Paul Zinter v. Portland State University

Good Law
667 F. App'x 603
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 14, 201614-35287California459 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Paul Zinter (“Zinter”) appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Portland State University (“PSU”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1.The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of PSU on Zinter’s failure to accommodate claim. To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must, prove that: (1) he is disabled, (2) he is qualified, and (8) he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. See Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2001). Assuming arguendo that Zinter has shown a triable issue of fact on the first two prongs, Zinter has not shown that there is a triable issue of fact that he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. Zinter does not dispute that he overstated his hours on his time sheet in July. And Zinter’s own deposition testimony proves that even if Zinter could not remember what hours he worked due to his multiple sclerosis (“MS”), he did know that he was unsure of what hours he worked in July, yet he still certified the time sheet as accurate.…

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.