X hits on this document

PDF document

Plaintiff George Coleman (“Coleman”) brought this action - page 5 / 6

12 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

5 / 6

pounds.

3

This

limitation

is

less

restrictive

than

a

10-pound

lifting restriction, so it cannot qualify as a “substantial

limitation” a major life activity.

Coleman’s claims of retaliation under the ADA and PHRA also

fail.

Coleman

made

no

reference

to

retaliation

or

facts

that

could

encompass

retaliation

in

his

EEOC

charge.

He

failed

to

exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to this claim.

See Burgh v. Borough Council of Borough of Montrose, 251 F.3d

465,

469

(3d

Cir.

2001);

Antol

v.

Perry;

82

F.3d

1291,

1295

(3d

Cir. 1996).

Finally, Coleman’s claim for punitive damages under the PHRA

fails

because

punitive

damages

are

not

available.

Hoy

v.

Angelone, 720 A.2d 745 (Pa. 1998).

For the reasons above, Albertson’s motion to dismiss is

granted

on

all

claims.

An

appropriate

order

follows.

3 This fact is included submitted with his pleadings.

in A

several attachments Coleman has court may consider undisputedly

authentic exhibits without converting a motion to dismiss

motion for summary judgment. Pension Benefit White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c).

Guar. Corp. Cir. 1993);

into v.

a

  • -

    5-

Document info
Document views12
Page views12
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 09:05:26 UTC 2016
Pages6
Paragraphs515
Words1090

Comments