David Clark v. Goodwill Industries of Hawaii , 441 F. App'x 525 ( 2011 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
DAVID CLARK, No. 10-15126
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00184-DAE-
LEK
v.
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF HAWAII, MEMORANDUM *
INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David Alan Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
David Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his action alleging hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Donohue v. Quick
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the hostile work
environment claim based on Clark’s coworker’s single e-mail because the EEOC
charge was filed more than 300 days after the incident. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
5(e); Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 118 (2002) (for an
EEOC charge of hostile work environment to be timely, the employee must file the
charge within the statutory time period of any act that forms the hostile work
environment). Moreover, even if Clark’s EEOC charge had been timely as to this
claim, the district court properly concluded that the e-mail “was neither severe nor
pervasive enough to alter the conditions of [his] employment.” Manatt v. Bank of
Am., 339 F.3d 792, 799 (9th Cir. 2003).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination
claim because Clark failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its adverse employment
actions were a pretext for discrimination. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117,
1124-25 (9th Cir. 2003).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation
claim because Clark failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
there was a causal link between his alleged protected activity and his termination.
2 10-15126
See Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 796-97 (9th Cir. 1982) (there is no
causal link if the decisionmaker is unaware of the protected activity).
Clark’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Clark’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-15126