Valeda Neal v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALEDA NEAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-35412
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00092-BR
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the District Court of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 4, 2010
Portland, Oregon
Before: KLEINFELD, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Valeda Neal (“Neal”) appeals from an order granting her employer Kraft
Foods Global’s (“Kraft”) motion for summary judgment on the ground Neal failed
to participate in the interactive process with Kraft to ascertain whether she was
disabled and, if so, what reasonable accommodation Kraft should provide her.
FILED
MAY 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 6 --

2
Neal has a back injury that limits her ability to sit, stand, walk, or lift over 25
pounds. After Neal’s back injury in 1994 and at Neal’s doctor’s request, Kraft did
not schedule Neal for overtime work (no more than 8 hours per day). In 2004,
Kraft sought an update on Neal’s physical condition and an explanation of the
medical reasons Neal could not work more than 8 hours per day. On the same day,
Kraft informed Neal that she should not return to work until she had a full
release to work all hours needed. When Kraft did not receive the detailed
explanation it requested, Kraft scheduled Neal for an Independent Medical
Examination (“IME”), from which the independent doctor reaffirmed Neal’s
restriction from lifting over 25 pounds, but reported that with regard to overtime, it
would increase her pain but not worsen her injury. When Kraft told Neal she could
either return to work without an overtime restriction, arrange for a second IME at
her own expense, or file for short-term disability, Neal ended discussions with
Kraft and did not return to work.
Neal filed the instant action against Kraft in which she alleged Kraft violated
Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) Chapter 659A because it failed to provide her

-- 2 of 6 --

Neal filed her action in Oregon state court. Kraft removed the action to1
federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the ground the federal court would have
had original diversity jurisdiction over Neal’s claims had she elected to file them in
federal court.
3
the “reasonable accommodation” of a “no overtime” work restriction. Kraft1
moved for summary judgment on the grounds Neal was not disabled and had failed
to engage in the interactive process. The district court granted summary judgment
on the ground Neal failed to engage in the interactive process. See Barnett v. U.S.
Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (citing Beck v.
University of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1135 (7th Cir. 1996) (“A party
that obstructs or delays the interactive process is not acting in good faith. A party
that fails to communicate, by way of initiation or response, may also be acting in
bad faith.”)), vacated on other grounds, U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391
(2002). The district court held there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Neal
was disabled, that is, whether Neal was substantially limited in the major life
activities of sitting, standing, and walking.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of
summary judgment de novo. Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1003 (9th
Cir. 1985). “Because we are reviewing a district court’s order granting summary
judgment, we must examine the record to determine if there is any other basis for

-- 3 of 6 --

Neal does not assert, nor could she successfully claim, her limitation to lift2
no more than 25 pounds is a substantial limitation. Thompson v. Holy Family
Hosp., 121 F.3d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 1997) (affirming summary judgment for
employer on the basis plaintiff was not disabled because “a 25-pound restriction
does not amount to a substantial limitation on the ability to lift [or work].”). Neal
also does not claim she is substantially limited in the major life activities of
working or self-care. See ORS 659A.104(2).
4
affirmance. If the result below were correct, we would affirm even if the district
court relied on an erroneous ground.” Id. at 1007.
We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Kraft’s favor,
but we hold that summary judgment should have been granted on the basis that
Neal failed to establish a triable issue of material fact as to whether she was
disabled at the time of the relevant employment action in 2007. Under ORS
659A.104(1), a disabled person is a person with an actual physical or mental
impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, or a person
with a record of such an impairment, or a person regarded as having such an
impairment. Neal claimed she was disabled due to a substantial limitation in the
major life activities of sitting, standing, and walking. The parties do not dispute2
whether Neal has a physical impairment that limits her in the major life activities
of sitting, standing, and walking. The only issue is whether Neal’s limitations in
these activities are substantial.

-- 4 of 6 --

Oregon disability discrimination claims are analyzed in the same manner3
as federal claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Snead v.
Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2001) cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 888 (2001); see also ORS 659A.139(1) (Oregon’s disability
discrimination laws “shall be construed to the extent possible in a manner that is
consistent with any similar provision of the federal [ADA], as amended.”).
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADA-AA”), which rejected the
Supreme Court’s holding in Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999) that
mitigating measures must be considered when evaluating whether an individual is
disabled, do not apply retroactively to cases such as this one. See Becerril v. Pima
County Assessor's Office, 587 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 2009).
5
Neal’s only evidence of her claimed limitation in sitting, standing, and
walking is a 1994 physical evaluation that states she should limit her sitting to 6
hours out of an 8-hour work day, standing to 2 hours out of an 8-hour work day,
and walking to 4 hours out of an 8-hour work day. Not one of Neal’s numerous
medical evaluations from the subsequent 15 years mentions any restriction on
sitting, standing, or walking, and Neal testified that, while at work, she “spend[s] a
lot of time on [her] feet walking and standing.” Even if a jury could find that
Neal’s 1994 physical evaluation was the best assessment of Neal’s physical
condition in 2007, no reasonable jury could find that the level of limitation stated
in Neal’s 1994 physical evaluation as to her ability to sit, stand, and walk is
substantial. ORS 659A.139(1); Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471, 491
(1999).3

-- 5 of 6 --

6
Because we hold that Kraft was entitled to summary judgment on the basis
Neal failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether she was disabled, we do
not reach the question whether Neal failed to engage in the interactive process.
AFFIRMED.

-- 6 of 6 --