Case Name: James R. MEIRHOFER; Ann L. Meirhofer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS INC., doing business as Fry's Food and Drug Stores, Inc. doing business as Fry's Food Stores, Inc.; Kroger Company, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-23
Citations: 415 F. App'x 806
Docket Number: No. 09-17702
Parties: James R. MEIRHOFER; Ann L. Meirhofer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS INC., doing business as Fry’s Food and Drug Stores, Inc. doing business as Fry’s Food Stores, Inc.; Kroger Company, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 806–807

Head Matter:
James R. MEIRHOFER; Ann L. Meirhofer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS INC., doing business as Fry’s Food and Drug Stores, Inc. doing business as Fry’s Food Stores, Inc.; Kroger Company, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-17702.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2011.
Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
Stephen Montoya, Montoya Jimenez, PA a Professional Association of Lawyers, Phoenix, AZ, John E. Osborne, Esquire, William C. Bacon, Esquire, Maria Del Pi-lar Mendoza, Esquire, Goldberg & Osborne, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Raymond M. Deeny, Esquire, Sherman & Howard, LLC, Colorado Springs, CO, William A. Wright, Esquire, Sherman & Howard, LLC, Denver, CO, Michael C. Grubbs, Esquire, Sherman & Howard LLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Tena Campbell, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Utah, Salt Lake City, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James Meirhofer appeals from the district court's summary judgment in favor of his employer on his hostile work environment claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The facts are known to the parties and will not be repeated here except to the extent necessary.
Assuming, arguendo, that hostile work environment claims are cognizable under the ADA, we conclude that Meirhofer's allegations do not rise to the level of "a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment." Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). At most, the derogatory nickname and occasional insulting comments constituted "simple teasing" and "isolated incidents" and were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of his employment and create an abusive work environment. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.