Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, No. 08-4684 involved a challenge to the district court's grant of summary judgment in plaintiff's suit against several federal government defendants under the ADA and the RA, arising from his voluntary layoff from employment with the Army Depot. However, because plaintiff did not demonstrate that the medications that were causing his problems were medically necessary, their side effects cannot be considered as impairments within the meaning of the ADA. Furthermore, because plaintiff's employers did not regard him as disabled within the meaning of the ADA and plaintiff could not have had a good faith belief that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA since he could not have had a good faith belief that his side effects were anything but temporary, district court's judgment is affirmed.
In Agere Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Envt'l Tech. Corp., No. 09-1814, the court faced a challenge to the district court's judgment against one defendant in plaintiffs' suit against twenty-three defendants for cost recovery and contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and the Pennsylvania Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act to recover costs that the plaintiffs had paid to the EPA, arising from the disposal of millions of gallons of toxic waste over six years at a particular site.
However, because the district court must make a clear and unequivocal finding as to when the EPA completed its removal action, the judgment is vacated and remanded as such a finding will allow the district court to determine whether the EPA's December 6, 2001 filing of the suit to enforce the OU-2 Consent Decree was timely and thus whether there is a time-bar to plaintiffs' recovering the amount they paid to reimburse the EPA for past costs. On remand, TI and Argere should be permitted to go forward with their section 107(a) cost recovery claims to recoup costs paid as part of the shared expense of cleaning up the sit and because Cytec, Ford, SPS, and TI are shielded from contribution counterclaims under section 113(f)(2) and to the consent decrees, the district court should proceed solely under section 113(f) as to those claims.
Cyberworld Enter. Tech., Inc. v. Napolitano, No. 09-2515, involved a plaintiff's action against the Secretary of Labor and other officials under the APA challenging sanctions against it for failing to comply with the requirement that, as a temporary staffing company that obtains H-1B visas for its employees, it inquire of the secondary employer whether the hiring of an H-1B employee will cause a United States worker to be laid off or displaced. In affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the court held that under the analysis prescribed by the Supreme Court in Brock v. Pierce County, the Secretary had jurisdiction to act after the deadline passed. Plaintiff's remaining claims are rejected including its claim that the Secretary did not have the authority for the debarment sanction.