2004 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 12-21-2004 

# Amiot v . K e mp e r I ns C o 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 . 03-2521

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : 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 you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive 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 at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at 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 at ion
" Amiot v . Ke mpe r I n s C o " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 54. 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_2004/541 NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT 

### No. 03-2521 G. THOMA S AMIOT, Appellant

v. KEMPER I

NSURANCE C OMPANY; KEMPER AUT O AND HOME I NSURANCE C OMPANY; STEVE THOMPSON

______________________________ App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the M iddle D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. No. 02-cv- 00718) District Judge: Joh n E. Jone s, III

Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

on September 27, 2004 Befor e: ROTH, BARRY and GARTH , Circuit Judges (Opinion fi led : December 21, 2004)2 OPI NION
RO TH , Circuit

Judge
. G. Thomas Amiot appeals f rom an order of t

he United States Dist

rict Court for t

he Middle District of

Pennsylvania, granti ng a motion t o dismis s in favor of Kemper Insuranc e Company, Amiot’ s employ er, on Amiot ’s dis crimination cl aims under t he Americans with Dis abilities Act (ADA), the Age Discri minati on in Employment Act (AD EA ), and th e Pen nsylvan ia Hu man Rela tions A ct (PH RA ). The Distric t Cou rt held that Ami ot’ s co mpla int

cont ai ned o nly

bal d as ser

ti ons r egardin g hi s ADA and ADEA clai ms and that he had fail ed to show that he was disabl ed within t he meaning of the ADA or that

he was qualif

ied for hi s position or di scharged fr om it i n violation of the ADE A. Further

more, the Distr ict Court held that, a

bsent suf fici ent cl aims under t

he ADA and ADEA , pla inti ff could not have a cause of ac tion under the PHRA. Amiot app eale d. We r ev ie w de novo the Dist rict Court’s de cisi on to grant a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) motion to d ismiss. A R ule 12(b)(6) m otion shou ld be granted only when “it appears beyond doubt

that t he plai ntiff

can prove no set

of facts in support of

his cl aim which would entitle him t o reli ef.” Conley v. Gibs on , 355 U .S. 41, 45-46 (1 957). Th e court must view the mat erialalle gations of the complaint in t he light most favorabl e to the plaintiff and “dr aw reasonable factualinfere nces .. . to a id the pl eader. ” D.P. Enter. v.3

Bucks County Community College , 725 F.2d 943, 944 (3rd Cir . 1984). However, the
cou rt sho uld rejec t un sup por ted a llega tion s, “b ald a sser tion s”, o r “leg al co nclu sion s.” Morse v. Low er Marion Scho ol Dist ., 132 F.3 d 90 2, 90 6 (3 rd C ir. 19 98)
. The Distri ct Court ha d juri sdict ion of thi s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have juri sdict ion of the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In November 1999, Amiot was hi red by Kemper as a PersonalLines Underwriting Manager in thei r Scrant on office. Amiot was 55 when he was hired. Befor e accepting the po sition, A miot to ld K emp er that h e did n ot hav e a tech nical b ackg roun d in underwrit ing. Kemper downplay ed the i mportance of pos sessi ng this background. Amiot beca me a nxio us, ex haus ted, an d dep ressed as a res ult of h is job d uties an d frictio n w ith his sup erviso r. In Jan uary 20 03, he soug ht treatm ent fro m a p sychiatrist an d too k a pa id leave of ab senc e. At th e end of h is leave , Am iot w as ab le to retu rn to w ork w ith the so le limi tati on that he not work under hi s old super visor. Kemper’s Human Resources de pa rt men t p ro vi de d Ami otwit h di ff er en t j ob o pt io ns inth e Sc rant on and N orri st own
area. Amiot refused t

he opportuni ties because he di d not feelhe could work in t he Scran to n a re a a nd h e wa s n otqua li fi edfo r t he pr ogramme r p os itio ns inth e No rr is to wn
area. The Human R esource age nt indi cated t hat Amiot shoul d contact Kemper’s Human Resources office in Long G rove, Ill inois, t o inquire about other open positions. I. Am iot’s A DE A C laim4

Th e A DE A p roh ibits e mp loyer d iscrim inati on o n th e ba sis o f ag e. See 29 U. S. C. §623 (a)( 1). To prove an acti on under the ADEA, a plaintiff must f irst establ ish apr ima facie cas e, w hich crea tes a pre sum ptio n of unl aw ful d iscrim inati on. Reeves v. Sande rson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S . 133 , 142 (20 00)
. The burden then s hifts to the defendant t o produce evi dence that the deci sion t o discharge the pl ainti ff was neutral rath er th an b ase d on disc rimi natio n. Id . If the defendant arti culates a legitimate business
reas on, t he p resu mp tion is w iped aw ay. Sema n v. Copl ay Ce ment

Co ., 26 F. 3d 428, 432 (3d. Cir . 1996). The plaintiff then must give e vidence t hat the employe r’s ar

ticul ated
reas on w as m erely p retex t for wh at in r eality w as d iscrim inato ry mo tivat ion
. Simpson v. Kaye Jew elers , 142 F.3d 639, 644 n. 5 (3d C ir. 1998). W e agree w ith the District Cou rt that Amiot

fail ed to est ablis h a prima faci e case of age di scri minati on and th erefo re it is not necessary t o reach the burden shifting analy sis. Based on the complaint, Amiot fail s to provi de evidence t hat he was dis charged from his j ob. In fac t, he admits t hat he has not

been offici ally

discharged from the company. Kemper’s acti ons toward Amiot i ncluded pl acing hi m on a leave of abse nce, providi ng him with pot entia l job openings upon his r eturn, and offeri ng additi onal assis tance i n his j ob search. As state d by t he Distr ict Court , the facts infer that Amiot volu ntarily aban don ed his job se arch a nd p osition with in the c om pany. M oreo ver, in view of Amiot’s bel ief that he di d not have a t echnicalbackground in unde rwrit ing, he may not have been quali fied for t he posit ion and that lac k of quali ficat ion may in fact be5

the ca use o f his p roblem s in attem pting to perfo rm it. II. Am iot’s A DA Cla im To establ ish a prima faci e case u nder the A DA the pla intiff m ust sho w th at he is (1) disa bled w ithin the mea ning of the AD A, (2 ) can p erfor m es sential f unctio ns of

his job with or

without r easonable accommodations, and (3) suf fered an adver se employment actio n as a res ult o f his disc rimi natio n ba sed on h is dis abili ty. Shaner v. Synt hes , 204 F.3d 494 , 500 ( 3d C ir. 2000 ); Gaul v. Lucent Technologies Inc ., 134 F.3d 5 76 (3d C ir. 1998). Because we agree with t he Distr ict Court ’s holding that Amiot is not disabl ed wit hin the m ean ing of th e A DA , ther e is n o ne ed to go o n to elem ents two and thre e. An individualcan esta

blis h he is di sabled under the ADA by showing that he has (1) a phy sicalor mentalimpairment that s ubstant ially l imit s one or more of hi s major l ife acti viti es, ( 2) a record of such an impai rment, or (3) i s regar ded as having s uch an impairment . 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) We conclude that

the al legat ions Amiot makes in the complaint, e ven when taken in the l ight most

favorabl e to him, fail to est ablis h that he had an impair ment which sub stan tially lim ited a ma jor life ac tivity. See Toyota Motor Manu., Kentuc ky Inc. v. Williams , 534 U.S. 184, 197 (2002). Amiot’s bal d assertions ar e insuffi cient . Amiot admits t hat he was capabl e of ret urning t o work after s eeking treatment , and he provi des evid enc e of

this, a doc tor’s not e. This evide nce is inconsist ent with t he notion t

hat Amiot
con tinu ed to be s ubs tanti ally lim ited i n a m ajor life a ctivi ty afte r his t reatm ent.6

More ove r, Amio t c la ims th athi s di sabi li ty onl yli mit s him fr om wor ki ng unde r t

he s ame supervi sor and within the Scr anton are a. Amiot i s only limi ted in t

he specif ic loc ation of one jo b rathe r than in the ab ility to perfor m a b road class o f jobs . The allega tions in Am iot’s co mp laint are in suff icient to e stablish that he is subs tantially limited in per for min g an y majo r life activ ity, inclu din g th at of wo rkin g. Ab sent an actua l impa irmen t, an ind ividua l can m eet the defin ition of disab led if his employer regards him as havi ng an impair ment that

substantially l imit s one or more of his major

life acti viti es. Again, we conclude that Kemper did not re gard Amiot as having a disab ility. The co mp laint esta blishes that A miot’s emp loyer, Ke mp er, wa s aw are of his impairment

but fai ls t o demonstrat e that the employ er viewed this i mpairment as substantially i mpairing Amiot ’s abi lit y t o work. The complai nt all eges that upon Am iot’s retu rn fro m h is leave of ab senc e, Ke mp er ack now ledge d that A miot w as cap able of retur ning to work and pr esented him with differ ent opti ons in var ious l ocati ons and classes of jobs. I n response to Amiot’s claim that he was not qualified for these positions, Kemper direct ed Amiot to i ts Long Grove, I llinois, Human Resources office. We cannot infer f rom these a ctions th at Ke mp er view ed A miot’s impa irmen ts as sub stantially limiti ng h is ab ility to w ork in a b roa d ra nge of jo bs. IV. CONCLU SI ON1 Bec au se we h av e f oun d tha t t

he Ami otha s f

ai le d t o s tate a c la im und er th e ADA and AD EA , it fol low s tha t he h as a lso failed to sta te a c laim und er th e PH RA
. See Taylor v. Phoenixv ill

e School Dist. , 184 F.3d 296, 306 (3d Cir. 1999).

7 For th e fore goin g reas ons, w e w ill affirm the jud gm ent of the D istrict Co urt. 1