FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CONSANDRA AMERSON, No. 14-15249
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01071-RLH-RJJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CLARK COUNTY; CLARK COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE
SERVICES; CLARK COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY
SERVICES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 8, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges and BREYER,** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Consandra Amerson, a former employee of Clark County, appeals the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the County on her Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213. We agree with the
district court that Amerson was judicially estopped from challenging the County’s
failure to reassign her given her earlier stipulation in a disability benefits settlement
stating that her physical restrictions could not be accommodated by her employer. See
Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 806 (1999).
We also agree with the district court that Amerson was not a qualified
individual under the ADA. See Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th
Cir. 2013). The County engaged in multiple efforts to find an alternative available
position for which Amerson was qualified in light of her restrictions, and Amerson
was not able to point to any evidence that the County had available positions to which
it could have reassigned her. See Wellington v. Lyon Cty. Sch., 187 F.3d 1150, 1155
(9th Cir. 1999). Finally, Amerson has failed to show that she was constructively
discharged from her employment with the County. See Brooks v. City of San Mateo,
229 F.3d 917, 930 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.