John Roberds v. County of Coconino ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            AUG 17 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOHN ROBERDS; LERRYN ROBERDS,                    No. 10-15282
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,          D.C. No. 3:09-cv-08029-DGC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    COUNTY OF COCONINO, an Arizona
    municipal Corporation,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 11, 2011 **
    Before:        THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    John and Lerryn Roberds appeal from the district court’s summary judgment
    in their action alleging various employment claims under the Americans with
    Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
    Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 
    471 F.3d 1116
    , 1120 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
    affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because
    the last alleged unlawful employment practice occurred on January 19, 2007, and
    the charge of discrimination was not filed within 300 days of that date. See 29
    U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(e), 12117(a); Nat’l R.R. Passenger
    Corp. v. Morgan, 
    536 U.S. 101
    , 109, 112-13, 117 (2002) (charge of discrimination
    filed with state agency must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful
    employment practice). The district court properly concluded that equitable tolling
    did not apply. See Leong v. Potter, 
    347 F.3d 1117
    , 1123 (9th Cir. 2003)
    (discussing equitable tolling).
    We decline to consider the Roberds’ contentions raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 
    546 F.3d 1142
    , 1146 (9th Cir. 2008).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   10-15282