United States Ninth Circuit

In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action claiming that a county office discriminated against plaintiff-employee by reassigning her because of her disability and refusing to engage in the ADA's "interactive process" after she had requested a reasonable accommodation, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence that plaintiff's supervisor reassigned her because her coworkers in the public service section complained about accommodations she received for her disability; and 2) plaintiff did not raise a triable issue on whether her disability substantially limited her in speaking, eating, seeing, sleeping, and thinking and concentrating.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/03/2009
• Decided 11/25/2009
• Published 11/25/2009

Judges

• PER CURIAM:, Before:  B. FLETCHER, WILLIAM C. CANBY, JR., and SUSAN P. GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Richard M. Martinez (argued), Law Office of Richard M. Martinez, Tucson, AZ, for the plaintiff-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Stacey Roseberry (argued), Pima County Attorney's Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.