The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge McClure
On August 17, 2009, plaintiff, Charles Alton Ward, instituted this civil action against defendant, Allied Mechanical and Electrical ("Allied"). In his complaint, plaintiff alleges failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Count I; failure to accommodate in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act("PHRA"), Count II; and retaliation in violation of Title VII, Count III.
On July 13, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and a supporting brief. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 16 and 18). Plaintiff filed his opposing brief on August 5, 2010. (Rec. Doc. No. 21). Defendant filed its reply brief on August 10, 2010. (Rec. Doc. No. 24).
Now, therefore, for the following reasons we will grant in part and deny in part the motion for summary judgment.
Taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, plaintiff, the salient facts are as follows. On June 5, 2004, Allied hired Ward as a plumber earning $11 an hour. On November 8, 2004, Ward, while on-the-job, fell off of a ladder, resulting in a broken leg and injured knee. The incident was reported to the Pennsylvania's Bureau of Workers' Compensation and to Allied's workers' compensation insurance carrier.
Ward returned to work as an office worker in December 2004. In April 2005, plaintiff was assigned to work as a mechanical foreman on a middle school project under his physician's restrictions of no crawling, no climbing ladders and no lifting more than 50 pounds. Ward had two surgeries in September and November of 2005, and returned to work as an office worker after each. In March 2006, plaintiff worked on a village project as a mechanical foreman under his physician's restrictions of no running, jumping or ladder climbing. Ward did not require accommodations to perform his assigned work on the village project.
Ward denied that he was confronted by defendant with a verbal warning about his exceeding his physician's restrictions.
On September 18, 2006, Ward's hourly rate was increased to $15 per hour. On December 14, 2006, plaintiff's employment was terminated. Plaintiff was hired by another employer several months after his discharge, at a rate of $24 per hour. Plaintiff's position with defendant was filled by Allied on June 23, 2008.
Summary judgment is appropriate when 1) there are no material facts in dispute; and 2) one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Racho Trucking Co., 897 F.2d 1248, 1252 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c)).
A district court may properly grant a motion for summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "Material ...