“On another occasion, [plaintiff] threatened to shoot his supervisor’s children in the kneecaps”

Great moments in unsuccessful ADA litigation: a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment entered against a plaintiff who said his firing by the city of North Las Vegas constituted discrimination against him based on his hearing impairment as well as retaliation [Curley v. City of North Las Vegas]:

As part of the investigation, the Human Resources Department interviewed City employees and asked about their interactions with Curley. The interviews revealed that Curley had repeatedly threatened his coworkers and their families. For example, he threatened to put a bomb under a car, insinuated that he had mafia connections, and talked about giving a “blanket party” — which would involve throwing a blanket over a person’s head and beating him. One coworker reported that Curley threatened to kick his teeth out if the coworker did not join a union. On another occasion, Curley threatened to shoot his supervisor’s children in the kneecaps.

The interviews also revealed details about Curley’s work habits. Multiple coworkers said that Curley regularly conducted personal business while at work, sometimes spending up to three hours on his cell phone. It also appears that Curley was operating an ADA consulting business. Many of the calls he made during work were about the business, and coworkers saw him approach disabled individuals to discuss potential lawsuits.

Update thanks to reader Eric in comments:

I was thinking “He was only fired? Why isn’t he in jail?” so I googled him up. He has quite a history.

Astoundingly after he was fired from the city for his shenanigans, a school district (!) hired him as janitor. Six months later he was arrested for stalking (he kept threatening city employees). Finally (and after appearing in the papers) the school is attempting to fire him.

5 Comments

  • I thought summary judgment could only be granted if there were no disputes about the material facts. Does this mean Curley accepted those characterizations as true?

  • I was thinking “He was only fired? Why isn’t he in jail?” so I googled him up. He has quite a history.

    Astoundingly after he was fired from the city for his shenanigans, a school district (!) hired him as janitor. Six months later he was arrested for stalking (he kept threatening city employees). Finally (and after appearing in the papers) the school is attempting to fire him.

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/ccsd-hires-ex-city-worker-fired-death-threats

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/ccsd-moves-fire-janitor-criminal-past

  • Thanks, Eric, for that useful update, putting your comments in the main post.

  • To delurking: Others may correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe a court’s acceptance of facts at the summary judgment stage does not require the admission of the fact by the other party, simply an absence of material dispute, which can arise because the other party has made no move to offer evidence in rebuttal, or has offered only a negligible amount of such evidence.

  • Yes. It appears the plaintiff didn’t dispute that he made these threats, nor questioned (as pretextual) the sincerity of the city’s belief that it fired him for that reason (namely, his past threats, rather than as evidence of future harm to self or others).