Weisberg v. Riverside Township Board of Education, No. 04-4533 (3d Cir. May 11, 2006)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that an employee's impairment brought on by post-concussion syndrome does not classify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Third Circuit also denied the plaintiff's claim that the accidental placement of his accident report in an envelope given to another teacher violated his constitutional right to privacy. Charles Weisberg suffered an injury in 1998 while at work when a large wooden speaker fell off the wall behind him and struck him in the head. The injury caused post-concussion syndrome, which has left Weisberg fatigued and has impaired his concentration, memory, and other mental functions. Weisberg has doctors' reports stating the extent of his ailments, and he claims that the normal functions of his life have become strenuous and difficult. The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of a disability. A disability is defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual." 42 U.S.C. ยง 12102(2)(A) (2000). The parties did not dispute that post-concussion syndrome was an impairment within the meaning of the statute, but disagreed as to whether it substantially limited Weisberg's major life activities. The district court held that a reasonable jury could not find that Weisberg was substantially limited in one or more of his major life activities, and so it could not reach the question of whether he had suffered adverse discrimination due to his disability. As to Weisberg's claim that the accidental placement of his report in an envelope given to another teacher violated his right to privacy, the district court concluded that the superintendent's negligent conduct did not violate Weisberg's right to privacy. The Third Circuit agreed with both of the district court's conclusions. The Third Circuit cited Weisberg's ability to attend football games, eat out frequently, and finish all of his work during a forty hour work week as signs that his normal life functions have not been impaired so as to classify him as disabled. Fatigue, distractions, and an inability to concentrate for periods of time are not ailments suffered only by Weisberg, but are normal occurrences for many people in their lives, according to the court. The court agreed that Weisberg showed evidence of impairment, but did not think the evidence amounted to a disability substantially limiting his major life activities. As to the violation of a right to privacy, the Third Circuit agreed with the district court that the negligent conduct of accidentally placing an accident report in the wrong envelope did not implicate a violation of privacy rights. Furthermore, the court stated that the accidental nature of disclosing the medical information also meant the privacy claim must fail, as there was no intentional privacy violation.
Weisberg v. Riverside Township Board of Education, No. 04-4533 (3d Cir. May 11, 2006)
[Link to full opinion]