Eddie Wilson v. Krd Trucking West

MEMORANDUM

Eddie D. Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a bench trial in his employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 576 F.3d 1040, 1043 (9th Cir.2009): We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in finding that KRD Trucking West (“KRD”) had no knowledge of Wilson’s purported protected activity at the time KRD failed to hire Wilson in 2006 and that KRD’s failure to hire Wilson was not causally connected to Wilson’s purported protected activity. Accordingly, the district court correctly entered judgment for KRD on Wilson’s retaliation claim. See Westendorf v. W. Coast Contractors of Nev., Inc., 712 F.3d 417, 422 (9th Cir.2013) (setting forth elements of a prima facie retaliation case under Title VII); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197-98 (9th Cir.2003) (decision makers’ knowledge of protected activity necessary for causation).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the…