X hits on this document





10 / 26

(5th Cir. 2009). We examine all of the evidence in the record as a whole, including evidence that does not support the non-moving party’s case. Farpella-Crosby v. Horizon Health Care, 97 F.3d 803, 805-06 (5th Cir. 1996). However, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non- moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569, 574 (5th Cir. 2003); Farpella-Crosby, 97 F.3d at 805-06. We do not assess the credibility of the witnesses or weigh the evidence. Palasota, 342 F.3d at 574.

Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where there is no legally sufficient evidence upon which the jury could find for a party on its claim. E.g., Hagan, 529 F.3d at 622. There is no legally sufficient evidence upon which a jury could find for a party where the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict. See, e.g., Burch v. Coca-Cola, 119 F.3d 305, 313 (5th Cir. 1997); Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374–75 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc).

B. “Individual with a Disability” Carmona needed to establish that he was an “individual with a disability” within the meaning of the ADA in order to qualify for protection under its provisions. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(a) (2005). In order to establish that he had a disability, Carmona needed to show that he had:

“(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limit[ed] one or more . . . major life activities . . . ;

    • (B)

      a record of such an impairment; or

    • (C)

      [was] regarded as having such an impairment.” See 42

  • U.

    S.C.A. § 12102(2) (2005) (emphasis in original).

The United States Supreme Court adopted a strict interpretation of this definition in the cases of Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. and Toyota Motor


Document info
Document views42
Page views42
Page last viewedTue Oct 25 13:31:48 UTC 2016