Vincent White v. Robert Lightfoot ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT C. WHITE, No. 18-55071
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-03377-SVW-
AJW
v.
JAMES BRIDENSTINE*, Administrator of MEMORANDUM**
the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018***
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Vincent C. White appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
*
James Bridenstine has been substituted for his predecessor, Robert
Lightfoot, as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
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).
and dismissal order in his employment action alleging disparate treatment and
disparate impact claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on White’s age
discrimination claims because White failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring
him were pretextual. See Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d 599, 608 (9th Cir. 2012)
(setting forth the elements of ADEA claim and the burden-shifting framework).
The district court properly dismissed White’s race and sex discrimination
claims because White failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant
discriminated against White on the basis of his race or sex. See Villiarimo v. Aloha
Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the elements of
a Title VII discrimination claim and the burden-shifting framework); see also
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed White’s disparate impact claim because
White failed to allege facts identifying a specific, facially neutral employment
2 18-55071
practice, and a causal relationship between such a practice and its adverse impact
on applicants who are either male, African-American, or over forty years of age.
See Stout v. Potter, 276 F.3d 1118, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth elements
of prima facie case of disparate impact).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying White’s motion to
compel because White failed to demonstrate he suffered actual and substantial
prejudice from the denial. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093
(9th Cir. 2003) (“[A] decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon
the clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and substantial
prejudice to the complaining litigant.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The motion of Vergie White for leave to file an amicus curiae brief (Docket
Entry No. 18) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-55071