N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PAUL ZINTER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. POR TLAND STATE UNIVER SITY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35287 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02272-M O M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm an, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

7, 2016 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : B EA, a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B UR NS, * ** Distric t Judge .



# FIL ED JUL 14 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 9th C ir. R . 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 La rry A. B urns, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Pa

ul Zinte r (“ Zinte r” ) a

ppe a ls from the distric t c o urt’ s orde r gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Portla

n d State Unive rsity

(“ PSU” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of PSU on Zinte r’ s fa ilure to a c c om m odate c l a im . T

o e sta blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of disa bility disc rim ination unde r the ADA, a pla intif f m ust prove tha

t: (1) he is disa ble d, (2) he is qua lifie d, a nd (3) he suf

fe re d a n a d ve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion be c a use of his disa

bility . Se e Sne ad v

. Me tr o. Pr o p. & C as. Ins. C o. , 237 F .3d 1080, 1087 (9th C ir . 2001). Assum ing ar gue ndo tha

t Zinte r ha s shown a

tria ble issue of fa c t on the first two prongs, Zinte r ha s not shown tha

t the re is a

tria ble issue of fa c t tha

t he suf fe re d a n a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion be c a

use of his disa bility . Zinte r doe s not dispute

tha t he ove rstate d his hours on his tim e she e t in July . And Zinte r’ s own de position te s tim ony prove s tha

t e ve n if Zinte r c ould not re m e m be r what hours he worke d due to his m ultiplesc le rosis (“ M S” ), he did know that he wa s unsure of what hours he worke d in July , y e t he still c e rtifie d the tim e she e t a s a c c urate . This dishone sty is why Zinte r wa s fire d. 2. T o the e xte n t

tha t it is a se pa ra te c la im , the distric t c ourt did not err in gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of PSU on Zinte r’ s c la im tha t PSU fa ile d to e nga ge in a

n inte ra c tive proc e ss with Zinter to de t e rm i ne if the re wa s a re a sona ble 2a c c om

m odation for him . S

e e Zivk ov i c v . S. C al. Edison C

o. , 302 F .3d 1080, 1089 (9th C ir . 2002). There c ord undispute dly shows tha t PSU wa s a c tive ly

e nga ge d with Zinte r from

the be ginning to dete rm ine whe the r his misc o n duc t wa s re late d to his disa bility , a nd whe t he r the re wa s a

ny re a sona ble a c c om

m odation tha

t c ould have be e n m a de . This is not a

c a se whe re PSU sim

ply te rm i nate d Zinte r upon disc ove ring his misc onduc t without a ny dia l ogue at a ll. 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of PSU on Zinte r’ s sta

te la w inva sion of priva c y

c la im . Se e Mauri v

. Smith , 324 Or. 476, 483-84 (1996). The undispute d fa c ts show tha t Zinte r provide d his m e dic a l inform at ion in theform

of c orre sponde nc e from

his he a lthc are provide rs to PSU a t his pre -dism issa l he aring. Zinter’ s own de position te stim ony shows tha

t Zinte r wante d a n d e xpe c t e d PSU to c onta c t his he a lthc are provide rs to disc uss Zinte r’ s m e dic a l issue s. Thus, there wa s no a c tiona b le intrusion into Zinte

r’ s priva te a f fa i rs that a re a sona ble pe rson would find highly of fe nsive . S

e e id. at 484. AFFIRM E D.

3