22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ea,MEMORANDUM 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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T51c,

MEMORANDUM

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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.