explaining that on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate “the absence of any genuine issue of material fact” after “construing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate “the absence of any genuine issue of material fact” after “construing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”
- stating that the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that based on the undisputed facts, it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
- rejecting Pizza Hut’s argument that plaintiff did not meet her burden of establishing she was disabled by not being able to lift twenty-five pounds because she did not produce evidence the average person could lift more than twenty-five pounds and concluding it was Pizza Hut’s burden as the summary judgment movant to produce admissible evidence that the average person in the population cannot lift more than twenty-five pounds
- adopting the analysis for establishing a prima facie case of disability discrimination under HRS § 378–2 that was established in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 477-78 (1999), for disability discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Opinion by
MOON, C.J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the circuit court erred in concluding that, as a matter of law, plaintiff-appellant Bobbie L. French’s lifting restriction did not constitute a substantial impairment of a major life activity. I also agree with the majority that summary judgment was appropriate as to French’s *479 claims of age and gender discrimination. However, I agree with Justice Nakayama that, as in this case, when the claimed impairment is not substantially limiting by its nature, the plaintiff is required to produce comparative evidence indicating that the average person in the general population can either (1) perform the major life activity that the plaintiff cannot or (2) perform the activity under conditions, in a manner, or for a duration that the plaintiff cannot.