Case ID: f-appx_359/html/0780-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ron T. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-16516.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 19, 2009.
    Filed Nov. 23, 2009.
    Sharon L. Nelson, Nelson Law, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Craig R. Anderson, Esquire, Erik-Anthony W. Fox, Esquire, Marquis & Am’-bach, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    Before: SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.), KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and IKUTA, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (Ret.) sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(a).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Williams has not shown that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department used his multiple acts of misconduct as “a pretext for disability discrimination.” Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 68 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir.1995). Thus, he has “presented no triable issue under the ADA.” Id. Williams’s equal protection claim fails because alcoholics are not a suspect class, see, e.g., Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 565 (9th Cir.1988), and penalizing him for his misconduct was not irrational. His due process claim fails because he had no property or liberty interest in either the possibility of promotion or in avoiding transfer into a different unit. See, e.g., Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867, 871-874 (9th Cir.1998). Finally, Williams’s claim for emotional distress fails because transferring Williams to a different unit and denying him a promotion was not an “extreme and outrageous” response to his rampant misconduct. Hirschhorn v. Sizzler Restaurants Int’l, Inc., 913 F.Supp. 1393, 1400 (D.Nev.1995).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.