Kaplan
Kaplan v. City of North Las Vegas
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*728 MEMORANDUM *
Kaplan contends he has a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA because the City of North Las Vegas (“City”) regarded him as being substantially limited in the major life activity of working. 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (j)(3)(i). Based on the language of the City’s termination letter and the testimony of the City’s human resources director, Kaplan raised a genuine issue of fact that the City regarded him as unable to perform any peace officer position in the State of Nevada.
In Nevada, the term “peace officer” encompasses a vast array of different jobs, Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 289.150-289.360, involving similar training and skills. Nev. Admin. Code, ch. 289, §§ 130-160. Although the “inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working,” the inability to perform a “class of jobs” as compared to the average person with comparable training, skills and abilities can constitute such a limitation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (j)(3)(i). When comparing the job which Kaplan was regarded as unable to perform versus the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge and skills…