Bernard Lindblom v. United States

MEMORANDUM

Bernard Lindblom appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Army and other defendants (collectively the “Army”) on Lindblom’s claims of age discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Summary judgment on the April 2005 denial of promotion claim was proper because Lindblom failed to meet his burden of demonstrating, or raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether, the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons articulated by the Army for not promoting him were actually a pretext for discrimination. See Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co., 413 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir.2005). The mere fact that Lindblom had supervisory experience does not demonstrate the Army’s stated reasons for not promoting him were pretextual in light of the uncontradicted evidence that the individuals the Army hired for the WL-7 positions had significant, comparable supervisory experience, and that these individuals performed and scored better than Lindblom during the interview and evaluation process. Similarly, a union representative’s statements that Lindblom should have scored…