Renee Stephens v. Nike, Inc.

Good Law
611 F. App'x 896
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 12, 201513-35426California479 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Renee Stephens appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging violations of Title VII and other federal and state laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. of Ariz., Inc., 374 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stephens’s federal race discrimination claims because Stephens failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the relevant decision maker was aware of his race or whether defendant continued to seek applications from other similarly qualified individuals outside the protected class. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (setting forth elements of a prima facie failure to hire employment discrimination claim under Title VII); Fonseca, 374 F.3d at 850 (discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1981 share the same legal standards); Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1005 (9th Cir.1985), amended by 784 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir.1986) (for a failure to hire claim under Title VII, “a plaintiff must offer evidence that give[s]…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.