Carlos Villalta v. City and County of San Francisco

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS VILLALTA; ANTHONY No. 10-16006
PADILLA; GILBERT GUERRA;
DANIEL PEREZ, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04958-CRB
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Gilberto Guerra, Daniel Perez, Anthony Padilla, and Carlos Villalta appeal
from a grant of summary judgment to the City and County of San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency (“MTA”) on their Title VII disparate treatment
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo,
Anthoine v. N. Cent. Counties Consortium, 605 F.3d 740, 747 (9th Cir. 2010), we
affirm.
Guerra failed to establish a prima facie case of workplace discrimination or
retaliation because restricting his access to a computer database and to a
photocopier did not “materially affect the compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment.” Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th
Cir. 2008) (discussing the third element of disparate impact claims) (internal
alterations omitted); see Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir.
2000) (applying similar standard to retaliation).
Even assuming Perez made out a prima facie case of discrimination, his
work-related misconduct constituted a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for
his dismissal. Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Perez adduced no evidence that the
employer’s reason was pretextual.
Padilla and Villalta each made out prima facie cases of disparate treatment
by showing that each was passed over for a promotion for which he was qualified
in favor of a Caucasian employee. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889
(9th Cir. 1994). But MTA brought forward admissible evidence that it promoted
2
individuals who were rated as more highly qualified than either Padilla or Villalta
during the interview process. And unlike the plaintiffs, neither had disciplinary
records. Neither Padilla nor Villalta has brought forth evidence creating a triable
issue of fact as to whether MTA’s explanation was “unworthy of credence.”
Dominguez-Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027, 1037, 1040–41 (9th Cir.
2005) (applying the standard enunciated by Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 539 U.S.
90 (2003)).
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s summary judgment in favor of
MTA is AFFIRMED.
3