FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAUDE K. RICHARDSON, No. 10-56089
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-07491-JHN-RC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster, United
States Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 8, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Claude Richardson appeals the grant of summary judgment to the
Postmaster General on Richardson’s claims of disability discrimination and
retaliation. Richardson has failed to state a prima facie case of disability
discrimination pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act. Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv.,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
492 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (amended). Specifically, Richardson has not
put forth a triable issue of material fact that he is disabled within the meaning of
the Rehabilitation Act. Thompson v. Holy Family Hosp., 121 F.3d 537, 539–40
(9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam); see also Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d
1041, 1045 n.11 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that the standards that apply to the
Americans with Disabilities Act apply to the Rehabilitation Act and vice versa).
Richardson also has not pointed to triable issues of material fact to support a
prima facie showing of retaliation. Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th
Cir. 2000). Specifically, Richardson has not put forth a triable issue of material
fact that he engaged in a protected activity during the relevant time period. See
Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., 212 F.3d 493, 506 (9th Cir.
2000). Further, even assuming he did engage in a protected activity, he has not
presented a causal link between the protected activity and adverse action. Id. at
507. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Postmaster
General.
AFFIRMED.
2