LORENA FEE V. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORAT, No. 13-15703 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 21 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK LORENA FEE, an individual, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-15703 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00302-RCJ-VPC v. MEMORANDUM* MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant - Appellee. 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. 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 * 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). 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. 2 13-15703

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.