Vincent White v. Barbara Barrett ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUL 17 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    VINCENT C. WHITE,                               No.    18-55691
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:16-cv-08875-PA-AGR
    v.
    MEMORANDUM**
    BARBARA M. BARRETT*, Secretary,
    United States Air Force,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 14, 2020***
    Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    Vincent C. White appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
    in his employment action alleging violations of Title VII and the Age
    *
    Barbara M. Barrett has been substituted for her predecessor, Deborah
    James, as Secretary of the United States Air Force 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).
    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 White’s disparate
    treatment and retaliation 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 Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 
    26 F.3d 885
    , 888-
    91 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework
    for a Title VII claim; explaining that the framework also applies to an ADEA
    claim); see also Nilsson v. City of Mesa, 
    503 F.3d 947
    , 953-55 (9th Cir. 2007)
    (setting forth requirements for retaliation claim).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on White’s disparate
    impact claims because White failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
    whether defendant’s facially-neutral employment practices had a significantly
    disproportionate impact on any protected class. See Stout v. Potter, 
    276 F.3d 1118
    ,
    1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002) (describing prima facie case of disparate impact).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying White’s motion
    under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) because White failed to comply with
    the requirements of Rule 56(d). See Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home
    Loan Mortg. Corp., 
    525 F.3d 822
    , 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of
    2                                 18-55691
    review and requirements for a party seeking a continuance to conduct additional
    discovery essential to oppose summary judgment).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying White’s motion for
    reconsideration because White failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See
    Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1262-63
    (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and explaining circumstances
    warranting reconsideration).
    We reject as without merit White’s contention that the district court should
    have entered a spoliation of evidence order.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                   18-55691