## Facts

- Andrew Morgan worked for Allison Crane & Rigging LLC as a millwright laborer in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
- On September 29, 2020, Morgan injured his lower back at work, finished his shift, and reported the injury to coworkers and his supervisor.
- Morgan sought chiropractic care; he was diagnosed with a bulged or herniated disc, was recommended twice-weekly treatment, and was restricted to light-duty work with limitations on bending and lifting.
- Allison Crane received work-restriction notes and assigned Morgan to light-duty tasks.
- On November 13, 2020, Morgan was reprimanded for failing to wear protective equipment.
- On November 17, 2020, Morgan declined a truck-escort assignment, citing a chiropractic appointment and difficulty sitting for extended periods due to his back condition; he offered to perform other light-duty work.
- Allison Crane asserted Morgan did not work that day and did not follow time-off procedures; on November 18, 2020, it terminated him for not following policies and not showing up for work.
- Morgan sued under the ADA and PHRA for discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate, and also asserted a Pennsylvania common-law wrongful-discharge claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Allison Crane on all claims, concluding Morgan lacked admissible medical evidence of disability and that his back pain was “transitory and minor.”

## Issues

1. Whether the district court used the correct post-ADAAA standard to determine if Morgan’s lower-back impairment could constitute a disability under the ADA and PHRA.
2. Whether summary judgment was properly entered on Morgan’s ADA/PHRA retaliation and failure-to-accommodate claims.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on Morgan’s Pennsylvania common-law wrongful-discharge claim.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed summary judgment on Morgan’s ADA/PHRA discrimination claims based on his back impairment, holding the district court applied an incorrect disability standard.
- The court vacated summary judgment on the ADA/PHRA retaliation and failure-to-accommodate claims because the district court did not address them, and remanded for analysis under the correct frameworks.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on the Pennsylvania common-law wrongful-discharge claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ADAAA, the definition of “disability” must be construed broadly; an impairment lasting fewer than six months may still be substantially limiting.
- “Temporary” impairments can qualify as disabilities if sufficiently severe and if they substantially limit a major life activity (including activities such as sitting, walking, and bending/lifting).
- Post-ADAAA claims should not be decided using pre-ADAAA disability standards; older precedents applying the earlier, narrower approach do not control claims arising after the ADAAA’s effective date.
- At summary judgment, disability may be shown through evidence of functional limitations and contemporaneous treatment/restriction records; a court may not heighten the prima facie burden by requiring medical proof in a form more suitable for trial.
- When properly pleaded statutory retaliation and failure-to-accommodate claims are before the court, they must be analyzed under the applicable legal standards rather than disregarded.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that, after the ADAAA, a short-term but severe impairment may qualify as a disability, reversed dismissal of Morgan’s ADA/PHRA discrimination claims, remanded his retaliation and accommodation claims for proper consideration, and affirmed dismissal of his Pennsylvania wrongful-discharge claim.


Morgan v. Allison Crane & Rigging LLC, 114 F.4th 214 (3d Cir. 2024)