CYPHER v. J.V. MANUFACTURING CO., INC., 2:23-cv-01428

Plaintiff David Nathan Cypher alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation after being terminated by his employer, J.V. Manufacturing Co., Inc. (JVM), upon attempting to return from FMLA leave.
Cypher also named the company's president and vice president (the Vecchis) as defendants.
The operative pleading was the Third Amended Complaint (TAC), which asserted four counts under the ADA, PHRA, and FMLA.
The court previously granted Defendants' motions to dismiss as to Counts I and II (disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under ADA and PHRA).
Cypher moved for reconsideration, citing the Third Circuit's intervening decision in Morgan v. Allison Crane & Rigging LLC, which held temporary impairments can qualify as disabilities under the ADA.
The court addresses whether Morgan (and other arguments) warrants reinstatement of the dismissed claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Morgan requires reinstatement of disability discrimination and accommodation claims	Morgan constitutes a change in law: temporary impairments now qualify as disabilities under ADA, so dismissal should be reconsidered	Prior ruling did not hinge on duration of impairment, but on failure to plead facts showing substantial limitation or actual disability	Morgan is a change in law, but does not alter the outcome: Plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts to state an ADA disability claim
Whether JVM's conduct supported a "regarded as" disability claim	JVM must have regarded Cypher as disabled due to return-to-work requirements	Requiring fitness-for-duty certification is allowed under FMLA/handbook; doesn't prove "regarded as" disabled	Requiring certification is not evidence of being "regarded as" disabled under ADA
Plaintiff's claims about interactive process/failure to accommodate	Court failed to consider JVM's alleged lack of dialogue about accommodations, which is itself a violation	Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that JVM failed to engage or that he requested/required accommodation	Insufficient pleading under ADA; no basis for reconsideration
Timeliness of additional arguments	Delay justified as Morgan decision post-dated dismissal order	Arguments are untimely and not based on new controlling law	Timeliness rules not satisfied; no good cause for delay

North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1995) (standards for reconsideration of court orders)
Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (grounds for reconsideration of court orders)
State Nat’l Ins. Co. v. County of Camden, 824 F.3d 399 (3d Cir. 2016) (district court's inherent power to reconsider prior orders)
Robinson v. First State Cmty. Action Agency, 920 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2019) (“regarded as” disability claims cannot support ADA reasonable accommodation claims)
Morgan v. Allison Crane & Rigging LLC, 114 F.4th 214 (3d Cir. 2024) (temporary impairments can qualify as actual disabilities under ADA after ADAAA)