Joanie Alston v. Park Pleasant Inc
679 F. App'x 169 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended by the ADAAA, a plaintiff with a medical condition such as cancer must still perform an individualized assessment and offer some evidence that their impairment substantially limits a major life activity; a mere diagnosis, without more, is insufficient to establish a qualifying disability.
Facts:
- In August 2011, Park Pleasant, Inc. hired Joanie Alston as its Director of Nursing.
- Initially, Alston received positive work reviews from her supervisor, Nancy Kleinberg.
- In February 2012, Carmella Kane became Alston's new supervisor, and their relationship was immediately contentious.
- On June 21, 2012, management met with Alston regarding her performance and created an improvement plan.
- Five days later, on June 26, 2012, Alston took a pre-notified absence from work to have a biopsy.
- On July 12, 2012, Alston was diagnosed with early-stage DCIS, a type of breast cancer.
- Following the diagnosis, Alston's supervisors instituted weekly meetings to discuss her performance.
- In early August 2012, Park Pleasant terminated Alston's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Joanie Alston sued her former employer, Park Pleasant, Inc., in federal district court, alleging discrimination on the bases of age, race, color, and disability.
- During discovery, Alston filed a motion for sanctions against Park Pleasant for spoliation of evidence.
- The District Court denied Alston's motion for sanctions.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Park Pleasant on all claims, finding Alston had failed to prove she had a qualifying disability under the ADA.
- Alston (appellant) appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment on her disability claim and the denial of her sanctions motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where Park Pleasant was the appellee.
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 a plaintiff establish a prima facie case of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) merely by stating they have a cancer diagnosis, without providing any evidence that the condition substantially limits a major life activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Restrepo, Circuit Judge
No. A plaintiff does not establish a disability under the ADA simply by virtue of a cancer diagnosis; they must provide some evidence showing that the condition substantially limits a major life activity through an individualized assessment. The court reasoned that while the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) broadened the scope of ADA coverage to include impairments to major bodily functions like 'normal cell growth,' it did not eliminate the requirement for an 'individualized assessment.' A plaintiff must offer evidence of the limitation 'in terms of their own experience.' Here, Alston failed to meet this burden because at no point in the litigation did she claim her cancer limited any substantial life activity, including normal cell growth; in fact, she affirmatively stated in her deposition that she was not substantially limited in any way. Because Alston failed to offer any evidence for this crucial element, she did not establish a prima facie case for discrimination.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the pleading and proof standards for disability claims post-ADAAA, particularly for conditions like cancer. It serves as a crucial reminder to practitioners that a diagnosis alone is insufficient; plaintiffs must explicitly connect the diagnosis to a substantial limitation on a major life activity, even an internal one like 'normal cell growth.' This decision prevents the ADA from becoming a law that grants per se protection based on a medical diagnosis, reinforcing the need for plaintiffs to provide at least some evidence for each element of their claim. The ruling highlights a potential pitfall for plaintiffs who might assume a serious diagnosis is enough on its own to satisfy the disability element of a discrimination claim.
