Pa tr i c kR. Do n a h o e h a s b e e n s u b s t i tu t e df o rh i s p r e d e c e s s o r , J o h n E. * P ott er , as P ostm as t erG ener al un der F ed. R . A pp . P . 43 (c )( 2).

T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt ** e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MYRNA U. P AR AY NO , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. P A T R IC K R . D O N A H O E , P ostm as t er * G e n e r a l; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 36183 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 -cv -0 0 4 8 7 -M JP ME MOR AN DU M **

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on M a r s haJ . P e c hm a n, C hi e f J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 26, 2012 *** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M yrna U . P ar ay no appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary j u d g m en ti n h er em p l o ym en tact i o n al l eg i n g fai l u re t o acco m m o d at e h er d i sab i l i ty, 

# FI LED JU L 11 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 36183 2 ra ce and n at i on al ori gi n d i sc ri m i nat i on , and ret al i at i on un der the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct a n d T itle V I I . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . V asqu ezv. C ou nt

y of L os A ng eles , 34 9 F . 3d 63 4, 63 9 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). W e m ay a f f i rm on a nygr ound s upport e d bythe r e c or d, T hom ps on v . P aul , 547 F . 3d 1055, 1 0 5 8 - 5 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. S u m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s p r o p e r lyg r a n te do n P a r a y n o ’s f a ilu r e to ac com m od at e c l ai m because P ar ay no fa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i al f a c t a s to w h e th e rd e f

e n d a n t r e a s o n ab lya c c o m m o d a te dh e rd is ab ility . See B ucki ng ha m v. U

ni ted States , 99 8 F . 2d 73 5, 73 9 (9th C i r. 19 93 ) ( di sc ussi ng an em pl oyer ’ s duty t o acc om m od at e und erthe R ehabi l i t at i on A ct ); see a l so Ziv ko v ic v . S. Cal. E dis on C o. , 302 F . 3d 1080, 1089 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( “ A n ‘ e m pl oy e ri s not obl i ga t e d t o pr ovi de a n e m pl oy e e the a c c om m oda t i on he r e que s t s orpr e f e r s , the e m pl oy e rne e d onl ypr ovi de s om e r e a s onabl e a c c om m oda t i on. ’ ” ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) ) ; Ke nne dyv . A l l i e d Mut. I ns . C o. , 9 5 2 F . 2 d2 6 2 , 2 6 6 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ [ A] pa rtyc a nnotc r e a t e a n i s s ue of f a c tbya n a f

f i da vi tc ontr a di c t i ng hi s pr i or depo si t i on t es t i m on y. ”) . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton P ar ay no ’ s r ac e a n d n a tio n a l o r ig in d is c r im in a tio n c la im b e c au s e P a r a y n o f a ile dto r a is e atr iab le d is p u te a s to w h e th e rs h e w a s s u b je c te dto a n a d v e r s e a c tio n , a n dw h e th e rs im ila r ly10- 36183 3 s itu a te d in d iv id u a ls w e r e tr e a te d m o r e f a v o r ab ly . See V

asqu ez , 349 F . 3d a t640- 41 & n .5 ( e le m e n ts o f

ap r im af

a c ie c a s e o f

d is c r im in a tio n ; “in d iv id u a ls a r e s im ila r ly si tuat ed w hen they have s i m i l arj ob s and di spl aysi m i l arcond uct ”) . T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n ted su m m ary ju d g m en t o n P ar ay n o ’s r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m be c aus e P ar a y no f a i l e d t o r a i s e atr i abl e di s put e a s t o w he the rs he w as subj ec t ed t o an adv er se ac t i on , and w hether there w as a c ausa l l i nk betw ee n h e rf ilin g o f E E O c o m p la in ts a n d th e a lle g e da d v e r s e a c tio n s . Se e id. a t646 ( e le m e n ts o f

ap r im af

a c ie c a s e o f

r e ta lia tio n ) ; C oh en v. Fre d Mey er , Inc. , 686 F . 2d 793, 796 ( 9th C i r . 1982) ( no c aus a l l i nk i f de c i s i onm a ke ri s una w a r e of the prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng P ar a y no’ s m ot i on f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n b e c au s e P a r a y n o f a ile dto e s tab lis h ab a s is f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . See W . D . W as h. L . R . 7(h)(1) (ground s f or re consi dera t i on ); M

acD on ald v. G race Ch u r c h Se a ttle , 45 7 F . 3d 10 79 , 10 81 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( st andard of revi ew ). W e do n otconsi der m att er s notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y r ai se d and ar gu ed i n the ope ni ng br i e f

, nora r gum e nt s a nd a l l e ga t i ons r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on ap p e a l. Se e P adge t t

v . W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). P ar ay no ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.