United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
M. MUNLEY United States District Court
Andreas Odysseos (hereinafter “plaintiff”)
asserts that Defendant Rine Motors, Inc.'s (hereinafter
“the defendant”) decision to terminate his
employment violated his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et
seq. (hereinafter “ADA”) and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 634,
et. seq. (hereinafter “ADEA”). Before
the court for disposition is the defendant's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's ADA claim. (Doc. 12). For the reasons
that follow, the court will deny the defendant's motion.
instant discrimination action arose from plaintiff's
employment with the defendant. The defendant, an automobile
dealership in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, employed plaintiff
as a general sales manager from December 14, 2011, until his
termination on April 29, 2016. (Doc. 9, Am. Compl.
(hereinafter “Am. Compl.”) ¶¶ 5, 26).
December 4, 2015, plaintiff informed the defendant's
owner, William Rinehart, that he needed a biopsy of his
prostate to determine whether he had cancer. (Id.
¶ 10). Plaintiff's biopsy was negative.
(Id. ¶ 11). His biopsy incision, however,
became infected. (Id. ¶ 12). This required
plaintiff to remain in the hospital from January 4, 2016, to
January 12, 2016. (Id.)
returned to work on January 16, 2016. (Id. ¶
13). Between January 16, 2016, and the end of February 2016,
plaintiff wore a heart monitor to assess his heart rate.
(Id. ¶ 14). Plaintiff avers that after his
return to work, Rinehart repeatedly asked him questions
pertaining to or regarding his health. (Id. ¶
19). Although plaintiff missed only eight (8) days of work
and he assured Rinehart that he was in good health, plaintiff
avers Rinehart interviewed potential employees to replace
him. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 17-18, 20). On April 29,
2016, Rinehart terminated plaintiff's employment,
informing him that his job had been promised to a new person.
(Id. ¶ 26).
October 19, 2016, plaintiff filed a two-count complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. (Doc. 1). On December 13, 2016, the matter was
transferred to this court. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on December 19, 2016, alleging disability
and age discrimination claims under the ADA and the ADEA,
respectively. In the instant motion, the defendant seeks to
dismiss only plaintiff's ADA discrimination claim. The
parties have briefed their respective positions and the
matter is ripe for disposition.
plaintiff brings suit pursuant to the ADA and the ADEA, we
have federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. (“The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's ADA claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court
tests the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations when
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. All well-pleaded
allegations of the complaint must be viewed as true and in
the light most favorable to the non-movant to determine
whether, “‘under any reasonable reading of the
pleadings, the plaintiff may be entitled to
relief.'” Colburn v. Upper Darby Twp., 838
F.2d 663, 665-66 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting Estate of Bailey
by Oare v. Cty. of York, 768 F.2d 503, 506 (3d Cir.
1985)). The plaintiff must describe “‘enough
facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will
reveal evidence of' [each] necessary element” of
the claims alleged in the complaint. Phillips v. Cty. of
Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556
(2007)). Moreover, the plaintiff must allege facts that
“justify moving the case beyond the pleadings to the
next stage of litigation.” Id. at 234-35. In
evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, the court may also
consider “matters of public record, orders, exhibits
attached to the complaint and items appearing in the record
of the case.” Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran
& Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 n.2 (3d Cir. 1994)
(citations omitted). The court need not accept legal
conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences. See
Curay-Cramer v. Ursuline Acad. of Wilmington, Del.,
Inc., 450 F.3d 130, 133 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Morse
v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.
defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's ADA claim pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The ADA is
designed to eliminate “discrimination against
individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101.
To establish an ADA discrimination claim, a plaintiff must
plead that: (1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of
the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the
essential functions of the job; and (3) he has suffered an
otherwise adverse employment decision as a result of
discrimination. Hohider v. United Parcel Serv.,
Inc., 574 F.3d 169, 186 (3d Cir. 2009) (citations
instant matter, the defendant contests only the first
element, that the plaintiff is a disabled person within the
meaning of the ADA. Under the ADA, a person qualifies as
disabled when he has “a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limits one or more of the major life
activities of such individual, ” “a record of
such an impairment, ” or is “regarded as having
such an ...