and Submitted June 14, 2019 San Francisco, California
from the United States District Court, No. 2:15-cv-00865-SMM,
for the District of Arizona Stephen M. McNamee, District
Jessica Miller (argued) and Michael Zoldan, Zoldan Law Group
PLLC, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Shawn Oller (argued), Littler Mendelson P.C., Phoenix,
Arizona, for Defendant-Appellee.
Barbara L. Sloan (argued), Attorney; Sydney A.R. Foster,
Assistant General Counsel; Jennifer S. Goldstein, Associate
General Counsel; James L. Lee, Deputy General Counsel; Office
of the General Counsel, United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commision, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
P. Neal (argued) and Stephen F. Fink, Thompson & Knight
LLP, Dallas, Texas, for Amicus Curiae BNSF Railway Company.
Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit
Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, [*] District Judge.
panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendant in an employment
discrimination action under the Americans with Disabilities
claimed he was terminated from his employment on account of
his morbid obesity, which the district court held was not a
physical impairment and could not constitute a disability
unless it was caused by an underlying physiological
condition. Therefore, plaintiff could not establish
panel affirmed on other grounds, holding that, even if
plaintiff's obesity were an impairment under the ADA, or
he suffered from a disabling knee condition that the district
court could have considered, he could not show a causal
relationship between these impairments and his termination.
SCHROEDER, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Jose Valtierra appeals the district court's judgment in
favor of his former employer, Medtronic Inc., in his action
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Valtierra claimed that he was terminated on account of his
morbid obesity, which the district court held was not a
physical impairment under the relevant Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") regulations and
interpretative guidance. He contends on appeal that the
district court misinterpreted that guidance. Medtronic, in
addition to defending the district court's interpretation
of the EEOC guidance, defends the grant of summary judgment
on the additional ground that the reason ...