Antuna
Antuna v. City of Tucson
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Phyllis Antuna appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on her federal and state law claims arising from Defendants putting Antuna, a Tucson Policy Academy recruit, on administrative leave and ordering a psychological fitness-for-duty exam. We affirm.
Antuna concedes that under California law, Defendants are absolutely immune from tort liability arising from statements made to the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department regarding Antuna, a prospective employee. See Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 70 Cal.App.4th 494, 498 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 (1999).
Antuna did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in holding her employment relationship with the Tucson Police Academy. A property interest requires the right to retention and permanent status, see Montoya v. Law Enforcement Merit Sys. Council, 148 Ariz. 108, 110 , 713 P.2d 309 (Ariz.Ct.App.1985), and Antuna’s continued employment was contingent upon successfully completing training and obtaining Arizona state certification. Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-103.
Antuna’s constitutional right to privacy was not violated by an order to submit to a psychological fitness-for-duty exam.…