1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 Michael Petramala, ) No. CV-19-00063-PHX-SPL )
9 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER 10 ) ) vs. 11 ) ) 12 City of Scottsdale, ) ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14
15 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) pursuant to Federal 16 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). (Doc. 18) For the following reasons, the Motion 17 will be granted. 18 I. Background 19 This case arises from a job application submitted by Michael Petramala (“Plaintiff”) 20 to the City of Scottsdale (“Defendant”). (Doc. 17) On December 11, 2017, Defendant 21 posted a job opening for a full-time Police Aide position. (Doc. 13-1 at 12) The application 22 process included a written examination, but the job posting indicated that the examination 23 would be administered by invitation only. (Doc. 13-1 at 12) Plaintiff applied on December 24 15, 2017. (Doc. 13-1 at 7) Two days later, Plaintiff contacted Defendant to request an 25 accommodation for taking the written examination due to his skin disability. (Doc. 17 at 26 2) On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant’s Human Resources 27 Department notifying him that his application was incomplete and that it would not be 28 considered. (Doc. 13-1 at 5) 1 On September 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Maricopa County Superior 2 Court, alleging employment discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities 3 Act (“ADA”). (Doc. 1-3 at 7) Defendant filed a notice of removal with this Court on 4 January 7, 2019. (Doc. 1) On March 12, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under 5 Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 13) The Court granted the motion without prejudice so that Plaintiff 6 could have leave to amend the complaint. (Doc. 16) Plaintiff timely filed the Amended 7 Complaint. (Doc. 17) On September 19, 2019, Defendant again filed a Rule 12(b)(6) 8 motion to dismiss, arguing that the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim of 9 discrimination under the ADA. (Doc. 18) Defendant attached multiple documents to the 10 Motion that were not a part of the Amended Complaint. (Docs. 13-1, 18-1) Pursuant to 11 Rule 12(d), the Court gave both parties an opportunity to submit documents supporting 12 their respective positions and ordered that the Motion be treated as one for summary 13 judgment under Rule 56. (Doc. 21) 14 II. Legal Standard 15 When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court generally cannot look beyond the 16 complaint. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). If a court considers 17 documents not attached to or referenced in the complaint, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion must 18 be treated as one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). 19 Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine 20 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden 22 of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 23 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party can satisfy this burden by demonstrating that 24 the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential 25 to that party’s case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 322– 26 23. To survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmovant must set forth specific facts 27 establishing a genuine issue for trial by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, 28 including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or 1 declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), 2 admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). When 3 considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the factual record and draw 4 all reasonable inferences in a light most favorably to the nonmoving party. Leisek v. 5 Brightwood Corp., 278 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 III. Discussion 7 Defendant argues that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it fails 8 to correct the deficiencies in the original complaint. (Doc. 18 at 1) Specifically, Defendant 9 asserts that Plaintiff fails to state a prima facie claim under the ADA because he is not a 10 qualified individual with a disability and cannot show that any discriminatory action was 11 taken against him due to a disability. (Doc. 18 at 1-2) In response, Plaintiff argues that he 12 has sufficiently stated a claim under the ADA. (Doc. 19 at 1) 13 To state a prima facie claim of discrimination under the ADA for failure to hire, a 14 plaintiff must demonstrate that he: (1) is a disabled person within the meaning of the 15 statute; (2) is qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the 16 essential functions of the job he seeks; and (3) was discriminated against because of the 17 disability. Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2007). 18 A. Disability 19 The ADA defines a “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that 20 substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 21 12102(1). Here, Plaintiff asserts that he has a skin disability which “includes but is not 22 limited to sun sensitivity.” (Doc. 17 at 4) However, Plaintiff fails to provide the name of 23 his skin condition, when he was diagnosed, or any other evidence substantiating his 24 condition. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s bare assertion fails to meet even the minimal 25 standard for establishing a disability under the ADA. Leisek, 278 F.3d at 898 (“[T]he non- 26 moving party must go beyond the pleadings and ‘set forth specific facts’ that show a 27 genuine issue for trial.”) (citation omitted). 28 As to the mental disability, Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that Defendant caused him 1 to endure a mental defect. (Doc. 19 at 1-2) Plaintiff asserts that he is disabled because he 2 was previously declared incompetent to stand trial. (Doc. 17 at 3) Plaintiff maintains that 3 his mental defect prevents him from exercising his second amendment right and being 4 employed. (Doc. 17 at 4) To rebut Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant attached to its Motion 5 an order from a 2004 criminal case between Plaintiff and the State of Arizona. (Doc. 18-1) 6 The order states that Plaintiff was adjudicated incompetent to stand criminal trial pursuant 7 to Arizona Revised Statute § 13-4517. (Doc. 18-1 at 3-4) Defendant maintains that this is 8 not an on-going disability recognized under the ADA. (Doc. 18 at 6) Indeed, although the 9 Maricopa County Superior Court adjudicated Plaintiff incompetent to stand trial, the court 10 denied the State of Arizona’s request to have Plaintiff taken into custody and committed to 11 a mental institution. (Doc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 Michael Petramala, ) No. CV-19-00063-PHX-SPL )
9 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER 10 ) ) vs. 11 ) ) 12 City of Scottsdale, ) ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14
15 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) pursuant to Federal 16 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). (Doc. 18) For the following reasons, the Motion 17 will be granted. 18 I. Background 19 This case arises from a job application submitted by Michael Petramala (“Plaintiff”) 20 to the City of Scottsdale (“Defendant”). (Doc. 17) On December 11, 2017, Defendant 21 posted a job opening for a full-time Police Aide position. (Doc. 13-1 at 12) The application 22 process included a written examination, but the job posting indicated that the examination 23 would be administered by invitation only. (Doc. 13-1 at 12) Plaintiff applied on December 24 15, 2017. (Doc. 13-1 at 7) Two days later, Plaintiff contacted Defendant to request an 25 accommodation for taking the written examination due to his skin disability. (Doc. 17 at 26 2) On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant’s Human Resources 27 Department notifying him that his application was incomplete and that it would not be 28 considered. (Doc. 13-1 at 5) 1 On September 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Maricopa County Superior 2 Court, alleging employment discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities 3 Act (“ADA”). (Doc. 1-3 at 7) Defendant filed a notice of removal with this Court on 4 January 7, 2019. (Doc. 1) On March 12, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under 5 Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 13) The Court granted the motion without prejudice so that Plaintiff 6 could have leave to amend the complaint. (Doc. 16) Plaintiff timely filed the Amended 7 Complaint. (Doc. 17) On September 19, 2019, Defendant again filed a Rule 12(b)(6) 8 motion to dismiss, arguing that the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim of 9 discrimination under the ADA. (Doc. 18) Defendant attached multiple documents to the 10 Motion that were not a part of the Amended Complaint. (Docs. 13-1, 18-1) Pursuant to 11 Rule 12(d), the Court gave both parties an opportunity to submit documents supporting 12 their respective positions and ordered that the Motion be treated as one for summary 13 judgment under Rule 56. (Doc. 21) 14 II. Legal Standard 15 When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court generally cannot look beyond the 16 complaint. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). If a court considers 17 documents not attached to or referenced in the complaint, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion must 18 be treated as one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). 19 Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine 20 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden 22 of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 23 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party can satisfy this burden by demonstrating that 24 the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential 25 to that party’s case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 322– 26 23. To survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmovant must set forth specific facts 27 establishing a genuine issue for trial by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, 28 including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or 1 declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), 2 admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). When 3 considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the factual record and draw 4 all reasonable inferences in a light most favorably to the nonmoving party. Leisek v. 5 Brightwood Corp., 278 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 III. Discussion 7 Defendant argues that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it fails 8 to correct the deficiencies in the original complaint. (Doc. 18 at 1) Specifically, Defendant 9 asserts that Plaintiff fails to state a prima facie claim under the ADA because he is not a 10 qualified individual with a disability and cannot show that any discriminatory action was 11 taken against him due to a disability. (Doc. 18 at 1-2) In response, Plaintiff argues that he 12 has sufficiently stated a claim under the ADA. (Doc. 19 at 1) 13 To state a prima facie claim of discrimination under the ADA for failure to hire, a 14 plaintiff must demonstrate that he: (1) is a disabled person within the meaning of the 15 statute; (2) is qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the 16 essential functions of the job he seeks; and (3) was discriminated against because of the 17 disability. Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2007). 18 A. Disability 19 The ADA defines a “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that 20 substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 21 12102(1). Here, Plaintiff asserts that he has a skin disability which “includes but is not 22 limited to sun sensitivity.” (Doc. 17 at 4) However, Plaintiff fails to provide the name of 23 his skin condition, when he was diagnosed, or any other evidence substantiating his 24 condition. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s bare assertion fails to meet even the minimal 25 standard for establishing a disability under the ADA. Leisek, 278 F.3d at 898 (“[T]he non- 26 moving party must go beyond the pleadings and ‘set forth specific facts’ that show a 27 genuine issue for trial.”) (citation omitted). 28 As to the mental disability, Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that Defendant caused him 1 to endure a mental defect. (Doc. 19 at 1-2) Plaintiff asserts that he is disabled because he 2 was previously declared incompetent to stand trial. (Doc. 17 at 3) Plaintiff maintains that 3 his mental defect prevents him from exercising his second amendment right and being 4 employed. (Doc. 17 at 4) To rebut Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant attached to its Motion 5 an order from a 2004 criminal case between Plaintiff and the State of Arizona. (Doc. 18-1) 6 The order states that Plaintiff was adjudicated incompetent to stand criminal trial pursuant 7 to Arizona Revised Statute § 13-4517. (Doc. 18-1 at 3-4) Defendant maintains that this is 8 not an on-going disability recognized under the ADA. (Doc. 18 at 6) Indeed, although the 9 Maricopa County Superior Court adjudicated Plaintiff incompetent to stand trial, the court 10 denied the State of Arizona’s request to have Plaintiff taken into custody and committed to 11 a mental institution. (Doc. 18-1 at 4) Again, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 12 provide evidence in support of a recognized disability under the ADA, and his reference to 13 a sixteen-year-old criminal case alone is insufficient to establish the first element of his 14 claim. Cf. Cooper v. Kliebert, Nos. 14-507-SDD-EWD, 15-751-SDD-RLB, 2016 WL 15 3892445, *6 (M.D. La. July 18, 2016) (finding the plaintiffs’ adjudication as incompetent 16 to stand trial qualified as a disability for the purposes of their ADA claim because the 17 plaintiffs were still under their incompetency orders while being held as a pretrial criminal 18 detainees). 19 B. Qualified Individual 20 Even assuming that Plaintiff is a disabled individual under the ADA, Plaintiff has 21 not provided sufficient evidence showing that he is a qualified individual. A “qualified 22 individual” is “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable 23 accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such 24 individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). When determining whether a job 25 requirement is an “essential function,” a court must look to whether the employer “has 26 prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this 27 description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.” Id. “If a 28 disabled person cannot perform a job’s ‘essential functions’ (even with a reasonable 1 accommodation), then the ADA’s employment protections do not apply.” Cripe v. City of 2 San Jose, 261 F.3d 877, 884 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 Plaintiff asserts that he can fulfill all functions of the job with the reasonable 4 accommodation of working at night. (Doc. 19 at 2) The Amended Complaint states that 5 Plaintiff can drive and maintain a valid driver’s license, “apply the law and facts to 6 situations and service calls,” and use prudent judgment. (Doc. 17 at 3) These generic 7 assertions do not show that Plaintiff can perform the essential functions of the job, with or 8 without accommodations for his alleged mental disability. Such essential functions 9 include: (1) interviewing victims and witnesses; (2) compiling police reports on a 10 computerized system; (3) measuring distances, making calculations, and drawing 11 diagrams; and (4) testifying in court. (Doc. 13- 1 at 13) 12 Furthermore, the job posting also lists physical demands that an employee must 13 endure while performing the essential functions of the position. Such demands include 14 exposure to dirt, dust, pollen, inclement weather, and temperature extremes. (Doc. 13-1 at 15 13-14) Plaintiff asserts that his skin disability “includes but is not limited to sun 16 sensitivity.” (Doc. 17 at 4) Yet Plaintiff fails to describe how exposure to the various 17 physical elements listed in the job description may impact his alleged skin disability— 18 regardless of whether the essential functions are performed during the day or at night. 19 Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish the second element of his 20 claim. 21 IV. Conclusion 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a prima facie 23 claim for relief under Title I of the ADA.1 Accordingly, 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 1 Because the Court finds that the first two elements are dispositive in this case, the Court does not address Defendant’s argument regarding the third element of Plaintiff’s 28 claim. See Giddings v. Vision House Prod., Inc., 584 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1225 (D. Ariz. 2008). 1 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is granted. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action shall be dismissed with prejudice. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 4) accordingly and terminate this action. 5 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2020. 6
g United States District Jadge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28