
    Paul GALVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARDINAL HEALTH 101, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-17778.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 15, 2010.
    Filed July 13, 2010.
    Adam Francois Watkins, Watkins, Bradley & Chen LLP, New York, N.Y. Robert A. Carichoff, Law Office of Robert A. Cari-choff, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jessica A. Chasin, Lois M. Kosch, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Petty Kosmo & Turner LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District Judge.
    
    
      
      
         The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Galvez appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cardinal Health 110, Inc. (“Cardinal”) on his claims brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a), (m), (n). Galvez claims that Cardinal discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, denied him reasonable accommodation, and failed to engage in an interactive process. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1071 (9th Cir.2004).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Galvez’ claims of disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodation because Galvez is not a “qualified” individual under FEHA. See Scotch v. Art Institute of Califonia-Orange County, Inc., 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 338, 353, 358 (2009). Cardinal’s warehouse did not have a permanent position that involved working only in one area. Cardinal was not required to accommodate Galvez’ disability by creating a new position allowing him to work exclusively in a single area of the warehouse. See Watkins v. Ameripride Servs., 375 F.3d 821, 828 (9th Cir.2004); Raine v. City of Burbank, 135 Cal. App.4th 1215, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 899, 905 (2006).

The district court also did not err in granting summary judgment on Galvez’ claim that Cardinal did not engage in an interactive process. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(n). Cardinal allowed Galvez multiple periods of medical leave and allowed him to work in the cage and vault area to the extent possible. Only when Galvez effectively demanded a permanent assignment to a single area did Cardinal cease offering accommodation. There is no basis for finding a violation of the duty to engage in an interactive process under California law. See Scotch, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d at 360-61.

Because Galvez has not shown that Cardinal violated FEHA, the district court also correctly granted summary judgment on his claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. See Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-64, 76 Cal. Rptr.2d 499, 957 P.2d 1333 (1998).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     