# French v. Hawaii Pizza Hut, Inc.

> Hawaii Supreme Court · September 30, 2004 · 105 Haw. 462

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786179

## Case

- **Full name:** Bobbie L. FRENCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAWAII PIZZA HUT, INC., Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Hawaii Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 30, 2004
- **Citations:** 105 Haw. 462; 99 P.3d 1046; 16 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 25; 94 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1072; 2004 Haw. LEXIS 653
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Moon
- **Judges:** Levinson, Acoba, Duffy, Moon, Nakayama
- **Cited by:** 99 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786179

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786179. Public record. Not legal advice.