Hussey

discussion with LuAnn Holmes constituted protected activity, Hussey failed to put

forth any evidence establishing a causal connection between that activity and the

allegedly adverse employment action he faced from his supervisor, Lance

Covington. Indeed, the adverse conduct that Hussey specifically identified in his

complaint, interrogatory responses, and deposition pre-dated his HR complaints.

And Hussey produces no evidence that Covington was aware of Hussey’s

conversation with Holmes or that Covington engaged in conduct rising to the level

of adverse employment action after that conversation. See Kortan v. Cal. Youth

Auth., 217 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2000) (evidence supervisor “was less civil,

stared at [plaintiff] in a hostile fashion, and became more critical of [plaintiff’s]

performance” insufficient to show adverse employment action).

25-1254 Hussey similarly failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding his

hostile work environment claim. Hussey identified only one specific age-related

comment and alluded to ten other comments about which he could not recall the

details. It was thus permissible to conclude that…