Johnson v. City of San Francisco Department of Public Health

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEROME JOHNSON, pro se, No. 12-17624
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-04113-YGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jerome Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his employment action against the City and County of San Francisco alleging
discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities 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).
(“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s
disability discrimination claim because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the City terminated him because of a perceived
disability. See id. at 955 (elements of prima facie case of disability discrimination
under the ADA). Moreover, even assuming that Johnson raised a triable dispute as
to the prima facie case, Johnson failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether the
City’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating his employment was
pretexual. See Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1093-94 (9th
Cir. 2001) (under the ADA, if an employee establishes a prima facie case and the
employer provides a nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse action, the employee
must raise a triable dispute as to pretext).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s
retaliation claim because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether there was a causal connection between any protected activity and his
termination. See Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 849-50 (9th Cir.
2004) (discussing prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-17624