Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS J. LARIOS, N0. 06-15595
D.C. No. CV-O3-02285-SRB
Plaintiff- Appellant,
v. A .
JUDGMENT
YUMA COUNTY SHERIFF; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees. I W ( C
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
I (Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted.
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and herebyis {
AFFIRMED.
Filed and entered O2/Ol/08
A mus; @55*7 -
CATHY A. cAner?e©N
· . Clerk of Ceurt I
ATTEST i je A r
2 2 zuua _ I
, by
yC|erk
Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB Document 87 Filed O2/28/2008 Page 1 of 4

i' ` J R
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB O1 gggg
CATUE ’§eéi§‘}$'¥'§»?§9p'?;A?§ERK
THOMAS J. LARIOS, · No. 06-15595
Plaintiff- Appellant, D.C. N0. CV-03-02285-SRB
v.
, MEMoRANDUM*
YUMA COUNTY SHERIFF; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona `
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2008**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SCHROEDER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Thomas J. Larios appeals the judgment of the district court following a
bench trial in favor of the County Sheriff and the County of Yuma (together, the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
H The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without _
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB Document 87 Filed O2/28/2008 Page 2 of 4 V

l‘County") with respect to his claims filed under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. We affirm.
The district court did not err when it concluded that Larios was not a
"qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA because his impainnents
did not substantially limit one or more of his major life activities. While Larios’
impairments may have prevented him from working as a Security Control Officer, _
he did not show that they prevented him from working in a broad class of jobs as
required by Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 491 (1999). He failed to
establish that his impairments prevented or severely restricted him from V
performing the variety of manual tasks central to most people’s daily lives. See
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Vlhlliams, 534 U.S. 184, 198, 200-01 (2002). And
he failed to show that his impairments substantially limited any other major life
activity such as walking, seeing, hearing, or caring for himself See id. at 195
(citing 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii)).
V The district court also concluded that, even if Larios were a qualified
individual with a disability under the ADA, he failed to show that the County
denied him reasonable accommodation. Larios did not challenge this conclusion
on appeal and therefore waived any opposition to it. Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d .
l 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). Even if we were to reach the merits of this issue, the
2
Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB Document 87 Filed O2/28/2008 Page 3 of 4

County did not deny Larios reasonable accommodation. As the district court
correctly found, there were other jobs available with the County that Larios could
have undertaken despite his alleged disability that he chose not to pursue. See
Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002) ("An employer
is not obligated to provide an employee the accommodation he requests or prefers,
4 4 4 wthe employer needonly provide some reasonable accommodation?) (quoting gr _ r ,_
E.E. O. C. v. Yellow Freight Sys. Inc., 253 F.3d 943, 951 (7th Cir. 2001) (en banc)).
Accordingly, Larios has failed to show any error in the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED. 4 , 4 * . 4 ‘
A A gpugéggv
¢g@{E§S‘°’“
are 2 i5` 26081
bras!
V 3
Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB Document 87 Filed O2/28/2008 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB

Document 87

Filed 02/28/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB

Document 87

Filed 02/28/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB

Document 87

Filed 02/28/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB

Document 87

Filed 02/28/2008

Page 4 of 4