Christina Jungblut v. Salt River Project

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 9, 2023
• Docket: 22-15508
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 9 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTINA JUNGBLUT, an individual, No. 22-15508

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05837-DLR

v. MEMORANDUM * SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 7, 2023**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Christina Jungblut appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in

Jungblut’s action against her former employer, Salt River Project Agricultural

Improvement and Power District, alleging violations of the Americans With

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Samper v. Providence St.

Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233, 1235 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jungblut’s ADA

and ACRA claims because Jungblut failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether

she was “a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job

with reasonable accommodation.” Id. at 1237 (explaining the requirements of a

prima facie case for failure to accommodate under the ADA) (citation and

alterations omitted); see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1461(12); id. § 41-1463(F)(4);

Fancini v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 937 P.2d 1382, 1388 (Ariz. App. 1996)

(“Because the ACRA is modeled after federal employment discrimination laws . . .

federal case law is persuasive in applying the ACRA.”).

We decline to consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Jungblut’s Motion to Transmit Physical Exhibits, Dkt. Entry No. 18, is

denied.

AFFIRMED.