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

GAR Y B JEFFER SON, Pla intiff - Appe lla nt,

v. TIM E W AR

NER C AB LE ENTER

PR ISES LLC , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-57174 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-05637-GW -C W

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ge orge H. W

u, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 12, 2014 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : HAW KINS, THOM AS, a nd M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s . Ga ry Je ffe rson a

ppeal s p r o s e from a n a dve rse g ra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt to Tim e W a rne r C a

ble (“ TW C ” ) on se ve ra l c la im s brought unde r va rious fe de ra l a ntidisc rim ina tion sta

tute s a nd C a lifornia la

w. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U

. S

. C.



# FIL E D

AUG 15 2014

M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iat e f o r p ub l i c 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.

** T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d e s t h i s c a s e i s s u i t a b l e f o r d e c i s i o n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).§ 1291. W e m a y a ffirm the d istric t c ou r t o n an y ba sis supporte d by the re c ord.

Engle s on v
. Burlington N

. R.R. C o. , 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th C ir. 1992). R e vie wing de novo, O

sw alt v
. R e

solute Indus., Inc

. , 642 F.3d 856, 859 (9th C ir. 2011), we a ffirm

. AM E RICANS W IT H DISAB IL IT IE S ACT CL AIM S 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly lim ite d the sc ope of its subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion
to the fa c tua l a lle ga tions i n Je ffe rson’ s EEOC c o m pla int, E.E.O.C

. v
. Farme r Bros. C o. , 31 F.3d 891, 8 9 9 (9t h Ci r . 1 9 94), n a rrowing its c onside ra t ion of Je ffe rson’ s

c ha lle nge to TW C ’ s im ple m e nta tion of Sc o re c a rd an d i t s de c ision to use a
pe rform a nc e- ba s e d sc he d

u ling sy ste m . B oth a re de sc ribe d i n the EEOC c om pla int. Any othe r c onduc t fa lls outside the distric t c ourt’ s jurisdic tion.
To show a prim a fa c ie c a se of dispa rat e t re a tm e nt unde r the ADA, Je ffe rson

m ust show tha t, within t

he m e a n ing of t

he sta tute , he : “ (1) is disa

ble d; (2) is qua lifie d;

a nd (3) suffe re d a

n a d ve rse e m p loy m e nt a c tion be c a

use of [his] disa

bility .” Sne ad v
. Me t ro. Prop. & Ca s
. I

n s
. C o. , 237 F.3d 1 080, 1087 (9th C ir. 2001). Je ffe rson m ust

a lso show tha t the c om plai n ed

- of a c tion “ m a te ria lly ” a ffe c te d a te rm of his

e m ploy m e nt. Dav is v
. Te am Ele c
. C o
. , 520 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th C ir. 2008). B e c a use Je ffe rson fa ile d to produc e a ny e vide nc e ten d i n g t o s how tha t e ithe r the i ssua nc e of

2ve rba l wa rnings or the re sc h ed u l i n g o f his shift m a te ria lly a ffe c te d the te rm s of his

e m ploy m e nt, TW C is e ntitle d to judgm e nt a s a m a tte r of la

w on this c la im

. 1
2. To survive sum

m a ry j udgm en t o n a dispa ra te im pa c t c la im , a p la i ntiff m

ust provide a t le a st som e e v ide n c e , dire c t or c irc um sta n tia l , tha t a fa c ia lly ne utra l polic y fa lls m ore ha

rshly on a prote c te d group tha n the whole

. Lope

z v
. P a c
. Maritime Ass’n , 657 F.3d 762, 766 (9th C ir. 2011). He re , Je ffe rson m e re l y a lle ge s tha t TW C ’ s fa ilure
to m o dify Sc ore c a rd for d i s ab le d e m ploy e e s ha s a d ispa

ra te im pa c t on a l l disa

ble d worke rs. Je ffe rson h a s produc e d no e vide nc e sugge sting a group or de fine d subgroup of disa ble d e m ploy e e s be a rs a gre a te r burde n unde r the Sc ore c a rd or shift-sc he duling polic ie s. Se e id. a t 767. 3. To the e xte nt Je ffe rson a dm inistra tive ly e xha

uste d his fa i lure to a c c om m oda te

c la im a nd pa

rtic ipa te d in the inte ra c tive proc e ss, h e m ust show “ (1) he i s d i s ab l ed within the m e a ning of the ADA; (2) he is a qua lifie d individua l a ble t o p e rform the

e sse ntia l func tions o f the job with re a sona ble a c c o m

m oda t ion; a

nd (3) he suffe re d a n

a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion be c a

use of his disa

bility .” Alle n v. P a c. Bell , 348 F.3d

1 Assum ing, without de c iding, tha t the re is a n inde pe nde nt c a use of a c tion for ha ra ssm e nt unde r t

he ADA, Je ffe rson’ s c la im fa ils for the sa m e re a son— he ha s shown no m a te ria l ha

rm . Se e Brow n v
. C

ity of Tuc son , 336 F.3d 1 1 81, 1190 & n.14 (9th C ir. 2003) (re c ogniz ing tha t othe r c irc uits ha v e re c ogniz e d suc h a

c la i m , but de c lining to re a c h the que stion).
31 1 13, 1114 (9th C ir. 2003) (pe r c uria m ). He re , Je ffe rson is una ble t o per f

o r m t h e

e sse ntia l func tions of his job with a re a sona ble a c c om

m o da tion. Se e Sampe r v
. P ro vi d en ce St. Vinc e nt M

e dic al C e nte r , 675 F.3d 1233, 1237–38 (9th C ir. 2012) (e m ploy e e una

ble to a dhe re to a tte n da

nc e p olic y wa s not a qua lifie d i ndi v i dua l a n d

e xe m ption from a t te nda

nc e p olic y wa s unre a sona

b le whe re re gula

r on-site a tte nda

nc e

wa s e sse n tia l func tion of the job). AG E DISCRIM I NAT IO N IN E M PL O YM E N T ACT CL AIM S 1. To survive a m otion for sum m a ry j udgm e nt on a d i s par at e tre a tm e nt c la im , Je ffe rson m

ust produc e som e e vide nc e , e ithe r dire c t or c irc um sta n tia l, t e nding to show tha t TW C took a n a dve rse e m ploy m e n t a c tion a ga inst him be c a u se o f his a ge . C ole m a n v
. Quak

e r Oats C

o. , 232 F.3d 1 271, 1280–81 (9th C ir. 2000); N idds v
. Sc hindle r Ele v ator C

orp. , 113 F.3d 912, 9 17 ( 9 th C ir. 1996). W hile Je ffe rson’ s burde n of produc tion a t this sta ge of the litiga tion is m inim a l, J e ffe rson ha s produc e d

no e vide nc e sugge sting tha t use of the Sc ore c a rd sy ste m or TW C ’ s d eci s i on to

re sc he dule him from h i s da y tim e shift m a t e ria lly a ffe c te d his e m ploy m e nt. Je ffe rson

a ls o f ai l ed t o pre se nt a ny e v i de nc e sugge sting tha t the se a c tions we re “ be c a use of”
Je ffe rson’ s or a ny othe r e m p loy e e ’ s a ge . Potte nge r v
. Potlatc h C orp. , 329 F.3d 740, 745 (9th C i r. 2003).

42. Sim ila rly , Je ffe rson’ s dispa

ra te im pa c t c la i m unde r the ADEA fa ils be c a use he produc e d no e vide nc e , d i re c t or c irc um sta ntia l, showing “ (1) t

he oc c urre nc e of c e rta in

o u t wa rdly ne utra l e m

ploy m e nt pra c tic e s, a nd (2) a signific a ntly a dve rse o r disproportiona

t e i m p ac t on pe rsons of a pa

rtic ula r a ge produc e d by the e m ploy e r’ s fa c i a lly ne utra l a c t s or pra c t ic e s.” Id. a t 749 (bra c ke ts a n d inte rna l quota

tions m a rks

om i tte d).
FAM IL Y AND M E DICAL L E AV E ACT CL AIM
Je ffe rson’ s in t er f

er en c e c la im fa ils be c a

use the he a rt of it—

h is a lle ga tion tha t Sc ore c a rd prohibite d him from e a rning bonuse s while on prote c te d le a v e

— is not

c ogniz a ble unde r t

he FM LA. Se e 29 C. F

. R

. § 8 25.215(c )(2) (“ [I] f a bonus or othe r
pa y m e nt is ba s e d o n the a c hiev em en t of a s pe c ifie d goa l suc h a s hours worke d, produc ts sold o r p er f

ec t a tte nda

nc e , a nd the e m

p loy e e ha s not m e t t

he goa l due to FM LA le a v e , the n the pa y m e nt m a y be de nie d, u nle ss other w i s e p ai d to e m ploy e e s

on a n e quiva le nt le a ve sta

tus for a re a son tha

t doe s not qua lify a s FM LA le a ve .” ). 2
PRO CE DURAL CL A IM S Fina lly , J ef

f er son a rgue s the distric t c ourt im prope rly de nie d his m otion for

re c o nside ra tion a

nd re lie f from

the judgm e nt. R e vie wing for a n a buse o f disc re tion,

2 Je ffe rson doe s not c la im tha t Sc ore c a rd distinguishes be twe e n prote c te d a n d unprote c te d le a ve . 5Sw imme r v
. I.R.S. , 811 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th C ir. 1987) (R ule 59), abrogate d on othe r grounds , Brione

s v
. Riv ie ra Hote l & C

asino , 133 F.3d 379, 382 (9th C ir. 1997); S.E.C

.

v
. C o ldic utt , 2 58 F.3d 939, 941 (9th C i r. 2001) (R ule 60), we a ffirm

. The distric t

c ourt re pe a te dly sugge ste d tha t Je ffe rson obta i n counse l, re fe rre d Je ffe rson to the

c ourt’ s pro se r es o u rc e c e nte r, a nd a fforde d Je ffe rson m ultiple opportunitie s to c ure his de fe c tive filings. In l i g h t of the se e fforts, the distric t c ourt ne ithe r a b use d its d i s cr et i on nor viola

te d Je ffe rson’ s due proc e ss rights whe n it c onstrue d Je ffe rson’ s

m otion a s one b rought u nde r Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e dure 59 a nd 6 0 a nd de nie d

re lie f. J ac obse n v . Fille r , 790 F.2d 1362, 1364–65 & nn.5 & 7 (9th C ir. 1986). 3
AFFIRM E D.

3 W e sum

m a rily a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s g ra nt of sum m a ry j u d gm en t o n Je ffe rson’ s othe r c la im s a ga i nst TW C , inc luding c la im s for bre a c h of fiduc ia ry duty , fra ud, a nd bre a c h of c ontra c t. The se c la im s ha ve no ba s is in the la

w. To the e xte n t Je ffe rson a

ppe a ls from the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to a m e nd his c om

pla int, we hold Je ffe rson wa ive d this a rgum e nt b y fa iling to a d e qua te l y a ddre s s t his issue in his ope ning brie f. Smith v
. M arsh , 194 F.3d 1 045, 1 052 (9th C ir. 1999).
6