Alaska Employment Law

The 9th Circuit has confirmed that an ADA plaintiff needn’t submit comparative evidence to establish “impairment,” at least to survive summary judgment.  The case involved a UPS driver whose heart condition made him dizzy in hotter temperatures.  The District Court granted UPS summary judgment because the employee failed to present evidence of general population characteristics.  

The 9th Circuit vacated and remanded:

The district court . . . determined that [the employee’s] disability was not substantially limiting “on its face” because he was able to perform the major life activities at issue.  [Citation omitted.] The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS because Gribben “failed to submit any evidence as to the abilities of an average person in the general population to participate in outdoor activities in the Phoenix summer.” Gribben argues that the district court erred in reaching this conclusion because he was not required to submit such comparative evidence. We agree.

Gribben’s testimony alone regarding the significance of his impairment is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact at the summary judgment stage.  . . .  As a result, Gribben was not required to submit the comparative evidence the district court required.  [Head v. Glacier Nw., Inc., 413 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2005)](”Ninth Circuit precedent does not require comparative or medical evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the impairment of a major life activity at the summary judgment stage.”)

Gribben v. United Parcel Service, 2008 WL _______ (9th Cir. June 16, 2008)