Rocco v. Gordon Food Service
998 F. Supp. 2d 422
W.D. Pa.2014Background
- Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver from 1999–2007 and 2008–2010, with physically demanding duties including lifting up to 100 pounds.
- May 2009 knee injury led to FMLA leave; employer provided 12 weeks of protected leave but did not extend beyond that.
- October 2009 medical assessment found plaintiff able to work at medium-duty level but not heavy-duty; no medium-duty positions were available.
- January 21, 2010, plaintiff was cleared for heavy-duty work yet terminated; separation notice deemed ineligible for rehire due to work history/performance.
- Plaintiff received disability benefits during leave; by January 2010 he reported only minor pain and could have returned to work if accommodated; ADAAA amendments broadened disability interpretation.
- Court ultimately granted summary judgment for defendant on ADA and PHRA claims, and dismissed Rehabilitation Act claims with plaintiff’s consent after determining no disability at the time of the adverse employment decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff was disabled under the ADA at the time of termination | Rocco contends he had a disability at the time of adverse action | GFS argues no substantial limitation existed at the time of termination | No, plaintiff not disabled at the time of the adverse action |
| Whether PHRA claim survives given ADAAA interpretation | PHRA should follow ADAAA's broad disability standard | PHRA not necessarily coextensive with ADAAA; claims fail | PHRA claim denied for lack of a qualifying disability, applying ADAAA standard as applicable to PHRA may be narrower |
| Whether Rehabilitation Act claims were viable given lack of federal funding | Rehabilitation Act claims should proceed if defendant receives federal assistance | Defendant does not receive federal funding | Dismissed with the plaintiff’s consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Phila. Hous. Auth. Police Dep’t, 380 F.3d 751 (3d Cir. 2004) (substantial limit as a question of fact under ADA)
- Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999) (disability determination linked to Sutton framework before ADAAA)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (S. Ct. 1999) (abrogated by ADAAA clarity on disability definition)