FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 6, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 54 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 7 :0 9- cv -0 08 66 -LSC KIMBER LY CUNNINGHAM, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us NATURE'S EARTH PELL ETS, L.L .C., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 6, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Kim be rly Cun ni ng ha m

ap pe al s the su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of he rfo rm er em

pl oyer, Natu re’s Earth P el le ts , andag ai ns t h er co m pl ai ntof di sc riminat io n i n v io la ti on of t he Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act . 42 U.S.C. § 12 10 2. Cu nn in gh am

arg ue s tha t Natur e’s Earth P el le ts di sc riminat edag ai ns t h er an d re ga rd edhe r as di sabl edba se d o n h er ad di ct io n t o p res cri pt io n dru gs . W e affi rm . The Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Actpro vi de s tha t n o c ov eredem pl oyer

“ sh al l d is cri m in at e ag ai ns t a qua li fie d i nd iv idua l wi th a di sabi li ty becau se of t he di sabi li ty of su chin di vi du al ” in an y of t he “ te rm s, co nd it io ns , [or ] pr iv il eg es of em pl oym en t.” 4 2 U.S.C. § 12 11 2( a). To es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e o f em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n u nd er the Act, a p la in ti ff m us t p ro ve th atsh e h as a

“ph y si cal or m en ta l i m

pa irment tha t s ub st an ti al ly lim it s o ne or m or e [o f he r] m ajor li fe ac ti vi ti es ” o r is “ reg ard edas h av in g s uc h a n i m pa irment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12 10 2( 1) (A), (C). “ [A] pers on is ‘ reg ard edas’ di sabl edwithi n the m ean in g o f th e [Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act ] if aco ve reden ti ty mis ta ke nl y be li ev es th atth e pe rs on ’s actua l, n on li m it in g i m pa irment s ub st an ti al ly lim it s o ne or m or e m ajorli fe act iv it ie s.” M ur

ph y v. Un it edParc el Serv ., Inc ., 52 7 U.S. 5 16 , 52 1– 22 , 11 9 S . Ct. 21 33 , 21 37 (19 99 ). “ [T]o pre va il on a pe rcep ti on th eo ry of d is ab il it y di sc riminat io n, [t he em

pl oyee] m

us t b e ab le to sh ow tha t, as with areal im pa irment, t he pe rcei ve d i m pa irment i s “ ‘sub st an ti al ly lim it in g’ an d s ig ni fic an t.”

2Su tt on v. Lad er, 1 85 F.3d12 03 , 12 08 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). A m ajorli fe ac ti vi ty is a

ba si c act io n p erfo rm edby an av erag e p ers oninth e g en eral po pu la ti on an d in cl ud es act io ns li ke pe rfo rm in g m anua l t as ks , ph y si cal m ov em en ts an d co m m un ic at io n, b reat hi ng , th in ki ng , comm un ic at in g, an d wo rk in g. Id . § 12 10 2( 2) (A); 29 C.F.R. § 16 30 .2(j)( 1) . Cu nn in gh am

fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n b as ed on eit he r anactua l o r pe rcei ve d d is ab il it y . Cun ni ng ha m arg ue s tha t h er ad di ct io n to an ti -d ep res sa ntm ed ic at io ns pre ve nt edhe r fro m res ol vi ng ot he r m en ta l di so rd ers , cau se d h er t o s uf fer abo utten pani c at ta ck s a m on th , andin te rfer edwith he r ab il it y

to bre athe , con cen tra te , in te ractwith o th ers , andcare forhe rs el f, bu t Cu nn in gh am

fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atan y of t he se im

pa irments were o r were reg ard edas s ub st an ti al ly lim it in g. Se e 4 2 U.S.C. § 12 10 2( 1) ; Su tt on , 18 5 F .3dat 12 08 . Cun ni ng ha m

tes ti fie d t ha t s he was abl e to bre athe an d g etready forwork ; sh e p erfo rm edreg ul arl y

th e ta sk s o f a s hi pp in g c le rk , whi chrequi redhe r to m on it orth e supp ly of co m pa ny pro du ct s an d c oo rd in at e d el iv eri es of t ho se pr oduc ts ; an d s he ex erci se d s uf fic ie ntin de pe nd en ce o f th ou gh t an d c on cen tra ti on to withd raw fro m

a reh ab il it at io n fa ci li ty agai ns t the advi ce o f he r ph y si ci an s. Eve n i f Cunn in gh am

ha d e st ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n, sh e fai le d t o p ro ve th atth e le gi ti m at e rea so n p ro ffer edforhe r te rm in at io n was 3pr et ex tu al . Natu re’s Earth P el le ts in tro du cedev id en ce tha t Cu nn in gh am ha d b een te rm in at edbe cau se of h er ex te ns iv e ab se nt eei sm an d t he nu m

be r of fin al warn in gs th atsh e h adbe engi ve n u nd er the co m pa ny’ s p ro gr es si ve di sc ip li ne syste m . To es tabl is h p ret ex t, Cu nn in gh am was re qu ire d t o p ro ve th atth e “ ‘the pro ffer ed reas onwas n otth e tr

ue reas on for

th e em pl oym en t d eci si on . . . ei th er b y pe rs ua di ng th e co urt tha t a d is cri m in at ory reas on m or e li ke ly m ot iv at edth e em pl oyer or i nd ire ct ly by

sh owi ng th atth e em

pl oyer’s pro ffer edex pl an at io n [wa s] un worth y of c red en ce.’” Jac ks on v. Al a. St at e Tenur e Co m m ’n, 40 5 F .3d12 76 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Tex. Dep ’t of Cmty . Affai rs v. Bu rd in e, 45 0 U.S. 24 8, 2 56 , 10 1 S . Ct. 1 08 9, 1 09 5 (1 98 1) ). Cunn in gh am arg ue s tha t Natur e’s Earth Pel le ts ha d n otco ns id eredterm in at in g h er fo r pa stin frac ti on s o f it s l eav e p ol ic y , bu t tha t ar gu m en t d oe s n otest ab li sh th atth e d eci si onto fir e Cu nn in gh am lac ke d cred en ce. Bas edon Cunn in gh am ’s hi st ory of abs en te ei sm , Natu re’s Earth P el le ts co ul d l eg it im at el y

refu se to gra ntCunn in gh am si cklea ve of a n i nd efi ni te du rat io n. The su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Nature’s Earth P el le ts is AFFIRMED .

4