N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL FR

AGADA, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC ., a De la ware c orporation, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-55900 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-03914-M W F-JPR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 8, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ZOUHAR

Y, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
JAN 10 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ja c k Zouha

ry , Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion.Pla intiff M ic ha e l Fra g a da a ppe a ls the sum

m ary judgm e n t e nte re d in fa vor of De fe nda nt Unite d Airline s on his e m ploy m e nt disc rim ination a

n d tort c la im s, whic h a rose from Pla intiff’ s te rm ination a fte r he fa ile d a drug te s t. R e vie wing de novo, a nd vie wing the e v ide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to the nonm oving pa

rty , Albino v. B a c a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th C i r. 2014) (e n ba nc ), we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t to De fe nda nt on Pla i ntiff’ s c la im s for disa bility disc rim ination unde r the C a lifornia Fa i r Em ploy m e nt a nd Housing Ac t (" FEHA" ), C a l. Gov’ t C o de §§ 12900–12996. Assum ing tha

t Pla intiff qua l ifie d a s a

disa ble d individual unde r FEHA a n d tha t he
e xha uste d his c la im

tha t De fe nda nt re g arde d him

a s ha v ing a disa

b ility , he fa ile d to
c re ate a ge nuine issue of m a te ria l fa c t a s to whe the r De fe nda nt’ s sta te d re a s on for firing him

— that he fa ile d a

drug te st, thus viola

ting c o m pa ny polic y
— wa s m e re ly
a pre te xt for disc rim ination. Se e Guz v. B e c hte l Nat’ l, Inc ., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113–14 (C a l. 2000) (re c ogniz ing tha t C a lifornia

c ourts ha ve a d opte d the burde n-shifting fra m e work from

M c Donne ll Dougla s C o rp. v. Gre e n, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), for disc rim ination c la im s). Pla intiff dispute s the a c c ura c y of the te st re sults, but he c annot e sta blish pre t e xt m e re ly by

showing tha

t De fe nda nt m a de the wrong de c ision whe n it fire d him . Se e King v. Unite d Parc e l Se rv., Inc ., 60 C a l. R ptr. 3d 359, 368 (C t. App.
22007) (" It is the e m ploy e r’ s hone st be lie f in the sta te d re a sons for firing a

n
e m ploy e e and not the obje c t ive truth or fa lsity of the unde rly ing fa c ts tha t is a t issue in a disc rim ination c a s e . " ). The re c o rd re fle c ts tha t De fe nda nt ha d a

" le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory re a son" for firing Pla intiff, a nd Pla i ntiff fa i le d to provide e vide nc e of pre te xt or a disc rim inatory m otive , so his c l a im s fa il. Guz , 8 P.3d at 1114. 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t to De fe nda nt on Pla i ntiff’ s FEHA c la i m s for fa i lure to e nga ge in the inte ra c tive proc e ss a nd fa ilure to a c c om m odate . Pla intiff ne ve r re que ste d a n a c c o m m odat ion from

De fe nda nt during his e m

ploy m e nt, a nd he te stifie d tha

t he ne v e r ne e de d a

n a c c om m odation to pe rform his job dutie s. One m onth a fte r De fe nda nt fire d him , Pla intiff a ske d to switc h to a

de sk job, but he

a dm itte d tha

t he c ould still work with he avy e quipm e nt without a ny a c c om m odation. B e c a

use Pla intiff ne ve r re que ste d a n a c c om m odation or de m onstra

te d any ne e d for a

n a c c om m odat ion during his em

ploy m e n t, De fe nda nt c annot be lia

ble for fa iling to e nga ge in the inte ra c tive proc e ss, De p’ t of Fa ir Em p’ t & Hous. v. Luc e nt Te c hs., Inc ., 642 F.3d 728, 742–43 (9th C i r. 2011), or fa i ling to re a sona

bly a c c om m odate Pla intiff, se e King, 60 C a l. R ptr. 3d a t 374 (" An e m ploy e e c annot de m and c la irvoy anc e of his e m ploy e r." ).

33. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t to De fe nda nt on Pla i ntiff’ s c la im

tha t his te rm i nation viola

te d public polic y . This c la i m is de rivative of the FEHA c la im s, so it fa i ls be c a use those unde rly ing c l a im s fa il. Hanson v. Luc ky

Store s, Inc ., 87 C a l . R

ptr. 2d 487, 496–97 (C t . App. 1999). 4. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t to De fe nda nt on Pla i ntiff’ s c la im

for inte n tiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss. De fe nda nt, following its e s ta

blishe d writte n polic y , fire d Pla intiff for fa iling a drug te st tha t a n inde pe nde nt group of m e dic a l profe ssiona ls a dm iniste re d. Tha t ordina ry pe rsonne l-m a

na ge m e nt a c t i on doe s not riseto the le ve l of " outra ge ous c onduc t be y ond the bounds of human de c e nc y ." Ja nke n v. GM Hughe s Ele c s., 53 C a l. R ptr. 2d 741, 756 (C t. App. 1996). The re c ord a lso la c ks a

ny e v ide nc e tha

t De fe nda nt a c te d with theinte nt to c a use Pla intiff e m otiona l distre ss. 5. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t to De fe nda nt on Pla i ntiff’ s c la im

for ne glige nt inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss. De fe n da nt a c te d inte ntiona lly , not ne glige ntly , whe n it te rm i nate d Pla intiff. Se e Se m ore v. Pool, 266 C a l. R

ptr. 280, 291 (C t. App. 1990) (" An e m ploy e r’ s supe rvisory

c onduc t is inhe re ntly ‘ inte ntiona l,’ " so the c ha lle nge d c o nduc t " doe s not support a c a use of
a c tion for ne glige nt inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss." (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d)).
46. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t to De fe nda nt on Pla i ntiff’ s c la im

tha t his te rm i nation c o nstitute d a n unla wful busine ss pra c t ic e unde r C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C o m pe tition La

w, C a l . B us. & Prof. C ode § 17200. De fe nda nt did not viola

te FEHA by

te rm inating Pla intiff. Ac c ordingly , Pla intiff’ s te rm ination did not c onstitute an unla w ful busine ss pra c tic e . AFFIRM E D
.

5