N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LAR R Y R . DAW SON, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. AKAL SEC UR ITY INC ORPOR ATED, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 12-16789 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00420-NVW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 11, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER and M c KEOW

N, C irc u it Judge s, a

nd PETER SON, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED AUG 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble R osa nna M a louf Pe te rson, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.Larry

Da wson a p pe a l s the distric t

c ourt’ s a ward of sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of AKAL Se c urity , Inc ., on his c la im s for disc rim i nation a nd re ta lia tion unde r the Am e ric a

ns with Disa

bilitie s Ac t of 1990 (“ ADA” ), 42 U.S.C . § 12101 e t se q . R e vie wing the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de novo, Humphre y v . Me m . Hosps. Ass’n , 239 F.3d 1128, 1133-34 (9th C ir. 2001), we re ve rse and re m and be c a use Dawson pre se nte d a

tria ble issue of fa c t whe the r AKAL’ s de c ision to plac e Dawson on unpaid le av e while it de la y e d the inte ra c tive proc e s s for two m o nths viola te d the ADA. The distric t c ourt first e rre d by e xc luding two of Da

w son’ s e xhibits. The first— a le tte r from

the Equa l Em

ploy m e n t Opportunity

C o m m ission finding tha

t the re wa s “ re a sona

ble c a use to be lie ve tha

t the re is a

viola tion of theADA in tha

t [AKAL] de nie d [Da

w son] a re a sona ble a c c om

m odation a

nd re ta lia t e d a ga inst [Dawson] by pla c ing him on a dm inistra

t ive le ave ”

—

wa s a se lf-a uthe ntic a ting doc um e nt. Fe d. R . Evid. 902(1). The se c ond— a m e dic a l re le a se from Da wson’ s phy sic ia n— a ppe are d ge nuine on its fa c e . Se e Fe d . R . Evid. 901(b) (providing a non-e x hua stive list of m e ans to e sta blish a uthe ntic i ty ); se e also Las Ve g as Sands, LLC v . N e hme , 632 F.3d 526, 533 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ Unde r R ule 901(b)(4),

‘ d oc um e nts c ould be a

uthe ntic ate d by

re vie w of the ir c onte nts if the y a ppe ar to be suffic i e ntly

ge n uine .’ ” (e llipse s om itte d) (quoting Orr v . Bank of Am., N

T , 285 2F.3d 764, 778 n.24 (9th C ir. 2002)). Ne ithe r e rror wa s ha rm le ss be c a

use the e xhibits both support a

n infe re nc e tha

t the de c ision to plac e Da wson on unpaid le ave for two m onths wa s ba s e d on Da wson’ s disa

bility and his re que st for a

n a c c om m odation. AKAL’ s de c ision to plac e Da wson on unpaid le ave from June 9, 2009, through July

31, 2009, while it c onduc te d the inte ra c tive proc e ss c ould c onstitute a fa ilure to e nga ge in the inte ra c t ive proc e ss, Humphre y , 239 F.3d a

t 1137-38, disc rim ination, Sne ad v . Me tro. Prop. & C as. Ins. C o. , 237 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th C ir. 2001), a

nd re t a lia tion for re que sting a

n a c c om m odation, Brow n v . C

ity of Tucson , 336 F.3d 1181, 1187 (9th C i r. 2003). AKAL’ s c ontra c t ua l obliga tion to c onduc t a fitne ss for duty

e va l uation doe s provide a “ le g itim a te , nondisc rim inatory re a s on” for pla c i ng Da

w son on pa id le ave , Ray the on C o . v . He rnande

z , 540 U.S. 44, 49 n.3 (2003), but AKAL offe re d no re a son for its de c ision to c ha nge Dawson’ s sta

tus from pa id to unpaid le av e and to le ave Da wson in tha

t sta tus for a lm ost two m onths— an

a c tion tha

t c ontra dic ts the te rm s of AKAL’ s c ontra c t with U.S. C ustom s a

nd Im m igration Enforc e m e nt. The fa c t tha t unpa id le ave m ay

be a re a s ona ble a c c o m

m odation w h e n it is re que ste d “ doe s not m e an tha

t it c a nnot a lso be an a dve rse a c tion, pa

rtic ula rly whe re the e m

p loy e e is pla c e d

on unpa id le ave involunta rily .” Ste e nme

y e r v . Boe ing C

o . , 92 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1031 (W .D. W a sh. 32015). The e xc l ude d e xhibits, along with the othe r fa c ts in thec a se , inc luding tha t Dawson wa s told da

y s be fore the c ha

nge to unpa id le ave to work or be fire d, furthe r give rise to a

n infe re nc e tha

t the a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion wa s c a

usa lly re late d to Da

wson’ s re q

u e st for a n a c c om m odation of his disa

bility . Brow n , 336 F.3d at 1187. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

4