Opinion ID: 43616
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inability to Perform Duties Determination

Text: Juarez-Keith also challenges the district court’s determination that she was unable to perform her job duties. She claims she was able, but that USFS increased her duties in May, 2000 to include physical labor; and that this increase was in fact a pretext for firing her. To support this claim, she points to her own deposition testimony that she was able to accomplish the curtailed duties her manager assigned to her following her November, 1999 auto accident. Juarez-Keith’s belief she could perform her job duties will not suffice on its own to establish her capability, especially in light of her doctor’s assessment to the contrary.5 See Holtzclaw v. DSC Commc’ns Corp., 255 F.3d 254, 258-59 (5th Cir. 2001) (rejecting plaintiff’s belief he could 5 It is even arguable whether the testimony to which she points supports her argument. She admits outright that Albrecht made an “exception” for her, allowing her to do a reduced amount of work, from home. Moreover, she claims she has “good and bad days,” implying there were certain days on which she could not work. 7 perform essential functions of job as sufficient evidence to create issue of material fact where belief contradicted prior averments made to obtain Social Security disability benefits). Because we reject her argument that the district court erred, we need not reach the question of which claims a contrary ruling would resuscitate.