Opinion ID: 3011078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Actual Causation

Text: Pathmark argues that it never regarded Taylor as disabled. It states that, when Dr. Moore gave it updated information in June 1996, it then understood that Taylor's restrictions were no longer as serious as they had previously been. Arguably, Pathmark simply decided not to take Taylor back, even knowing that he could work, until July 1997.10 Taylor responds that we cannot simply take Pathmark's word that it knew he was not disabled but refused to act on that information, since Taylor was never privy to its secret thought processes. In this posture, Taylor's argument is persuasive. If we were to accept Pathmark's argument, a plaintiff 's attempts to disabuse an employer's misperceptions about his disability could be used to eviscerate a regarded as claim; this would encourage potential plaintiffs to avoid communicating with employers and begin litigation that might otherwise be avoided. Particularly given the reasonability defense set forth in the previous section, we think that Pathmark cannot rely solely on Taylor's communications with it to prove that Pathmark did not regard him as disabled after June 1996. We note in this regard that the lack of internal communication, to which Pathmark appeals when asking us to excuse its reliance in 1994 on the various conflicting doctors' notes, could also have left Pathmark with a _________________________________________________________________ 10. If the contention were that Pathmark used Taylor's disability as a pretext for ridding itself of an employee with seniority under the union collective bargaining agreeement, Taylor would not have a successful claim that he was regarded as disabled. The ADA prohibits discrimination, not action taken using discrimination as a pretext. 24 continuing erroneous belief about Taylor. The ADA Committee, by its member's own testimony, never learned why Taylor was not accommodated and rehired, and a reasonable jury could conclude that the relevant Pathmark decisionmakers--apparently Pathmark counsel, in this case --continued to regard Taylor as disabled.