The? plaintiff ?was ?an ?employee ?of ?the ?City of North Las Vegas from 1996 until 2009. ?In 2005, Curley became a pretreatment inspector?a position that primarily entailed cleaning sewers and preventing sewer blockages. ?He had a long history? of ?disciplinary ?action ?including complaints by managers and co-workers. ?In late 2008 and early 2009, Curley made requests that the City provide him an accommodation for a hearing? impairment. ?In ?his ?request, ?he complained that the noise from one of the trucks he? ?operated? ?was? ?causing?? his? ?hearing?? to deteriorate. ?Curley asked to be relieved from all duties that required him to be near that type of truck. ?Because those duties were essential to his position, the City rejected his request and instead recommended ?that ?he? use? dual ?hearing protection. Shortly after being denied his requested accommodation, Curley was involved in another confrontation with a co-worker. ?An investigation revealed that he threatened numerous co-workers and managers with violence.?? ?Multiple co- workers said that Curley regularly conducted personal business while at work, sometimes spending up to three hours on his cell phone. It also appears that Curley was operating an ADA consulting business. Many of the calls he made during work? were about the business,? and? co- workers saw him approach disabled individuals to discuss potential lawsuits.?? Although Curley passed a ?fit for duty? examination which found that he was not a danger to himself or others, the City nevertheless terminated his employment for nonperformance of duties due to excessive phone calls, intimidation of co-workers by threats of violence, conducting and soliciting personal business on work time, and making disparaging remarks about his supervisors and the City.
filed suit alleging discrimination and retaliation under the ADA.? ?After removal, the District Court granted summary judgment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Curly filed suit alleging discrimination and retaliation under the ADA.? ?After removal, the District Court granted summary judgment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Ninth Circuit utilized the McDonnell Douglas shifting burden model.?? In that regard, the Court decided that it need not decide whether plaintiff has satisfied a prima facie case ?because, even if he could, he has not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City’s reasons for terminating him were pretextual.?? ?The Court rejected? ?the?? ?fit? ?for? ?duty??? determination? ?as evidence of pretext because the City fired him for past threats, not for the potential of future violence. Moreover, the City had numerous other reasons for termination which Curley could not refute. ?Disputing only one of several well supported, independently sufficient reasons for termination is credibility,” (3) the employer offers a plethora of reasons, and the plaintiff raises substantial doubt about? ?a?? number?? of?? them,? ?(4)?? the?? plaintiff discredits each of the employer’s objective explanations, leaving only subjective reasons to justify its decision, or (5) the employer has changed its explanation under circumstances that suggest dishonesty or bad faith.?? None of those circumstances existed in this case and summary judgment was therefore affirmed.
Curley v. City of North Las Vegas, 772 F.3d 629 (9th? Cir. 12/2/2014) (Friedland, Schroeder, Owens)