, 689 F.3d 481, 493 n.9 (5th Cir. 2012)
Amicion this issue include the Advocacy Center and Disability Rights Texas,whicharethecongressionallymandateddisability“protectionandadvocacy”agenciesforLouisianaand Texas, respectively.
42 U.S.C. § 15041
2 Thedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgment on Feist’s discriminationclaim,holdingthatshefailedtoexplainhowthedenialofon-siteparkinglimitedherabilitytoperformthe“essentialfunctions”ofher job. Feist filed timelyappeal,arguing that the ADA does not require a link between a requestedaccommodation and an essential job function.
ThedistrictcourtalsograntedLDOJ’smotionforsummaryjudgmentonFeist’sretaliationclaim,findingthatFeistwasdismissedforpoorperformanceand holdingthat Feist produced no evidence that, but for a retaliatory motive,LDOJwouldnothavedismissedher.Feist appeals, claiming that she hasevidence that any performance-based justificationis mere pretext, intended todisguise the retaliatory dismissal.Becausewefindanerrorinthedistrictcourt’sanalysisofthediscriminationclaim,wevacatesummaryjudgmentinpartandaffirminpart.
I. Standard of Review
ThisCourt“reviewsdenovothedistrictcourt’sgrantof summary judgment,applyingthesamestandardasthedistrictcourt.”
Fabela v. Socorro Indep. Sch. Dist.
,329F.3d409, 414 (5th Cir. 2003). “Summary judgment isappropriateifthemovingpartycanshowthat‘thereisnogenuinedisputeastoanymaterialfactandthemovantisentitledtojudgmentas a matter of law.’”
United States v. Renda Marine, Inc.
.P.56(a)).When considering a motion for summary judgment, acourt“mustviewallfacts and evidence in the light most favorable to thenon-movingparty.”
Juino v. Livingston Parish Fire Dist. No. 5
,717F.3d431,433(5thCir.2013).In addition, an appellate court “may affirm summary