Decker v. Alliant Technologies, LLC
871 F. Supp. 2d 413
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Alliant Technologies LLC hired Decker in July 2004 as an Account Manager in Sales.
- Decker has ADHD and bipolar II; medications were adjusted in late 2005 with perceived symptom control by year-end.
- Decker notified management of ADHD in September 2005; management questioned his condition and its impact on performance.
- From Jan 2005 to Feb 2006 Decker failed to meet monthly gross profit targets; a PIP was instituted on Feb 6, 2006.
- During the PIP, management monitored Decker’s performance; in March 2006 they decided to terminate following discussions about his status and the PIP’s end date.
- Alliant ultimately ended Decker’s employment on March 31, 2006.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability status under ADA (regarded as) | Decker was regarded as disabled due to ADHD | Record shows no actual disability; only regarded as disability disputed | Triable issue as to whether Flitcroft regarded ADHD as substantially limiting |
| Adverse employment action linked to discrimination | Termination proximate to disability perception shows discrimination | Termination due to poor PIP performance, independent of disability | Reasonable inference of discrimination exists; summary judgment denied on this element |
| Pretext for discrimination | Proffered non-discriminatory reasons are weak/inconsistent with record | Reasons credible and supported by records | Triable issue as to whether reasons are pretextual; summary judgment denied |
| Failure to accommodate claim viability | Regarded as disability entitles reasonable accommodation, including leave | Claim lacking explicit disability not compensable; accommodation not clearly established | Court denies summary judgment; ability to accommodate remains for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court (1973)) (burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment)
- Shaner v. Synthes, 204 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 2000) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to ADA claims)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court (1981)) (prima facie case and pretext framework)
- Gaul v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 134 F.3d 576 (3d Cir. 1998) (permissible to infer discrimination from circumstantial evidence)
- Skerski v. Time Warner Cable Co., 257 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2001) (reasonableness of accommodations; cost-benefit balance)
- Taylor v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 177 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 1999) (interactive process and reasonable accommodation standard)
- Williams v. Philadelphia Housing Auth. Police Dept., 380 F.3d 751 (3d Cir. 2004) (regarded as disability; reasonable accommodation applicable to perceived impairments)
- Tice v. Centre Area Transp. Auth., 247 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 2001) (definition of major life activities; impairment basics)
- Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (Supreme Court (2002)) (definition of disability under ADA; focus on substantial limitation)
- Rinehimer v. Cemco lift, Inc., 292 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2002) (regarded as disability under ADA; employer perceptions govern)