IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

m 99-20775 _______________

REFUGIO RAMOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS

COASTAL MART, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-98-CV-509) _________________________

April 4, 2000

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and Mart’s motion for summary judgment. The EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. court correctly found that Ramos suffered no “adverse employment action” as required by PER CURIAM:* the ADA. The court also explained why Ramos posed a direct threat to the health or Refugio Ramos, who suffered from HIV, safety of others in the workplace. The court sued his former employer, Coastal Mart, Inc. noted that Ramos’s history of seizures (“Coastal Mart”), under the Americans with exposed him to frequent bleeding, an unusual Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and title VII and also situation that posed the threat of exposure to asserted various state causes of action. Ramos Ramos’s body fluids on the part of other claimed that Coastal Mart subjected him to employees. The court also established that different terms and conditions of employment Ramos was not the subject of outrageous or and adversely segregated him because of his extreme conduct, which is required to establish disability. intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The district court properly granted Coastal The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.