Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Kralik v. Durbin

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

October 21, 1997, Argued ; December 12, 1997, Filed

Nos. 97-3089 and 97-3106

Opinion

 [*77] OPINION OF THE COURT

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Karen Kralik appeals from the district court's December 16, 1996 order entering summary judgment against her under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and from the district court's January 14, 1997 order denying her motion for reconsideration. The appellee, John Durbin, cross appeals from the portion of the [**2]  December 16, 1996 order denying summary judgment as to one issue even though the order dismissed Kralik's complaint. We will affirm the orders granting summary judgment and denying the motion for reconsideration and will dismiss the cross appeal.

Kralik alleged in her complaint that she is an individual with a disability employed as a toll collector by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at its Allegheny Valley Interchange. Durbin is Executive Director of the Commission so as a matter of convenience and reality we will refer to him as the "Commission." Kralik asserted that she suffered a back injury in an automobile accident unrelated to her work. She further asserted that she sought from the Commission the reasonable accommodation of being relieved from forced overtime "as she cannot work for more than eight hours at a time" because of her injuries. The Commission, however, refused to grant the accommodation except on a temporary basis. After the Commission filed an answer, it moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Kralik is not a qualified individual with a disability and that, in any event, the Commission is not [**3]  obligated to make the requested accommodation. 2

In its opinion dated December 13, 1996, the district court noted that Kralik had worked for the Commission since 1988 as a toll collector and in 1990 had become a permanent Commission employee at the Allegheny Valley Interchange. Kralik was in a bargaining unit represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 250. At all relevant times the union was a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the Commission which included the following overtime provision:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

130 F.3d 76 *; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 34829 **; 7 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1040

KAREN KRALIK, Appellant in No. 97-3089 v. JOHN DURBIN, in his capacity as Executive Director, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission; KAREN KRALIK, v. JOHN DURBIN, in his capacity as Executive Director, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Appellant in No. 97-3106

Prior History:  [**1]  On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. (D.C. Civ. No. 95-01877).

Disposition: Affirmed orders of December 16, 1996, and January 14, 1997, and dismissed cross appeal.

CORE TERMS

accommodation, collective bargaining agreement, disability, employees, reasonable accommodation, seniority, overtime, seniority rights, qualified individual, summary judgment, district court, rights, infringement, undue hardship, conflicts, temporary, provisions, reconsideration, overtime provision, per se rule, cases, legislative history, reassignment, terms, contractual, regulations, violates, disabled individual, bona fide, functions

Business & Corporate Compliance, Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Federal & State Interrelationships, Civil Rights Law, Protection of Disabled Persons, Americans With Disabilities Act, Scope, Labor & Employment Law, Disabilities Under ADA, Mental & Physical Impairments, Major Life Activities, Scope & Definitions, General Overview, Federal Employment & Services, Accommodations, Employment Practices, Labor & Employment Law, Accommodation, Remedies, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Adverse Determinations