The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the District court’s granting of a motion for summary judgment in a case involving a Providence Police Officer who claimed protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state discrimination laws after failure to secure a promotion to Lieutenant.
Ultimately, the 3-judge panel opined that the District Court was correct in ruling that the Police Officer’s claimers were not covered by the ADA:
The short of it is that Mancini has disregarded the need for facts and has pinned his hopes to conclusory averments. Mancini was obliged to offer some evidence that he was substantially limited in the performance of one or more major life activities at the time of the allegedly discriminatory action(“actual disability”) or some time prior to that (“record of disability”), and he has defaulted on that obligation. Simply mimicking the language of the ADA, without more, does not suffice… He thus has failed to adduce evidence adequate to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the “substantially limits” requirement. For this reason, we uphold the district court’s entry of summary judgment on Mancini’s “actual disability” and “record of disability” claims.