Dist.Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-employee’s ADA action alleging that defendant eliminated her position as part of reduction in force, after Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff had failed to establish that defendant’s explanation for elimination of plaintiff’s position was pretext for disability discrimination. Plaintiff was required to show that defendant would not have eliminated her position but for her hand disability, and plaintiff failed to make requisite showing, where record supported defendant’s contention that one co-worker was retained because plaintiff struggled with mixing batches of materials required for plaintiff’s department, while co-worker could mix said batches without need for detailed instructions and constant guidance. Also, defendant’s claim that plaintiff lacked self-direction and troubleshooting skills was reflected on her job evaluations, and relevant decision-maker was unaware either that one retained worker had exhibited interpersonal problems or that said co-worker had interpersonal problems similar to ones plaintiff had exhibited. Too, while plaintiff’s disclosure of her hand disability was near date of her termination, such fact did not otherwise defeat summary judgment, where potential elimination of plaintiff’s position had been discussed prior to said disclosure.
