T he H onor ab le Je ro m e Farr is, U nit ed S tate s C ir cu it Judg e fo r the * N inth C ir cu it, sittin g by

de sig natio n. T he O hio S upr em e Co urt f oll ow s A D Ar eg ulatio ns and c as e lawin its 1 in te rp ret at io n o f Ohi o R ev . Cod e § 41 12 .02 . See City of Columbus Civil Serv. Co m m ’n v . M

cG lon e , 697 N. E. 2d 20 4, 206-07 (Ohio 1998 ). W e analyze NOT RE COM MEN DED FO R F ULL -TEX T P UBL ICA TION

F ile N am e: 08a 0247 n. 06 F ile d: M ay 8 , 200 8 07- 3924 UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E S IX TH C IR C U IT CHE RYLTH OMA S, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. AVON PRODUCTS, INC., D ef en dant- Appe llant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITE D STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTH ERN DISTRICT OF OH IO

Be fo re : D A U G H T RE Y , CO O K , and F A RRIS , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * FA RRIS , C ircuit Judg e. Ch er y l T hom as appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n fav orof Av on Pro du ct s, In c. on he r Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act , 42 U.S.C. § 1210 1 et se q. , an dOh i o Re v . C o d e § 4 1 1 2 .0 2 cl ai m s . We re v i ew a d i s tri ctco u rt ’s 1Tho m as ’s § 4 11 2.0 2 c la im un de r th e rubr ic of t he ADA. Thom as has wa ived an appeal of her F am ily Medical L eave A ct 2 c l a i m. 2 gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Johnso n v. Karnes , 398 F . 3d 8 68, 873 ( 6th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We a f

f i rm. 2 I Thom as asserts that she is disabled un der the A DAdue to m igraines that subs ta nt ia ll y

li m itth e m ajorli fe ac ti vi ty of cari ng forhe rs el f. See 42 U.S.C. § 1210 2( 2) (A ). T he r ec or d c ontra dic ts T hom as ’ s c la im . T hom as a dm itt ed that sh e can bathe and dress herself and is able to driv e; her lim itation app ears to be that she is una ble to use sc en te d so ap s du e to h er odo r se nsi tiv ity . T hom as is not subs ta nt ia ll y

li m it edin th e m ajorli fe ac ti vi ty of se lf- care . T hom as a lso c la im s th at

she is subs tanti al ly

li m ite d inthe m aj or

li fe a ct ivi ty of w orkin g. T he r ec or d c ont ai ns n o e vid en ce that he r odor se nsi tiv ity

sig nif ic an tly res tri ct s h er fro m

a cl as s o f job s t ha t u ti li ze h er m an uf actur in g s ki ll s. Se e M

cK ay v. T oy ota M oto r M fg. , 110 F . 3d 3 69, 372 -7 3 ( 6thCi r. 199 7) . T hom as f ai ls t o sh ow t ha t s he is pre cl ud edfro m a br oa d ra ng e o f job s. Se e B urns v . Co ca -C ola Enters., Inc. , 222 F . 3d 2 47, 253 ( 6thCi r. 200 0) ; se e als o 29 C.F.R. § 1630 .2(j )(3)( i). Thom as offer s no eviden ce that j obs withou t odor expo sure are3

un av ai labl e in he r ge og rap hi c are a. See Sutto n v. United A ir Lines , 527 U . S. 471 , 492 (1 999) ( “ [I ] f a host

of dif fe re nt ty pe s of j obs ar e av ai la

ble , one is not pr ec lud ed f ro m abr oa d r an ge of

j obs. ”) . T o th e co ntr ar

y , T hom as f

ound a warehouse job in an odor-fre e environm ent after Avon placed her on leave. T hom as a lso c ont en ds that A von’ s atte m pt t o outf it he r w ithar es pir at or shows that the com

pany regar ded her as substantiallylim ited in a m aj or life ac tiv ity . A von’ s a ct ionsho w s on ly that i t w as atte m

pti ng t o f oll owthe tr eatm en t advic e of T hom as ’ s phy sic ian, who r ec om m en de d th e re spi rator . I t do es not sho w th atAvo n re ga rd edTho m as as s ub st an ti al ly lim it edin an y m ajorli fe ac ti vi ty. See M ahon v. Crow el l , 2 9 5 F. 3 d5 8 5 , 5 9 2 (6 thCi r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( h o l d i n g th atan empl o yer’s attem pt to alter work r equirem ents to su it a plaintiff’ s injury wa s not evid ence that the e m plo y er “ w ro ngl y

vie w [e d] [ the pla int if

f] thr oughaste re oty

pe of di sabi li ty.”). II Thom as claim s that Avon placed her on disabili ty leave in re taliation for her de ci sio n to f

ile an E E O C c om

pla int . T hom as ’ s r et al iatio n c la im f ai ls o n c au satio n gr ound s; the re is no e vid en ce of c au satio n. F urthe r, T hom as c annot r el y on the te m por al pr oxi m ity

be tw ee n A von’ s kn ow le dge that sh e fi le d an E E O C c om pla int and the alleged adverse action of placing her on disabili ty leave. T he alleged4

ad ve rs e act io n p rece de d Th om as ’s pro te ct edact iv it y . Cf
. Nguy en v . Ci tyof Clev eland , 229 F . 3d 5 59, 563 ( 6thCi r. 200 0) ( “ [E ] vid en ce . . . that the a dve rs e a c t i o nwa s t ak e ns h o rt l y after the pla int if

f’ s e xe rc ise of

pr ote ct ed

r igh ts i s r el ev an t to causation.” (em

phasis add ed)). AFFIRMED.