TIRAIE v. GAVILAN JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (2020)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Afshin TIRAIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAVILAN JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
Decided: September 15, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Afshin Tiraie, Pro Se Mark E. Davis, Esquire, Attorney, Davis & Young, APLC, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Afshin Tiraie appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his employment action alleging violations of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tiraie's discrimination claims concerning all other teachers except Michael Grace because Tiraie failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1994) (burden-shifting framework applies to discrimination claims under Title VII and the ADEA).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tiraie's discrimination claims concerning Michael Grace because Tiraie failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for defendant's decision to hire Michael Grace over Tiraie were pretextual. See id. (circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tiraie's retaliation claims because Tiraie failed to demonstrate a causal link between his protected activity and the adverse employment decision. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII).
We reject as unsupported by the record Tiraie's contention that defendant failed to produce all documents. We reject as meritless Tiraie's contention that the magistrate judge committed errors.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.