Li

MEMORANDUM ***

Diane Li (“Li”) appeals the court’s summary judgment grant to Intel on Li’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Li’s claim, we conclude that no triable issues of fact remain as to whether: (1) Li is substantially limited in the major life activity of cognitive learning under the ADA; or (2) Intel regarded Li as disabled in the major life activity of cognitive learning under the ADA. We therefore affirm.

*679 Li first contends she is disabled because her disorder substantially impairs her in the major life function of learning. However, Li fails to support her contention with particularity, as she must to satisfy this element of her prima facie case. See Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 566 , 119 S.Ct. 2162 , 144 L.Ed.2d 518 (1999). Li neither demonstrates an inability to learn as “the average person in the general population can perform [learning],” or show that she is “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [she] can perform learning” when compared to the average…