Ponce

MEMORANDUM ***

We need not decide whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Ponce’s motion for leave to amend his complaint because the denial did not prejudice Ponce. 1 The complaint pleaded that Ponce “is a person with a disability” under Oregon law, and Oregon law defines “disabled person” to include a person who is “regarded as” having the requisite impairment.

Summary judgment was proper because Ponce did not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was “regarded as” disabled. His evidence did not show that his claimed need to wear dark glasses substantially limited a major life activity, as the Oregon statute requires. 3 Under EEOC v. United Parcel Service, 4 General Motors can be found to have regarded Ponce as disabled for the major life activity of seeing only if it mistakenly believed that his actual non-limiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities. 5 There is no evidence in the record from which a jury could conclude that this was so.

There was also no evidence that General Motors’ belief that it was dangerous for Ponce to work certain jobs while wearing dark tinted glasses was mistaken. 7 The…