MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs Kevin P. Donnellan and Anne Marie Donnellan1 appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant GNLV Corporation (“GNLV”). Donnellan brought an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), alleging GNLV rejected Donnellan’s employment application because of his disability. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The parties are familiar with the facts and we do not recount them here except as necessary for our disposition. We assume for purposes of our disposition that Donnellan established a prima facie claim of disparate treatment under the ADA.2 See Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 271 (9th Cir. 1996). GNLV proffered three legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for rejecting Donnellan’s application: (1) Donnellan’s application exhibited inadequate job stability because he had been unemployed for the three years preceding his application; (2) Donnellan received a “2” rating for both appearance and presentation; and (3) his application reflected a lack of computer skills. See Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 50, 124 S.Ct. 513, 157 L.Ed.2d 357 (2003); Chuang v. Univ. of Cal., Davis, 225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000).

Donnellan failed to present evidence which would allow a reasonable trier of fact to conclude those legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual. See Raytheon, 540 U.S. at 50, 124 S.Ct. 513. Donnellan presented no evidence to suggest GNLV deviated from its normal operating procedures in reviewing Donnellan’s application, or that GNLV preferred the application of Susan Rosinski (who was ultimately hired) over Donnellan’s applica*544tion because of Donnellan’s disability. See McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ. Co., 513 U.S. 352, 361, 115 S.Ct. 879, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995).

Further, GNLVs proffered reasons for rejecting Donnellan’s application are not inconsistent solely because GNLV initially stated it rejected Donnellan’s application because of “Job Stability,” but later elaborated that Donnellan’s application was rejected because of (1) job stability (ie., Donnellan was unemployed for the three years preceding his application); (2) Donnellan received a rating of “2” for appearance and presentation; and (3) Donnellan’s application reflected a lack of computer skills. The two latter reasons are in addition to, not inconsistent with, the initial reason offered by GNLV and thus provide ho evidence of pretext. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.