Skylar Hatcher v. Akash Hotels International

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 26, 2023
• Docket: 22-15005
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SKYLAR HATCHER, No. 22-15005

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02138-DWL

v. MEMORANDUM* AKASH HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., DBA Super 8 Motel Yuma; UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as: John Does I-V and Jane Does I-V, ABC Corporations I-V, and XYZ Partnerships I-V,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Skylar Hatcher appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

action alleging employment discrimination in violation 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”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We vacate and

remand.

The district court dismissed Hatcher’s action on the ground that Hatcher

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible ADA discrimination claim.

However, Hatcher alleged that she has a disability, achondroplasia, a type of

dwarfism, and although she was able to perform all her job duties as a housekeeper

by using a stool or ladder, her employer fired her explicitly because she could not

do the work because of her height. Accepting these allegations as true and

construing them in the light most favorable to Hatcher, we conclude Hatcher has

adequately alleged an ADA discrimination claim. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a plaintiff must

successfully “nudge[ ] [her] claim[ ] across the line from conceivable to

plausible”); Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir.

2001) (elements of a claim for discrimination under Title I of the ADA). We

vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 22-15005