The Honor able Da vid D. Do wd , J r., Senior United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0754n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 10, 2008 No. 08-5113 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT DONAL D TROUT, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. AEROSPACE TESTI

NG AL L I ANCE, et al., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Be fore : MARTI

N and GI L MAN, Circuit J udg es; and DO WD, District J udg e. *
PER C URI AM. Donald Tr out (Trout) a ppeals the district c ourt’s orde r g ranting the defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt. For the re asons set for th below, the district cour t’s order g ranting summary

judgme nt to Aerospac e Te sting Allianc e is aff irmed.
Tr ou t f ile d th is a c tio n a g a ins t f

our d e fe nd ants , a lle g ing that his e mpl oy me nt w a s w ro ng fu lly terminated ba sed on his disability in violation of the America n s wi t h Disabilities Act (ADA ), 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq ., and base d upon his ag e in violation of t he Age Discrimination in Employ ment Act of 1967 (ADEA ), 29 U.S.C. § 622 et seq. and the Tenne ssee Human Rig hts Act (THRA) , Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-401 et seq . I n response to defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt, Trout stated that he did no t inte nd to pr ov e a g e dis c ri min a tio n at tri a l and that summa ry jud g me nt w a s a

pp ro pr ia teNo. 08-5113

Do na ld T ro ut v . A e ro sp ac e Testi ng Al lia nc e, e t al

.

- 2 - fo r al l issu e s re g ard ing a g e dis c ri min a tio n. Ac c or din g ly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt jud g e g ra nte d d e fe nd a nts ’ mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt a s to Tr ou t’ s c la ims un de r the AD EA and TH RA , a nd dis mis se d th os e claims with prejudice
. Trout also stat ed in response to defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt that defe ndant Ae ro sp a c e Te sti ng Al lia

nc e (A TA ) wa s his e mpl oy e r and that he wo uld

no t pu rs ue jud g me nt a g a ins t the other de fenda

nts. Accor dingly , t he district cour t gr anted de fenda

nts’ motion for summary judgme n t as to defe ndants J acobs Sver drup Constructors, Computer Scienc es Corporation, and Gene ral Phy sics Corporation and dismissed those cla ims with prejudice. Only Trout’s ADAclaim ag ainst ATA re mained to be d e te r mine d on summary

judgme nt. The issues befor e the district cour t on summary

judgme nt, and now bef

ore this Court, are : 1) whethe r ATA violated the ADA by failing to make re asonable acc ommodation for Trout’s disability by placinghim in another position ; an d 2) whe ther ATAfailed to e ng ag e in the re quired intera ctive proce ss to identify

possible acc ommodations. I n g ranting summary judgme nt, the d istrict court conclude d that: 1) Trout had not de monstrated a g enuine issue of materia l f act as to w hether

ATA failed to tra

nsfer him to a vaca

nt positi on for whic h he wa s otherwise qua lified bec ause Tr out failed to establish the exis tence of a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to: a) the exi stence of a va cant position to which ATA c ould have tra nsfer red him, and b) his status as a “qua lified indiv i d u al” for the tool crib attendant position; and 2) ATA did not violate the AD A by failing to eng age in a

n interac tiveNo. 08-5113

Do na ld T ro ut v . A e ro sp ac e Testi ng Al lia nc e, e t al

.

- 3 - proce ss beca

use Trout a dvance d no evidenc e that ATAacte d in bad fa ith, and even if ATA ha d acte d in bad fa ith, Trout could not demonstrate that he could have otherwise be en ac commodated.

I t is un dis pu te d th a t a t a ll r e le va nt t ime s, Tr ou t w a s d isa

ble d d ue to se ve re vis ion

lim itatio ns . I t is also undisput ed that his disability preve nted hi m from wor king, w ith or without accommodation,
a s a Pow e r E qu ipm e nt S e rv ic e man ( PES) , th e job fo r w hic h he was hir e d b y AT A. To his c re dit , althoug h Trout could no long er w ork as a P E S , he neve rtheless de sired to continue to wor k. The pa rt ie s d isp ute wh e the r AT A c ou ld re a so na bly a c c omm od a te Tr ou t’ s d isa bil ity by tr ans fe rr inghim to a diffe rent position.
A d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s o r d e r

g r an t i n g s u m m ar

y j u d g m e n tu nd e rg oe s de novo revie w. Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., 4 8 5 F. 3 d

8 6 2 , 8 6 8 (6 C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g DiCarlo v. Potter , 358 F.3d 408, 414

th (6 Cir. 2004)). When revie wing the di strict court’s decision g ranting summary judgme nt, we view th all evidenc e in the light most fa vorable to the non-moving party
. Summary judgme nt is proper whe n no g enuine issue of materia l f acts exis t a

nd the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a mater of law. Id. (c i t i n g Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
I n deter mining whe ther ATAviolated the ADAby failing to transfe r Trout to an ope n position for whic h he wa s qualified, the f irst step in the analy sis is whether the re is a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as t o the whether t here was a vaca nt position available
. Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 869. The sec ondNo. 08-5113

Do na ld T ro ut v . A e ro sp ac e Testi ng Al lia nc e, e t al

.

The Court ea

rlier c oncluded that Tr out failed to establish there was a vaca ncy for whic h ** h e w as qu al i fi edb y

wh i ch t o ac co m m o d at e h i s d i s ab i l i t y . T h er ef o re , ev en i f A T A d i d

n o ten gage in a g ood faith intera ctive proc ess, appe llant ca n n ot preva il on this point because Trout would be unable to esta

blish that he could have been a ccommodate d but for AT A’ s failure to eng ag e in the interac tive proce ss. - 4 - step in the analy sis is whether, eve n if a va canc y exis ted, there is a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to T rout’s qualifications for the open position. Id. at 870. Trout conte nds that there w as a va cant tool crib attendant position for which he was qua lifie d
. Howeve r, havingrevie wed the r ecor d and the applicable law, and with the benef it of the par

ties’ brief s and ora l argument, we c annot conc lude that
a re asonab l e jury

could find that a va cant position exi sted, or that eve n if it ex isted, Trout was qualified for

the position.
I n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r A TAvio la te d th e AD A b y fa ili ng to en g a g e in a

n in te ra c tiv e pr oc e ss to identify

potential rea sonable a ccommodations, we must determine whe ther ther e is a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t as to whether ATA e ng ag ed in a g ood faith proc ess to identify Trout’s limi t ations resulting from the disability and potential rea sonable a ccommodations. Id. at 871. Trout conte nds that he re peate dly

contac ted ATA to de termine if t here was a nother position for which he was qualified a

nd was told that he would be contac ted if any positions bec ame available, but that no one from ATAeve r conta cted him. Havingrevie wed the r ecor d and the a pplicable law , and with the benef it of the parties’ briefs and oral argument, we cannot c onclude that a rea sonable jury

could find that th e AT A d id n ot a c t in g oo d f a ithto i de nti fy

re a so na ble a c c omm od a tio ns fo r T ro ut. **No. 08-5113

Do na ld T ro ut v . A e ro sp ac e Testi ng Al lia nc e, e t al

.

- 5 - I n conclusion, we aff

irm the district court’s order g ranting summary

judgme nt to defenda

nt ATA.