Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00063/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00063-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). (Doc. 18) For the following reasons, the Motion 

will be granted.

I. Background

This case arises from a job application submitted by Michael Petramala (“Plaintiff”) 

to the City of Scottsdale (“Defendant”). (Doc. 17) On December 11, 2017, Defendant 

posted a job opening for a full-time Police Aide position. (Doc. 13-1 at 12) The application 

process included a written examination, but the job posting indicated that the examination

would be administered by invitation only. (Doc. 13-1 at 12) Plaintiff applied on December 

15, 2017. (Doc. 13-1 at 7) Two days later, Plaintiff contacted Defendant to request an 

accommodation for taking the written examination due to his skin disability. (Doc. 17 at 

2) On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant’s Human Resources 

Department notifying him that his application was incomplete and that it would not be 

considered. (Doc. 13-1 at 5)

Michael Petramala, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

 

City of Scottsdale, 

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-19-00063-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:19-cv-00063-SPL Document 22 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On September 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Maricopa County Superior 

Court, alleging employment discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (“ADA”). (Doc. 1-3 at 7) Defendant filed a notice of removal with this Court on 

January 7, 2019. (Doc. 1) On March 12, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under 

Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 13) The Court granted the motion without prejudice so that Plaintiff 

could have leave to amend the complaint. (Doc. 16) Plaintiff timely filed the Amended 

Complaint. (Doc. 17) On September 19, 2019, Defendant again filed a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion to dismiss, arguing that the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim of

discrimination under the ADA. (Doc. 18) Defendant attached multiple documents to the 

Motion that were not a part of the Amended Complaint. (Docs. 13-1, 18-1) Pursuant to 

Rule 12(d), the Court gave both parties an opportunity to submit documents supporting 

their respective positions and ordered that the Motion be treated as one for summary 

judgment under Rule 56. (Doc. 21)

II. Legal Standard 

When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court generally cannot look beyond the 

complaint. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). If a court considers 

documents not attached to or referenced in the complaint, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion must 

be treated as one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).

Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden 

of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party can satisfy this burden by demonstrating that 

the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential 

to that party’s case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 322–

23. To survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmovant must set forth specific facts 

establishing a genuine issue for trial by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, 

including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or 

Case 2:19-cv-00063-SPL Document 22 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), 

admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). When 

considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the factual record and draw 

all reasonable inferences in a light most favorably to the nonmoving party. Leisek v. 

Brightwood Corp., 278 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002).

III. Discussion

Defendant argues that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it fails 

to correct the deficiencies in the original complaint. (Doc. 18 at 1) Specifically, Defendant 

asserts that Plaintiff fails to state a prima facie claim under the ADA because he is not a 

qualified individual with a disability and cannot show that any discriminatory action was 

taken against him due to a disability. (Doc. 18 at 1-2) In response, Plaintiff argues that he 

has sufficiently stated a claim under the ADA. (Doc. 19 at 1) 

To state a prima facie claim of discrimination under the ADA for failure to hire, a 

plaintiff must demonstrate that he: (1) is a disabled person within the meaning of the 

statute; (2) is qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the 

essential functions of the job he seeks; and (3) was discriminated against because of the 

disability. Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2007). 

A. Disability

The ADA defines a “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that 

substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 

12102(1). Here, Plaintiff asserts that he has a skin disability which “includes but is not 

limited to sun sensitivity.” (Doc. 17 at 4) However, Plaintiff fails to provide the name of 

his skin condition, when he was diagnosed, or any other evidence substantiating his 

condition. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s bare assertion fails to meet even the minimal

standard for establishing a disability under the ADA. Leisek, 278 F.3d at 898 (“[T]he nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and ‘set forth specific facts’ that show a 

genuine issue for trial.”) (citation omitted).

As to the mental disability, Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that Defendant caused him 

Case 2:19-cv-00063-SPL Document 22 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to endure a mental defect. (Doc. 19 at 1-2) Plaintiff asserts that he is disabled because he 

was previously declared incompetent to stand trial. (Doc. 17 at 3) Plaintiff maintains that 

his mental defect prevents him from exercising his second amendment right and being 

employed. (Doc. 17 at 4) To rebut Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant attached to its Motion

an order from a 2004 criminal case between Plaintiff and the State of Arizona. (Doc. 18-1)

The order states that Plaintiff was adjudicated incompetent to stand criminal trial pursuant 

to Arizona Revised Statute § 13-4517. (Doc. 18-1 at 3-4) Defendant maintains that this is 

not an on-going disability recognized under the ADA. (Doc. 18 at 6) Indeed, although the 

Maricopa County Superior Court adjudicated Plaintiff incompetent to stand trial, the court 

denied the State of Arizona’s request to have Plaintiff taken into custody and committed to 

a mental institution. (Doc. 18-1 at 4) Again, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 

provide evidence in support of a recognized disability under the ADA, and his reference to 

a sixteen-year-old criminal case alone is insufficient to establish the first element of his 

claim. Cf. Cooper v. Kliebert, Nos. 14-507-SDD-EWD, 15-751-SDD-RLB, 2016 WL 

3892445, *6 (M.D. La. July 18, 2016) (finding the plaintiffs’ adjudication as incompetent 

to stand trial qualified as a disability for the purposes of their ADA claim because the 

plaintiffs were still under their incompetency orders while being held as a pretrial criminal 

detainees). 

B. Qualified Individual

Even assuming that Plaintiff is a disabled individual under the ADA, Plaintiff has 

not provided sufficient evidence showing that he is a qualified individual. A “qualified 

individual” is “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable 

accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such 

individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). When determining whether a job 

requirement is an “essential function,” a court must look to whether the employer “has 

prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this 

description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.” Id. “If a 

disabled person cannot perform a job’s ‘essential functions’ (even with a reasonable 

Case 2:19-cv-00063-SPL Document 22 Filed 04/23/20 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

accommodation), then the ADA’s employment protections do not apply.” Cripe v. City of 

San Jose, 261 F.3d 877, 884 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff asserts that he can fulfill all functions of the job with the reasonable 

accommodation of working at night. (Doc. 19 at 2) The Amended Complaint states that 

Plaintiff can drive and maintain a valid driver’s license, “apply the law and facts to 

situations and service calls,” and use prudent judgment. (Doc. 17 at 3) These generic 

assertions do not show that Plaintiff can perform the essential functions of the job, with or 

without accommodations for his alleged mental disability. Such essential functions 

include: (1) interviewing victims and witnesses; (2) compiling police reports on a 

computerized system; (3) measuring distances, making calculations, and drawing 

diagrams; and (4) testifying in court. (Doc. 13- 1 at 13) 

Furthermore, the job posting also lists physical demands that an employee must 

endure while performing the essential functions of the position. Such demands include

exposure to dirt, dust, pollen, inclement weather, and temperature extremes. (Doc. 13-1 at

13-14) Plaintiff asserts that his skin disability “includes but is not limited to sun 

sensitivity.” (Doc. 17 at 4) Yet Plaintiff fails to describe how exposure to the various 

physical elements listed in the job description may impact his alleged skin disability—

regardless of whether the essential functions are performed during the day or at night. 

Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish the second element of his 

claim.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a prima facie 

claim for relief under Title I of the ADA.

1 Accordingly,

///

///

1 Because the Court finds that the first two elements are dispositive in this case, the 

Court does not address Defendant’s argument regarding the third element of Plaintiff’s 

claim. See Giddings v. Vision House Prod., Inc., 584 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1225 (D. Ariz.

2008).

Case 2:19-cv-00063-SPL Document 22 Filed 04/23/20 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action shall be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly and terminate this action.

Dated this 22nd day of April, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-00063-SPL Document 22 Filed 04/23/20 Page 6 of 6