Gardiner

MEMORANDUM

Smith appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Par Electrical Contractors, Inc., and its co-defendants (collectively, Par) on Smith’s claims that he was terminated due to his race. The district court had jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

I.

We review the district court’s summary judgment de novo. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013 , 1019 (9th Cir.2004). Smith brought claims against Par under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Nevada’s anti-discrimination law (Nev.Rev. Stat. § 613.330 et seq.), alleging that he was terminated due to his race. We analyze Smith’s disparate treatment claims under all three statutes using the same analytical framework. Jurado v. Eleven-Fifty Corp., 813 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir.1987) (applying Title VII standards to a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim); Pope v. Motel 6, 121 Nev. 307 , 114 P.3d 277, 280 (2005) (“[i]n light of the similarity between Title VII ... and Nevada’s anti-discrimination statutes,” Nevada courts…