Opinion ID: 3012779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ADA and NJLAD’s Qualified Person Requirement

Text: Veneziano claims that the District Court erred when it found that Veneziano had not shown a genuine issue of material fact about whether he was a qualified person under the ADA and NJLAD. To make out a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that he (1) is disabled, (2) is qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, and (3) suffered an adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination. Deane v. Pocono Med. Ctr., 142 F.3d 138, 142 (3d Cir. 1998). If a plaintiff fails to make out a prima facie case under the ADA, he has likewise failed to meet his burden under the NJLAD. The issue under the qualified person prong of the ADA and NJLAD is whether heavy lifting was an essential function of Veneziano’s job as a warehouse manager. The District Court applied judicial estoppel and refused to consider any 5 evidence, since on a Disability Report submitted to the Social Security Administration Veneziano indicated that for one-third to two-thirds of the work day he lifted more than 50 pounds. “[J]udicial estoppel may be invoked by a court at its discretion to preserve the integrity of the judicial system by preventing parties from playing fast and loose with the courts in assuming inconsistent positions, and . . . with a recognition that each case must be decided upon its own particular facts and circumstances.” Motley v. New Jersey State Police, 196 F.3d 160, 163 (3d Cir. 1999) (emphasis and ellipsis in original) (citations and quotations omitted). Before applying judicial estoppel, a court should assess whether the present position is inconsistent with a prior position, and if so, whether the inconsistent positions were offered in bad faith. Id. at 163-64. We find, as did the District Court, that Veneziano’s statement on the Social Security form is inconsistent with his current argument that heavy lifting was not an essential function in his job, and that Veneziano has failed to proffer a reasonable explanation for the inconsistency. We are not persuaded by Veneziano’s assertion that because he did not fill out the Social Security application himself, judicial estoppel cannot apply. Veneziano signed the application and does not contest that the information provided thereon was true. We are further convinced the result we reach on this issue—that Veneziano did not show an issue of material fact about being qualified to perform the essential 6 functions of his job—is correct, since Veneziano has conceded he was “physically incapable of working between January 1998 and M arch of 1999.” Because we hold that the District Court was correct in applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel, it follows that the grant of summary judgment for failure to make out a prima facie case under the ADA and NJLAD was appropriate.