Curley v. City of North Las Vegas, No. 12-16228 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against the City, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate any pretext for discrimination based on his hearing impairment and his EEOC complaint where plaintiff presented no evidence that the City's reliance on past threats was actually pretext for discrimination and, even if the fit-for-duty evaluation somehow undermined the credibility of the City's stated concern about plaintiff's threats, the City put forward other reasons for terminating him: nonperformance of duties, conducting personal business at work, and making disparaging remarks about his supervisors and the City. Likewise, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because he cannot show pretext. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the City.
Court Description: Americans with Disabilities Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in an action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff alleged that the City of Las Vegas discriminated against him by firing him because of his hearing impairment and retaliated against him for filing an EEOC complaint and requesting an accommodation. The panel held that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City’s stated reason for firing him—his long history of threatening coworkers—was pretextual.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.