Mary Ganley v. County of San Mateo

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARY GANLEY, an individual, No. 08-15909
Plaintiff - Appellant, DC No. 3:06-CV-06-3923 THE
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Thelton E. Henderson, U.S. District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 9, 2009
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, THOMPSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The district court correctly determined the County did not violate Ganley’s
due process rights in removing her from her position as a correctional officer. See
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.319, 334-35 (1976). At the meetings of June 6 and
June 21, 2005, Ganley was fully informed of the consequences of the medical
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
reports from the County’s physician and from her treating physician, both of whom
concluded she could not perform essential functions of her job. See Bostean v. Los
Angeles Unified School District, 73 Cal.Rptr. 2d 523, 535-36 (1998). The County
was not obligated to maintain Ganley’s light duty position indefinitely. Wellington
v. Lyon County School District, 187 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 1999). It is
undisputed that the County gave Ganley notice of her removal from her position.
As for the County’s obligation to give Ganley notice of her right to a hearing
or appeal, Ganley lacks standing to assert a claim on that ground. She failed to
allege any injury resulting from any lack of proper notice. Ganley (1) does not
dispute the fact that she is permanently disabled and cannot perform the essential
functions of a correctional officer, (2) was offered the opportunity to request
reasonable accommodations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, (3)
was offered vocational rehabilitation services, and (4) was offered assistance with
finding another job within the County. Ganley chose to apply for disability
retirement instead. Even if the County failed to give Ganley notice of her right to a
hearing or an appeal, Ganley alleged no injury from the lack of any such notice.
She, therefore, lacks standing to assert the claim she alleges. See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
AFFIRMED.
-2-