Perkins

*567 MEMORANDUM *

Mark E. Perkins appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States Postmaster General on all of his claims. We affirm.

To make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, Perkins must show, among other things, that he is “disabled” and a “qualified” individual under the Act. See Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.1999). The district court found that Perkins had presented a prima facie case that he was disabled from his bipolar disorder and narcissism, but granted summary judgment in favor of the Postmaster because Perkins failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether he was a qualified individual. On appeal, Perkins did not expressly address whether he was a qualified individual in his opening brief, thereby waiving that argument. Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999). At the oral argument, however, Perkins responded to questions on this issue, and we therefore address it on the merits.

An “otherwise qualified person” is “one who can perform ‘the essential functions’ of the job in question.” Sch. Bd. of Nassau County, Fla. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 , 288 n.…