Bryan

Bryan v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Good Law
307 F. Supp. 2d 1108·2004 WL 415249·15 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 613·2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3382
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 2, 2004C 01-01730 WHA, C 02-02601 WHACalifornia3,256 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alsup, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ISSUE OF FEHA DISABILITY AND CERTIFYING THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1292(b)

INTRODUCTION

In this case under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, plaintiffs contend that defendant United Parcel Service, Inc., discriminated against them by excluding them from working as full-time, package-car delivery drivers because of an alleged disability, namely, the loss of vision in one eye. The threshold question is whether plaintiffs are disabled within the meaning of FEHA. As an issue of first impression under California law, this order holds that plaintiffs are limited in the major life activity of “working” and thus disabled under FEHA.

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs Tim Hancock, Jeffrey Morales, Greg Quiroz and Mark Jensen are monocular individuals. Each is a long-time employee of defendant UPS. The parties do not dispute the evidence with regard to the vision impairment of each plaintiff and this order does not engage in a lengthy discussion of each claimant’s personal circumstances.

Plaintiffs filed suit against UPS under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, claiming they were…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.