Belgrove v. North Slope Borough Power, Light, & Public Works

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYAN BELGROVE, No. 13-36184
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00178-JWS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH POWER,
LIGHT, AND PUBLIC WORKS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Bryan Belgrove appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his employment discrimination action alleging federal and state law claims for
wrongful termination, hostile work environment, and breach of the implied
*
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).
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639
(9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Belgrove’s
wrongful termination claims under Title VII and the Alaska Human Rights Act
because Belgrove failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he
was performing according to defendant’s legitimate expectations, whether
similarly situated individuals were treated more favorably, or whether defendant’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his termination were pretextual. See id.
at 640 & n.5 (setting forth elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under
Title VII and the burden shifting framework); see also Grunberg v. Alaska State
Comm’n for Human Rights, 276 P.3d 443, 449 (Alaska 2012) (the burden shifting
framework for federal employment discrimination claims applies to claims under
the Alaska Human Rights Act).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Belgrove’s hostile
work environment claim under Title VII because Belgrove failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether he was subjected to sufficiently severe or
pervasive conduct. See Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 642 (setting forth elements of a prima
facie case of hostile work environment under Title VII and explaining that courts
2 13-36184
look at “all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory
conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere
offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s
work performance” in determining whether conduct violates Title VII).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Belgrove’s state
law claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
because Belgrove failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendant acted with an improper motive when they terminated him or whether his
termination was objectively unfair. See Smith v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 240 P.3d
834, 844 (Alaska 2010) (setting forth elements of a claim for the breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Alaska law).
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised
and argued in the opening brief, or issues or arguments raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Belgrove’s motion regarding newly discovered evidence of tampering and
interference, filed on October 30, 2014, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-36184