Rojo v. Aspen Skiing Company, LLC

Filing 37

RULING ON FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE Counsel are advised that the Court intends to instruct the jury using the "regarded as" prong in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(3), by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 1/7/16. (ktera)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02134-RPM
ARCELIA ROJO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________
RULING ON FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE
_____________________________________________________________________
On December 29, 2015, the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Failure
to Accommodate Claim Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) [Doc. 36]. Exhibit A
attached is the Charge of Discrimination by the plaintiff. It does not include any
allegation that Ms. Rojo is disabled with a need for or a request for accommodation for
her disability. The most pertinent language is this:
(e)

I believe that the company fired me because it regarded
me as disabled despite the fact that I was performing all
of my job assignments without any reasonable
accommodations.

That was the Court’s view of the plaintiff’s case at the hearing on the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment. In addition to the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge
there is no evidentiary basis shown that would support a finding of a violation of the
ADA on that “prong.” In approaching trial, counsel are advised that the Court intends to
instruct the jury using the “regarded as” prong in accordance with 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(g)(3).
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

January 7th, 2016
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
_________________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge