Michael Curley v. City of North Las Vegas, 772 F.3d 629

Background

Michael Curley worked for the City of North Las Vegas from 1996–2009 as a pretreatment inspector; he had a long disciplinary history including verbal altercations, threats of violence, property damage, and personal use of work time for an outside ADA-consulting business.
In December 2008 Curley filed an EEOC charge alleging denial of accommodation for a hearing impairment and retaliation; in January 2009 he renewed an accommodation request and the City recommended dual hearing protection.
Shortly after the second accommodation request Curley had a work altercation; the City placed him on administrative leave and investigated, during which coworkers reported multiple past threats and additional misconduct (excessive personal calls, soliciting business at work, disparaging supervisors).
The City had Curley undergo a fit-for-duty evaluation assessing danger to self/others; the evaluating doctor found Curley fit for duty and not a danger.
After an internal hearing the City terminated Curley for nonperformance (excessive phone use), intimidation via threats, conducting personal business at work, and disparaging remarks; Curley sued under the ADA for discrimination and retaliation, and the district court granted summary judgment to the City.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Curley raised a genuine issue that the City’s stated reasons for termination were pretextual.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Curley was fired because of disability (ADA discrimination)	Curley argues termination was pretextual because fit-for-duty doctor found him not dangerous	City contends it fired Curley for past threats and multiple independent performance/misconduct reasons	Court held Curley failed to show pretext; fit-for-duty result did not negate City’s reliance on past threats or other independent reasons
Whether Curley was fired in retaliation for EEOC charge / accommodation request	Curley contends temporal proximity and prior accommodation/EEOC activity show retaliation	City argues termination followed a post‑complaint investigation that revealed additional misconduct unknown previously	Court held timing alone insufficient; investigation revealed independent bases for firing and defeated any causal inference
Whether a fit‑for‑duty finding that Curley was not dangerous creates a triable issue on threat-based termination	Curley emphasizes the doctor’s finding undermines City’s stated safety concern	City explains it relied on history of past threats (not only present danger) and other misconduct	Held that past threats are an independently legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; evaluation did not create a genuine dispute of pretext
Whether City’s prior leniency supports an inference of pretext/retaliation	Curley argues City tolerated misconduct before protected activity, so sudden firing appears retaliatory	City shows that the full scope of misconduct emerged after the post‑complaint incident and investigation	Court held lack of earlier discipline does not create pretext once later investigation revealed additional undisputed misconduct

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (applies McDonnell Douglas in ADA context)
Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.) (retaliation timing and prima facie standards)
Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.) (ADA discrimination analysis)
Bodenstab v. County of Cook, 569 F.3d 651 (7th Cir.) (threats already made can be independent, legitimate reason for termination)
Cotton v. City of Alameda, 812 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir.) (must consider credibility of each proffered reason)
Jaramillo v. Colo. Judicial Dep’t, 427 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir.) (plaintiff generally must show each justification is pretext)
Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671 (9th Cir.) (timing may establish prima facie case but does not refute legitimate reasons)
Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998 (9th Cir.) (appellate review may affirm on any record‑supported ground)