961 F.3d 242
3rd Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff William Eshleman, a truck driver, took ~2 months medical leave (lung nodule removal, Oct–Dec 2015), returned without restrictions, then missed ~5 days for a severe respiratory infection (late Jan 2016) and used two vacation days; he was terminated shortly after returning to work.
- Employer gave shifting reasons for termination (performance, failure to call out, behavioral issues); Eshleman alleges the true reason was that Patrick Industries "regarded" him as disabled due to recent medically related absences.
- Eshleman sued under the ADA’s "regarded as" prong; the District Court found he plausibly alleged a regarded‑as claim but dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because the alleged impairment was objectively "transitory and minor" (lasting under six months).
- On appeal Eshleman argued the District Court improperly conflated the statutory "transitory" element (defined as ≤6 months) with the separate, undefined "minor" element and failed to assess whether the perceived impairment was objectively minor.
- The Third Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the court must evaluate the "minor" prong separately (at the pleading stage the complaint plausibly alleges a non‑minor perceived impairment given lung surgery and a close‑in‑time respiratory illness).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ADA’s "transitory and minor" exception bar a regarded‑as claim where the impairment lasted <6 months? | "Transitory" (≤6 months) is distinct from "minor"; <6 months does not automatically make an impairment minor. | <6 months duration makes the impairment transitory and therefore falls within the exception. | Reversed District Court: duration alone cannot establish "minor." The six‑month rule applies only to "transitory." |
| May a regarded‑as claim be dismissed at pleading stage as "transitory and minor" when complaint alleges surgery and related close‑in‑time illness? | Dismissal improper; complaint plausibly alleges employer perceived an ongoing/chronic condition and facts may show non‑minor impairment. | Dismissal proper because complaint shows actual impairments lasted less than six months. | Pleading survives: factual inquiry required into "minor" prong; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Budhun v. Reading Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 765 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2014) (discussed limits of transitory/minor inquiry; court cautioned against rigid six‑month rule absent context)
- Silk v. Bd. of Trs., Moraine Valley Cmty. Coll., 795 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2015) (held that the six‑month limit applies to "transitory," and "minor" remains undefined and context‑specific)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarified Twombly pleading plausibility standard)