Hewitt

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Everett Hewitt worked for Defendant Union Oil Company of California, Inc., for several years but eventually Defendant terminated his employment. He brought this action in state court under Alaska Stat. § 18.80.220 , a part of the Alaska Human Rights Act (AHRA) that parallels the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy.

*828 The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant. The court held that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff has no “disability” within the meaning of state law. In analyzing the AHRA, Alaska courts rely on the federal analytical framework for parallel statutes. Moody-Herrera v. State Dep’t of Natural Res., 967 P.2d 79 , 83 & n. 9 (Alaska 1998).

Recent Supreme Court cases make clear that, on this record, genuine issues of material fact remain for trial. See Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 ,-, 122 S.Ct. 681, 691-92 , 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002) (requiring the plaintiffs to present evidence both of an impairment and a substantial limitation on a major life activity). Evidence in the record shows that…