Willie Rose, III v. Plastikon Industries, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Willie Rose, III, appeals from the district court’s judgment against him following a jury trial in his Title VII employment discrimination suit. The jury found that Rose did not prove that retaliation for making a harassment and discrimination complaint was a motivating factor in Plastikon Industries, Inc.’s (“Plastikon”) decision to fire him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Because Rose did not timely file a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), he forfeited his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2007).

Even were we to construe Rose’s motion for reconsideration as a Rule 50(b) motion and excuse its untimeliness, his claim would not succeed on the merits. To make out a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, “an employee must show that (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) his employer subjected him to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.” Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th…