Quan

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Steve Quan appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant on his FEHA disability discrimination claim. On de novo review, Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.

1. Defendant argues that, as part of his prima facie case, Plaintiff must prove that he was qualified for the position. Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352 , 8 P.3d 1089, 1113 (2000). Plaintiff argues that, under Green v. State, 132 Cal.App.4th 97 , 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 254 , 256 (2005), Defendant bears the burden of proving that Plaintiff cannot perform the essential functions of the job. We need not decide who has the burden here because it is undisputed that Plaintiff does not meet the minimum qualifications for the position and he does not challenge the validity of those qualifications.

2. Plaintiff argues that Defendant may not rely on evidence that his resume was fraudulent because Defendant did not *519 learn of his wrongdoing until discovery in this litigation. However, after-acquired evidence may be used when the employer contests liability on the ground that the plaintiff was never qualified for the job in…