Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by an employee, Roseanne Barnes, against a summary judgment in favor of GE Security, Inc. and related defendants, following her termination. Barnes alleged retaliatory termination due to her use of the workers’ compensation system and discrimination based on her disability. The appellate court conducted a de novo review and upheld the district court's summary judgment. It found that Barnes was terminated for breaching the company's attendance policy, not in retaliation for her workers' compensation claim. Her claim of pretext based on timing and health acknowledgment in the termination letter lacked sufficient evidence. On the disability discrimination claim, the court applied pre-ADA Amendments Act standards, noting Barnes's anxiety was manageable with medication and did not significantly impair her work or daily activities. There was no evidence that GE regarded her as substantially limited in major life activities. Consequently, Barnes failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on her claims, resulting in the affirmation of the summary judgment. This decision is not for publication and holds no precedential value, except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of Disability under ADA and Oregon Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Barnes's anxiety, which is manageable with medication, did not qualify as a disability that substantially limits major life activities.
Reasoning: Evidence indicates that Barnes's anxiety is manageable with medication and does not significantly hinder her ability to work or engage in essential daily activities.
Disability Discrimination under Oregon and Federal Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied pre-2008 ADA standards and found Barnes did not provide sufficient evidence of disability discrimination.
Reasoning: Barnes contends her termination was due to her disability or perceived disability under Oregon law, which parallels federal law. The court notes that since her suit was filed before the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008, prior standards apply.
Employer's Perception of Disabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no evidence that GE regarded Barnes as disabled under ADA standards.
Reasoning: Barnes's claims that GE regarded her as disabled or that she had a record of disability are also unsupported, as there is no evidence showing GE believed her anxiety substantially limited her in major life activities, such as employment.
Pretext in Employment Terminationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Barnes's attempt to show pretext for her termination was not substantiated by sufficient evidence.
Reasoning: Barnes attempted to demonstrate pretext for her termination based on timing and an acknowledgment of her health in her termination letter, but the court finds insufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding GE's stated reasons.
Retaliatory Termination and Workers' Compensationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the termination of employment was not retaliatory but based on a violation of the company's attendance policy.
Reasoning: Barnes alleges unlawful termination after invoking the system; however, the evidence indicates she was terminated for violating GE's attendance policy, which she had been warned about.