Ninth Circuit upholds dismissal of ADA discrimination lawsuit, ruling that neither lack of COVID vaccination…
Ruggiero v. Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
Ninth Circuit upholds dismissal of ADA discrimination lawsuit, ruling that neither lack of COVID vaccination nor testing positive for COVID qualifies as a disability under federal law.
Why it matters
A federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal of Anthony Ruggiero's employment discrimination lawsuit against Snohomish County's Community Transit bus agency. The court ruled on two issues: first, that a default judgment against Community Transit was properly thrown out because Ruggiero never proved the agency was validly served with legal papers; second, that Ruggiero's complaint failed to state a valid ADA disability claim because neither being unvaccinated against COVID-19 nor having contracted COVID-19 automatically qualifies as a disability under the law.
Who it affects
This ruling most directly affects workers or job applicants who claim ADA protection based on COVID-19 infection or vaccination status, as the court made clear those facts alone do not establish a disability. It also signals to litigants generally that failing to properly serve a defendant can result in the loss of a default judgment.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Anthony Ruggiero sued Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation, which operates Community Transit, for employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case raised two separate legal questions: whether a default judgment against Community Transit should stand, and whether Ruggiero's complaint adequately described a disability protected by the ADA. On the service of process question, the court explained that a signed proof of service normally creates a presumption of valid service only when the defendant actually knew about the lawsuit before a default judgment was entered. Here, Community Transit presented sworn declarations showing that its CEO and his assistant, based on their genders, appearances, and schedules, could not have been the person the process server described serving. The court found Ruggiero failed to prove that any other properly authorized person at Community Transit was served, and it upheld the vacating of the default judgment, noting that courts generally prefer to resolve doubts in favor of setting aside defaults so cases can be decided on their merits. On the ADA disability question, the court applied the statute's definition, which requires showing a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Ruggiero's complaint claimed he had a disability because he was unvaccinated against COVID-19 and had once tested positive for COVID-19. The court held that neither of those facts, standing alone, qualifies as a disability under the ADA. Because the complaint did not plead facts plausibly establishing an actual impairment that substantially limited major life activities, it failed to state a valid legal claim. The three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the district court's dismissal. No dissent was noted. The opinion is marked not for publication and is not binding precedent under Ninth Circuit rules.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY P. RUGGIERO II, No. 25-5978 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-01125-BJR v. MEMORANDUM* SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Anthony Ruggiero appeals the dismissal of his employment discrimination action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation, doing business as * 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). Community Transit. The parties are familiar with the facts, and we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review de novo whether a default judgment was void due to a lack of personal jurisdiction because of insufficient service of process while reviewing for clear error the district court’s jurisdiction-related factual findings. S.E.C. v. Internet Sols. for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007). We also review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Panelli v. Target Corp., 172 F.4th 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2026). The district court did not err in vacating the default judgment previously entered against Community Transit. A signed return of service constitutes prima facie evidence of valid service only “where the defendant had actual notice of the original proceeding but delayed in bringing the motion until after entry of default judgment.” Internet Sols., 509 F.3d at 1165. In Internet Solutions, we enforced the presumption because the defendant admitted that he knew the suit against him had been filed. Id. at 1166. Here, by contrast, there is no evidence that Community Transit knew it had been sued before the default judgment was entered. Moreover, Community Transit presented conclusive evidence that the process server’s declaration that she had specifically served Community Transit’s “CEO” or his “office assistant” was untrue. The proof of service declares that the CEO or office assistant, who “appeared to be a blonde-haired white female contact 2 25-5978 [sic] 35–45 years of age, 5’6”–5’8” tall and weighing 140–60 lbs,” was served at 5:20 PM on August 12, 2023. But the district court’s factual findings regarding the CEO’s and his assistant’s genders, appearances, and schedules—based upon sworn declarations—make clear that neither was served. Nor did Ruggiero establish that any other authorized individual was validly served: It is unclear if Rachel Woods was given the summons based on the service processor’s description of the served party, and, even if Woods was served, no evidence establishes that her position within Community Transit in August 2023 fits within the valid service parameters set by RCW 4.28.080(9) (2023). The district court’s decision to vacate the default judgment correctly held Ruggiero to his burden to prove sufficient service and aligns with “our general policy that, doubt, if any, should be resolved in favor of the motion to set aside the default judgment” so that the case can be decided on its merits. NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 613 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation modified). Ruggiero’s complaint fails to state a claim for discrimination under the ADA. The ADA defines a “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). The complaint asserts that Ruggiero has a disability because he “never received a vaccination for COVID-19” and at one point “tested positive for having contracted COVID-19.” But the complaint does not “plead facts plausibly 3 25-5978 establishing that [Ruggiero] had ‘[1] a physical or mental impairment [2] that substantially limits [3] one or more major life activities.’” See Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 32 F.4th 1218, 1225 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A)). Neither lack of vaccination nor contracting COVID-19 qualifies per se as a disability under the ADA. Ruggiero’s complaint thus fails to state a claim and was correctly dismissed. AFFIRMED. 4 25-5978
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.