Christina Jungblut, an individual v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTINA JUNGBLUT, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL
IMPROVEMENT AND POWER
DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the
State of Arizona,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-15508
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05837-DLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 7, 2023 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Christina Jungblut appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in
Jungblut’s action against her former employer, Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District, alleging violations of the Americans With
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 9 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Samper v. Providence St.
Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233, 1235 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jungblut’s ADA
and ACRA claims because Jungblut failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
she was “a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job
with reasonable accommodation.” Id. at 1237 (explaining the requirements of a
prima facie case for failure to accommodate under the ADA) (citation and
alterations omitted); see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1461(12); id. § 41-1463(F)(4);
Fancini v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 937 P.2d 1382, 1388 (Ariz. App. 1996)
(“Because the ACRA is modeled after federal employment discrimination laws . . .
federal case law is persuasive in applying the ACRA.”).
We decline to consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Jungblut’s Motion to Transmit Physical Exhibits, Dkt. Entry No. 18, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --