Vincent White v. Antelope Valley College

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT C. WHITE, No. 10-55405
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00588-CAS-
VBK
v.
ANTELOPE VALLEY COLLEGE, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011 **
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Vincent C. White appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action against Antelope Valley College (“AVC”) alleging that it
discriminated and retaliated against him when it did not interview or hire him for
employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
*
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).
the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,
349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
decision not to continue summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), United
States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on White’s disparate
treatment claims based on race and sex because White failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether AVC’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for not interviewing or hiring him were a pretext for discrimination. See Vasquez,
349 F.3d at 640-42.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on White’s disparate
treatment claim based on age because White failed to raise a triable dispute as to
whether his age was the “but-for” cause of his not being interviewed or hired. See
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2350 (2009).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on White’s disparate
impact claim because White did not identify a facially-neutral employment practice
with a significantly disproportionate impact on African-Americans. See Stout v.
Potter, 276 F.3d 1118, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002) (describing prima facie case of
disparate impact).
2 10-55405
The district court properly granted summary judgment on White’s retaliation
claim because White failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether there was a
causal link between his alleged protected activity and his not being interviewed or
hired. See Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 796-97 (9th Cir. 1982) (there
is no causal link if the decision maker is unaware of the protected activity).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by not continuing AVC’s
summary judgment motion until White received additional discovery because
White failed to show how the additional discovery he sought was necessary to
defeat summary judgment. See California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th
Cir. 1998) (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), a party seeking a continuance must submit
an affidavit explaining, among other things, how the sought-after facts are essential
to resist the summary judgment motion).
White’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
White’s “Motion to Allow Discovery on Outstanding Claims,” filed on
June 3, 2010, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-55405