Lawson v. Harris County Texas ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20435
Summary Calendar
PAUL LAWSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-2816
--------------------
December 23, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul Lawson appeals the district court’s award of summary
judgment to Harris County (the County) on his disability-
discrimination claim. Lawson first argues that the district
court erred in determining that the County did not regard him as
disabled. See Zenor v. El Paso Healthcare Sys., 176 F.3d 847,
859 (5th Cir. 1999)(one need not have an actual disability to be
regarded as “disabled” for ADA purposes; this requirement may be
fulfilled through a showing that one was perceived or regarded as
disabled). Lawson, however, failed to put forth evidence to
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-20435
-2-
counter the defendant’s evidence that it did not perceive him as
disabled. It thus must fail. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
Lawson next contends that the district court erred by
considering only the major life function of working in analyzing
whether the County considered him disabled. The district court
did not so err, as there was no evidence of limitation of any
other life functions. See Hamilton v. Southwestern Bell Tel.
Co., 136 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir. 1998).
Lawson contends that the district court erred in determining
that the County did not regard him as limited in his ability to
work. Again, Lawson provides no evidence to support this
conclusional assertion, which is insufficient to defeat the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Lawson has failed to
show that the district court erred in granting the County’s
motion for summary judgment. This judgment is thus
AFFIRMED.