Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8644002
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Marcus v. Phelps Dodge Corp.
No. 8644002 · Decided September 10, 2007
No. 8644002·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
September 10, 2007
Citation
No. 8644002
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM * Marcus failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether his claimed obsessive compulsive disorder “substantially limits” or was so severe as to substantially impair “one or more major life activities.” 1 He also failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether he was “regarded as having such an impairment.” 2 In McAlindin v. County of San Diego 3 we held that “[m]ere trouble getting along with coworkers” is not enough to establish a disability. That is the most that a jury could infer from Marcus’s disability evidence. Marcus failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether his discharge during the RIF was a pretext for religious discrimination. High officials at the company made anti-Semitic remarks. By analogy to Chuang v. University of California, 4 in some circumstances those would suffice to establish a genuine issue of fact regarding pretext. But in this case, those who made anti-Semitic remarks were gone from the company well before Marcus and had nothing to do with his discharge, and the supervisor who placed Marcus on the RIF list expressed his disapproval of the anti-Semitic remarks to his superiors who made them. Marcus failed to establish a genuine issue of fact regarding his retaliation claim, because the supervisor who RIFed Marcus also asked Marcus to create the diversity plan, developing the plan was not an activity protected by the statute from retaliation, and there was no evidence to show a retaliatory animus. Marcus failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether putting his name on the RIF list was pretextual. Marcus also failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to his breach of contract claim. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2)(A). . 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2)(C). . McAlindin v. County of San Diego, 192 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir.1999). . Chuang v. University of California, 225 F.3d *928 1115, 1128 (9th Cir.2000).
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM * Marcus failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether his claimed obsessive compulsive disorder “substantially limits” or was so severe as to substantially impair “one or more major life activities.” 1 He also failed
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM * Marcus failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether his claimed obsessive compulsive disorder “substantially limits” or was so severe as to substantially impair “one or more major life activities.” 1 He also failed
02County of San Diego 3 we held that “[m]ere trouble getting along with coworkers” is not enough to establish a disability.
03That is the most that a jury could infer from Marcus’s disability evidence.
04Marcus failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether his discharge during the RIF was a pretext for religious discrimination.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM * Marcus failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether his claimed obsessive compulsive disorder “substantially limits” or was so severe as to substantially impair “one or more major life activities.” 1 He also failed
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Marcus v. Phelps Dodge Corp. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on September 10, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8644002 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.