Petramala v. Scottsdale, City of, 2:19-cv-00063

Dec. 11, 2017: City of Scottsdale posted a full-time Police Aide position; written exam to be administered by invitation only.
Michael Petramala applied on Dec. 15, 2017 and requested an accommodation two days later for a skin-related disability (sun sensitivity).
On Jan. 12, 2018 Scottsdale’s HR notified Petramala his application was incomplete and would not be considered.
Petramala filed a state-court ADA Title I failure-to-hire claim (Sept. 2018); City removed the case to federal court (Jan. 2019).
After an initial 12(b)(6) dismissal without prejudice, Petramala filed an amended complaint; the City moved again to dismiss and the court converted the motion to one for summary judgment under Rule 12(d)/56, allowing both sides to submit documents.
The City submitted the Police Aide job description (listing essential functions and environmental exposures such as sun, dust, temperature extremes) and a 2004 court order adjudicating Petramala incompetent to stand trial; the court considered those materials in ruling.

Issue	Petramala's Argument	Scottsdale's Argument	Held
Whether Petramala has a "disability" under the ADA	He has a skin disability (sun sensitivity) and a mental defect from a past incompetency adjudication	He offered only bare assertions and a 16‑year‑old adjudication that is not shown to be ongoing	Court: Petramala failed to establish a disability; his allegations and old record are insufficient
Whether Petramala is a "qualified individual" who can perform essential functions with reasonable accommodation	He can perform job duties and requests night work as accommodation	Job description lists essential functions and environmental exposures that could aggravate skin condition; Petramala gave no factual showing he can perform those functions even with accommodation	Court: Petramala failed to show he can perform essential functions with or without accommodation
Whether the amended complaint survives under the summary‑judgment standard	Amended complaint alleges disability and ability to perform duties	City argues there is no evidence creating a genuine issue on disability or qualification	Court: Under Rule 56 standard, Petramala failed to raise specific factual disputes and action dismissed with prejudice

Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts generally may not consider materials outside the complaint on a 12(b)(6) motion without conversion)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden and nonmoving party requirement to show genuine issue)
Leisek v. Brightwood Corp., 278 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (view facts and draw inferences favorably to nonmoving party; nonmovant must set forth specific facts)
Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of an ADA failure‑to‑hire claim)
Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (ADA does not protect individuals who cannot perform essential functions even with accommodation)
Giddings v. Vision House Prod., Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (D. Ariz. 2008) (court may decline to address remaining elements when earlier elements are dispositive)