X hits on this document

PDF document

Plaintiff George Coleman (“Coleman”) brought this action - page 2 / 6

11 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

2 / 6

dated December 11, 2001, that he was capable of returning to work

without

restrictions.

Coleman

was

instructed

to

report

to

his

normal

full-time

driving

position

on

December

18,

2001.

1

Coleman

subsequently wrote several letters requesting work compatible

with the 50-pound lifting restriction, but Albertson’s did not

respond

to

any

of

Coleman’s

requests.

At

oral

argument,

Coleman’s counsel stated he returned to work at Albertson’s in

2004.

The

parties

dispute

whether

he

did

so

without

restrictions.

Coleman asserts that by failing to provide him with work

compatible with the 50-pound lifting restriction, Albertson’s

violated his right to reasonable accommodation as a disabled

person

under

the

ADA,

PHRA,

and

Title

VII.

Coleman

also

alleges

retaliation under the ADA and PHRA, and seeks punitive damages

under

the

PHRA.

Coleman

filed

a

charge

of

discrimination

with

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on March 27,

2003.

Albertson’s moves for dismissal of Coleman’s claims under

Rule 12(b)(6) on several grounds: 1) Coleman failed to file a

1

Coleman alleges that Albertson’s letter misstated Dr.

Mandel’s evaluation, Coleman’s ability to

and that Dr. Mandel placed restrictions on

return

to

work.

For

the

purposes

of

this

motion, the court accepts Coleman’s allegations as true.

copied to

counsel

for Coleman;

counsel

potential

statute

of

limitations

issue.

court also notes that the December 11, 2001

was

letter shows on notice of

The it was a

  • -

    2-

Document info
Document views11
Page views11
Page last viewedWed Oct 26 11:58:48 UTC 2016
Pages6
Paragraphs515
Words1090

Comments