Sidney P. Sanders, Jr. v. Arneson Products, Inc.

Opinion by Judge BEEZER; Dissent by Judge RYMER.

Plaintiff Sidney P. Sanders appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant Arneson Products, Inc. Sanders sought relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. for his termination while he was on leave for a cancer-related psychological disorder. Sanders’ appeal is timely, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because Sanders was not “disabled,” as that term is defined in the ADA and its implementing regulations, we affirm.

I

Sanders began working for Arneson in January, 1990, as Manager-Production Control. In June, 1990, he became Arneson’s Production Manager, and remained in that position for the remainder of his employment with Arneson. In October, 1991, Arneson consolidated two facilities. Subsequently, Arneson began experiencing severe production problems. Arneson hired a new Director of Manufacturing, Robert Carlson, and embarked upon a process of company-wide restructuring. Some jobs were eliminated, and Sanders’ duties were modified.

In October, 1992, Sanders was diagnosed with bladder cancer and underwent surgery. He was on leave from October 26, 1992…

dissenting:

It may be that my colleagues are absolutely correct, that Sanders’s psychological impairment associated with his cancer is not a “disability” under the ADA because it wasn’t bad enough and didn’t last long enough, but I have trouble finding support for (or against) this conclusion in the record. There is no evidence about whether the condition was cured, was in remission, or was just sufficiently controlled that Sanders could return to work on April 5. Nor does the record shed light on whether Sanders’s psychological disorder, which was associated with his cancer, is so related that it is — or must be treated as — a “disability” because his cancer was a “disability,” or is so distinct that it shouldn’t be. Likewise, the record is unclear as to whether the cancer, or the psychological impairment that followed in its wake, may recur. In short, we know next to nothing about its characteristics. For this reason, it seems to me that the record has to be more fully developed before it can be concluded as a matter of law that Sanders suffered no disability for purposes of the Act.

Both parties agree that Sanders was disabled in the sense that he could not work at all…

91 F.3d 1351 5 A.D. Cases 1292 , 18 A.D.D. 311, 8 NDLR P 240, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5831 , 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9507 Sidney P. SANDERS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARNESON PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-15349. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 13, 1996. Decided Aug. 6, 1996. Daniel Ray Bacon, San Francisco, California, for plaintiff-appellant. Brian T. McMillan, Robert J. Wilger, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy & Mathiason, San Jose, California, for defendant-appellee. C. Gregory Stewart, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Vincent J. Blackwood, Karen M. Moran, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Stanley A. Weigel, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-0551 SAW. Before: ALARCON, BEEZER and RYMER, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge BEEZER; Dissent by Judge RYMER. BEEZER, Circuit Judge: 1 Plaintiff Sidney P. Sanders appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant Arneson Products, Inc. Sanders sought relief under the…