Source: https://www.ada.gov/city_philadelphia/philadelphia_complaint.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:50:41+00:00

Document:
This action is brought by the United States against the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (hereinafter “Defendant”), to enforce the statutory and regulatory provisions of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, as amended, which incorporates, through 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
David Moore worked as a sanitation worker for Defendant. As a sanitation worker, Mr. Moore was required to lift, carry, and load heavy residential garbage. Mr. Moore suffered a heart attack and was diagnosed with permanent severe cardiac conditions. As a result, Mr. Moore’s cardiac specialist placed Mr. Moore on a permanent 20-pound lifting restriction, meaning that he could no longer fulfill the duties of his position as a sanitation worker. Rather than exploring possible reasonable accommodations by evaluating whether Mr. Moore was eligible for reassignment to a vacant position for which he was qualified, Defendant terminated Mr. Moore, in violation of the ADA.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.
This Court has authority to grant a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and authority to grant equitable relief and monetary damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a).
Venue is proper in this judicial district under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f). Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant is located in this judicial district and the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district.
Defendant is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), and a covered entity within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2.
In 2011, Mr. Moore worked as a sanitation worker for Defendant’s Streets Department.
Mr. Moore’s duties as a sanitation worker included working behind a garbage truck, which required him to lift, carry, and load heavy residential garbage.
In April 2011, Mr. Moore suffered a heart attack and was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and heart failure – all of which are permanent severe cardiac conditions.
On May 4, 2011, Mr. Moore first requested that Defendant assign him to light duty (an alternative work assignment from his then current position) via a letter from his cardiac specialist that recommended a 20-pound lifting restriction.
On May 16, 2011, Mr. Moore underwent open heart surgery, and subsequently received both a pacemaker and an internal defibrillator.
On May 25, 2011, in writing, Defendant approved a medical leave of absence for Mr. Moore until August 25, 2011.
By letter dated August 9, 2011, Defendant extended Mr. Moore’s unpaid medical leave for an additional three months and instructed Mr. Moore to provide a date when he could return to work on full duty (without restrictions). Defendant did not address Mr. Moore’s request for light duty.
On August 23, 2011, Mr. Moore again requested light duty consistent with a 20-pound lifting restriction.
In September 2011, Mr. Moore’s doctors cleared him to return to work with a temporary 20-pound lifting restriction.
By letter dated November 4, 2011, Defendant extended Mr. Moore’s unpaid medical leave for an additional three months and instructed Mr. Moore to provide a date when he could return to work on full duty (without restrictions). Defendant again did not address Mr. Moore’s requests for light duty.
On November 8, 2011, Mr. Moore again requested light duty consistent with a 20-pound lifting restriction.
On December 9, 2011, Mr. Moore, for at least the fourth time, requested light duty consistent with a 20-pound lifting restriction.
By letter dated January 25, 2012, Defendant extended Mr. Moore’s unpaid medical leave for an additional three months and instructed Mr. Moore to provide a date when he could return to work on full duty (without restrictions). Defendant again did not address Mr. Moore’s requests for light duty.
On March 15, 2012, Mr. Moore’s cardiac specialist notified Defendant in writing that Mr. Moore’s previously temporary 20-pound lifting restriction would be permanent.
As a result of his disability and his 20-pound lifting restriction, Mr. Moore could not return to full duty in his position as a sanitation worker, which required lifting, carrying, and loading heavy residential garbage.
Despite Mr. Moore’s repeated requests for light duty or an alternate work assignment, Defendant never considered Mr. Moore for reassignment to a vacant position for which he was qualified as a reasonable accommodation.
During this time, Defendant had numerous vacant positions.
Mr. Moore suffered substantial emotional distress as a result of Defendant’s actions.
On July 9, 2012, Mr. Moore filed a timely charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging that Defendant discriminated against him in violation of the ADA.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, incorporated by reference in 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), the EEOC investigated Mr. Moore’s charge and found reasonable cause to believe that Defendant discriminated against him in violation of the ADA. After attempting unsuccessfully to reach a voluntary resolution of the charge, the EEOC referred the matter to the United States Department of Justice.
The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
Mr. Moore is a person with a disability because he has physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities (e.g. lifting), including the operation of major bodily functions (e.g. cardiovascular function); has a record of such impairments; and was regarded as having such impairments. 42 U.S.C. § 12102; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2.
Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111−12117, and its implementing regulation, 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, require covered employers, such as Defendant, to refrain from discriminating against qualified individuals on the basis of disability, including by providing reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities.
Reasonable accommodations include reassignment to a vacant position within the employer’s organization when an employee with a disability can no longer perform the essential functions of the employee’s position due to a disability and a vacant position for which the employee is qualified is available.
Mr. Moore is a qualified individual with a disability who, in 2011, could no longer perform the essential functions of his position as a sanitation worker due to his disability.
Defendant failed to consider or provide Mr. Moore a reasonable accommodation of reassignment to a vacant position within Defendant’s organization where such an accommodation was available. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), (b); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9.
Defendant’s conduct as described in this Complaint constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title I of ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111−12117, and its implementing regulation, 29 C.F.R. Part 1630.
As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, Mr. Moore suffered and continues to suffer damages including emotional distress, lost income, humiliation, and pain and suffering.
order such other appropriate relief as the interests of justice require.

References: § 12117
 § 2000
 § 12117
 § 1391
 § 12111
 § 12111
 § 1630
 § 2000
 § 12117
 § 12102
 § 1630
 § 12112
 § 1630