101 F. 3d 705 - James v. James River Paper Co

MEMORANDUM**

Richard James ("James") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of James River Paper Company ("James River") on James's claims of wrongful termination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* James argues that the magistrate judge erred in disregarding information compiled after his termination that purportedly shows that James River had imputed knowledge of his disability prior to his termination. This post-termination evidence consists of the EAP notation, the Oregon Employment Appeals Board Decision, the affidavit of Roger Antisdel, the letter written by Dr. Burns, and the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries Report. James argues that disregarding this evidence conflicts with Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 889 F.2d 869, 876 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 814 (1990), where we held that a supervisor's knowledge of the employee's condition bound ARCO because the supervisor had both the authority to receive information regarding Kimbro's medical condition and the responsibility to disclose its nature and severity to management. We disagree, as there is no evidence that anyone at James River knew that James's work schedule affected his medical condition or that his disability needed accommodation. Nothing in the proffered documents suggests otherwise. For this reason, the documents do not create a triable issue of fact that James was terminated because of his disability instead of for his violation of James River's policy regarding physical confrontations between employees.

James also argues that the magistrate judge erred in discounting the testimony of his medical expert regarding the causal link between James's disabilities and the misconduct that resulted in his termination. Employers may terminate employees under the ADA for misconduct regardless of whether the misconduct is directly attributable to the employee's disability. See Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 711 (1996); see also Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 906 (9th Cir.1996) (applying Collings under the Rehabilitation Act). Therefore, even if Dr. Larson's opinion could be construed as establishing a causal link,1 it does not suffice to overcome summary judgment because James's termination based on misconduct caused by the disability, rather than the disability itself, is valid.

AFFIRMED.