NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUL 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
PAMELA ANN WOOD, a married No. 14-16635
woman filing individually,
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00063-JAT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS
HEALTHCARE, an Arizona Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 7, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, CLIFTON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Pamela Ann Wood appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee University Physicians
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Healthcare (“UPH”) on her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We
affirm.
(1) Wood’s failure to accommodate and failure to engage in an interactive
process claims cannot be considered. These claims were not raised before the
district court and we decline to reach them here. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San
Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Wood relies on this court’s
ability to consider a new issue when it is “purely one of law and either does not
depend on the factual record developed below, or the pertinent record has been
fully developed,” Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th Cir.
1998) (quoting Bolker v. C.I.R., 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985)), but she has
failed to demonstrate that those conditions exist in this case.
(2) The district court properly granted summary judgment to UPH on
Wood’s disparate treatment claim. Wood did not establish a prima facie case of
discrimination because she failed to demonstrate that her compensation level was
connected to her disability. See Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974,
994 (9th Cir. 2007) (“An employee bears the burden of proving that he was
discriminated against ‘because of’ a disability.”). She contends that two other
Adult Nurse Case Managers were paid more than she was even though she was
2
more qualified and experienced, but she relies only on conclusory assertions and
nowhere demonstrates that the employees were similarly situated.
The district court also correctly concluded that Wood failed to demonstrate
that UPH’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the pay disparity was
pretextual. See Vasquez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640 (9th Cir. 2003).
(3) The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to UPH on
Wood’s retaliation claim under the ADA. Wood failed to show that she suffered
an adverse employment action. See Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840,
849-50 (9th Cir. 2004). She contends that she suffered adverse employment
actions in retaliation for her hotline call when she was denied accommodation for
her disability and denied higher compensation, but both occurred before the hotline
call. Wood cannot establish a causal link between her protected activity and her
denied requests when the denials occurred before the protected activity.
The remaining allegedly retaliatory actions Wood relies on do not constitute
adverse employment actions. None are “reasonably likely to deter employees from
engaging in protected activity.” Pardi, 389 F.3d at 850 (quoting Ray v. Henderson,
217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000)).
AFFIRMED.
3