MEMORANDUM**

The district court correctly held that the undisputed facts demonstrate that defendant's accommodations were reasonable, appropriate, and enabled appellant to perform her job. Moveover, appellant refused the offer to use an employer-provided cooling vest, which her own doctor described as a "reasonable strategy" for accommodating her medical condition. [E.R. at 33] Appellant thus was not a "qualified individual." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(d). Appellant complains that the cooling vest was not her preferred accommodation, but an employer has discretion to pick "between effective accommodations." 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app.; see Vande Zande v. State of Wis. Dept. of Admin., 44 F.3d 538, 546 (7th Cir. 1995).

Appellant merely produced the minimum evidence necessary to create a presumption of discrimination--the temporal proximity between her complaints and the adverse employment action. Appellee rebutted the presumption by providing a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the action--appellant's poor job performance. As appellant produced no more evidence, summary judgment on her retaliation claim was proper. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 890-91 (9th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.