## Facts

- Park Pleasant, Inc. (PPI) hired Joanie Alston in August 2011 as director of nursing at PPI’s adult-care facility.
- Alston initially received positive performance feedback.
- In February 2012, a new supervisor began overseeing Alston, and their working relationship became contentious.
- From February 2012 through the summer of 2012, PPI documented declining performance and workplace issues.
- On June 26, 2012, Alston missed work for a scheduled breast biopsy.
- On July 12, 2012, Alston was diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), also described as intraductal carcinoma or stage-zero breast cancer.
- PPI terminated Alston’s employment in August 2012, citing performance-related reasons.
- Alston filed suit in federal district court alleging discrimination based on age, race, color, and disability.
- In district court, Alston did not allege that her DCIS substantially limited any major life activity; her complaint referenced her condition mainly in connection with the timing of events (termination occurring within weeks of medical leave for a biopsy and increased criticism after PPI learned of her health issues).
- In deposition testimony, Alston stated she was not substantially limited in any major life activity.
- The district court granted summary judgment to PPI on all claims and denied Alston’s request for spoliation sanctions based on alleged failure to preserve evidence.
- Alston appealed only the dismissal of her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim and the denial of spoliation sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether Alston produced sufficient evidence to create a triable issue that she had a “disability” under the ADA, where she did not claim any substantial limitation of a major life activity and testified she was not substantially limited.
2. Whether, on this record and the way the case was presented, Alston could avoid summary judgment by relying on alternative ADA coverage theories (“record of” or “regarded as” disability).
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Alston’s motion for spoliation sanctions.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held that summary judgment on the ADA claim was proper because Alston failed to point to evidence that her DCIS substantially limited a major life activity, and her own testimony denied any such limitation.
- The court rejected the idea that a diagnosis and temporal proximity to termination, without evidence of a substantial limitation, established ADA coverage under the actual-disability definition.
- The court affirmed the denial of spoliation sanctions, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ADA’s actual-disability definition, a plaintiff must show a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).
- The ADA Amendments Act directs courts to construe “disability” broadly, but a plaintiff still must identify a major life activity and offer evidence that the impairment substantially limited that activity for purposes of the actual-disability prong.
- A medical diagnosis, by itself, does not necessarily establish that the plaintiff was substantially limited in a major life activity; the plaintiff must connect the impairment to functional limitation evidence.
- At summary judgment, the nonmoving party must produce evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on each element required for the claim; allegations about timing alone do not satisfy the disability element when the claim is pursued under the actual-disability theory.
- A plaintiff’s deposition testimony disclaiming substantial limitation can defeat the ADA “disability” element on summary judgment when no other evidence shows such a limitation.
- Spoliation sanctions are committed to the district court’s discretion; appellate review is for abuse of discretion, and sanctions generally require a sufficient showing that relevant evidence was not preserved in a way that warrants relief.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for PPI because Alston, who was diagnosed with DCIS, did not allege or offer evidence that her condition substantially limited any major life activity and testified that it did not; without evidence satisfying the ADA’s disability requirement under the theory she pursued, her discrimination claim could not proceed. The court also affirmed the denial of spoliation sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.


Alston v. Park Pleasant, Inc., 679 F. App’x 169 (2017)