Maxine D. Johnson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Peralta Community College District, Defendant-appellee, 142 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Maxine D. Johnson appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of Peralta Community College District ("Peralta") in Johnson's action alleging race discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and disability discrimination pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. See Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996). We review for abuse of discretion a district court's exclusion of evidence on a summary judgment motion. See Maljack Prods., Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video Corp., 81 F.3d 881, 886 (9th Cir. 1996).

Johnson contends that the district court abused its discretion by excluding medical documents regarding her alleged photosensitivity disability as inadmissible hearsay. This contention lacks merit because inadmissible hearsay cannot be considered for summary judgment purposes. See Canada v. Blain's Helicopters, Inc., 831 F.2d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Fed.R.Evid. 801(c).

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Peralta because it is undisputed that Johnson was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. See Bagdadi, 84 F.3d at 1197; see also Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace and Co., 104 F.3d 267, 271 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating elements of prima facie ADA case).

AFFIRMED.