Cinthya Aviles v. Alutiiq Securities & Technolog

MEMORANDUM

Cinthya Carbajal Aviles (“Aviles”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Alutiiq Security & Technology (“Alutiiq”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Aviles asserts employment discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov.Code § 12940 et seq. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under those Acts, Aviles must show that she (1) is disabled, (2) is a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) was discriminated against because of her disability. Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2007). Aviles is not a qualified individual, and thus has no protection under either Act. Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877, 887 (9th Cir.2001) (“If a disabled person cannot perform a job’s ‘essential functions’ ... then the ADA’s employment protections do not apply.”); Allen v. Pacific Bell, 348 F.3d 1113 , 1114 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003) (“California relies on ADA precedents to interpret analogous provisions of the [FEHA].”). By her…