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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W ALGREENS B OOTS ALLIANC E, INC ., WAGDC O, LLC , e t. a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, No. 22-16468 D.C . No. 3:20-c v-05451-C RB Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , San Franc isc o M EM O R ANDUM *
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 14, 2023 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, FORREST, a n d M ENDOZA, C irc uit Judge s. Sm ith a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s Fe d e ra l R u le of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6) dism issa l of he r puta

tive c la ss a c tion unde r the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t, the R e h a b ilita tion Ac t, the Afforda

ble C a re Ac t, a nd C a lifornia

sta t e la w a ga inst W a lgre e ns B oots Allia

n c e , Inc
. , W a lgre e n C o., a nd WAGDC O, LLC 

# FIL ED JAN 2 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* 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.(“ W a lgre e ns” ). Sm ith a lle ge s tha t W a lgre e ns m a i nta ins a

polic y dire c ting its pha rm a c ists to a

void filling high-dose and long-dura t ion opioid pre sc riptions, whic h disc rim inate s a ga inst pe o ple with disa bilitie s. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t

ua l a nd proc e dura l history

of the c a se , we do not re c o unt it he re . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of a

c o m pla i nt for fa ilure to sta

te a c la im de novo. C

av ine ss v . Horizon C

mty . Le arning C

tr., Inc ., 590 F.3d 806, 811–12 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm
. Unde r R ule 12(b)(6), a

c om pla int m ay

be dism isse d for fa ilure to sta te a c la im upon whic h re lie f m ay be grante d. Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6). Dism issa l unde r R ule 12(b)(6) is wa

rran te d whe re a

c om pla i nt la c ks “ a

c ogniz a ble le g a l the ory ” or

“ suffic ie nt fa c t s a l le ge d” unde r a c ogniz a ble le ga l the ory . Gode c k

e v . K ine tic C onc e pts, Inc
. , 937 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th C ir. 2019). W he the r a c om pla int
c onta ins suffic i e nt fa c tua l a lle gations depe nds on whe the r it ple a d s e nough fa c ts to

“ sta te a c la im to re lie f tha

t is pla usible on its fa c e .” Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (c iting Be ll Atlantic C orp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A c la im is pla usible “ whe n the pla intiff ple a ds fa c tua l c onte nt tha t a llows thec ourt to dra w the re a sona

b le infe re nc e tha

t the de fe nda

nt is lia ble for the m isc onduc t
2a lle ge d.” Id
. I

The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t Sm ith did not sta

te a c la im for fa c i a l disc rim ination. Smith a lle ge s tha t W a l gre e ns’ polic y

wa s fa c ia lly disc rim inatory

unde r thre e the orie s: (1) proxy disc rim ination; (2) ove rdisc rim ination; a

nd (3) de libe ra te indiffe re nc e . Sm ith doe s not pla usibly sta te a c la im unde r a ny of the s e the orie s. First, Sm ith did not pla

usibly sta te a c la im for proxy disc rim ination. To sta te a c la im for proxy disc rim i nation, Sm ith m ust pla usibly a lle ge tha

t the polic y

“ tre at s individuals diffe re ntly on the ba sis of se e m ingly ne utra l c rite ria

tha t a re so c lose ly a ssoc iate d with thedisfa vore d group tha

t disc rim ination on the

ba sis of
suc h c rite ria is, c onstruc tive ly , fa c ia l disc rim ination a ga inst thedisfa vore d group.” Dav is v . Guam , 932 F.3d 822, 837 (9th C ir. 2019) (quoting Pac . Shore s Props., LLC v . C ity of N e w port Be ac h , 730 F.3d 1142, 1160 n.23 (9th C ir. 2013)). Unde r a proxy the ory , the c ruc ia l que s tion is whe the r the “ fit” be twe e n the prote c te d
c ate gory and the a lle ge d proxy

is “ suffic ie n tly

c lose ” to m ake a

disc rim inatory infe re n c e pla

usible . Sc hmitt v
. K

aise r Found. He alth Plan of W ash. , 965 F.3d 945, 959 (9th C i r. 2020). He re , Sm ith a lle ge s tha

t pe ople with opioid pre sc riptions e xc e e ding the2016

3C DC Guide line lim its a re disa ble d a nd tha t the polic y ’ s dose -and-duration thre sholds a

re a proxy for disa bility . Howe v e r, none of the studie s c ite d by Sm ith
m e ntion a dose -and-duration thre shold, le t a lone show a c orre lation b e t

we e n disa bility sta tus a nd pre sc riptions e xc e e ding thethre shold. Also, Sm i th doe s not inc l ude e v ide nc e a

bout theproportion of pe ople with disa bilitie s who c ould be tre ate d with a

n opioid pre s c ription be low the dose -a nd-duration thre shold, whic h furthe r unde rm ine s he r c la im
. Se e Sc h mitt , 965 F.3d a t 959–60 (a ffirm ing dism issa l of a

proxy disc rim ination c la i m whe n “ fit” wa s not a d e q uate ly a lle ge d in pa rt be c a u se the c om

p la int la c ke d de ta ils a

bout wha t proportion of pe o ple would not be a ffe c te d by

the polic y ). Se c ond, Sm ith did not pla usibly sta t e a c l a im for ove r-disc rim ination. Ove rdisc rim ination “ a

rise s whe n the de fe nda

nt e xhibits a

willingne ss to distinguish
am ongst individua

ls on theba sis of fa c i a lly

ne utra l c rite ria , knowing (but
a c c e pting) tha

t som e individual s who a

re not m e m

be rs of the disfa

vore d group will suffe r a longsidethe ta

rge te d individuals.” Pac . Shore s Props., LLC

, 730 F.3d a

t 1160, n.23. Here , not only wa s Sm ith una

b l e to pla usibly a lle ge tha

t W a lgre e ns’ polic y disproportiona

te ly a ffe c te d pe ople with disa bilitie s, Sm i th did not pla usibly
a lle ge tha t W a lgre e ns spe c ific a lly

ta rge te d pe ople with disa

bilitie s. Fina lly , Sm ith did not pla usibly sta te a c l a im for “ de libe ra te indiffe re nc e .”
4To a lle ge “ de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e ,” Sm ith m ust a lle g e both tha

t the de fe nda

nt ha s

“ knowle dge tha

t a ha rm to a fe de ra lly prote c te d right is substa

ntia lly like ly ” if the de fe nda n t e nga ge s in c e rta in c onduc t, a nd tha t the de fe nda

n t “ fa il[e d] to a c t upon that like lihood.” Lov e l l v . C handle r , 303 F.3d 1039, 1056 (9th C ir. 2002). He re , Sm i th’ s a lle gations tha

t W a lgre e ns kne w of ha

rm due to c om

pla i nts a nd the C DC ’ s warning a ga inst misa

pply ing its guide line s a

re too ge ne ra l to support a n infe re nc e that W a lgre e ns kne w its polic y would spe c ific a lly

a ffe c t pe ople with disa

bilitie s. II The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc l ude d tha

t Sm ith did not pla

usibly sta te a c la im for dispa

ra te im p a c t. A fa c ia lly

ne utra l polic y

m ay support a dispa ra te im pa c t c la im

ba se d on la c k of m e aningful a c c e ss whe n the polic y ha s the e ffe c t of de ny ing m e a

ningful a c c e ss to se rvic e s to pe o ple with disa bilitie s, but the“ se rvic e s . . . re m a in ope n

an d e a sily a c c e ssible to othe rs.” Doev . C VS Pharmac y , Inc
. , 982 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th C ir. 2020) (c iting C row de r v . K

itagaw a, 81 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th C ir. 1996)). He re , W a lgre e ns’ a lle ge d polic y a pplie s to e ve ry o ne , re ga

rdle s s of the i r disa

bility sta t us. Any c ustom e r with a

pre s c ription e xc e e ding thedose
and-duration thre shold might e nc ounte r burde ns in filling tha t pre sc ription. Thus, W a lgre e ns’ a lle ge d polic y doe s not de ny

pe ople with a

disa bility m e aningful
a c c e ss to a

se rvic e tha

t re m a ins ope n a

n d e a sily a c c e ssible to othe rs. 5III

The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Sm ith did not pla

usibly sta te a c la im that W a l g re e ns fa ile d to provide m e a n ingful a c c om

m odations. A
re a sona ble a c c om

m odation c la im re quire s a pla intiff to a de quate ly

a lle g e tha

t the
re que ste d a c c om

m odat ion is (1) re a sona

ble and (2) ne c e ssa

ry to a c c om m o date the pla intiff’ s disa

bility
. Forty unev . Am. Multi-C i ne ma, Inc
. , 364 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th C ir. 2004). An a c c om m odation is ne c e ssa

ry whe re fa ilure to provide it would de prive a pe rson with a

disa b i lity from having a

“ like e xpe rie nc e ” a s a

pe rson without a disa bility
. Baughman v . W

alt Disne y W orld C o. , 685 F.3d 1131, 1135 (9th C ir. 2012). Sm i th’ s re a s ona ble a c c o m

m odation c la i m

fa ils for thesa

m e re a son a s he r dispa

ra te im pa c t c la i m . Eve ry

c ustom e r that ha s a

n opioid pre sc ription e xc e e ding the C DC dose -and-duration thre shold might e nc o unte r burde ns in filling the ir pre sc ription. Thus, both pe ople with disa bilitie s a nd pe ople without disa

bilitie s ha ve a “ like e xpe rie n c e ” unde r W a lgre e ns’ a lle ge d polic y and a n a c c om m odation is not ne c e ssa

ry . AFFIRM E D. 1

1 W a lgre e ns’ re que st for judic i a l notic e (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED. 6