N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAM ES H. B R

YAN, individually

and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. W AL-M AR T STORES, INC ., a De la ware c orporation, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-35235 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-05934-R B L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 4, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , GOULD, a nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . Jam e s H. B ry an a

p pe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of W a l-M art’ s m otion to dism iss. W e a ffirm the ruling of thedistric t c ourt. 1. W he n ruling on a

Fe d e ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6) m otion, a



# FIL ED OCT 25 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.distric t c o urt should only c o nside r the ple a dings, doc um e nts inc orporat e d into the c om pla i nt (whe n the a

uthe ntic i ty

of the doc um e nts is not dispute d a nd the pla i ntiff’ s c om

p la int ne c e ssa

rily re l ie s on the doc um e nts), a nd m atte rs of public re c o rd. Se e Le ev . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 250 F.3d 668, 688–89 (9th C ir. 2001). Howe ve r, the introduc t ion of othe r m ate ria l doe s not a utom at ic a lly c onve rt the
m otion to dism

iss into a m otion for sum

m ary judgm e n t whe n the re c ord doe s not sugge s t re lia

nc e on the e xtra

ne ous m ate ria ls. Se e N

. Star Int’l v . Ariz. C

orp. C omm’n , 720 F.2d 578, 582 (9th C ir. 1983). The distric t c ourt did not c onve rt the
m otion to dism

iss into a m otion for sum

m ary judgm e n t, be c a

use the re c o rd doe s not sugge st the distric t c ourt re lie d on doc um e nts outside the ple a dings or doc um e nts not properly

inc orporate d into thec om pla int. 2. W e re vie wde novo a distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of a c om pla int for fa ilure to sta te a c l a im unde r R ule 12(b)(6). Doughe rty v . C ity of C ov ina , 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th C i r. 2011). W e m ay a ffirm the distric t c ourt on a

ny ba sis supporte d by

the re c o rd, “ e ve n if the distric t c ourt did not re a c h the issue or re lie d on diffe re nt grounds or re a soning.” Ste c k man v . Hart Bre w ing, Inc
. , 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th C ir. 1998). To survive a R ule 12(b)(6) m otion, a

c om pla int m ust c onta in suffic ie nt fa c t ua l m a tte r, a c c e pte d a s true , “ to sta te a c l a im to re lie f that is pla

u sible on its fa c e .” Be ll Atl. C

orp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “ Ac l a im ha s fa c ia l
2pla

u sibility whe n the pla intiff ple a d s fa c tua l c onte n t tha t a llows thec ourt to dra

w the re a sona

ble infe re nc e tha

t the de fe nda

nt is lia ble for the m isc onduc t a lle ge d.” Ashc roft v
. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Unde r 42 U.S.C . § 12112(a), “ [n] o c o ve re d e n tity sha ll disc rim inate a ga inst a qua lifie d individual on the basis of disability

in re ga rd to . . . [the ] disc ha

rge of e m ploy e e s.” (e m

pha sis a dde d). Suc h disc rim i nation inc lude s using “ se l e c tion c rite ria tha t sc re e n out or te nd to sc re e n out a n individual with a disa

bility or a c la ss of individua

ls with disa

bilitie s.” Id. § 12112(b)(6). To survive a m otion to dism iss a dispa ra te im pa c t c la im , B ry an m

u st a lle ge a

disa bility , the use of se le c tion c rite ria , a

nd fa c tua l a l le gations tha

t a llow thec ourt to dra

w a re a s ona ble infe re n c e tha

t the se le c tion c rite ria

sc re e n s out or te nds to sc re e n out B ry an on the ba sis of his disa

bility
. Se e id. In his c om

pla int, B ry an a lle ge d fa c ts suffic i e nt to show he ha s a disa bility
. Howe ve r, § 12112 is not so broa d a s to providea

dispa ra te im pa c t c la im

to a ny te rm inate d e m

ploy e e who a l so ha s a

disa b ility . B ry an

m ust a lle ge fa c ts on whic h this c ourt c ould re a sona

b ly infe r he wa s te rm inate d on the ba sis of his disa bility

— he m ust e sta blish a c a usa l ne xus. B ry an pre se nts only a c onc lusory a lle gation tha

t his pha rm a c y lic e nse wa s suspe nde d due to his disa b ility . A re vie w of the doc um e nts (whic h both pa rtie s a gre e the c ourt m ay

c onside r to de t e rm ine 3this m otion to dism iss) re ve a ls tha

t B ry a n ’ s pha rm a c y lic e nse wa s a c t

ua lly suspe n de d due to his history of a dve rse boa

rd a c tion by

the boa rd of pha rm a c y . W a l-M art im

ple m e nte d a

ne utra l polic y

dism issing a ll e m

ploy e e s with a

ny history of a dve rse boa

rd a c t ion. B e c a

use this c a se c onc e rns a

ne utra l polic y

a ffe c ting a ll those with a

ny history of a dve rse boa

rd a c t ion, B ry an would ha ve to a l le ge a

ne xus be twe e n the polic y , the forge ry c ha rge s tha t re sulte d in his a dve rse boa rd a c tion, and his disa

bility . W ithout e sta

blishing this c a

usa l ne xus, this c ourt c annot re a s ona bly infe r that W a l-M art’ s ne utra l polic y sc re e ns out or te nds to sc re e n out B ry an on the

basis of his disa

bility
. AFFIRM E D.

4