Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01551/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01551-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Regents of the University of California, University of California at Davis
Defendant
Elizabeth Selandia
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIZABETH SELANDIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS, DOES 1-

20,

Defendants.

CIV. S-03-1551 LKK PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

—NFN—

Plaintiff alleges defendants violated California

Government Code § 12948, Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. She

alleges she suffers from neuralgia paresthetica, degenerative

disk disease, degenerative thoracic and lumbar spine

osteoarthritis and plantar fascitis and in consequence her

Case 2:03-cv-01551-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 1 of 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

2

ability to sit, stoop, bend, stand, or walk without pain is

impaired. In April 2000, when she applied to study at the

University of California at Davis, she requested she be allowed

to sit in a desk directly in front of her teachers to avoid

twisting, she be allowed to leave class when pain impaired her

concentration, that she be provided a straight backed padded

chair, that she be allowed extra time to take exams, and that she

be allowed to move to the front of any line that otherwise would

require she stand for more than ten minutes. In September 2000

the university denied all the accommodations but the requested

chair, and in April 2003 she sued. 

Defendant moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s

application to file further responding brief is granted; the

arguments presented therein have been duly considered.

A party may move, without or without supporting

affidavits, for a summary judgment and the judgment sought shall

be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment

as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)-(c). 

An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the opposing party. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). A fact is

“material” if it affects the right to recover under applicable

substantive law. Id. The moving party must submit evidence that

Case 2:03-cv-01551-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 2 of 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

3

establishes the existence of an element essential to that party’s

case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

The moving party “always bears the initial responsibility of

informing the district court of the basis for its motion and

identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any’” that the moving party believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 

Id., at 323. If the movant does not bear the burden of proof on

an issue, the movant need only point to the absence of evidence

to support the opponent’s burden. To avoid summary judgment on

an issue upon which the opponent bears the burden of proof, the

opponent must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits,

or by the “‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there

is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id., at 324. The opponent’s

affirmative evidence must be sufficiently probative that a jury

reasonably could decide the issue in favor of the opponent.

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio

Corporation., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986). When the conduct alleged

is implausible, stronger evidence than otherwise required must be

presented to defeat summary judgment. Id., at 587.

Section 12948 of the California Government Code prohibits

discrimination only by employers. Defendant is entitled to

summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim it violated section 12948.

Case 2:03-cv-01551-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 3 of 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

4

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. § 12132, prohibits public entities from discriminating

against any “qualified individual with a disability” by excluding

such persons from the entity’s services, programs or activities. 

The term "qualified individual with a disability" means an

individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable

modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of

architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the

provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential

eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the

participation in programs or activities provided by a public

entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). 29 U.S.C. § 794 prohibits any

program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from

excluding or denying benefits to any otherwise qualified

individual with a disability as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 705(20). 

Section 705(20)(B) defines an individual with a disability as any

person who has a physical or mental impairment which

substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life

activities, has a record of such impairment, or is regarded as

having such impairment.

Defendant concedes plaintiff is impaired and that sitting

standing, walking and lifting are major life activities. But

defendant contends there is no evidence that any of plaintiff’s

impairments substantially limit any of those activities.

To be substantially limited in performing manual tasks,

an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely

Case 2:03-cv-01551-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 4 of 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

5

restricts the individual from doing activities that are of

central importance to most people's daily lives and the impact of

the impairment must be permanent or long term. Toyota Motor

Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. V. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002). The word

"substantial" thus clearly precludes impairments that interfere

in only a minor way with the performance of manual tasks from

qualifying as disabilities. Id.

Plaintiff bears the burden of adducing evidence that her

impairments fall within this definition. Thompson v. Holy Family

Hospital, 121 F.3d 537 (9th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff filed opposition papers July 23. They include

a 1997 radiological diagnosis of severe cervical and mild lumbar

spine disc disease; an October 2000 diagnosis by a D.P.M. of

plantar fascitis of the right foot described as producing

significant pain and requiring she “decrease the time spent on

her right heel”; an October 2000 diagnosis by a physician of

neuralgia paresthetica, degenerative disk disease, and

degenerative thoracic and lumbar spine osteoarthritis causing

persistent pain making her unable to sit and stand for long

periods and that might necessitate absences and early departure

from classes and requiring a straight-backed padded chair (Ex.

41); a letter from a chiropractor explaining that plaintiff

suffers from chronic pain due to injuries to her neck and spine,

that because of pain she may have to excuse herself from class,

that she cannot remain seated more than 20-25 minutes, that she

requires a special chair placed in the front of the classroom,

Case 2:03-cv-01551-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 5 of 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

6

close to the entrance in order to allow her to stand and change

position without disturbing the class, that she may require extra

time for tests and that as a result of nerve pain in her legs

following surgery in 1995 her ability to walk and stand is

impaired and accordingly she should not have to stand in line,

should not climb stairs and may be late to class (Ex. 41); a

letter from the same chiropractor in September 2000 stating that

plaintiff can stand only 5-10 minutes, sit no longer than 25

minutes, lift no more than 10 pounds, must avoid repetitive

bending, reaching, pushing and pulling, can walk at slow to

moderate pace for up to 15 minutes (Ex. 41); and a letter from a

physician agreeing with Dr. Bliss’ assessment of plaintiff’s

functional limitations. Ex. 40-41.

Defendant confronts none of this evidence except by

arguing that it is “inadmissible hearsay, has not been

authenticated, is compound and plaintiff lacks sufficient

personal knowledge.” Defendant’s Objection to Plaintiff’s

Evidence.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) provides that “supporting and

opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall

set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and

shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify

to the matters stated therein.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court

has held that the opponent need not produce evidence in a form

that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary

judgment. Celotex at 324. Rather, the questions are (1) whether

Case 2:03-cv-01551-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 6 of 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

7

the evidence could be submitted in admissible form and (2) “if

reduced to admissible evidence” would it be sufficient to carry

the party’s burden at trial. Id., at 327. Thus, in Fraser v.

Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003), objection to the opposing

party’s reliance upon her diary upon the ground it was hearsay

was overruled because the party could testify to all the relevant

portions from personal knowledge or read it into evidence as

recorded recollection.

Plaintiff has met her burden of production under Celotex

and without benefit of argument by defendant why plaintiff’s

impairments do not substantially limit her major life activities,

defendant has not demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment

under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and its motion should be denied.

These findings and recommendation are submitted to the

Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, the United States District Judge

assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:03-cv-01551-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 7 of 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

8

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 18, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01551-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 8 of 8