Andrew Morgan v. Allison Crane & Rigging LLC
Precedential (Opinion filed: September 4, 2024) (2024)
Rule of Law:
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) expanded the scope of disability coverage under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), establishing that temporary impairments can qualify as disabilities if they substantially limit major life activities; consequently, pre-ADAAA precedents applying a narrow, permanency-based standard are inapplicable to post-ADAAA claims, and while general pain may not require medical evidence, complex medical diagnoses do.
Facts:
- Andrew Morgan was employed by Allison Crane & Rigging LLC as a millwright laborer.
- On September 29, 2020, while working at the Williamsport location, Morgan injured his lower back, experienced 'severe pain,' and informed his supervisor, Ryan Hastings.
- On October 1, 2020, Morgan saw a chiropractor who diagnosed him with a bulged or herniated disc in the lower back, recommended twice-weekly treatment, and advised him to switch to 'light duty' work because his back became inflamed when he sat, walked, or turned.
- On October 7, 2020, Morgan met with supervisors Brian Bonislawski and Thomas Ungard, informed them of his back injury, and was told he would be placed on light duty; they cautioned him against filing a workers’ compensation claim.
- From October 8 to November 25, 2020, Morgan’s chiropractor issued notes restricting him from bending and lifting, initially over fifteen pounds and later over thirty pounds; Morgan shared these notes with Bonislawski, and Allison Crane placed him on light duty during this period.
- In mid-November 2020, Morgan informed dispatch that he could not perform a truck driving assignment that conflicted with an important back appointment and because he could not sit for that long without inflaming his back, but he expressed willingness to do other light duty work.
- On November 18, 2020, Bonislawski fired Morgan, purportedly because Morgan failed to “follow the day off request process as well as other policies” by not showing for work on November 17.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew Morgan filed an action on March 23, 2021, and subsequently amended his complaint, alleging disability-based discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), and wrongful discharge under Pennsylvania common law against his former employer, Allison Crane & Rigging LLC.
- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of Allison Crane & Rigging LLC on all claims.
- The District Court concluded that Morgan had not established an actual or perceived disability as required by the ADA and PHRA, finding his testimony of a chiropractor-diagnosed bulged or herniated disc to be inadmissible hearsay and that medical evidence was required for such a spinal impairment.
- The District Court rejected Morgan’s disability claim based on his general back pain, relying on Macfarlan v. Ivy Hill SNF, LLC, and determined the pain could not constitute an actual or regarded-as disability because it was both transitory and minor.
- The District Court dismissed Morgan’s common law wrongful discharge claim, concluding he lacked prima facie evidence of having engaged in any protected activity (related to workers' compensation).
- The District Court did not address or mention Morgan’s failure to accommodate or retaliation claims.
- Morgan appealed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an impairment that is temporary in duration qualify as an 'actual disability' or a 'regarded-as disability' under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), and is medical evidence required to establish such a disability depending on its nature?
Opinions:
Majority - McKee, Circuit Judge
Yes, an impairment that is temporary in duration can qualify as an 'actual disability' or a 'regarded-as disability' under the ADAAA if it substantially limits a major life activity, and the Third Circuit's prior precedent in Macfarlan v. Ivy Hill SNF, LLC applying a pre-ADAAA standard for temporary impairments does not control claims arising after the ADAAA's effective date. However, medical evidence is required to establish highly technical ailments like a herniated disc that are beyond a lay jury's comprehension, while general pain may not require it. The court reasoned that Congress enacted the ADAAA in 2008 to broaden the scope of disability coverage, specifically rejecting the Supreme Court's narrow pre-ADAAA interpretations which required impairments to be "permanent or long term." The ADAAA mandates that the definition of disability "shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals," and EEOC regulations clarify that even impairments lasting fewer than six months can be "substantially limiting." Consequently, the court held that Macfarlan's ruling regarding temporary impairments, which relied on the pre-ADAAA standard, is not applicable to claims like Morgan's that arose after the ADAAA's effective date in 2009. Morgan's allegations of back pain, which made it hurt to sit, walk, and turn, and required lifting and bending restrictions for 48 days, sufficiently established a substantial limitation on major life activities (walking, sitting, lifting, bending) compared to most people, thus potentially qualifying as an actual disability. For a 'regarded-as' claim, an impairment is excluded only if it is both transitory (lasting 6 months or less) and minor. The court found that while Morgan's back pain was transitory, its severe impact on major life activities meant it was not "minor," as the 'minor' exclusion is intended only for impairments "at the lowest end of the spectrum of severity," such as a common cold or flu. Therefore, the District Court erred in dismissing Morgan's back pain-based discrimination claims. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Morgan's claim based on a specifically diagnosed herniated or bulged disc, agreeing with the District Court that such a spinal injury is a complex medical condition "not within the comprehension of a jury that does not possess a command of medical or otherwise scientific knowledge," and thus requires medical evidence for substantiation, which Morgan failed to provide through admissible means (his own testimony about a chiropractor's diagnosis being inadmissible hearsay). Finally, the court vacated the dismissal of Morgan's retaliation and failure to accommodate claims, as the District Court failed to address or offer any justification for their dismissal, and affirmed the dismissal of his common law wrongful discharge claim because there was no evidence he filed or suggested an intent to file for workers' compensation, which is a prerequisite for such a claim in Pennsylvania.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the Third Circuit's interpretation of 'disability' under the ADAAA, aligning it with Congress's broad intent and the jurisprudence of other circuit courts. It definitively renders pre-ADAAA case law, such as Macfarlan, inapplicable to post-ADAAA claims involving temporary impairments, thereby lowering the burden for plaintiffs to establish an ADA-covered disability. Furthermore, the decision provides crucial guidance on evidentiary requirements for different types of impairments, distinguishing between general pain that can be established by lay testimony and complex medical conditions requiring expert medical evidence, which will inform future litigation strategy.
