Jacob Robbins v. County of Pima, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 4:23-cv-00362
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jacob Robbins, No. CV-23-00362-TUC-AMM

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 County of Pima, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On February 4, 2026, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court grant Defendant Pima County’s 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 60.) The motion is fully briefed, and the Magistrate 18 Judge heard argument on January 29, 2026. (Docs. 49–50, 53–54, 57, 59.) Plaintiff Jacob 19 Robbins timely objected to the R&R, and Pima County responded. (Docs. 61, 64.) For the 20 reasons discussed herein, the Court will adopt the R&R in part and reject it in part. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Robbins brings this employment dispute against Pima County alleging it 23 discriminated against him by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability and deprived 24 him of his property interest in his continued employment. (Doc. 1.) He brings his claims 25 pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, the 26 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701–709, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal 27 Protection and Due Process Clauses through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 6–10.) 28 Robbins worked as a corrections officer at the Pima County Sheriff’s Department 1 (“PCSD”) from 2006 to 2020. (Defendant’s Statement of Facts (“DSOF”), Doc. 50 ¶ 1; 2 Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts (“PSOF”), Doc. 54 ¶ 55.) In 2020, PCSD promoted Robbins 3 to a corrections sergeant. (DSOF ¶ 2.) It is undisputed that Robbins has cerebral palsy, a 4 disability that Pima County was aware of throughout his employment. (Id. ¶ 3; PSOF ¶ 56.) 5 Despite his disability, Robbins had not previously sought an accommodation. (PSOF ¶ 56.) 6 In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Pima County released an October 21, 2021 7 memorandum requiring employees working with “vulnerable populations” to receive the 8 COVID-19 vaccine. (DSOF ¶ 4; PSOF ¶ 57.) PCSD determined that corrections personnel 9 working in detention centers, such as Robbins, worked with vulnerable populations and 10 were therefore required to be fully vaccinated. (See DSOF ¶ 5.) Pima County subsequently 11 issued a statement advising that employees with a medical condition that prevented them 12 from being vaccinated could receive an accommodation. (Id. ¶¶ 8–9.) 13 On November 5, 2021, Robbins contacted Pima County Human Resources (“HR”) 14 to ask about the accommodation process, and HR sent him ADA accommodation 15 paperwork the same day. (Id. ¶ 10.) HR followed up with Robbins in December 2021 to 16 inquire whether he intended to seek a workplace accommodation. (Id. ¶ 11.) On December 17 15, 2021, Robbins submitted the ADA paperwork to HR indicating that he was medically 18 unable to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and requesting an accommodation. (Id. ¶ 12; 19 PSOF ¶ 81.) The request specified that Robbins wanted “reassignment to any of the 20 positions for Corrections Sergeants in PCSD headquarters,” which would allow him to 21 “remain in his pension program.” (PSOF ¶ 82.) Robbins’s corrections sergeant 22 compensation rate at this time was $29.25 per hour. (See Doc. 50-1.) 23 The next day, Pima County found Robbins eligible for accommodation and 24 thereafter initiated the interactive accommodation process. (DSOF ¶ 13; PSOF ¶ 83.) In 25 mid-December, HR spoke with PCSD about whether Robbins could be reassigned to PCSD 26 headquarters. (PSOF ¶ 84.) Specifically, PCSD Lieutenant Christy Anderson testified that 27 she spoke to Emily Kruspig, nurse liaison for HR, and Lieutenant Anderson told Kruspig 28 that there were no positions available at headquarters to be filled by a corrections sergeant 1 at that time. (Doc. 50-12 at 7–8.) Lieutenant Anderson further stated a corrections sergeant 2 assigned to the jail could not “just be physically working” at headquarters while being 3 assigned to the jail. (Id. at 8.) She explained that “if something happens at the jail, they 4 have to go to the jail, [be]cause that’s where the work is.” (Id.) Notably, neither employee 5 documented this conversation. (See PSOF ¶ 86.) Pima County contends that because the 6 corrections sergeant position requires regular contact with vulnerable populations, no 7 accommodation would allow Robbins to continue in that position and “reappointment” was 8 the “only option left to accommodate” him. (DSOF ¶¶ 17–18.) Robbins disputes this 9 statement, pointing to multiple corrections sergeants working outside the detention center 10 or jail during that time. (Plaintiff’s Response to DSOF (“PRSOF”), Doc. 54 ¶ 18.) Pima 11 County acknowledges that, at the time Robbins submitted his ADA paperwork, there were 12 four positions filled by corrections sergeants outside the detention center: three at PCSD 13 headquarters and one at the training center. (DSOF ¶ 26.) The three corrections sergeant 14 positions at headquarters included one personnel position and two internal affairs positions. 15 (Id. ¶ 27.) 16 Thereafter, on January 3, 2022, HR began searching for a reappointment position 17 for Robbins. (Id. ¶ 19.) HR sent Robbins weekly job summaries of Pima County’s open 18 positions from January 7, 2022 until February 25, 2022. (Id.) In mid-January, Robbins 19 contacted PCSD about reappointment and discovered HR had not yet contacted them 20 regarding the interactive process.1 (Id. ¶ 20; Doc. 50-19.) PCSD subsequently identified 21 four positions available for Robbins to apply for, one of which was a 911 Dispatcher. 22 (DSOF ¶¶ 21–22.) While Robbins tested for this position, he was unable to qualify. (Id. ¶ 23 23.) 24 During this time, Robbins learned that Sergeant Manny Hernandez, a fellow 25 corrections sergeant, was reassigned to PCSD headquarters to work on a new body worn 26 camera project. (Id. ¶ 24; PSOF ¶ 92.) It is unclear when this project was created and filled 27 by PCSD. Pima County asserts inconsistently that the position “did not exist” in December 28 1 The identity of the person at PCSD whom Robbins contacted is unknown. 1 2021 but also that it was “created and filled in late 2021/early 2022.” (DSOF ¶¶ 28, 48– 2 49.) Hernandez, like Robbins, was unable to be vaccinated due to a medical condition, 3 however there is no record that Hernandez went through the accommodation process, only 4 that he faxed HR information indicating he could not receive the COVID-19 vaccine on 5 January 3, 2022. (DSOF ¶ 50; PRSOF ¶ 50; PSOF ¶ 93.) When Robbins contacted PCSD 6 to inquire about Hernandez’s reassignment, HR explained that Hernandez filled the 7 position based on PCSD’s “specific needs” and “[s]taff are not always privy to the 8 decisions of management or why an employee was selected or not for an internal 9 reassignment.” (DSOF ¶¶ 24, 32.) HR confirmed that Robbins’s accommodation request 10 had not been denied and that “reappointment” was the accommodation offer. (Id. ¶ 32.) 11 Shortly after this, another corrections sergeant position at headquarters (in the personnel 12 unit) opened in early February 2022, to which Robbins was likewise not assigned.2 (PSOF 13 ¶ 98.) 14 To continue in the accommodation process, Pima County extended Robbins’s 15 unpaid medical leave for an additional two weeks until March 4, 2022. (DSOF ¶ 33; Doc. 16 50-29; Doc. 54-3.) Robbins informed HR that his salary cutoff for a new position was $24 17 per hour. (Id. ¶ 33.) On March 8, 2022, Pima County offered Robbins a position as Program 18 Coordinator within the Central Human Resources Department. (DSOF ¶ 35.) Robbins 19 requested an increase in the position’s starting pay, and HR sought and was approved to 20 offer $25.69 per hour (a five percent raise over the starting salary). (Id. ¶¶ 36–37; Doc. 54- 21 35.) Robbins accepted the position on March 10, 2022, and he began working as a Program 22 Coordinator on March 14, 2022. (DSOF ¶¶ 38–39; PSOF ¶ 111.) 23 Although Robbins was hired to be a Program Coordinator for Occupational 24 Medicine, HR placed him in the Leave Administrative Unit because that unit had other 25 employees available to mentor him. (DSOF ¶ 40.) One of Robbins’s supervisors, Jason 26 2 While Pima County contends this corrections sergeant position was never vacant, (Doc. 27 64 at 9), the Court construes this fact in the light most favorable to Robbins. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (holding on a motion for summary judgment, “courts are 28 required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the’” nonmoving party (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962))). 1 Parrish, stated that Robbins communicated to him that Robbins was pleased to be working 2 with former PCSD employee Doreen Press, who had previously helped Robbins with leave 3 requests. (Id.) Parrish further stated that, during this time, Robbins regularly stopped by his 4 office to discuss the position and Robbins’s life and consistently answered positively. (Id. 5 ¶ 41.) However, Robbins disputes this fact to the extent it misrepresents that, while he was 6 pleased to be working with Doreen Press, he was not satisfied with the “overall 7 accommodation process” nor did he approve of the reassignment. (PSOF ¶¶ 40–41.) During 8 this time, Robbins indicated to HR coworkers that he did not intend to stay in the Program 9 Coordinator position and was getting a job at the Pinal County Department of Corrections. 10 (DSOF ¶ 41.) Robbins’s last day in the office was March 31, 2022, and he exhausted his 11 leave through April 15, 2022. (Id. ¶ 42.) On April 15, 2022, Robbins emailed his 12 resignation to his supervisors. (Id. ¶ 43.) In his resignation email, Robbins thanked them 13 for their “help throughout the last month.” (Id.; Doc. 50-31.) 14 Robbins asserts that “[a]lthough [he] technically ‘resigned’ . . . he felt compelled to 15 do so because the new position did not match his background, training[,] or experience, 16 and that the reassignment did not feel like a true accommodation but rather a way to move 17 him out of his prior career track, and that he did not feel welcome.” (PSOF ¶ 115.) Robbins 18 argues he was “constructively discharged” on April 15, 2022. (Id. ¶ 116.) Because of this, 19 Robbins filed an administrative claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity 20 Commission (“EEOC”) and the Arizona Civil Rights Division (“ACRD”).3 (DSOF ¶ 54.) 21 Robbins’s administrative claim included a discrimination claim for failure to accommodate 22 but did not include retaliation or failure to rehire claims. (Id.; Docs. 54-15.) In his EEOC 23 claim, Robbins asserted Pima County’s failure to reassign him to a comparable position 24 resulted in his pay decreasing by between $5 and $10 an hour and his pension not 25 transferring, thereby pushing back his retirement 10 to 15 years. (Doc. 50-37 at 3.) 26 /// 27 3 Robbins signed his EEOC claim on February 22, 2022, and the EEOC received it on 28 March 8, 2022. (Doc. 50-37.) Robbins signed his ACRD claim on April 27, 2022. (Doc. 50-38.) 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 a. Report and Recommendation 3 “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 4 report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 5 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court considers de novo only objections which are specific. 6 See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (the Court 7 reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made); Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (requiring objections be “specific [and] written”). The Court reviews 9 portions of the R&R that are not objected to for clear error. See Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225- 10 TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012). However, “while the statute 11 does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not 12 preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under 13 a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). A district judge 14 may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” of 15 the magistrate judge. § 636(b)(1)(C). 16 b. Summary Judgment 17 A court may grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents, 18 viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, “show that there is no genuine 19 issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 20 of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). 21 An issue is genuine when the disputed fact “could reasonably be resolved in favor of either 22 party.” Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson v. 23 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250–51 (1986)). A disputed fact is material if it “might 24 affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 25 (“Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.”). 26 III. DISCUSSION 27 The Magistrate Judge found Robbins failed to make a prima facie case of 28 discrimination under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. (Doc. 60 at 29.) Specifically, the 1 Magistrate Judge found that Robbins was not a “qualified individual,” and Pima County 2 engaged in the interactive process in good faith resulting in Robbins receiving the 3 reasonable accommodation of reassignment. (Id. at 28.) The Magistrate Judge further 4 found no evidence exists to support an Equal Protection or Due Process violation because 5 Robbins resigned and voluntarily relinquished any protected interest. (Id. at 29–32.) 6 Robbins objects to the Magistrate Judge’s findings that (1) no headquarter positions 7 were “vacant” and available for reassignment, (2) the interactive process and 8 accommodation were reasonable, and (3) he was not constructively discharged in violation 9 of the Due Process Clause. (Doc. 61 at 2–10.) The Court addresses Robbins’s objections 10 in turn. 11 a. A genuine dispute exists as to whether Pima County failed to reasonably 12 accommodate Robbins in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. 13 Robbins’s discrimination claim asserts Pima County failed to engage in a good faith 14 interactive process when it did not consider him for the corrections sergeant positions at 15 headquarters. (See Doc. 1.) An employer discriminates by “not making reasonable 16 accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified 17 individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless [the employer] can 18 demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of 19 the business . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). “To establish a prima facie case for failure 20 to accommodate under the ADA, [a plaintiff] must show that ‘(1) []he is disabled within 21 the meaning of the ADA; (2) []he is a qualified individual able to perform the essential 22 functions of the job with reasonable accommodation; and (3) []he suffered an adverse 23 employment action because of [his] disability.’” Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. 24 Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Allen v. Pac. Bell, 348 F.3d 1113, 1114 25 (9th Cir. 2003)). Significantly, the burden of establishing a prima facie case is not onerous. 26 Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1112 (9th Cir. 2002). At the summary judgment stage, 27 the “requisite degree of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case . . . is minimal and 28 does not even need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (citing 1 Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1994)). 2 i. A genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Robbins is a “qualified individual.” 3 4 As a threshold matter, the Magistrate Judge found Robbins’s inability to be 5 vaccinated made it impossible for him to work in his current position as a corrections 6 sergeant and therefore he was no longer a “qualified individual.” (Doc. 60 at 20.) The 7 Magistrate Judge reasoned that because Robbins was assigned to the detention center, 8 which required work with vulnerable populations, being vaccinated was necessary for him 9 to meet the “job-related requirements” of that position. (Id. at 18–19.) While Robbins does 10 not object to this finding, (see Doc. 61), the Court nevertheless finds that a genuine dispute 11 exists as to whether working with vulnerable populations was an essential function of all 12 corrections sergeant positions, and, in the alternative, whether reassignment could enable 13 Robbins to perform the essential functions of a different position. 14 A “qualified individual” under the ADA is “an individual who, with or without 15 reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment 16 position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). The Ninth Circuit 17 established a two-step inquiry to determine qualification for a position: the court first 18 considers whether the individual satisfies the “‘requisite skill, experience, education and 19 other job-related requirements’ of the position,” and then considers “whether the individual 20 ‘can perform the essential functions of such position’ with or without a reasonable 21 accommodation.” Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 990 (9th Cir. 2007) 22 (first quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); then quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)). A person can be 23 a “qualified individual” if he “can ‘perform the essential functions of a reassignment 24 position, with or without reasonable accommodation, even if [he] cannot perform the 25 essential functions of the current position.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 26 959 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Dark v. Curry Cnty., 451 F.3d 1078, 1089 (9th Cir. 2006)). 27 It is undisputed that there were five corrections sergeant positions assigned outside 28 the detention center or jail setting at the times relevant to the accommodation process. 1 (DSOF ¶¶ 26–27; Doc. 54-1 at 4.) Robbins presents sufficient evidence to establish that at 2 least one of those corrections sergeants—Corrections Sergeant Hernandez—also could not 3 receive the COVID-19 vaccine for medically related reasons, but he was nevertheless 4 allowed to remain in the “corrections sergeant” position with reassignment to headquarters. 5 (See DSOF ¶ 24; PSOF ¶¶ 92–93.) Because evidence exists that corrections sergeants 6 worked outside the detention center without exposure to vulnerable populations, the Court 7 finds the Magistrate Judge construed the position too narrowly. (See Doc. 60 at 18–20.) 8 The Court further notes the Magistrate Judge’s analysis considers the COVID-19 vaccine 9 requirement as a “step-one” job-related prerequisite, such as the requisite bachelor’s degree 10 in Anthony v. Trax Int’l Corp., 955 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2020). (Id.) However, given that 11 corrections sergeants could receive an accommodation to avoid this requirement, the Court 12 finds the vaccine requirement is more appropriately considered in the “step-two” inquiry 13 as relevant to the essential functions analysis. This distinction is material because 14 accommodation is not considered until step two. See Johnson v. Bd. of Trs. of Boundary 15 Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 101, 666 F.3d 561, 565 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he first step of the 16 qualification inquiry, unlike the second step, contains no reference to reasonable 17 accommodation.”). 18 Here, the fact that Corrections Sergeant Hernandez was permitted to retain his 19 position as a “corrections sergeant” notwithstanding his inability to receive the COVID-19 20 vaccination precludes this Court from adopting the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Robbins 21 is not a qualified individual based solely on his inability to receive the COVID-19 22 vaccination. Notably, Pima County failed to meet its burden of establishing the essential 23 functions of a corrections sergeant position. See Bates, 511 F.3d at 991 (“Although the 24 plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of persuading the fact finder that he can perform the 25 job’s essential functions . . . ‘an employer who disputes the plaintiff’s claim that he can 26 perform the essential functions must put forth evidence establishing those functions.’” 27 (quoting EEOC v. Wal–Mart, 477 F.3d 561, 568 (8th Cir. 2007))). As such, Robbins 28 presents sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether working 1 with vulnerable populations in the detention center (triggering the COVID-19 vaccination 2 requirement) was an “essential function” of the corrections sergeant position. 3 Moreover, even if working with vulnerable populations was an essential function of 4 a corrections sergeant position, a genuine dispute exists as to whether reassignment could 5 enable Robbins to perform the essential functions of another position. Pima County 6 arguably determined he was able to perform the essential functions of a “Program 7 Coordinator” by reassigning him to that position. (See DSOF ¶¶ 39–41.) 8 Construing these facts in the light most favorable to Robbins, it appears he was a 9 “qualified individual,” even if reassignment was necessary for him to be able to perform 10 the essential functions of the position. See Scott, 550 U.S. at 378. Accordingly, the Court 11 declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s finding as to this issue and finds a genuine dispute 12 exists at to the material fact of whether Robbins was a qualified individual. 13 ii. A genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Pima 14 County properly considered Robbins for the available corrections sergeant positions in its interactive process. 15 16 The Magistrate Judge further found that Pima County engaged in a good faith 17 interactive process and provided Robbins with reasonable accommodation. (Doc. 60 at 20– 18 29.) Robbins objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that no headquarter positions were 19 “vacant” and available for reassignment and that the interactive process and 20 accommodation were reasonable. (Doc. 61 at 2–8.) The Court finds that a genuine dispute 21 exists as to whether Pima County properly considered Robbins for the available corrections 22 sergeant positions at headquarters in its interactive process. Summary judgment is, 23 therefore, not appropriate. 24 “The interactive process requires: (1) direct communication between the employer 25 and employee to explore in good faith the possible accommodations; (2) consideration of 26 the employee’s request; and (3) offering an accommodation that is reasonable and 27 effective.” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002). 28 “Whether an accommodation is reasonable ‘depends on the individual circumstances of 1 each case, and requires a fact-specific, individualized analysis of the disabled individual’s 2 circumstances and the [potential] accommodations.’” Dunlap v. Liberty Nat. Prods., Inc., 3 878 F.3d 794, 799 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 620 F.3d 1090, 1098 4 (9th Cir. 2010)). While reassignment to a vacant position may be a form of reasonable 5 accommodation, see 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii), 6 “[r]eassignment is a last resort to be utilized only if the employee cannot be reasonably 7 accommodated in his or her existing job,” Ransom v. State of Arizona Bd. of Regents, 983 8 F. Supp. 895, 900–01 (D. Ariz. 1997) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)). 9 From the start of the accommodation process on December 15, 2021, Robbins 10 requested to stay in his role as a corrections sergeant and specifically requested to work at 11 headquarters. (PSOF ¶ 82.) Robbins contends this accommodation would have allowed 12 him to maintain his sergeant status, pay, and pension benefits. (Id.; see Doc. 50-37 at 3.) 13 During the accommodation period, Robbins identified two corrections sergeant positions 14 that became available at headquarters: the body worn camera position in either “late 15 2021/early 2022” and the personnel position in February 2022.4 (DSOF ¶¶ 28, 48–49; 16 PSOF ¶¶ 92, 98.) Despite Robbins’s specific request and these arguably available positions, 17 no evidence exists that Pima County meaningfully considered Robbins for these positions. 18 Instead, it appears Pima County rejected reassigning Robbins to a corrections sergeant 19 position and only considered reassigning him to different and lesser paying positions. 20 While Pima County asserts that no corrections sergeant positions were “open” at the 21 beginning of the interactive process, employers are under a “continuing duty” to determine 22 reasonable accommodation. Humphrey v. Mem'l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th 23 Cir. 2001). Further, as the Ninth Circuit established, “in considering reassignment as a 24 reasonable accommodation, an employer must consider not only those contemporaneously 25 available positions but also those that will become available within a reasonable period.” 26 Dark, 451 F.3d at 1089–90. 27 It is undisputed that Pima County filled two corrections sergeant positions at

28 4 As noted above, while Pima County argues these positions were never vacant, the Court construes this disputed fact in the light most favorable to Robbins. 1 headquarters during Robbins’s accommodation period. Robbins’s allegation that Pima 2 County failed to consider him for these positions raises a genuine issue of material fact as 3 to whether Pima County engaged in good faith in the interactive process. Id. at 1082 n.2, 4 1090 n.7 (explaining that although a “nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere 5 allegations or denials in the pleadings,” a plaintiff’s allegation that positions became 6 available sometime within a five-month period after his termination did not require “any 7 greater specificity” to raise a genuine issue of material fact (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 56(e); then citing McGregor v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 187 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 9 1999))). 10 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Robbins, a genuine issue of 11 material fact exists concerning whether Pima County meaningfully engaged in the 12 interactive process and considered Robbins’s individualized request for accommodation. 13 As such, summary judgment is precluded as to Robbins’s failure to accommodate claims. 14 See Anthony, 955 F.3d at 1134 (“[A]n employer cannot prevail at the summary judgment 15 stage if there is a genuine dispute as to whether the employer engaged in good faith in the 16 interactive process.” (quoting Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105, 1116 (9th Cir. 2000) 17 (en banc), vacated on other grounds sub nom. US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 18 (2002))). 19 b. Pima County did not deprive Robbins of a protected interest when he 20 voluntarily resigned from his position. 21 Lastly, Robbins objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that he was not 22 constructively discharged in violation of the Due Process Clause. (Doc. 61 at 8–10.) 23 Robbins contends that the Magistrate Judge improperly resolved the “fact-intensive” 24 constructive discharge analysis as a matter of law. (Id. at 9.) He asserts that “[w]here the 25 record supports competing inferences about whether conditions were intolerable and 26 whether resignation was compelled, constructive discharge is typically a jury question.” 27 (Id.) As support for his “intolerable conditions,” Robbins offers “[c]ircumstantial evidence 28 that [he] reasonably believed his continued employment path was being foreclosed,” 1 “[a]ccommodation-process missteps,” and “loss of pension.” (Id. at 10.) 2 The Due Process Clause establishes that an employee’s “constructive discharge” 3 may deprive him of a protected interest in his continued employment where the employee 4 “resigned due to intolerable working conditions” or “coercion.” See Knappenberger v. City 5 of Phoenix, 566 F.3d 936, 940 (9th Cir. 2009). “Under the constructive discharge doctrine, 6 an employee’s reasonable decision to resign because of unendurable working conditions is 7 assimilated to a formal discharge for remedial purposes. The inquiry is objective: Did 8 working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s 9 position would have felt compelled to resign?” Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 10 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Penn. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 141 (2004) (citation 11 omitted)). 12 Here, Robbins presents no evidence that a reasonable jury would find his new 13 position intolerable or that Pima County coerced his resignation. On the contrary, the 14 evidence shows Robbins negotiated and was granted a more-competitive starting pay, 15 communicated he was pleased to be working with Doreen Press, frequently stopped by his 16 supervisor’s office to talk, and thanked his supervisors in his resignation email. (DSOF ¶¶ 17 36–37, 40–43.) The undisputed facts do not support the conclusion that Robbins was 18 constructively discharged. Accordingly, Pima County is entitled to summary judgment 19 because a reasonable jury could not find that Robbins is entitled to a favorable verdict on 20 his due process claim. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 60), Robbins’s 23 Objections (Doc. 61), Pima County’s Response (Doc. 64), Pima County’s Motion for 24 Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts (Docs. 49–50), Robbins’s Response and 25 Controverting Statement of Facts (Docs. 53–54), Pima County’s Reply (Doc. 57), 26 Robbins’s Complaint (Doc. 1), and Pima County’s Answer (Doc. 10). Upon a de novo 27 review of the objected to portions of the R&R, and clear error review of the unopposed 28 portions, the Court adopts the R&R in part and rejects it in part. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN PART || AND REJECTED IN PART. (Doc. 60.) 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Pima County’s Motion for Summary 5 || Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (Doc. 49.) Robbins’s Equal 6|| Protection and Due Process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Claims III and IV) are DISMISSED. 8 Dated this 31st day of March, 2026. 9

11 ~ Honorable Angela M. Martinez United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-14-