Richard A. Thompson v. UGL UNICCO, UNICCO SERVICE COMPANY, d/b/a UGL Unicco

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0706n.06
Case No. 10-6455
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD A. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UGL UNICCO, UNICCO SERVICE
COMPANY, d/b/a UGL Unicco,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge; NORRIS and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Appellant Richard A. Thompson is a diabetic
who worked for Appellee UGL Unicco. After UGL fired him in 2008, Thompson sued UGL for,
among other things, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and the Tennessee Disability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103 (“TDA”).
At the close of discovery, UGL moved for summary judgment. Finding that Thompson had failed
to show that he was “disabled” under the ADA or the TDA, the district court granted UGL’s motion.
Thompson appealed, arguing that, with the facts construed in his favor, he had produced sufficient
evidence to create a jury question over whether he was disabled.
After carefully reviewing the district court’s opinion, the briefs, and the record in this case,
we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to UGL. As the district
court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the undisputed material

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 10-6455, Thompson v. UGL Unicco, et al.
facts contained in the record, issuance of a full written opinion by the court would serve no
jurisprudential purpose.
Accordingly, on the grounds stated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion, we
AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
2

-- 2 of 2 --