Cassandra Ballard-Carter v. Vanguard Group Inc, 703 F. App'x 149

Plaintiff Cassandra Ballard-Carter, who has hearing difficulty (and asserted dyslexia), worked for Vanguard as a Client Relationship Administrator and reported to supervisor Steve Bakey.
From 2011–2014 she experienced repeated critical remarks from Bakey about her work; some comments referenced her hearing (e.g., “I forgot you were deaf,” “you’re supposed to be talking loudly at your desk,” use of quotes around “heard” in email).
She was removed from a client account in 2013 after client complaints about her written communication; she alleges escalation of hostility and took medical leave in April 2014 and did not return.
In September 2015 she sued Vanguard under the ADA and PHRA for disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate; she later withdrew several claims and conceded dyslexia was not a disability for purposes of the case.
The district court granted summary judgment to Vanguard on the remaining hostile work environment and failure-to-accommodate claims; Ballard-Carter appealed only the hostile work environment ruling.
The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the challenged remarks were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute an ADA hostile work environment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ballard-Carter was subjected to a hostile work environment under the ADA based on her hearing impairment	Bakey’s repeated derogatory comments and criticism about her communication and hearing created an abusive environment altering employment conditions	The comments were isolated, not motivated by disability-based animus, and not severe or pervasive enough to be actionable	Affirmed: remarks (four conceded comments) were neither severe nor pervasive to meet ADA hostile-work-environment standard
Whether the district court erred by limiting the claim to four comments	Ballard-Carter urged the court to consider additional incidents from 2012–2013 as part of the hostile environment	Vanguard argued plaintiff conceded reliance on four comments at the summary-judgment hearing, so the court properly limited the claim	Affirmed: plaintiff conceded reliance on the four comments; even considering other incidents, comments did not show discriminatory animus or meet the severe/pervasive standard
Whether plaintiff preserved alternative theories (perceived dyslexia or accommodation requests) for appeal	Plaintiff argued hostile environment based on perceived dyslexia and accommodation requests	Vanguard argued these theories were not raised below and thus forfeited	Affirmed: alternative theories were forfeited and not considered on appeal

Rinehimer v. Cemcolift, Inc., 292 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Walton v. Mental Health Ass’n, 168 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 1999) (elements and severe-or-pervasive standard for ADA hostile-work-environment claims)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (hostile work environment standard in employment law)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (factors for evaluating severity or pervasiveness of harassment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)