Zeinali

MEMORANDUM

As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. In a separate opinion, we address two issues: (1) Raytheon’s contention that we lack jurisdiction over Zeinali’s employment discrimination claims and (2) the merits of Zeinali’s discrimination claim with respect to his termination from employment with Raytheon. We now address the parties’ remaining contentions.

I. Failure to Promote

The record does not support the district court’s conclusion that Zeinali was not promoted because he lacked a security clearance. Rather, Raytheon contends that Zeinali was not promoted because he was not among the top quartile of his peer group. The record, examined in a light most favorable to Zeinali, shows that Zei-nali was offered a promotion. Zeinali has accordingly raised a triable issue of fact to dispute Raytheon’s contentions that (1) he was not qualified for a promotion and (2) Raytheon had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for not promoting him. See Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352 , 8 P.3d 1089, 1113-14 (2000).

Because the district court did not…