Cornelio v. Alfa Wasserman Diagnostic Technologies, LLC , 582 F. App'x 717 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOAO CORNELIO, No. 12-16829
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02023-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ALFA WASSERMAN DIAGNOSTIC
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, also named as
Alfa Wasserman,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Joao Cornelio appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his Title VII action alleging wrongful termination on the basis of his race, color,
*
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).
and national origin. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Cornelio
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant treated
similarly situated employees outside of Cornelio’s protected class more favorably
than him. See id. at 1156, 1158-61 (setting forth elements of prima facie case of
discrimination under Title VII based on circumstantial evidence); Vasquez v.
County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003) (employee who held the
same level position as plaintiff was not similarly situated to plaintiff where the
employee did not engage in problematic conduct “of comparable seriousness”).
Moreover, even if Cornelio had established a prima facie case of
discrimination, Cornelio failed to carry his burden of raising a triable dispute as to
whether defendant’s legitimate reasons for firing him were a pretext. See Tex.
Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 258 (1981) (defendant rebuts
presumption of prima facie discrimination with any admissible evidence of a valid
reason for the adverse employment decision, which plaintiff can only overcome by
proving that it lacks factual basis and is a pretext); Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 642
(plaintiff must submit “specific” and “substantial” evidence of pretext).
2 12-16829
Cornelio’s contentions regarding alleged harassment during his employment,
and alleged threats during the course of this litigation, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-16829