Peacock

MEMORANDUM **

Eric Johnson Peacock appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for de *176 fendant in his action alleging that defendant discriminated against him by failing to hire him because of his poor uncorrected vision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Peacock’s disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) because Peacock failed to demonstrate that he is a qualifying individual with a disability. See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 482-83, 493-94 , 119 S.Ct. 2139 , 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999) (holding that the existence of a disability is determined in light of mitigating or corrective measures).

Although the district court also properly determined that Peacock failed to demonstrate that he is a qualifying individual with a disability under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), see id., the district court erred by granting summary judgment on Peacock’s FEHA disability…