United States Ninth Circuit

In an action claiming that defendant terminated plaintiff public employee for reporting to management that his immediate supervisor had misrepresented the status of the employer's compliance with its legal obligations, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the evidence plaintiff set forth was not specific and substantial, and did not create a triable issue of fact as to the ultimate issue of gender-based discrimination. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) a report regarding the agency's failure to comply with its legal obligations was clearly relevant to the public's evaluation of the agency's performance; 2) defendants did not show that plaintiff's statements were made pursuant to his official duties; and 3) proximity in time may support an inference of retaliation sufficient to survive summary judgment.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/24/2010
• Published 05/24/2010

Judges

• Before ALFRED T. GOODWIN and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and RICHARD MILLS,District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Michael Edward Adams, Redwood City, CA, for the appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Mark Henry Van Brussel, Joel Van Parys, Seyfarth Shaw Fairweather & Geraldson, Sacramento, CA, for the appellees.