UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31054
Summary Calendar
LINDA BARDWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAL-MART STORES INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria
USDC No. 00-CV-1552
February 19, 2002
Before POLITZ, SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Linda Bardwell appeals an adverse summary judgment dismissing her claim
under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).1 She asserts that the district
court erred in finding as a matter of law that she was not disabled under the terms of
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth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.
1
42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4).
the Act. We find no legitimate dispute of any material fact and affirm the district court.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.2 Summary judgment is
appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
admissions, together with affidavits, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
non-movant, fail to show a genuine issue of material fact.3 The ADA “prohibits
discrimination in employment against qualified persons with a disability.”4 To establish
a prima facie case under the Act Bardwell was required to show that: (1) she has a
disability; (2) she is qualified for the job in question; and (3) Wal-Mart, as her
employer, made an adverse employment decision based solely on her disability.5 A
disability within the meaning of the Act is: (1) a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) a record of such an impairment;
or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment, although none exists.6 Major life
activities include caring for one’s self, manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing,
speaking, breathing, sitting, standing, lifting, and learning.7
2
Dupre v. Charter Behavioral Health Sys. Of Lafayette Inc., 242 F.3d 610, 613
(5th Cir. 2001).
3
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986).
4
Dupre, 242 F.3d at 613.
5
Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 101 F.3d 1090, 1092 (5th Cir. 1996).
6
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).
7
Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723, 726 (5th Cir. 1995).
Bardwell claims that she suffers from rheumatoid arthritis or fibromyalgia, which
she insists substantially limits one or more of her major life activities. She contends
that she has difficulty performing household tasks like vacuuming and sweeping,
mowing the lawn, and washing dishes. She also contends that she walks slowly and
can only walk a short distance without pain. A physical impairment standing alone, is
not necessarily a disability under the Act.8 Giving the record the most favorable
evaluation for Bardwell, at most she maintains that she has more difficulty than the
average person performing certain tasks. The record does not establish that she is
substantially limited in performing any of these tasks. In addition, many of the tasks
she describes, such as mowing the lawn, are not deemed major life activities.9
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
8
Id.
9
See, e.g., Moore v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 221 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir. 2000)
(mentioning bowling, camping, restoring cars, and mowing the lawn as activities that
are not major life activities).