Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

McAlindin v. County of San Diego

McAlindin v. County of San Diego, 201 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2000)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2000-01-18
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that “interacting with others” is a major life activity
  • examining record below that included evaluations by several doctors documented medical impairments

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed McAlindin v. County of San Diego. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
27 opinions
McALINDIN v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,201 F.3d 1211(9th Cir. 2000)
RICHARD McALINDIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; RUDOLPH
TAMAYO; EDWARD BAKER; GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ; DOES, one through 50, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 97-56787
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 10, 1999 — Pasadena, California
Filed September 16, 1999
Amended January 18, 2000
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CV-94-01453-JTM/RBB.
Before: Dorothy W. NELSON, Stephen REINHARDT, and Stephen S. TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Prior report:192 F.3d 1226
ORDER
[1] The opinion filed September 16, 1999 is hereby amended as follows:
At Slip Op. 11836, headnote [13], lines 11-16, delete "Thus, the sleep disorder and sexual dysfunction merely help to establish that the impairment (panic disorder after treatment) affects a major life activity; they are not relevant to the reasonable accommodation discussion, however, which focuses on the post-treatment panic disorder's manifestations in the workplace and the employer's response to them".


[2] At Slip Op. 11836, headnote [13], lines 21-24, replace "The two inquiries become related only to the extent that the disability may impact the employer's ability to craft a reasonable accommodation for the employee" with "The two inquiries — namely, whether McAlindin is disabled and what constitutes reasonable accommodation for that disability — only intersect to the extent that McAlindin's disability manifests itself in the workplace".

[3] Judge D.W. Nelson voted to deny the petition for rehearing and recommended rejection of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Judge Reinhardt voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Judge Trott voted to grant the petition for rehearing and to grant the suggestion for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed.R.App.P.35.Page 1212

[4] The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.