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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OUNTY OF M OHAVE a nd STEVE LATOSKI, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-16452 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-08153-JAT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ja m e s A. Te ilborg, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 5, 2019 Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : HAW KINS, M . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . Vina Ya z z ie (“ Ya z z ie ” ), a Na tive Am e ric a n wom a n, wa s fire d from he r position
a t the M o ha ve C ounty Public W orks De pa rtm e nt (“ PW D” ) a fte r fa iling a ra n dom drug te st while on duty
. Ya z z i e a ppe a ls the a dve rse gra nt of sum m a ry j ud g m e nt on he r 

# FIL ED
FEB 08 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te fo r p u b li cat 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.ra c e d isc rim ina tion c la im s, brought unde r T i t le V I I of the C ivil R ights Ac t of 1964,

§ 701 e t se q. , 42 U.S.C .A. § 2000e e t se q. , 42 U .S.C
. § 1981, a nd 42 U.S.C
. § 1983. W e ha ve jurisdic tion u nde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. R e vie wing de nov o , Me rric k v . Hilton W orldw i de , Inc

. , 867 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th C ir. 2017), we a ffirm
. 1. The re w a s no e rror in gra nting sum m a ry judgm e nt on Ya z z i e ’ s Title VII
a nd § 1981 c la im s. De fe nda nts proffe re d a le g itim a te , non-disc rim ina tory re a son for te rm ina ting Ya z z ie ’ s e m ploy m e nt, na m e ly he r fa ile d drug t es t. Thus, unde r the Mc D onne ll Douglas fra m e work, Ya z z ie wa s re quire d to s how tha t th e proffe re d
re a s on wa s pre te x tua l , s e e C huang v . Univ

. of C

al. Dav is, B d. of Trs. , 2 25 F.3d 1115, 1124 (9th C ir. 2000), whic h she fa ile d to do. Inde e d, t he re c ord shows t

ha t the Public W o r k s D i r e c t o r

— t h e s o l e d e c i s i o n m a k e r w i t h r e g a r d t o Y a z z i e ’ s dism issa l—

uniform ly ter m i na te d, or pe rm itte d re signa tion in lie u of t e rm i na tion, a l l PW D e m ploy e e s who fa ile d drug or a lc ohol te sts while on duty
. 1 2. Becau s e Ya z z ie fa ile d to r ai s e a t r i ab l e is s u e o f f act as t o w h et h er de fe nda n ts we re m otiva

te d by disc rim ina to r y i n t ent, t he re wa s no e rror in gra nting
sum m a ry judgm e nt on he r § 1983 c la im for viola tion o f he r e qua l p rote c tion a nd d ue proc e s s rights. Se e Pe t e rs v . Lie ualle n , 746 F.2d 1390, 1393 (9th C ir. 1984) (“ Sinc e

1 Y a z z ie doe s not c onte nd she should ha ve be e n a fforde d t he opportunity to re sign in lie

u of te rm ina tion. 2[pla intiff] ha s fa ile d to de m o n stra te inte ntiona l disc rim in at ion o n the pa rt of the de fe nda n ts, his [§ 1983 c la im ] m

ust a lso fa il.” ). 3. Y a z z ie doe s not a ppe a l the gra n t o f sum

m a ry judgm e nt i n f

av o r o f de fe nda n ts R a m on Osuna , Ke vin Stoc kbridge , or W a rre n Twitc he l. Ac c ordingly , we GR ANT the ir re que st to be dism isse d from this a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D, and de fe ndants O suna, Stoc k br i dge , a nd T w i tc he l ar e DISM ISSE D.

3