Filed: Jun. 27, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-27-2006 Muhammed v. Phila Prison Sys Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-3112 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Muhammed v. Phila Prison Sys" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 834. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/834 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-27-2006 Muhammed v. Phila Prison Sys Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-3112 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Muhammed v. Phila Prison Sys" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 834. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/834 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the ..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-27-2006
Muhammed v. Phila Prison Sys
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3112
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Muhammed v. Phila Prison Sys" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 834.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/834
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 05-3112
SALIH MUHAMMED
Appellant
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
PRISON SYSTEM
Appeal from the United State District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No: 04-cv-03418
District Judge: Hon. Stewart Dalzell
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 15, 2006
Before: McKEE and GARTH, Circuit Judges,
and LIFLAND,* Senior District Judge.
(filed: June 27, 2006)
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Salih Muhammed appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the
City of Philadelphia Prison System in the suit he brought under the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
*
The Honorable John C. Lifland, Senior District Judge of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
I.
Since we are writing primarily for the parties who are familiar with this dispute,
we need only set forth the procedural and factual background to the extent that is helpful
to our brief discussion. Our review of an order granting summary judgment is plenary.
We therefore apply the same test the district court should have applied. Hines. v.
Consolidated Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 262 (3d Cir. 1991). Summary judgment is proper
when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to
the opposing party. Id at 266.
Both parties devote a portion of their appellate argument to discussing whether or
not the district court was correct in concluding that Muhammed’s ADA claim is barred by
his failure to raise it in the proceedings before the Civil Service Commission. We need
not resolve those issues of claim or issue preclusion because it is clear on this record that
Muhammed has not established a prima facie case for relief under the ADA.1
Accordingly, we hold that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor
of the defendant, and against the plaintiff.
A. The Discrimination Claim.
Muhammed attempts to base his claim of a protected disability on his mental
1
For an explanation of the subtle distinctions between claim preclusion, issue preclusion,
and res judicata and, see Gregory v. Chehi, 843 F.2d 111, 115 (3d Cir. 1988).
2
disorientation in the emergency room, and the ADA’s restrictions on an employer’s
ability to order medical examinations. See Appellant’s Br. at 20 et. seq. However, it is
undisputed that Muhammed was terminated because he told Lieutenant Pieretti that he
had ingested illegal drugs and Muhammed thereafter failed to report for a drug test as
required by personnel policy. A165.2
In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA,
Muhammed must establish that he is 1) disabled within the meaning of the Act, 2)
otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, and 3) has suffered an
adverse employment decision as a result of his disability. Deane v. Pocono Med. Ctr., 142
F.3d 138, 142 (3d Cir. 1998). Although Muhammed can clearly establish the required
adverse employment decision, he cannot establish that he is “disabled,” and he cannot,
therefore, claim the protection of the Act.
It is undisputed that Muhammed told Lt. Pieretti that he was not willing to see a
city doctor because “I’m going to come up positive for cocaine or heroin or something.”
A68. We have already held that “current” drug use is not protected under the ADA.
Salley v. Circuit City Stores, 160 F.3d 977 (3d Cir. 1998). In Salley, we explained that
the protections of the ADA do not extend to “current drug
use.” 160 F.3d at 980 n. 2. We
held that the plaintiff there could not recover because no reasonable jury could conclude
2
Muhammed also alleges that the Lieutenant violated his privacy by disclosing
confidential medical information, see Appellant’s Br. at 28. However, on this record, he
cannot elevate that to a claim under the ADA.
3
that the employer’s justification for firing him was a pretext for disability-based
discrimination. The same is true here.
Muhammed also claims he was “regarded as” being disabled and that he is
therefore protected under 42 U.S.C. § 12114 (b)(3), which extends protection to one who
is not using drugs but who is “erroneously regarded as engaging in such use.” See
Appellant’s Br. at p 25. However, Muhammed was not erroneously regarded as using
drugs because he admitted that he would test positive for drug use. Since current drug
use is not a protected disability under the ADA, and since he was not erroneously viewed
as using drugs, his allegations here simply do not bring him under the protective umbrella
of the ADA. This record supports no conclusion other than that he was terminated for
refusing to comply with a legitimate order to submit to an examination for drug use.
42 U.S.C. § 12114 (b)(3) specifically allows a “covered entity to adopt or
administer reasonable policies or procedures including but not limited to drug testing
designed to ensure that [an employee suspected of using drugs is not using them].”
“[T]his section was intended to permit [ ] employers to conduct drug tests or take
reasonable actions to ensure that an individual is no longer using illegal drugs. This
provision grants employers the ... right .... to conduct drug tests on . . . employees without
violating this Act . . .”. Buckley v Consolidated Edison, Co., 155 F.3d 150, 155 (2d Cir.
1998) (quoting Report of the House of Representatives Committee on Education and
Labor, H.R.Rep. No. 101-485(II), at 77-78 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303,
4
360) (brackets and internal ellipses in original). The drug test that Muhammed refused to
take is just such a procedure.3
B. Retaliation.
Muhammed’s claim of illegal retaliation fares no better than his discrimination
claim. In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA, Muhammed
must show that (1) there was a protected employee activity; (2) there was adverse action
by the employer either after, or contemporaneously with, the employee’s protected
activity; and (3) there is a causal connection between his protected activity and the
employer’s adverse action. Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494, 500 (3d cir.
1997).
Muhammed points to the prior lawsuit that he filed following his termination in
2002. He correctly claims that suit was protected activity and then tries to forge a link
between it and the termination before us here. He argues that since Officer King
processed the paperwork for the prior dismissal, the employer was aware that Muhammed
had filed the prior lawsuit. However, that generalized allegation is not enough to support
a finding of causation. See, Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286, 1302 (3d.
Cir. 1997). The instant adverse job action was initiated by Pieretti, not Officer King.
Moreover, on this record, there is nothing to suggest that Officer King even had the
3
We realize that Muhammed claimed that “someone put [it] into my drink,” and that he
therefore had not intentionally ingested illegal drugs. However, that does not excuse his refusal
to report for a drug test in violation of city personnel policy.
5
authority to initiate or influence the current termination. Accordingly, Muhammed has
not established that his prior lawsuit had any impact whatsoever on his subsequent
termination, and no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise.
III.
For all the reasons above, we will affirm the district court’s order granting
summary judgment.
6
