Fox
Fox v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Patricia Fox appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Delta Airlines in Fox’s action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and California state law. We affirm.
Fox is not “disabled” under the ADA because her lifting restrictions do not substantially limit the major life activities of performing manual tasks, Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 , 122 S.Ct. 681, 690 , 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002); Thompson v. Holy Family Hosp., 121 F.3d 537, 539 (9th Cir.1997) (25 pound lifting restriction does not substantially limit a major life activity), or working. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 492 , 119 S.Ct. 2139 , 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999). Delta did not regard her as disabled because it offered her her old position back and informed her of other job openings within the company. Thompson, 121 F.3d at 541 . Because Fox is not “disabled” under the ADA, we need not decide whether she is a “qualified individual” or whether she has suffered discrimination on the basis of her disability. Kees v. Wallenstein, 161 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir.1998).