Richard Thompson v. UGL Unicco

Sixth Circuit

Richard Thompson v. UGL Unicco

472 F. App'x 396

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 2012

Docket10-6455

StatusUnpublished

This text of 472 F. App'x 396 (Richard Thompson v. UGL Unicco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Thompson v. UGL Unicco, 472 F. App'x 396 (6th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

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 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 F. App'x 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-thompson-v-ugl-unicco-ca6-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack