Opinion
No. 12-17624 D.C. No. 4:11-cv-04113-YGR
04-07-2014
JEROME JOHNSON, pro se, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
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 ("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.