2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-10-2004 

# D eGr o at v . P o we r Log i s t ic s P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4087

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" D eGr o a t v

. P o w e r L o g i s t ic s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 89. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/891 

### The Honorable Frank J. Ma

gill, Se nior Judge, U.S. Court of Appe als for t he Eighth C ircuit, sitting by designatio n. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-4087 STEVEN DEGROAT; ANGELA DEGROAT, Ap pellan ts v. POWER LOGISTICS AND THE POW ER GRO UP,

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the M iddle D istrict of P enns ylvania

(D .C. N o. 1:02-CV-0940 ) Distri ct Judge: J. Andrew Smyser

Submitte d under Third Ci rcuit LAR 34.1(a) Date: November 30, 2004 Befor e: RENDELL , ALDIS ERT and MAGILL , 1 Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed: December 10, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT
AL DI SE RT , Circuit

Judge
.

### 2

Appellant

Steven DeGroat appeal s summary j udgment in favor of Power Logisti cs and The Power Group (coll ecti vely , “Power Logist ics”) . The dis tri ct court held that DeGroat did not ha ve a clai m under the Americans with Disabi lities Act ( “ADA ”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101- 12213 ( 2000), because he did not prove that

he was a quali fied individ ual w ho co uld p erfor m the essen tial fun ctions o f his jo b w ith or w ithout re ason able
acco mm odatio n. W e hav e jurisd iction to review the distric t court’s decisio n pu rsuan t to 28 U .S.C . § 12 91. W e w ill aff irm. I. Because we write onl y for the part ies, who are famili ar with t he facts , procedur al hist ory and contentions pre sented, we will not recit e them except as necess ary to the disc uss ion
. 

### II. To establish a case under the A DA, an employee must demonstrate, inter alia , that he is a qualified individual who “with or without reasonable accom modation can perform the essential functions of the em ploym ent position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(b). To meet this requirement, t he employee must dem

onstrate that he: (1) possesses the required skill, experience a nd education for the position; and (2) can perform the essen tial function s of the po sition with o r without reaso nable accommodation. Skerski v. Time W arner Ca ble Co. , 257 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Ci r. 2001) (citing Deane v. Pocono Med. Ctr. , 142 F.3d 138, 142 (3d Cir. 1998) ( en banc )).

### 3

Receiving Social Security Disabil ity Insuranc e (“SSDI” ) benefit s does not automatically estop an employee from bringin g a claim under the ADA. Clevela nd v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp. , 526 U.S. 795, 797 (199 9). The employee must, however,
rec oncile the

sta tem ent t hat he is t oo dis able d to wor

k for pur posesof rec eiving SSDI benefitswith the s tatem

ent that he is able to perfor

m the e ssenti al functi ons of his job with reasonab le accommodation fo r purposes o f the ADA
. Id. at 797-798. I n Clevela nd , the Court held that “ an ADA plaint iff cannot s imply

ignore the

apparent contradi ction that arises out of the ear

lier SSDI total disability c laim. Rather , she must proffer a sufficient explanation.” Id. at 806; see also Motley v. N.J . State Police , 196 F.3d 160, 166 (3d Cir. 1999)(finding tha t a polic e officer

was not a qua

lified individual whe

n he wrote that he was“per

man ently and to tal ly

disa bled”for pur

poses of rec eiving SSDI benefits and did not later ex plain his con tradiction). DeGroat did not proffer a sufficient explanation to explain the inconsistencie s between the

fact s pre sent

ed for the SS DI hea

ring a nd the fact s pre sent

ed for the AD A claim. I n his request for a hearing with the ALJ to receive SSDI benefits, DeGroat wrote: “I can’t walk for for ( sic ) long, I can’ t sit for too lo ng swelling and discomfo rt.” (App. at 1090. ) DeGroat ’s phy sicia n stated that DeGr

oat needed to eleva

te his foot “above heart level for at lea st two hours out of an eight hour workday.” ( Id. at 280.) As a result, the ALJ concluded that DeGroat was “unable t o sustain even sedentary

activity .” ( Id. at 281.)

### 4

For purposesof this appe al, DeGr oat conte nds that he

is capa ble of perfor

ming sedenta ry work becaus e he can “ stand or wa lk for up to half an hour at a time for approximately four times a day.” (Appellan t br. at 16.) DeG roat does no t resolve these inconsis tencie s. Inst

ead of expla

ining why

he could per

form sedentary

activities for purposes o f the ADA but not for purp oses of collectin g SSDI b enefits, DeG roat simply re-explains his in

juries and co ndition. ( See Appellant br. at 20-21.) Nowhere in his brief does DeGroat attempt t

o proffer an explanation for his inconsistent statem ents. We conclude that the district

court correctly

granted Power Logistic’s motion for summ ary judgment because there is no evidence to support the re asonable inference that DeGroat could perf orm his job w ith reasonable a ccommodation. III. We have considered a ll of t he contentions ra ised bythe part ies and conc lude that no further

discuss ion is necessary. The district c ourt was correct i n granti ng Power Logisti c’s moti on for summary judgment becaus e DeGroat did not offer suffi cient evid enc e to e stab lish th at he is a q ualif ied in div idu al un der the A DA
.


### The judgment

of the dist

rict c ourt will

be affirm ed.