distri ct Judg e: Ho no ra

ble Ter re nce F. McVerr

y Subm itte d U nd er

Th ird C ircuit

LA R 3 4.1(a) Dat e : Febr

uary 18, 2005 B ef o re: S lo v iter, A m

b ro an dA ld isert, C ircu it Ju d g es. ( Fi l e d: Mar c h 4, 2005 ) OPINI ON OF THE COURT2



### AL DISE RT , Circuit

Judg e. T hi s i s an appe al byFr ance s M . C ar acc i ol o fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e d e f e n d a n t, B e ll A tlan tic P e n n sy lv a n ia, In c . T h e c o u rt h e ld th a t C a ra c c io lo w as notdi s abl ed undert he A m er i cans W i t h D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) 42 U . S. C . § 12101- 1 2 2 1 3 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e t e r mi n e d th a tCa r a c c i o l o f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma fac i e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on undert he A D A beca us e s he fa i l ed t o pr oduce e vi dence that s he i s di s abl ed w i t hi n t he meani ng of the A D A . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T h e c o u rt n o ted th a t alth o u g h sh e u n d e n iab lysu f f e rs f ro m d e p re ss io n , C a ra c c io lo h a s n o t p ro f

f e re d su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt a f in d in g th a t h e r d e p re ss io n lim its h e r in one orm or e maj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es . H avi ng concl uded thats he fa i l ed t o pr es entevi dence s uffi ci entt o r ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of f actual di s put e r egar di ng herdi s abi l i t y , as defi ned by th e A D A , the d istric t co u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. W e w ill a f f irm th is concl us i on of the di s t r i ctcour t ; t her efor e, w e do notr eac h t he al t ernat i ve hol di ng that a c c o mm o d a t i o n s s o u g h tb yCa r a c c i o l o we r e u n r e a s o n a b l e u n d e rth e ADA. 

### I. Beca use we wri teon ly

fo r the partie s, wh o arefamil iar with the fact s, procedural hi s t ory and c ont e nt i ons pr e s e nt e d, we wi l lnot r e c i t e the m

e xc ept a s ne c e s s ary

t o the d iscu ssio n .3 

### II. T o est abli sh a pri m a facie cas e of d i scr i m i nati on un der the A D A , a plai nti ff m ust show t hat: (i ) s he is a dis abled person w i t hin the m eaning o f t he A D A ; (i i ) s he is a qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual w i t h a di s abi l i t yi n t hats he ca n per form the es s ent i al funct i ons of the j ob , w i t h o r w i t ho ut r easona ble accom m od at i on ; and (i i i ) s he suf fered an ad verse em p loym en t dec isi o n . S h an er v . S yn thes , 2 0 4 F . 3 d 4 9 4 , 5 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). U nderthe A D A , a di s abi l i t yi s “a phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m entthats ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one or m or e of the maj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es of s uch i ndi vi dual . ” 42 U . S. C . § 12102( 2) . I n defi ni ng w hen an i m pai r ed per s on i s s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed, the Supr eme C our thas expl ai ned that t he s t andar d t o be us ed i s w hethert he i m pai r m ent“pr event s ors ever el yr es t r i ct s the in d iv id u a l f

ro m d o in g a c tiv iti e s th a t ar e o f c e n tra l im p o rta n c e to m o st p e o p le’ s d a ily liv e s .” T o y o ta M o to r v . W illia m s , 5 3 4 U .S . 1 8 4 , 1 9 8 (2 0 0 2 ). H er e, C ar acc i ol o does notchal l enge mostof the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det erm i nat i ons a b o u t h e r c laim e d lim itatio n s. S h e o n lya ss e rts th a t sh e w a s lim ited in th e a b ili tyto per form a l ar ge cl as s of j obs and thats he w as i m pai r ed i n t he maj orl i fe a ct i vi t yof in te ra c tin g s o c ia lly w ith o th e rs . B e c a u s e th e s e a re th e o n ly in a b iliti e s ra is e d o n a p p e a l, w e lim it o u r d isc u ss io n a c c o rd in g ly . S e e R u le 2 8 (a )(5 ), F e d e ra l R u les o f A p p e llate Pr ocedur e; T hi r d C i r cui tL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 28. 1( a) ; K os tv. K ozaki ew i cz, 1 F. 3d 176, 1 8 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). 

### II I.4



### In itially , w e n o te C araccio lo ’s arg um ent th at herabi l i t i es s houl d notbe cons i der ed s ol el yatt he t i m e s he w as r eques t i ng a r eturn t o w or k butr athers houl d be cons i der ed for a lo n g e r sp a n o f

tim e . S p e c if

ica lly , sh e a rg u e s th a t w e sh o u ld c o n sid e r h e r su b sta n tially l ow erl evel of func t i on dur i ng t he one y earper i od befor e herr eques tt o r eturn t o w or k and t he per i od i m m edi at el yaft ert he r efus al of thatr eques t . C ar acc i ol o’ s at t empt t o r ead T a y lo r v . P h o e n ix v ill e S c h o o l D istric t, 18 4 F .3 d 2 9 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), as a su p p o rt f o r th is a rg u m e n t is u n a v a ilin g . W e rul ed i n T ay l ort hatt he Pl ai nt i ff musts how thats he w as s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed d u rin g th e y e a r-lo n g “ tim e sp a n w h e n sh e sa y s th a t sh e w a s d e n ied re a so n a b le acc om m odat i ons ” thats he had r eques t ed. 184 F. 3d at308. W e conc l uded thatthe Pl ai nt i ff w as di s abl ed dur i ng t hi s t i m e s pan notw i t hs t andi ng the fa ctthats he w as t aki ng m edi cat i on t o deal w i t h herm ent al heal t h i s s ues beca us e “e ven though l i t hi um has i m pr oved hercondi t i on and has r educe d t he r i s k of ful l - bl ow n ps y chot i c epi s odes , the d ru g h a s n o t p e rf

e c tlyc o n tro lled h e r sym p to m s, le a v in g h e r still su b sta n tiallylim ited in t he abi l i t yt o t hi nk. ” I d. I ti s evi dent , ther efor e, thatthe hol di ng i n T ay l ordepende d on t he pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he Pl ai nt i ff w as s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed i n a maj orl i fe a ct i vi t ydur i ng t he tim e p e rio d a c c o m m o d a tio n s h a d b e e n re q u e ste d b u t n o t p ro v id e d . S e e M a rin e lli v . C ity of Eri e, Pa. , 216 F. 3d 354, 362 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( dr aw i ng the s ame concl us i on aboutthe h o ld in g in T a y lo r) . A br oaderhol di ng t hatt ook i nt o acc ountper i ods of t i m e bef or e the5

acc om m odat i on had bee n s oughtw oul d nothave be en cons i s t entw i t h Sut t on v. U ni t ed A i rl i nes, 52 7 U . S . 47 1 (199 9), w here the C ou rtno t ed thatthe term “subst anti al l yl i m i t s” ap p ea rs i n the s tatu te i n “the p rese n t i n d icati v e v erb fo rm . ” 5 2 7 U . S . at 48 2 . T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e A D A re q u ire s “ th a t a p e rso n b e p re se n tly . . . su b sta n tiallylim ited in or dert o demonstr at e di s abi l i t y . ” I d. W e ther efor e dec i de thatthe di s t r i ctcour tw as corr ect in c o n sid e rin g o n lyw h e th e r C a ra c c io lo w a s d isa b led a t th e tim e sh e so u g h t to re tu rn to w o rk w ith a c c o m m o d a tio n s . 

### When the c orre ct

le gal s tand ard is a

pp li ed, i t bec om es evident that Carac ci olo w as not s ubs t ant i a l ly

l i mi t e d i n he r

abi l i ty t o work or

he r abi l i ty t o i nt e r a c t

s oc i a l ly for p urp o ses o f

th e A D A . I V. InM arin elli, w e w ere f

acedw itha claim

th at th e P laintif

f w as sub stantially limit ed in the a

bili ty to wo rk becausehe was not ableto op erat e l arge snowplow s. We explained that “ in order for on e t o b e properly charac te ri ze d as s ub st anti al ly limit ed un der the AD A, an individu alm ust be unable ‘ to perform ei ther a c la ss of jo bs or a broad ran g e o f j o b s inv ario u s classes as co m p aredto th e av erag e p erso nh av in g co m p arab le train in g , sk ills an dab ilities.’” M arin elli, 2 1 6 F .3 dat 3 6 4 (qu o tin g 2 9 C .F .R . § 16 30 .2(j)( 3)(i )) . W e c on clud ed that Marinell i’ s c laimed li mit ation w as “far re m ov ed f ro m b ein g un ab le to p erf

o rm a ‘b ro adran g e o f

j o b s’ as th e E E O C reg u latio n s requ ire.” Id . at 3 6 5 .6



### Simil ar to the s it uati onin Marinell i, Cara cc iolo has not succ ee ded in all eging an in ab ility to p erf o rm a b ro adran g e o f

j o b s. Speci fi cal l y , s he t es t i fi ed thats he coul d not per form herform erm ai nt enanc e admi ni s t r at orj ob ora t el ephone ope r at orj ob, but“any o t h e rj o b I c o u l d h a v e h a n d l e d . ” T h e s e a r e tw o v e r y s p e c i f i c j o b s a ta s p e c i f

i c c o m p a n y. B ya lleg in g o n lyth a t sh e sh o u ld n o t p e rf o rm th e se p a rticu lar jo b s, C a ra c c io lo f a lls w e ll s hor tof ourr equi r ement s forpr ovi ng s ubs t ant i al l i m i t at i on i n t he abi l i t yt o w or k under th e A D A . V. A s to C a ra c c io lo ’s s e c o n d a p p e a led lim itatio n , tha t sh e is s u b sta n tiallylim ited in th e a re a o f

so c ial in ter a c tio n , w e h a v e a lm o st n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd c o n c e rn in g th is cl ai m ed l i m i t at i on. T her e i s evi dence thats he w as al i enat ed fr om m anyof herfr i ends for a t i m e bu tal so t hat before she soug ht t o return t o w ork, she had res t ored som e of those f r i e n d s h i p s . W e a l s o h a v e t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n h e rb r i e f th a ts h e c a n n o tt o l e r a t e “ a n g r y, i r at e ors t r ongl ynegat i ve comm uni cat i ons . ” Even as s um i ng thi s as s ert i on can be s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d, i tdoes notr i s e t o t he l evel of s ubs t ant i al l i m i t at i on underthe A D A . W e a re n o t aw a re o f a n yc a se th a t w o u ld su p p o rt C a ra c c io lo ’s p o sitio n o n th is i s s ue, and no ca s e has been c i t ed t o s uppor tthi s pos i t i on i n herbr i ef. T he C our tof A p p e a ls f

o r th e T e n th C irc u it rec e n tlyd e ter m in e d th a t to a ss e rt su b sta n tial lim itatio n in so cial i n teracti o n a p lai n ti ff m u st “sh o w that [h er] relati o n s w ith o thers w ere c h a ra c ter ize d o n a re g u lar b a sis b yse v e re p ro b lem s, f o r e x a m p le, c o n sis ten tlyh ig h lev e ls7

of hos t i l i t y , s oci al w i t hdr aw al , orfai l ur e t o comm uni cat e w hen nec es s ary . ” D oy al v. O kl ahoma H eart , I nc. , 213 F. 3d 492, 499 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng E E O C G ui dance on P sy ch iatri c D isab il it ies an d the A m erican s w ith D isab il it ies A ct, E -4 (1 9 9 7 ))

. T her e i s no e v id e n c e in th is re c o rd th a t ev e n a p p ro a c h e s w h a t w o u ld b e re q u ire d to m e e t th is sta n d a rd . W e h a v e n o p ro b lem , the re f o re , co n c lu d in g th a t th e e v id e n c e c a n n o t su p p o rt a f in d in g o f s u b s ta n tia l lim ita tio n in th e a re a o f s o c ia l in te ra c tio n u n d e r t h e A D A . V I. Ha v i n g c o n c l u d e d t h a tCa r a c c i o l o i s n o ts u b s t a n t i a l l yl i mi t e d i n e i t h e ro f th e two m aj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es w hi ch s he chos e t o ar gue on appe al , w e do notr eac h hercont ent i on t hatB el l A t l ant i c fa i l ed t o r eas onabl yacc om m odat e her . B us ki r k v. A pol l o M et al s , 307 F .3 d 1 6 0 , 1 6 9 n . 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (a ss u m in g th a t th e d u tyto a c c o m m o d a te a rise s o n lyif t he empl oy ee i s det erm i ned t o be a di s abl ed i ndi vi dual underthe A D A , orpos s i bl y , as t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he Fi r s tC i r cui thas hel d, i f the empl oy ee ha s s ucce eded i n br i ngi ng an A D A claim b ase d o n an em p loy er’s p erc ep ti o n that the e m p loy ee is disab led). * * * * * W e have cons i der ed al l of the ar gum ent s advanc ed bythe part i es and conc l ude that n o f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n is n e c e s s a ry. T he j udgm entof the di s t r i ctcour tw i l l be af fi r m ed.