Pamela Wood v. Univ. Physicians Healthcare

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Pamela Ann Wood appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Ap-pellee University Physicians Healthcare (“UPH”) on her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We affirm.

(1) Wood’s failure to accommodate and failure to engage in an interactive process claims cannot be considered. These claims were not raised before the district court and we decline to reach them here. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Wood relies on this court’s ability to consider a new issue when it is “purely one of law and either does not depend on the factual record developed below, or the pertinent record has been fully developed,” Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Bolker v. C.I.R., 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985)), but she has failed to demonstrate that those conditions exist in this» case.

(2) The district court properly granted summary judgment to UPH on Wood’s disparate treatment claim. Wood did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she failed to demonstrate that her compensation level was connected to her disability.…