Kaplan

Kaplan v. City of North Las Vegas

Good Law
2 F. App'x 727
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 19, 2001No. 99-16585California313 words

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…

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.