Opinion ID: 4521986
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Leal’s Discrimination Claim

Text: 5 ¶10. To make a prima facie case of discrimination, Leal needed to establish facts showing (1) that she had a disability; (2) that other than the disability she was qualified for the position she sought; (3) that she worked for a program receiving federal financial assistance; and (4) that she was discriminated against solely because of her disability. 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2012); see also Cohen v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Cent., 557 F. App’x 273, 277 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Washburn v. Harvey, 504 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 2007)). ¶11. First, Leal must show that she had a disability. For purposes of determining a violation, the Rehabilitation Act incorporates the substantive standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2012). Under the ADA, “disability” is defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities” or “ a record of such an impairment” or “being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2012). ¶12. Leal identified rheumatoid arthritis as her alleged disability. Leal represents that USM and the IHL have agreed in depositions and before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that Leal suffers from this disability. This is a dubious assertion, given that, while USM and the IHL did agree that Leal suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, both strenuously contend that she has failed to adduce any evidence that the rheumatoid arthritis rose to the level of a disability under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA.1 1 Leal represents several times in her brief that the IHL and USM agree or never disagree that she is disabled. Her record citations following those statements demonstrate their lack of veracity. 6 ¶13. Leal’s medical records reveal that she has limited joint mobility in her arms and shoulders and suffers from fatigue. The medical records fail to establish that she has been “substantially limit[ed in] one or major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2012). These medical records do not disclose her condition resulted in an inability to perform any life activities, let alone major life activities. ¶14. Another medical record contradicts her assertions. Dr. Imad Bitar, a rheumatologist, documented Leal’s joint immobility while opining that her condition could cause her to miss work periodically but that she could perform all essential job functions and did not need to work a reduced or partial schedule. ¶15. We agree with the trial court that there is no evidence to support her claim of an ADA disability. Thus she has failed to make a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act. Because Leal did not meet the elements for a prima facie case, we affirm the trial judge’s decision that USM and the IHL were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her Rehabilitation Act disability claims.