ALI v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC (2020)

MEMORANDUM ***

Syed Nazim Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ali’s claims for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), failure to accommodate under the California Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”), and retaliation under Title VII and FEHA because Ali failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (a plaintiff fails to show he is entitled to relief if the complaint’s factual allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of [the alleged] misconduct”); Dunlap v. Liberty Nat. Prods., Inc., 878 F.3d 794, 798-99 (9th Cir. 2017) (elements of an ADA disability discrimination claim); Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528, 541 (9th Cir. 2006) (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim); Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 406, 428 (2008) (elements of a FEHA retaliation claim); Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank, 85 Cal.App.4th 245, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 55, 63 (2000) (elements of a FEHA failure-to-accommodate claim).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.