Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant, a former employee, challenged the grant of summary judgment in favor of his employers, Cyprus Amax Minerals Company and Phelps Dodge Corporation, concerning his claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The primary legal issue revolved around the appellant's ability to perform the essential functions of a Maintenance Technician V position, with or without reasonable accommodation. The appellant contested the characterization of the job's essential functions and proposed accommodations that were deemed unreasonable, as they required coworkers to perform tasks on his behalf. The court held that such accommodations were not required under the ADA and that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. The employer had offered a reasonable accommodation, which the appellant declined, thus maintaining compliance with ADA obligations. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the appellant's capabilities, and ruled that the disposition was not suitable for broader publication or citation, adhering to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
ADA Prima Facie Case Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case under the ADA as he could not demonstrate he could perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodation.
Reasoning: Cota did not establish a prima facie case under the ADA.
Employer's Compliance with ADAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the employer's offer of reasonable accommodation, which was declined by the appellant, satisfied its obligations under the ADA.
Reasoning: Furthermore, Phelps Dodge had offered him a reasonable accommodation, which he declined.
Reasonable Accommodation under ADAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the appellant's proposed accommodation, which involved coworkers performing tasks on his behalf, was neither reasonable nor required under the ADA.
Reasoning: He argues for accommodations involving coworkers performing tasks he cannot, but the court finds this is neither reasonable nor required.
Summary Judgment in Disability Discriminationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the summary judgment for the defendants, indicating no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the appellant's ability to perform essential job functions.
Reasoning: The court affirms the summary judgment, stating that even if Cota has a disability or is perceived as having one, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding his ability to perform the essential functions of a Maintenance Technician V, with or without reasonable accommodation.