Richard Thompson v. UGL Unicco, et al

Filing

OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Alice M. Batchelder,(Authoring) Chief Circuit Judge; Alan E. Norris, Circuit Judge and Jane Branstetter Stranch, Circuit Judge.

Download PDF
Case: 10-6455 Document: 006111357229 Filed: 07/03/2012 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a0706n.06 FILED Case No. 10-6455 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RICHARD A. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UGL UNICCO,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. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Jul 03, 2012 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk 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 Case: 10-6455 Document: 006111357229 Filed: 07/03/2012 Page: 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?