Luke Yeager v. Kaiser Aluminum Washington

MEMORANDUM

Luke Yeager appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Kaiser Aluminum Washington, LLC. We affirm the ruling of the district court.

1. The district court correctly dismissed Yeager’s claim against Kaiser, because he failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Yeager must show he “(1) was within the protected group; (2) was discharged; (3) was replaced by a person outside the group; and (4) was qualified to do the job.” Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wash.2d 483 , 859 P.2d 26 , 30 (1993) (en banc). He does not make it past the first prong.

Yeager does not contend he was actually disabled at the time of his termination; instead he maintains only that he was “perceived” as disabled. To establish that he was perceived as disabled, Yeager must show that Kaiser “believe[d] either that [Yeager had] a substantially limiting impairment that [he did] not have or that [he had] a substantially limiting impairment when, in fact, the impairment [was] not so limiting.” EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 306 F.3d 794 , 803 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Sutton v. United Air…