Robert J. Cella, Jr. v. Villanova University

*The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 03-1749
ROBERT J. CELLA, JR.,
Appellant
v.
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY; ARAMARK
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 01-cv-07181)
Chief Judge: James T. Giles
Argued on May 24, 2004
BEFORE: ROTH and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, and
SCHWARZER,* Senior District Judge
(Opinion Filed : October 19, 2004)
Jeanne M. Cella, Esquire (Argued)
Black & Associates
327 West Front Street
P.O. Box 168
Media, PA 19063
Counsel for Appellant

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Neil J. Hamburg, Esquire (Argued)
JuHwon Lee, Esquire
Michael E. Sacks, Esquire
Hamburg & Golden
1601 Market Street, Suite 3310
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Hope A. Comisky, Esquire (Argued)
Pepper Hamilton
18th & Arch Streets
3000 Two Logan Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellees _
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
In this appeal, Robert Cella claims that he suffered discrimination and a hostile
work environment because of a physical impairment to his right elbow, diagnosed as
lateral epicondylitis, or more colloquially, “tennis elbow.” After being fired from his
custodial job, he sued his alleged employers, Villanova University and Aramark Facilities
Services, Inc., under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act (PHRA). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of
defendants, finding that Cella had failed to prove that his impairment substantially limited
one of his major life activities and that he had failed to present evidence showing
Aramark to be his employer. On March, 14, 2003, Cella filed the present appeal.
We exercise plenary review over an order granting summary judgment. Detz v.

-- 2 of 5 --

**As the District Court recognized, claims under the PHRA are generally subject to
the same analysis as claims under the ADA. See Salley v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 160
F.3d 977, 979 n.1 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that “Pennsylvania courts generally interpret the
PHRA in accord with its federal counterparts, among them the ADA,” and that without
objection by the parties, one analysis under the ADA suffices). Neither party contests this
point.
***Although Cella is currently undergoing treatment for a mental impairment as
well, he did not claim this as the basis of his discrimination before the District Court;
thus, it is only the physical impairment that we are considering.
3
Greiner Indus., Inc., 346 F.3d 109, 115 (3d Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is only
granted if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact [such] that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F.R.C.P. 56(c). We must draw all factual
inferences and resolve all doubts in favor of the non-moving party. See United States v.
Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). We have jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1291.
Because we write only for the parties and the facts are familiar to them, we will
not repeat the facts here.
To be covered under the ADA (or PHRA**), Cella had to show that he was a
“qualified individual with a disability” as defined by the Act. 42 U.S.C. §12111(8). The
Act defines a “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more of the major life activities of such individual.” Id. § 12102(2). There is no
question in this case that Cella’s elbow problems qualify as a physical impairment.*** The
only question for us, then, is whether his elbow problems “substantially” limited one of
his “major life activities.”

-- 3 of 5 --

4
The District Court held, and we agree, that Cella has failed to prove that his
impairment substantially limited a major life activity. Major life activities include “those
activities that are of central importance to daily life.” Toyota Motor Mfg. Ky., Inc. v.
Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 197 (2002). This inquiry is directed not at an employee’s ability
to perform a specific job but rather entails a review of many activities, such as “household
chores, bathing, and brushing one’s teeth.” Id. at 201-02. Furthermore, the limitation
must be substantial; we do not consider “impairments that interfere in only a minor way.”
Id. at 197. For example, in Toyota Motor Mfg., 534 U.S. at 202, the fact that the claimant
avoided sweeping her house, stopped dancing, occasionally needed help dressing, and had
to reduce the amount of time she spent playing with her children, gardening, or driving
was not enough to establish as a matter of law that she was covered under the ADA.
Cella’s doctors put him on restriction from lifting over ten pounds for a period of
time, but we have previously held that this kind of limitation alone does not establish that
the impairment substantially limits a major life activity. See Marinelli v. City of Eerie,
216 F.3d 354, 364 (3d Cir. 2000). Furthermore, Cella had the burden to show that the
impairment’s impact was “permanent or long-term.” Toyota Motor Mfg., 534 U.S. at 198
(citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(j)(2)(ii)-(iii)(2001)).
Cella did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his impairment
substantially limited major life functions at the time during which he was employed by
Villanova. As the District Judge noted, Cella could perform major life functions, albeit

-- 4 of 5 --

5
with some pain. He never put forth evidence to establish that his injury would be
permanent or long term, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that his injury
substantially limited any major life functions during the time that he was employed by
Villanova.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court in
favor of defendants.

-- 5 of 5 --