Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_21-cv-00072/USCOURTS-azd-4_21-cv-00072-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Blankinship,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Union Pacific Railroad Company,

Defendant.

No. CV-21-00072-TUC-RM

ORDER 

In this action, Plaintiff James Blankinship asserts violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) arising from Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company’s 

removal of him from service as a train conductor for failure to pass color vision testing. 

(Doc. 13). On August 2, 2021, the Court dismissed the failure-to-accommodate claim 

alleged in Count Three of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 31.) On 

September 6, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendant on the remaining

disparate treatment and disparate impact claims asserted in Counts One and Two of the 

FAC, finding the claims time barred. (Doc. 78.) Plaintiff appealed this Court’s summary 

judgment ruling (Doc. 92), and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded 

in light of intervening authority, DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 104 F.4th 

1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2024) (Doc. 96). 

In its previously filed Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant argued not only 

that Plaintiff’s claims were untimely but also that they fail on the merits. (Doc. 67 at 10-

27.) Neither this Court nor the Ninth Circuit has yet to address Defendant’s merits 

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 11
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

arguments. On August 30, 2024, the Court provided the parties with an opportunity to 

submit supplemental briefs addressing any legal or factual developments relevant to those 

arguments. (Doc. 97.) The parties’ supplemental briefing is complete (Docs. 98, 99), and

the Court finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument.

I. Background1

The Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) issues regulations governing railroad 

conductors for the purpose of reducing accidents and improving railroad safety. (Doc. 68 

at 2 ¶ 7 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 242.1(a)); Doc. 72 at 2 ¶ 7.)2 Defendant is required to follow 

and comply with FRA regulations. (Doc. 68 at 2 ¶ 8 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 242.3(a)); Doc. 72 

at 2 ¶ 8.) The FRA requires conductors to receive and maintain certification pursuant to 

FRA requirements (“FRA certification”). (Doc. 72 at 2 ¶ 6.) To meet FRA certification 

requirements, railroad conductors must have “[t]he ability to recognize and distinguish 

between the colors of railroad signals[.]” 49 C.F.R. § 242.117(h)(3). Meeting FRA color 

vision standards is an essential part of the job of a conductor. (Doc. 68 at 2 ¶ 5; Doc. 72 at 

2 ¶ 5.) If a conductor misreads or misses a railroad signal, catastrophic damage and injury 

could result. (Doc. 68 at 1-2 ¶ 2; Doc. 72 at 2 ¶ 2.) The FRA has found that railroad 

employees with defective color vision have a higher relative error risk. (Doc. 68 at 5 ¶ 26; 

Doc. 72 at 4 ¶ 26; see also Doc. 68-18 at 8.)3

Railroads are responsible for certifying and recertifying conductors in accordance 

with FRA-approved programs, and are required to determine that an individual meets FRA 

standards for visual acuity prior to certifying or recertifying the individual as a conductor. 

(Doc. 72 at 2 ¶ 6); 49 C.F.R. §§ 242.101(a)(3), 242.109(a)(2), 242.117(b). To demonstrate 

the ability to recognize and distinguish between the colors of railroad signals, an individual 

must successfully complete one of the tests set forth in the FRA regulations. 49 C.F.R. §

1 Unless otherwise stated, there is no genuine dispute concerning the facts recited herein. 

2 All record citations refer to the docket and page numbers generated by this Court’s 

electronic filing system.

3 The Court grants Defendant’s request (Doc. 70) to take judicial notice of the existence of 

the FRA’s March 2015 final report entitled “Railroad Signal Color and Orientation: Effects 

of Color Blindness and Criteria for Color Vision Field Tests.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Lee 

v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001). It also appears the report could be 

presented at trial in admissible form under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 11
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

242.117(h)(3). The Ishihara (14) plate test is one of the acceptable testing methods 

identified in the regulations. (Doc. 68 at 2 ¶ 10; Doc. 72 at 2 ¶ 10); 49 C.F.R. § 242, App’x 

D(2). If an individual fails to successfully complete one of the identified color vision acuity 

tests, the individual “shall, upon request, be subject to further medical evaluation by a 

railroad’s medical examiner to determine that person’s ability to safely perform as a 

conductor.” 49 C.F.R. § 242.117(j). The further medical evaluation may include 

ophthalmologic referral or secondary testing using “another approved scientific screening 

test or a field test.” 49 C.F.R. Pt. 242, App’x D(4). A scientific screening test is one which 

has been demonstrated to be “valid, reliable, and comparable” based on “the results of a 

rigorous scientific study published in a peer-reviewed scientific or medical journal or other 

publication.” 80 Fed. Reg. 73122-01, 73124 (Nov. 24, 2015). A field test “is a test 

performed outdoors under test conditions that reasonably match actual operating or 

working conditions.” Id. 

In 1999, Defendant implemented a Color Vision Field Test (“CVFT”) that presented 

examinees with ten wayside signal configurations and measured the accuracy and speed of 

examinees’ identification of the signals. (Doc. 68 at 3 ¶ 17; Doc. 72 at 3 ¶ 17.) In June 

2012, an eastbound Union Pacific freight train collided head-on with a westbound Union 

Pacific freight train in Goodwell, Oklahoma, killing three employees and causing an 

estimated $14.8 million in damage. (Doc. 68 at 3-4 ¶¶ 18-19; Doc. 72 at 3 ¶¶ 18-19.) The 

National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) investigated the collision and concluded 

that one of the probable causes was the inability of one of the train engineers to see and 

correctly interpret wayside signals. (Doc. 68 at 4 ¶ 20; Doc. 72 at 3-4 ¶ 20; see also Doc. 

68-17 at 52-53.)4 The NTSB recommended that Defendant replace its CVFT “with a test 

that has established and acceptable levels of validity, reliability, and comparability to 

ensure that certified employees in safety-sensitive positions have sufficient color 

discrimination to perform safely.” (Doc. 68-17 at 30; see also Doc. 68 at 4 ¶¶ 22-23; Doc. 

4 The Court grants Defendant’s request (Doc. 70) to take judicial notice of the existence of 

the NTSB’s report regarding the Goodwell collision. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Lee, 250 F.3d 

at 689-90. It also appears the report could be presented at trial in admissible form under 

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 11
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

72 at 4 ¶¶ 22-23.)

Partially in response to the Goodwell collision, the FRA published in the Federal 

Register an interim interpretation entitled “Best Practices for Designing Vision Field Tests 

for Locomotive Engineers or Conductors.” (Doc. 68 at 5 ¶¶ 27-28; Doc. 72 at 4 ¶¶ 27-28); 

80 Fed. Reg. 73122-01. The FRA’s Best Practices interim interpretation states that 

railroads have discretion in selecting secondary test protocols but that “the test offered by 

a railroad must be a valid, reliable, and comparable test for assessing whether a person who 

fails an initial vision test can safely perform as a locomotive engineer or conductor.” 80 

Fed. Reg. at 73124. “Validity means the degree to which a test actually measures what the 

test is intended to measure[,] . . . [r]eliability means the degree of reproducibility of the test 

results,” and “[c]omparability means the testing procedures are fairly administered and the 

test results are uniformly recorded.” Id. at 73125.

After the NTSB investigation of the Goodwell collision and the FRA’s issuance of 

the Best Practices interpretation, Defendant implemented a revised CVFT known as the 

Light Cannon test. (Doc. 68 at 5-6 ¶¶ 30-31, 33; Doc. 72 at 4-5 ¶¶ 30-31, 33.) The parties 

dispute whether the Light Cannon test is an adequate field test. (Doc. 68 at 6 ¶¶ 34-36; 

Doc. 72 at 5 ¶¶ 33-36; see also Doc. 72 at 11-14 ¶¶ 20-35.)

Defendant hired Plaintiff as a railroad conductor in 2007. (Doc. 68 at 1 ¶ 1; Doc. 

72 at 2 ¶ 1.) Prior to 2017, Plaintiff underwent Defendant’s color-vision testing for FRA 

certification/recertification on three occasions: in 2007, 2011, and 2013. (Doc. 68 at 7 ¶

38; Doc. 72 at 6 ¶ 38.) In 2011, Plaintiff failed the Ishihara (14 plate) test but passed 

Defendant’s then-current version of the CVFT. (Doc. 68 at 7 ¶ 38; Doc. 72 at 6 ¶ 38.) 

On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff failed the Ishihara (14 plate) test administered as part 

of the FRA conductor recertification process. (Doc. 68 at 7 ¶ 39; Doc. 72 at 6 ¶ 39.) On 

January 12, 2017, Plaintiff failed Defendant’s Light Cannon test. (Doc. 68 at 7 ¶ 41; Doc. 

72 at 6 ¶ 41.) Defendant’s chief medical officer reviewed the results of Plaintiff’s failed 

Ishihara and Light Cannon tests, concluded that Plaintiff did not meet FRA certification 

requirements for the conductor position, and issued Plaintiff a Notification of FRA 

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 4 of 11
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Certification Denial. (Doc. 68 at 7 ¶ 42; Doc. 72 at 6 ¶ 42.) Defendant then issued Plaintiff 

permanent work restrictions prohibiting him from working in any position requiring 

accurate identification of colored railroad wayside signals. (Doc. 68 at 8 ¶ 44; Doc. 72 at 

6 ¶ 44.) On February 16, 2017, at the request of Plaintiff’s union representative, Defendant 

administered to Plaintiff a second Light Cannon test. (Doc. 68 at 8 ¶¶ 45-46; Doc. 72 at 6 

¶¶ 45-46.) Plaintiff failed the second Light Cannon test. (Doc. 68 at 8 ¶ 46; Doc. 72 at 8 

¶ 46.) On March 9, 2017, Defendant’s chief medical officer again issued Plaintiff a 

Notification of FRA Certification Denial. (Doc. 68 at 8-9 ¶ 47; Doc. 72 at 6 ¶ 47.)

The FRA allows individuals who believe they have been incorrectly denied 

certification or recertification to appeal the railroad’s decision to the FRA’s Operating 

Crew Review Board. See 49 C.F.R. § 242.501. However, Plaintiff did not appeal or contest 

the second Light Cannon test or the results thereof. (Doc. 68 at 9 ¶ 49; Doc. 72 at 6 ¶ 49.) 

Plaintiff has not been certified as a conductor under FRA standards since his removal from 

service in 2017. (Doc. 68 at 9 ¶ 50; Doc. 72 at 6 ¶ 50.)

II. Summary Judgment Standard

A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The 

movant bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its motion and identifying 

those portions of the record, together with affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate 

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the movant 

fails to carry its initial burden of production, the nonmovant need not produce anything. 

Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2000). But 

if the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to 

demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute and to show (1) that the fact in contention is 

material, i.e., a fact “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” 

and (2) that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could 

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 5 of 11
- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 

(1986); see also Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995).

At summary judgment, the judge’s function is not to weigh the evidence and 

determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 

477 U.S. at 249. In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must “draw all 

reasonable inferences from the evidence” in favor of the non-movant. O’Connor v. Boeing 

N. Am., Inc., 311 F.3d 1139, 1150 (9th Cir. 2002). If “the evidence yields conflicting 

inferences, summary judgment is improper, and the action must proceed to trial.” Id. “The 

court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the 

record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).

III. Discussion

The Court addresses, first, Defendant’s argument, raised in its Supplemental Brief, 

that Plaintiff failed to appeal the portion of this Court’s September 6, 2022 Summary 

Judgment Order that dismissed Plaintiff’s disparate impact claim. (See Doc. 98 at 2-3.) 

The Court then considers the merits arguments raised in Defendant’s original Motion for 

Summary Judgment. (See Doc. 67 at 10-27.)

A. Post-Remand Claims

“American Pipe tolling strikes a balance among the efficiency gains of class actions, 

the procedural due process rights of class-action plaintiffs, and the fair-notice rights of 

class-action defendants.” DeFries, 104 F.4th at 1099. Given the similarity of the disparate 

impact and disparate treatment claims at issue, the class action in Harris v. Union Pacific 

Railroad Company, No. 8:16-cv-381 (D. Neb.), gave Union Pacific sufficient notice of the 

need to preserve evidence pertaining to putative class members’ potential disparate impact 

claims. Zaragoza v. Union Pac. RR Co., 606 F. Supp. 3d 427, 434-36 (W.D. Tex. 2022). 

Requiring Plaintiff to file an individual suit alleging a disparate impact claim prior to the 

Eighth Circuit’s decertification of the Harris class would frustrate litigative efficiency and 

“encourage needlessly duplicative litigation.” Brasier v. Union Pac. RR Co., No. CV-21-

00065-TUC-JGZ (MSA), 2023 WL 2754007, at *14 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2023).

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 6 of 11
- 7 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In his opening brief before the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiff stated that, although he had 

initially alleged that Defendant’s “policies amounted to discrimination in violation of the 

ADA . . . because they had a disparate impact,” he was “pursu[ing] only his disparatetreatment theory” on appeal. Blankinship v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 22-16849, 

Dkt. 24 at 14 n.1 (9th Cir. May 4, 2023). However, the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum 

disposition reversed this Court’s grant of summary judgment to Union Pacific in its 

entirety, without differentiating between the disparate impact and disparate treatment 

claims. (See Doc. 96-1.) Similarly, the Ninth Circuit in DeFries did not differentiate 

between the claims in holding that the plaintiff’s claims were tolled between the filing of 

the Harris complaint and the Eighth Circuit’s decertification of the class. See 104 F.4th at 

1105-09. 

Because the reasoning of DeFries applies to both Plaintiff’s disparate treatment and 

disparate impact claims, and the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s summary judgment 

decision in its entirety without distinguishing between the claims, the Court finds that it is 

appropriate to address the parties’ arguments on the merits of both claims.

B. Qualified Individual

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot show that he is qualified within the meaning 

of the ADA for purposes of establishing a prima facie claim of disability discrimination,

because federal regulations prohibit Defendant from allowing Plaintiff to work as a 

conductor unless he is able to satisfy FRA color vision testing standards, and there is no 

dispute that Plaintiff failed to do so. (Doc. 67 at 11-18.) Plaintiff argues that a jury could 

find that he is a qualified individual because he worked as a conductor without incident 

and without missing a signal for approximately ten years. (Doc. 71 at 13-16.) Plaintiff 

further argues that Defendant’s Light Cannon field test is a qualification standard; that 

Defendant bears the burden of proving that the qualification standard is job-related and 

consistent with business necessity; that a jury could determine the Light Cannon test is 

invalid under FRA standards; and that FRA regulations do not shield Defendant from 

liability because they give Defendant discretion to determine which testing procedures to 

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 7 of 11
- 8 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

utilize. (Id. at 14-20.) 

The ADA prohibits covered entities from discriminating “against a qualified 

individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual.” 42 U.S.C. §

12112(a). To state a claim for violation of the ADA, an employee bears the burden of 

proving that he is (1) disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that he is a “qualified 

individual with a disability,” and (3) that he was discriminated against because of his

disability. Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). An individual is “qualified” if he “satisfies the requisite skill, 

experience, education and other job-related requirements” of the position and “can perform 

the essential functions” of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. 29 

C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).

Discrimination under the ADA includes “using qualification standards, employment 

tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a 

disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other 

selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position 

in question and is consistent with business necessity[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6). 

Qualification standards are “personal and professional attributes including the skill, 

experience, education, physical, medical, safety and other requirements established by a

covered entity as requirements which an individual must meet in order to be eligible for 

the position held or desired.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(q). “Essential functions,” in contrast, 

are the “fundamental job duties” of the position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). “Essential 

functions” and “qualification standards” are distinct. Bates, 511 F.3d at 990. The ADA 

requires an employee to prove that he can perform the essential functions of the job but 

does not require the employee to prove that he can meet each of the employer’s 

qualification standards. Id. “[I]ndeed, it would make little sense to require an ADA 

plaintiff to show that he meets a qualification standard that he undisputedly cannot meet 

because of his disability and that forms the very basis of his discrimination challenge.” Id. 

An employer may lawfully exclude individuals who fail a test required by 

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 8 of 11
- 9 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Government regulations. Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 570 (1999). 

“However, when an employer asserts a blanket safety-based qualification standard—

beyond the essential job function—that is not mandated by law and that qualification 

standard screens out or tends to screen out an individual with a disability, the employer . . 

. bears the burden of showing that the higher qualification standard is job-related and 

consistent with business necessity, and that performance cannot be achieved through 

reasonable accommodation.” Bates, 511 F.3d at 992-93.

The Court recognizes that FRA regulations require railroads to certify and recertify 

conductors, and that the regulations grant the railroads discretion in evaluating individuals’

color vision acuity for purposes of conductor certification. The Court further recognizes 

that Defendant developed the Light Cannon field test in house, and that the test is not 

specifically mandated by FRA regulations. “[B]ecause reliance on the Light Cannon is not 

required by federal regulations, its use may be subject to questions about its 

appropriateness[.]” Mills v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 1:22-CV-00143-DCN, 2024 WL 

185246, at *11 (D. Idaho Jan. 16, 2024). 

Nevertheless, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment 

because Plaintiff has offered nothing more than speculation that he is able to satisfy FRA 

color vision acuity standards for purposes of being certified as a conductor. There is no 

dispute that railroad conductors must be certified pursuant to FRA requirements and that 

meeting FRA color vision standards is an essential part of the job of a conductor. (Doc. 68 

at 2 ¶¶ 5-6; Doc. 72 at 2 ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant is prohibited by federal regulation from 

allowing an individual to work as a conductor if the individual cannot satisfy FRA color 

vision standards. (Doc. 68 at 2 ¶ 3; Doc. 72 at 2 ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s ability to satisfy FRA 

color vision acuity standards in the past is insufficient to establish a genuine dispute of fact 

as to whether he could satisfy those standards at the time he was removed from service in 

2017 or at any time since then, as vision can change and deteriorate over time, and the FRA 

regulations require periodic reevaluation for purposes of conductor recertification. See 49 

C.F.R. § 242.201(c). In 2017, when Plaintiff was removed from service, he failed the 

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 9 of 11
- 10 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ishihara test and twice failed Defendant’s Light Cannon field test as part of the FRA 

recertification process. (Doc. 68 at 7-8 ¶¶ 39, 41, 46; Doc. 72 at 6 ¶¶ 39, 41, 46.) 

Defendant’s medical examiner twice determined that Plaintiff failed to satisfy FRA color 

vision standards. (Doc. 68 at 7-9 ¶¶ 42, 47; Doc. 72 at 6 ¶¶ 42, 47.) Plaintiff criticizes the 

accuracy of Defendant’s Light Cannon field test, but he has not identified any evidence to 

show that he could pass any other scientific test or field test that evaluates color vision 

acuity. In contrast to Walker v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, No. 3:22-cv-01011-JR, 

2023 WL 10354310, at *11 (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2023), here there is no evidence that Plaintiff 

could, at the time of his removal from service, satisfy FRA certification requirements by 

passing the Ishihara test or any of the other scientific tests set forth in the FRA regulations. 

Furthermore, despite his criticisms of the Light Cannon test, Plaintiff has presented no 

evidence that he could pass a different field test. There is no medical evidence—such as 

the results of an ophthalmologic examination—raising a genuine dispute as to whether 

Plaintiff has the ability to distinguish between colored railway signals despite his inability 

to pass the Ishihara test and the Light Cannon field test. 

Because Plaintiff has not identified any evidence raising a genuine dispute as to 

whether he can satisfy FRA color vision standards so as to be certified as a conductor, and 

because satisfying FRA color vision standards and obtaining FRA certification is an 

essential function of the job of a conductor, Plaintiff cannot show that he is qualified within 

the meaning of the ADA so as to establish a prima facie discrimination claim. Accordingly, 

the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s remaining claims, 

Counts One and Two of the FAC.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 10 of 11
- 11 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 66) is 

granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close 

this case.

Dated this 19th day of December, 2024.

Case 4:21-cv-00072-RM Document 100 Filed 12/20/24 Page 11 of 11