Court Opinion

ID: 9888022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 18:46:37.112758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:46.039104
License: Public Domain

JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I applaud the panel majority for withdrawing its earlier opinion in this matter ( 912 F.3d 263 ), for the reasons stated in footnote 6 of its revised opinion. Although I would still affirm the district court for the case-specific evidentiary reasons specified in my original dissent (but which are not independently worthy of en banc review) (see id . at 279-83), the panel majority has now wisely obviated the need for en banc rehearing in this case, by removing the process-based theory of liability that animated its earlier opinion. There is no basis for such a legal theory under the ADA, for reasons that need not be repeated here-but are well articulated in the petition for en banc rehearing and the persuasive amicus briefs filed by the Association of American Railroads, the Center for Workplace Compliance, and the National Federation of Independent Business (see also id . at 283-84).