light-duty. Moreover, plaintiff acknowledges in his deposition that, his managers told him that he “probably” would be demoted to a Route Assistant position upon his return from disability leave. (McCollough Depo. at 63.) Despite the apparent dispute as to which position plaintiff held upon his return from leave, no evidence before the Court suggests that either party ever considered the possibility that plaintiff still held a light-duty position after he took disability leave. Finding no issue of fact on this question, the Court concludes that plaintiff has not demonstrate ed that he was in a light duty position when he was terminated. The Court need not consider, therefore, the question of whether plaintiff was qualified for such a light-duty position. See Taylor, 820 F.Supp. at 939 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, it is clear that defendant is
holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position holding that where an employee is discharged while on lightduty the relevant inquiry must be whether he was qualified for that lightduty position as opposed to his former position recognizing that an employers decision to eliminate a position is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating a position or employee holding appellants reassignment from a command position to an investigative position where he reported to an officer with a lower rank and no longer served as a direct report to the chief of police supported a conclusion that appellant was transferred to a less prestigious position holding that attendance can be an essential function of a position and that excessive absenteeism rendered an employee unqualified for such a position