FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 04 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELSA ROBERTS, No. 15-15540
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02506-CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP, INC., AKA TPMG, Inc.;
RONALD CARRETTI; TRACY NUNES;
SHIRLEY HANSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Carolyn K. Delaney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 21, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LOGAN,** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Steven Paul Logan, United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Appellant Elsa Roberts appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of
Appellees The Permanente Medical Group, Inc (“TPMG”), Ronald Caretti, Tracy
Nunes, and Shirley Hanson on Roberts’s claims of disability discrimination in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Fair
Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). We affirm.
1. The Appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the claim for failure
to provide a reasonable accommodation. Roberts’s requested accommodation,
being restricted from visual or verbal contact with her direct supervisor, is
effectively a request for a new supervisor. That is per se unreasonable under Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) guidelines. See EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Question 33 (EEOC Notice No.
915.002, Oct. 17, 2002). Roberts’s alterative request for reassignment in
contravention of her collective bargaining agreement was also unreasonable. See
U.S. Airways, Inc v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 403 (2002).
2. The Appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the claim for failure
to engage in the interactive process. Liability for a breakdown in the interactive
process “hinges on the objective circumstances surrounding the parties’ breakdown
2
in communication and responsibility for the breakdown lies with the party who
fails to participate in good faith.” Scotch v. The Art Institute of California-
Orange County, Inc., 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1014 (2009). Here, the undisputed
facts showed that Roberts refused to respond to repeated attempts by the Appellees
to obtain information regarding her disabilities and limitations.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3