Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Mondzelewski v. Pathmark Stores
162 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 1998). ; Clearinghouse Number: 52251
Description
Employee Who Has Continued to Work with Accommodation May Be Disabled Within the Meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Abstract
Reversing, the Third Circuit held that plaintiff-appellant did not
need to prove that he was unable to work in order to make a claim
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff, a
55-year-old man with a sixth-grade education, had worked for
defendant employer as a bagger and meat cutter for 35 years. After
he injured his back on the job, plaintiff took several
months’ disability leave. When plaintiff returned to work,
his doctor ordered him to lift no more than 50 pounds or carry more
than 25 pounds. Plaintiff claimed that employer retaliated against
him for asserting his rights under ADA to obtain reasonable
accommodation for a disability. Finding that plaintiff was not
disabled under ADA because his back injury did not substantially
limit him from lifting or working, the district court dismissed
plaintiff's federal claims. Plaintiff appealed. Reversing, the
court of appeals held that the district court erred by failing to
assess the extent to which plaintiff’s back condition,
coupled with his training, skills, and abilities, substantially
limited his ability to work. The court rejected employer’s
argument that plaintiff could not be disabled within ADA’s
meaning because he was still working. The court held that the mere
fact that plaintiff had been able to continue to perform his job
with accommodation did not necessarily mean that he was not
disabled. The court also reversed the district court’s
dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim; it found no basis
for holding that an individual who was adjudged not to have a
disability was not allowed to assert such a claim.
