Court Opinion

ID: 9489386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:14:29.116822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:30.113825
License: Public Domain

LIVELY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but do not join in the entire opinion. In my view, the record clearly shows that EDS laid Monette off and ultimately terminated him because of his disability. This, then, was direct evidence and no discussion is required of the burden of proof when a plaintiff seeks to show by indirect evidence that the reason for the employer’s adverse action was his handicap. The plaintiff having shown by direct evidence that he was terminated because of his disability, he was still required to show that he was “otherwise qualified.” Although the plaintiff had ample opportunity to demonstrate that he was otherwise qualified, the record reveals that he failed to do so. Furthermore, I agree that the 37-day paid period represented a reasonable accommodation, and that the district court erred in denying the plaintiffs motion to file an amended complaint.