Appellant, Ceasar, argues that when Appellee, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) terminated her employment, USAA violated the American Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 1 “To make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA [a claimant] must show that (a) he has a disability; (b) he is a qualified individual for the job in question; and (c) an adverse employment decision was made because of his disability.” Hamilton v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 136 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir. 1998). This Court has held that to be “qualified” for a job under the ADA, an employee “must be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.” Hypes v. First Commerce Corp., 134 F.3d 721, 726 (5th Cir. 1998).

Ceasar fails to establish that she was “qualified” for the job at issue. Timely attendance was an essential function of Ceasar’s. job because she was responsible for handling incoming calls from potential and existing USAA customers. Indeed, Ceasar readily admits that “[attendance was necessary to perform [her] job requirements.” Summary judgment evidence indicates that (1) Ceasar incurred at least 22 unscheduled absences in 3 months; (2) she was admonished regarding the necessity of her timely presence at her desk; (3) she incurred 5 additional unscheduled absences after the disciplinary admonishment; (4) she was then placed on probation and warned that any further unscheduled absences would result in her immediate dismissal; and (5) she incurred additional unscheduled absences after the warning. These undisputed facts show that Ceasar was unable to perform an essential function of her job. Under the ADA, Ceasar was not “qualified.” We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.