MARK E. LASER and VICKIE A. LASER v. JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General

*The Hon. Glen M. Williams, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting
by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0576n.06
Filed: July 7, 2005
04-3625
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MARK E. LASER and VICKIE A. LASER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: KEITH and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Mark Laser brought this action, filed pursuant to the
Rehabilitation Act, against his former employer, the United States Postal Service, claiming
that his supervisors discriminated against him on account of a disability, specifically his
affliction as a Vietnam veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder. The Rehabilitation Act,
29 U.S.C. §§ 706 et seq., incorporates Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. §§ 1211 et seq., and prohibits an employer from harassing or discriminating against
disabled individuals. The district court granted summary judgment to the Postal Service,
finding that Laser had failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination
because he presented no evidence that his supervisor harassed him because of his

-- 1 of 2 --

04-3625
Laser v. Potter
- 2 -
disability, retaliated against him for filing various complaints, or deliberately created
intolerable working conditions with the intent to force Laser to retire. Laser now appeals
that determination. He also contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for
consideration, in excluding proffered expert testimony concerning Laser’s sensitivity to
harassment, and in refusing to extend the discovery deadline and trial date.
Our review of the record convinces us that the district court was correct in finding
that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case. Moreover, the proffered
statement by Laser’s proposed expert witness failed to establish that his supervisor’s
conduct was based on Laser’s disability. In addition, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
prejudice resulting from the district court’s denial of the motion to extend the discovery
period and, therefore, any error in this regard must be considered harmless.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing
the complaint. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the defendant
have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this
court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM
the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its opinion
dated April 6, 2004, and its opinion and order denying the motion to reconsider of the same
date.

-- 2 of 2 --