Vina Yazzie v. COUNTY OF MOHAVE and STEVE LATOSKI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINA YAZZIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF MOHAVE and STEVE
LATOSKI,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16452
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-08153-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 5, 2019
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: HAWKINS, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Vina Yazzie (“Yazzie”), a Native American woman, was fired from her position
at the Mohave County Public Works Department (“PWD”) after failing a random drug
test while on duty. Yazzie appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment on her
FILED
FEB 08 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

race discrimination claims, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
§ 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Merrick v. Hilton
Worldwide, Inc., 867 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir. 2017), we affirm.
1. There was no error in granting summary judgment on Yazzie’s Title VII
and § 1981 claims. Defendants proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for
terminating Yazzie’s employment, namely her failed drug test. Thus, under the
McDonnell Douglas framework, Yazzie was required to show that the proffered
reason was pretextual, see Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115,
1124 (9th Cir. 2000), which she failed to do. Indeed, the record shows that the Public
Works Director—the sole decision maker with regard to Yazzie’s
dismissal—uniformly terminated, or permitted resignation in lieu of termination, all
PWD employees who failed drug or alcohol tests while on duty.1
2. Because Yazzie failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether
defendants were motivated by discriminatory intent, there was no error in granting
summary judgment on her § 1983 claim for violation of her equal protection and due
process rights. See Peters v. Lieuallen, 746 F.2d 1390, 1393 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Since
1 Yazzie does not contend she should have been afforded the opportunity to
resign in lieu of termination.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

[plaintiff] has failed to demonstrate intentional discrimination on the part of the
defendants, his [§ 1983 claim] must also fail.”).
3. Yazzie does not appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of
defendants Ramon Osuna, Kevin Stockbridge, or Warren Twitchel. Accordingly, we
GRANT their request to be dismissed from this appeal.
AFFIRMED, and defendants Osuna, Stockbridge, and Twitchel are
DISMISSED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --