T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J A SO N O W EN S, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. L U M B E R P R O D U C T S , a n O r e gon c orpor a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 35565 D. C . No . 6 : 0 8 - c v - 0 6 2 3 7 - HO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M i c ha e l R . H oga n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J ul y 15, 2010

P or t l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: G O O D W IN , P R E G E R S O N an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a s o n O w e n s ( “P la in tif

f ” ) ap p e a ls as u m m a ry ju d g m e n t f o rL u m b e rP r o d u c ts ( “ D e f e nda nt ” ) i n P l a i nt i f

f’ s a c t i on a ga i ns tD e f

e nda ntf orvi ol a t i ng the A m e r i c a ns w i th D i sabi l i t i es A ct . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r ever se . 

# FI LED NO V 30 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSSut ton w a s l i m i t e d by the 2008 A D A A m e ndm e nt s , butthe pa r t i e s a gr e e the 1 am endm ent s do n o app l y r etroac t i vel y t o thi s c as e.

- 2- T he A D A pr ohi bi t s di s c r i m i na t i on “ a ga i ns taqua l i f i e d i ndi vi dua l on the b a s is o f d is ab ility . . . .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 1 2 ( a ) ; Su t ton v. U ni ted A i r L i nes , 527 U . S . 47 1, 47 7 (19 99 ). T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatpl ai nt i ff i s notdi sabl ed 1 be c aus e hi s na r c ol e ps y c a n be c om pl e t e l y c ontr ol l e d w i th ac om bi na t i on of P r o v ig il a n d A d d e r a ll, a s P la in tif f c o n c e d e d in h is d e p o s itio n , a n d b e c au s e h e is d is q u a lif ie d f r o m o n ly a“s in g le , p a r tic u la rjo b .” P l ai n t i ff arg u es h e i s d i sq u al i fi ed fro m al l j o b s o p erat i n g m ach i n ery; D ef endantar gu es P l ai nt i ff

i s onl y di squal i fi ed fr om w orki ng as a ni gh t -s hi ft f orkl i f tope r a t or . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rs t a t e s tha tP l a i nt i f f i s di s qua l i f

i e d f r om on l y asi ng l e, part i cul arj ob before m ent i on i ng w hether P l ai nt i ff can w ork the day shi ft . W hen the order di sc usse s the day s hi ft , i tno t es thatP l ai nt i ff “ i m pl i e[ d] that p e rh ap s h e c o u ld ” o p e r a te af o rk lif t w ith o u t A d d e r a ll o n th e d a y s h if t. T h is is n o t a fin d in g o f f

ac t up o n w h ich a c o u rt w o u ldb as e its o rd er . T h u s, th e d istrict co u rt’s fi nd i ng thatP l ai nt i ff

i s di squal i fi ed fr om on l y asi ng l e, part i cul arj ob i s notbase d o n af in d in g th a t P la in tif

f c a n w o rkth e d a y s h if

t w ith o u t A d d e r a ll. D ef endantar gu es thatthe un di sput ed evi dence s ho w s thatP l ai nt i ff can w ork the da y s hi f

tw i thoutA dde r a l l . T he m e di c a l e vi de nc e i s thr e e l e tt e r s f r om- 3-

P l a i nt i f f’ s doc t or , the doc t or ’ s de c l a r a t i on, a nd P l a i nt i f f’ s de pos i t i on. W hi l e the d o ct o r’ s fi rsttw o l ett ers su p p o rtD efen d an t ’ s p o si t i o n , th e th i rd l ett er creates a tr i abl e i s s ue of

f a c t . T ha tl e tt e rs t a t e s tha tP l a i nt i f f “ f a i l e d P r ovi gi l be c aus e of da y t i m e s l e e pi ne s s a thom e . ” A l though the l e tt e rr e c om m e nds tr a ns f e rr i ng P l ai nt i ff t o the day s hi ft“ t o avo i d h i gh do se s of s t i m ul ant s, ” i tnever s t at es that P la in tif f w o u ld n o t n e e d A d d e r a ll w h ile w o rk in g th e d a y s h if t. P l ai n t i ff’ s d ep o si t i o n , co n si d ered i n th e l i g h tm o stfav o rab l e t o h i m , al so c r e a t e s atr i abl e i s s ue of f a c t . A l though P l a i nt i f

f c onc e de d tha tP r ovi gi l a l one w orke d 100% of

the t i m e a tw ork, he a l s o s t a t e d tha the e xpe r i e nc e d bout s of e x tr e me d a y t i me s l e e p i n e s s . A tr i e ro f f a c tc o u l d c o n c l u d e th a tPl a i n t i f f’ s d a y t i me s l e e pi ne s s a thom e i s s uf f i c i e ntt o c aus e ar e a s onabl e pe r s on t o r e f r a i n f r om op er at i ng m ac hi neryw i tho utA dd er al l , even du ri ng the day. T hu s, the un di sput ed e v id e n c e d o e s n o t s h o w th a t P la in tif f c a n w o rkth e d a y s h if

t w ith o u t A d d e r a ll. D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s th a t P la in tif f d id n o t c la im in d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t h e is d is ab le d b y th e s id e e f

f e c ts o f h is m e d ic in e a n d h a s w a iv e d s u c h a n a r g u m e n t. H ow e ve r , “ i f

ape r s on i s t a ki ng m e a s ur e s t o c orr e c tf or , orm i t i ga t e , aphy s i c a l or m en t al i m p ai rm en t , th e effects of tho se m easu res–b o th p o si t i v e an d n eg at i v e– m u st b e tak en in to ac co u n t w h en ju d g in g w h eth erth at p er so n is ‘su b stan ti ally li m it ed ’” in h is ab ility to w o rk . Sut ton , 52 7 U . S . at48 2. D ef endantw i l l no tal l ow P l ai nt i ff- 4-

to o p e r a te af

o rk lif t w ith h is n a r c o le p s y u n tr e a te d , a n d w ill n o t a llo w P la in tif f to op er at e aforkl i ftw hen h e has t aken A dd er al l . T hu s, w hi l e P l ai nt i ff st at es he has no texperi ence d any ph ys i ca l si de ef fe ct s f rom A dd er al l , the C ou rtm ustconsi der tha tD e f e nda ntw i l l nota l l ow P l a i nt i f f t o w ork w hi l e m e di c a t e d. F i na l l y , D e f

e nda nta r gue s tha te ve n i f P l a i nt i f f i s di s qua l i f

i e d f r om ope r a t i ng m ac hi neryon any s hi ft , P l ai nt i ff has notprov i ded suffi ci entevi dence t o sho w that h e is r e s tr ic te d f

r o m p e r f o rm in g ac la s s o f

jo b s o rab r o a d r a n g e o f jo b s . See 29 C .F .R . § 1 6 3 0 .2 (

j) ( 3 ) ( i) ; see a l

so T ho rnton v. McC latchy N ew spap er

s, Inc. , 261 F .3 d 7 8 9 , 7 9 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A lth o u g h P la in tif f h a s n o t p r o d u c e d e v id e n c e o f h is le v e l o f e d u c a tio n o ro th e rjo b s f o rw h ic h h e m ig h t b e q u a lif ie d , it is d if

f ic u lt to i m agi ne a j ob thatuses P l ai nt i ff’ s s ki l l s–he i s ace rt i fi ed forkl i ftop er at or–thatdo es notr e qui r e hi m t o ope r a t e m a c hi ne ry . T hus , P l a i nt i f f i s di s t i ngui s habl e f

r om p la in tif f s w h o s e s k ills c o u ld b e u tiliz e d a t o th e rjo b s w ith in th e irf ie ld s . See Sut ton , 5 2 7 U . S . at4 9 3 (co n cl u d i n g th at“ th e p o si t i o n o f g l o b al ai rl i n e p i l o ti s a si ng l e j ob ” w here other posi t i on s s uch as r egi on al pi l otand p i l oti nstruct or w er e a v a ilab le to th e p la in tif

f s a n d u s e d th e irs k ills ) ; T hornton , 261 F . 3d a t796 ( c o n c lu d in g th a t “r e p o rtin g ” c o n s titu te d as in g le jo b w h e r e th e p la in tif f’s s k ills e nabl e d he rt o w ork a s af r e e l a nc e j ourna l i s ta nd t e a c h j ourna l i s m dur i ng the litig a tio n ; T

hom ps on v . H

ol y Fam i l y H os p. , 12 1 F . 3d 53 7, 54 0 (9th C i r. 19 97 ) ( per- 5-

curi am ) ( concl ud i ng thatthe pl ai nt i ff’ s i nabi l i ty t o p er form “ t ot al pat i entcare ” a s the re sul tof back and n ec k stra i n d i d n otpreventher f rom w orki ng i n the ent i re cl as s of hea l th car e i nd ustryj ob s) . B e c aus e di s put e d que s t i ons of f a c tr e m a i n t o be r e s ol ve d c onc e rni ng P la in tif f’s ab ility to w o rka n d th e d e g r e e o f a c c o m m o d a tio n r e q u ir e d o f D e f e n d a n t, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. R EVER SED A N D R EM A N D ED .