Bohl

Bohl v. City of Sparks

Good Law
320 F. App'x 770
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 1, 2009No. 07-16772California392 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Terence Bohl appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, which dismissed his claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013 , 1019 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024 , 1030 (9th Cir.2004). Although the district court’s decision rested upon the conclusion that Bohl was not disabled under the ADA, we affirm because Bohl could not perform the essential functions of the position of Senior Marshal.

To survive summary judgment, Bohl must make a sufficient showing that he is a “qualified individual,” meaning that he could perform the essential functions of his position, with or without reasonable accommodation. Kaplan v. City of North *771 Las Vegas, 323 F.3d 1226, 1229-30 (9th Cir.2003). Here, Bohl’s admitted inability to perform the essential functions of Senior Marshal compels the conclusion that he is not a qualified individual. The physical duties of Senior Marshal were essential functions of the position, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.