N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KAREN KR

USHW ITZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. UNIVER SITY OF C ALIFOR NIA, at B e rke le y , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-17580 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-04676-LB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia La ure l D. B e e le r, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

17, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN a

nd C LIFTON, C irc u it Judge s, a nd ADELM AN, Distric t Judge . ** 

# F IL ED APR 07 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ly nn S. Ade lm an , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W isc onsin, sitting by de signa tion.Kare n Krushwitz , a form e r gra duate stude nt a nd te a c hing a ssista

nt, a ppe a ls from the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of he r form e r unive rsity , U.C . B e rke l e y . Krushwitz a lle ge s tha t U.C . B e rke le y

disc rim inate d a ga inst he r an d fa i le d to a c c om m odate he r disa

bility , a nd brings c la im s unde r Title VII, Title s I & II of the Am e ric ans with Disa b ilitie s Ac t

(“ A DA” ), and Se c tion 504 of the R e ha

bilita tion Ac t . 1 W e a ffirm . First, Krushwitz ’ s c onte ntion tha t the grant of sum

m a ry judgm e nt m

ust be re ve rse d be c a

use the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d is not pe rsua s ive . It is true that “ [a ] m oving pa

rty without the

ultim at e burde n

of pe rsua sion a

t tria l . . . ha s both theinitia l burde n of produc tion a nd the ultim ate burde n of pe rsua sion on a m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt.” N

issan Fire & Marine

Ins. C o. v . Fritz C

os. , 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th C ir. 2000). A distric t c ourt, howe v e r, ha s a uthority to re que st supple m e nta l brie fing unde r R ule 56, a n d de te rm ining the re le v ant da t e s did not re quire the distric t c ourt to we igh e vide nc e or a s se ss c re dibility . Krushwitz , m ore ove r, did not obje c t to providing a d ditiona l inform ation to the c ourt. Krushwitz ’ s e m

ploy m e nt disc rim ination c la im s a re brought unde r Title VII and Title I of the ADA. She did not file a tim e ly disc rim ination c ha

rge with the

1 Although Krushwitz

wa s pro se in the distric t

c ourt, she wa s a

bly re pre se nte d on a

p pe a l by a c ounse l a ppointe d through theNinth C irc u it’ s Pro B ono Program ; we tha

nk c ounse l for his se rvic e .

2EEOC , re quire d a s a pre c ondition for filing suit unde r the se provisions. 42 U.S.C . § 12117(a ); 42 U.S.C . § 2000e –5(e )(1). Nor wa s the re a tria b le issue of fa c t a s to whe the r Krushwitz ’ s disa bility e quita

bly tolle d the lim i tations pe riods. This is not one of those “ e xc e ptiona l c i rc um sta nc e s, suc h a s institutiona

liz ation or a djudge d m e nta l inc om

pe t e nc e of the litiga

nt,” unde r whic h e quita

b l e tolling is a

p propria te . Grant v . Mc

Donne ll Douglas C

orp. , 163 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th C ir. 1998); se e also J ohnson v . Luc e nt Te c hs. Inc . , 653 F.3d 1000, 1010 (9th C ir. 2011). W e turn ne x t to thestude nt disc rim ination c la im s, brought under Title II of the A DA a

n d Se c t ion 504 of the

R e ha bilita tion Ac t. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly de te rm i ne d a

nd a pplie d the re le va

nt limita t ions pe riod for the Title II c la im . Se e Shark e y v . O’N e al , __ F.3d __, 2015 W

L 525488 (9th C ir. Fe b . 10, 2015) (holding that a thre e y e ar lim ita

tions pe riod a

p plie s). Eve n if we a ssum e tha t a thre e y e ar lim ita tions pe riod a

pplie s to theSe c tion 504 c la i m , Krushwitz ’ s c l a im s a re still tim e -barre d. W e are not pe rsua de d tha t the untim e ly

EEOC filing tolle d the sta tute of lim ita tions for thestude nt c la im s. Se e J ohnson v . Railw a

y Ex pre ss Age nc y , Inc . , 421 U.S. 454, 466 (1975). AFFIRM E D .

3