N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NANNETTE G. HUM M EL,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M AR IC OPA C OUNTY ADULT PR OB A TION DEPAR TM ENT; M IC HAEL C IM INO, C hie f Probation Offic e r, Adult Proba

tion Depa rtm e nt, Supe rior C ourt of Ariz ona in a nd for M aric opa C ounty , in his offic i a l c a pa c ity , De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 21-16548 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-04381-JJT
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 John Joseph Tuc hi, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 15, 2024 ** B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, AND N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Nanne tte Hum

m e l a ppe a ls from

the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt following a be nc h tria l a d dre ssing he r Am e ric an s with Disa bilitie s Ac t (ADA) re a sona ble 

# F IL ED APR 15 2024 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.

* * The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a c c om

m odation c la im

a lle g e d a ga inst he r form e r e m ploy e r. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t for
c le ar e rror a

n d c onc lusions of la

w de novo. Zivk

ov ic v . S. C

a l. Edison C

o. , 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th C ir. 2002). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Hum

m e l’ s untim e l y re que sts for le ave to a

m e nd to a dd da

m a ge s c la im s a

nd a ne w de fe nda

nt. Hum m e l did not e sta

blish good c a

use , in pa rtic ula r dilige nc e , in se e king
am e ndm e nt. Se eJ

ohnson v Mammoth Re c re ations, Inc
. , 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th C ir. 1992) (se tting forth the c l e ar a buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd of re vie wan d the sta nda rd for am e nding a fte r the sc he duling orde r de a dline ). Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re t ion by a llowing de fe n se c ounse l to im pe a c h Hum m e l with undisc lose d doc um e nts. C onsiste nt with Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 26(a )(1)(A)(ii), the distric t c ourt limite d the use of the doc um e nts to im pe a c hm e nt. S

e eGribbe n v . Unite d Parc e l Se rv ., Inc ., 528 F.3d 1166, 1171-72 (9th C ir. 2008) (se tting forth the sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t

“ im pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e doe s not ha ve to be re ve a le d in pre tria l disc losure s” ). C ontra ry to Hum m e l’ s a rgum e nt, the lowe r sum

m ary judgm e nt sta

n da rds for
re a s ona ble a c c o m

m odation did not a

p ply during thebe n c h tria l. Snapp v
. Unite d Transp. Union , 889 F.3d 1088, 1102 (9th C ir. 2018). The distric t c o urt wa s not
2re quire d to a c c e pt the Equa l Em ploy m e nt Opportunity

C om m ission c a

use de te rm i nation a s proof of re a sona ble a c c om

m odation a

t tria l. R athe r, Hum

m e l ha d to e s ta b lish “ the e xiste nc e of a re a sona ble a c c om

m odation tha

t would ha

ve e na ble d [he r] to pe rform the e sse ntia l func tions of a n ava i la ble job.” Id. (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr by finding tha

t Hum m e l’ s re que st for
e xte nde d or a dditional le ave with a n unc e rta in re turn da

te a fte r she ha d

be e n a bse nt for se ve n m onths wa s unre a sona ble . He r e m

ploy e r ha d re a son to be lie ve tha t she would not ha

ve be e n phy sic a lly

c a pa ble of working a s a

probation offic e r by

he r re que s te d re turn da

te and tha t the a b se nc e would la st inde finite ly
. Se eDark v . C urry C nty . , 451 F.3d 1078, 1090 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha t “ re c ove ry

tim e of unspe c ifie d duration m ay not be re a sona

ble a c c om

m o dation” ). The ADA did not
re quire tha

t Hum m e l’ s e m ploy e r “ e xe m

pt [he r] from

pe rform ing e sse ntia l func tions” or “ re a l loc ate e s se ntia l func tions to othe r e m ploy e e s.” Id. at 1089. 1 In any e ve nt, re insta

te m e nt wa s not a

n ava ila b le re m e dy in light of the distric t c o urt’ s we ll-supporte d finding tha t Hum m e l’ s form e r e m

ploy e r would fire he r for a la wful re a son a fte r he r re insta te m e nt. S e e Mc K e nnon v . N

ashv ille Banne r

1 W e do not c onside r the undue ha rdship de fe nse , whic h wa s wa ive d by Appe l le e on a

ppe a l. 3Publ’g C

o. , 513 U.S. 352, 360-62 (1995) (holding tha t “ a fte r-a c quire d e vide nc e of the e m ploy e e ’ s wrongdoing”ge ne ra lly pre c l ude s the re m e dy

of re insta t e m e nt if the
e m ploy e r “ would ha

ve te rm inate d, a

nd will term inat e ” the pla intiff for a la wful
re a s on). Hum m e l ’ s pe nding m otion for a c opy of a de position (Dkt. Entry No. 28) is DENIED a s m o o t. AFFIRM E D.

4