Laura Martinez v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary Department of Veteran Affairs

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAURA MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary
Department of Veteran Affairs,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-15477
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01354-RLH-RJJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.***
FILED
DEC 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable David A. Ezra, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

The record conclusively demonstrates that Martinez was terminated not
because of her disability, but because she refused to respond to multiple
appropriate requests by the Veterans Administration’s Occupational Health Unit to
register for e-QIP. Moreover, as the EEOC said, “[W]e note that petitioner does
not dispute that she did not comply with the agency’s request for additional
information” regarding her request to be relieved of her e-QIP duties. Even when
confronted with a Notice of Proposed Removal, she did not respond as requested.
Accordingly, because these facts were undisputed, summary judgment was
proper with respect to her claim of unlawful discrimination. See Humphrey v.
Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he plaintiff must
establish that [s]he is . . . ‘an individual with a disability who, with or without
reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment
position that such individual holds or desires.’” (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)).
Martinez’s assertions of retaliation are equally devoid of any factual support.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --