Summary
affirming dismissal of a complaint where no allegations indicated that eczema substantially limited a major life activity
Summary of this case from U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Prestige Care, Inc.Opinion
No. 13-15703
08-21-2015
LORENA FEE, an individual, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00302-RCJ-VPC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 20, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). --------
Lorena Fee appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm the district court's order.
The district court properly dismissed Fee's action because the facts that Fee alleged are conclusory and do not show that her eczema substantially limits her in a major life activity. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (defining "disability"); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(ii) (defining "major life activities," to include the "operation of a major bodily function"); see also Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014) (a disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual who claims the disability). The second amended complaint did not include allegations of fact that Fee's condition prevents her skin from functioning.
AFFIRMED.