Michael Currie v. Beatrice Keller Clinic Pc

MEMORANDUM

Michael Currie appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claim that the Beatrice Keller Clinic violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 , by refusing to hire him after he failed a drug test. We have jurisdiction to review the order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

First, the Clinic proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its adverse employment decision, i.e., that Currie failed a drug test. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (establishing burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims); Lopez v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n., 657 F.3d 762 , 764 (9th Cir.2011) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 53 , 124 S.Ct. 513 , 157 L.Ed.2d 357 (2003)) (recognizing positive drug test as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for employer’s decision).

Second, the district court properly determined that Currie did not offer “specific” and “substantial” evidence that the Clinic’s stated reason for not hiring him was a pretext for discrimination. Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir.1998). Currie relied on the treatment…