United States Court of Appeals
                           FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 08-1097
                                   ___________

Janice Schmidt,                         *
                                        *
             Appellant,                 *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * District of Nebraska.
Metropolitan Utilities District,        *
                                        * [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellee.                  *
                                   ___________

                              Submitted: May 18, 2009
                                 Filed: May 27, 2009
                                  ___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
                         ___________

PER CURIAM.

        Janice Schmidt appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
in this employment-discrimination action against her former employer, Metropolitan
Utilities District, asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Upon careful de novo review, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 

, 1112 (8th Cir.
2006) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was proper.




      1
        The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
       We agree with the district court that Schmidt failed to establish a prima facie
case because she failed to make a sufficient showing that she was “disabled” within
the meaning of the ADA: while her knee injury impacted her ability to walk, it did
not “substantially limit” that major life activity. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (defining
disability); Gretillat v. Care Initiatives, 

, 653 (8th Cir. 2007) (major life
activities include walking, but difficulty walking long distances is not disability under
ADA); Nuzum v. Ozark Auto. Distribs., Inc., 

, 846-48 (8th Cir. 2005)
(“substantially limited” means limited considerably or to large degree; to assess
substantiality of limitation, nature, severity, duration, and impact must be examined);
Schuhardt v. Washington Univ., 

, 566 (8th Cir. 2004) (defendant is
entitled to summary judgment if plaintiff failed to make sufficient showing on
essential element of her case); Wood v. Crown Redi-Mix, Inc., 

, 684 (8th
Cir. 2003) (prima facie case under ADA).

       Even if Schmidt had established an ADA-qualifying disability, she failed to
create a trialworthy issue as to whether she could have performed the essential
functions of her position. See Alexander v. Northland Inn, 

, 727 (8th
Cir. 2003) (ADA plaintiff has burden to prove he can perform essential functions of
job with reasonable accommodation); Dropinski v. Douglas County, 

,
709-10 (8th Cir. 2002) (job restructuring is possible accommodation under ADA, but
employer need not reallocate or eliminate essential functions of job); see also Lee v.
Spellings, 

, 1088-89 (8th Cir. 2006) (court may affirm on any basis
supported by record).

      Accordingly, we affirm.
                     ______________________________




                                          -2-