N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JER R Y W . NEUFELD, Jr., a

n individual, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W INC O HOLDINGS, INC ., DB A W inc o Foods, a n Ida ho c orporation, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-15578 D.C . No. 1:14-c v-01505-DAD-JLT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 13, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

n d B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s , a nd LEITM AN, ** Distric t

Judge
. Appe lla nt Je rry Ne ufe ld, Jr. worke d a s a

c a shie r a t a

groc e ry store ope ra te d by Appe l le e W inC o Holdings, Inc . Ne u fe ld suffe re d from anxie ty , a

nd his
c ondition pre ve nte d him

from c om ing to work on a

re gula r and pre dic ta

ble ba sis. 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M atthe w Fre de ric k

Le itm an , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion.W inC o ultim at e ly te rm inate d his e m

ploy m e nt be c a

use he m isse d se ve ra l da

y s of work a nd fa ile d to submit a doc tor’ s note c onfirm ing tha t those a bse nc e s we re
c a use d by his a nxie t y . 1 Ne ufe ld the n

brought this ac t ion in whic h he a lle ge s tha t both his term inat ion a

nd W inC o’ s c onduc t pre c e ding thete rm ination viola te d the C a lifornia Fa ir Em ploy m e nt a nd Housing Ac t, C a l. Gov’ t C ode § 12900 e t se q. , and C a lifornia

c om m on la w. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t Ne ufe l d c ould not pre va i l on his FEHA c la im s be c a use re g ula

r a n d pre dic ta

ble atte n da

nc e wa s a n e sse ntia l func tion of his job, a nd he c o uld not pe rform

tha t func tion with or without a re a sona ble a c c om

m odation. The c ourt furthe r he ld tha t Ne ufe ld’ s c om

m on la w c la im for wrongful te rm i nation fa ile d be c a

u se it wa s de rivative of his FEHA c l a im s. W e a g re e and a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e n t. The FEHA provide s tha

t “ [i] t is a n unla wful e m ploy m e nt pra c t ic e , unle ss ba se d upon a

bona fide oc c upationa l qua lific ation . . . [f] or an e m ploy e r . . . be c a use of m e nta l disa

bility . . . to disc ha

rge [a ] pe rson from e m

ploy m e nt . . . .” C a l. Gov’ t C ode § 12940(a). Howe ve r, the FEHA “ doe s not prohibit a n e m ploy e r from . . . disc ha

rging a n e m ploy e e with a

phy sic a l or m e nta l disa

bility . . . whe re the e m ploy e e , be c a

use of his or he r phy sic a l or m e n ta l disa b ility , is una

ble to
1 This te rm ination wa s in a c c orda nc e with W inC o’ s progre ssive disc i pline polic y . 2pe rform his or he r e sse ntia l dutie s e ve n with re a sona ble a c c om

m odations . . . .” Id. § 12940(a )(1). To sta

t e a “ p rim a fa c ie c a se of disa

bility disc rim ination unde r FEHA,” an e m

ploy e e m ust “ show he or she (1) suffe re d from a disa bility , (2) wa s othe rwise qua lifie d to do his or he r job, a nd (3) wa s subje c te d

to a dve rse
e m ploy m e nt a c tion be c a

u s e of the disa

bility .” N e aly v . C i ty of Santa Monic a , 234 C a l. App. 4th 359, 378 (2015) (c ita tion omitte d). The se c ond e le m e n t of the prim a fa c ie c a se is a

t issue in this a

ppe a l. To
satisfy tha t e le m e nt – i.e ., to de m onstra te tha t he or she is a “ qua lifie d individual ” – an e m ploy e e m ust show tha

t he or she “ is a

ble to pe rform

the e sse ntia l func tions of his or he r job, with or without re a sona ble a c c om

m odation.” Id . “ ‘ Esse ntia l func tions m e ans the funda m e nta l job dutie s of the e m p loy m e nt position the individual with a

disa bility holds or de sire s.’ ” Id. at 373 (quoting C a l. Gov’ t C ode § 12926(f)). W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t re gula r and pre dic ta

b le atte nda

nc e wa s
an e s se ntia l func tion of Ne u fe ld’ s e m p loy m e nt a s a W inC o c a shie r. Inde e d,

“ [e ] xc e p t in theunusua l c a se whe re an e m p loy e e c an e ffe c tive ly

pe rform a l l workre late d dutie s at hom e , a

n e m ploy e e who doe s not c om e to work c annot pe rform
any of his job func tions, e sse ntia l or othe rwise
. ” Sampe r v . Prov ide nc e St. Vinc e nt Me d . C tr ., 675 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ita tions a n d quota tions omitte d).
3Ne ufe ld c ould not pe rform his prim ary

job func tion – ope ra ting a W inC o c a sh
re giste r – at hom e , a

n d he ha s othe rwise fa ile d to e sta blish tha t this is a n “ unusua l
c a se ” in whic h re gula

r and pre dic ta

ble atte nda

nc e is not a

n e sse ntia l job func tion. Nor did Ne ufe ld de m onstra te tha t he c ould pe rform

his c a shie r
re sponsibilitie s with a re a sona ble a c c om

m o dation. As the

distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld, Ne ufe ld’ s propose d a c c om m odations we re not re a sona ble be c a use the y would ha ve e xe m pte d him from one or m ore of the e sse ntia l func tions of his position. B e c a use Ne ufe ld wa s not “ othe rwise qua lifie d” to work a s a W inC o c a shie r, W inC o wa s e ntitle d to sum m ary judgm e nt on Ne ufe l d’ s FEHA disa bility disc rim ination c la im

and his de rivative c om

m on la w c la i m for wrongful te rm ination. Like wise , W inC o wa s e ntitle d to sum m ary judgm e nt on Ne ufe ld’ s
re m a ining FEHA c la i m s be c a use he fa ile d to show tha

t he c o uld pe rform

the
e sse ntia l func tions of his position with a re a sona ble a c c om

m o dation. Ac c ordingly , we AFFIRMthe judgm e nt of the distric t c o urt in W inC o’ s favor.

4Ne ufe ld, Jr. v . W inc o H oldings, Inc

., 16-15578 LEITM AN, Distric t

Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt. I be lie ve tha

t the c orre sponde nc e from W inC o to Ne ufe ld da

te d June 29, 2012, a

nd Fe brua

ry 13, 2013, c re ate d a

m ate ria l fa c tua l dispute a s to whe the r Ne ufe ld c ould pe rform the e sse ntia l func tions of his job a s a
c a shie r with a

re a sona ble a c c om

m odation. I would vac ate the judgm e nt of the distric t c o urt a

nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS