Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Andrew R. DUPREE, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Andrew R. Dupree appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dupree’s discrimination and retaliation claims because Dupree failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was subjected to any adverse employment action. See Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2008) (explanation of adverse employment action under Title VII); Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements of a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII); Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123, 1130, 1136 (2005) (elements of a prima facie case of retaliation and explanation of adverse employment action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) ); Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089, 1113 (2000) (elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under FEHA).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dupree’s harassment claims because Dupree failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the conduct alleged “was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [Dupree’s] employment and create an abusive work environment.” Manatt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (prima facie case of harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981); see also Thompson v. City of Monrovia, 186 Cal.App.4th 860, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 377, 390 (2010) (elements of prima facie case of a racially hostile work environment under FEHA).
We do not 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).
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-16357
Decided: March 23, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)