James Wang v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 16-55664

James Wang, a deaf applicant, applied for a software engineering position at Sony Pictures Imageworks and alleges he was denied an interview because of his disability in violation of FEHA and the ADA.
The job posting required a minimum of three years' practical work experience with Java; Sony did not interview Wang.
At deposition Wang admitted he used Java only “a little bit” (about 3–5% of his time) and would need on-the-job training; he later submitted a declaration claiming sufficient Java experience.
The district court excluded Wang’s declaration as self-serving, uncorroborated, and contradictory to his deposition, and granted summary judgment for Sony on the ground Wang was not qualified; it also rejected punitive damages and alternative pretext arguments.
Wang appealed but did not challenge the exclusion of his declaration on appeal and raised for the first time an argument that Java was not a true job qualification.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Wang failed to establish a prima facie case because he was not qualified for the position and declining to consider the new argument raised for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wang was qualified for the job	Wang contends he had requisite Java experience (declaration)	Sony points to deposition showing only minimal Java use and need for training	Wang was not qualified; no genuine dispute of material fact
Admissibility of Wang’s declaration contradicting deposition	Declaration shows six years Java-related work	Sony says declaration contradicts deposition and is self-serving/unsubstantiated	Declaration exclusion was proper; Wang waived the issue on appeal
Whether Java was a bona fide job requirement	Wang (on appeal) argues Java wasn’t truly required, citing Sony’s interview of a non-Java candidate	Sony says Java experience was required and exceptions were for further assessment, not a waiver	Issue waived because not raised below; declined to consider on appeal
Whether summary judgment should be denied as pretext or for punitive damages	Wang argues Sony’s explanation was pretextual and seeks punitive damages	Sony defends nondiscriminatory hiring decision; punitive damages unsupported without prima facie showing	Court need not reach pretext or punitive damages because prima facie failure affirmed

Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff must show qualification for FEHA claim)
Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2001) (qualification element for ADA claim)
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (issues not raised on appeal are waived)
U.S. Cellular Inv. Co. v. GTE Mobilnet, Inc., 281 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for excluding evidence at summary judgment)
Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1991) (courts may exclude testimony that flatly contradicts earlier testimony at summary judgment)
Singh v. Napolitano, 649 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues raised first on appeal are generally waived)