Beaulieu

Beaulieu v. Northrop Grumman Corp.

Good Law
23 F. App'x 811
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 19, 2001No. 00-17517; D.C. No. CV-99-00537-ACK-BMKCalifornia974 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Berzon, J.

I concur in the court’s disposition with the following exception: I would not reach the question whether Beaulieu is substantially limited in a major life activity, and therefore do not concur in the court’s discussion of that question. The Ninth Circuit has never decided whether the necessity that diabetics strictly control their eating and dietary habits can constitute a substantial limitation in a major life activity for ADA purposes. Lawson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 245 F.3d 916, 924-25 (7th Cir.2001) did address the question and held that diabetics’ eating restrictions can constitute a substantial impairment. Lawson does not seem to me to be meaningfully distinguishable on its facts from this case as to the nature and severity of the eating restrictions the plaintiff must follow. So I would assume for purposes of this case, without deciding, that Beaulieu is a qualified person with a disability for ADA purposes.

I nonetheless concur because, even assuming Beaulieu is disabled under the ADA, the accommodation he requested of coming to work 10 to 15 minutes late every morning was not reasonable because it was unnecessary. Beaulieu did not adequately explain why he could not…

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Roger Joseph Beaulieu (“Beaulieu”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of his former employers Northrop Grumman Corporation (“Northrop”) and Adecco Employment Services (“Adecco”) (collectively “defendants”). Beaulieu argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding: (1) whether his diabetes is a disability within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requiring the defendants to provide him with a reasonable accommodation; and (2) whether he was fired in retaliation for his request for accommodation of his diabetes. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Beaulieu alleged that the defendants discriminated against him under Title I of the ADA and corresponding Hawaii statutes by failing to grant his request for a reasonable accommodation for his diabetes. 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (b)(5)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 (2001). As an employee seeking accommodation, Beaulieu has the initial burden of showing he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 261 F.3d 789, 794 (9th Cir.2001). The district court properly found that Beaulieu failed to make this…

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.