Melvin Chang v. Straub Clinic & Hospital

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Melvin Chang, M.D., appeals from the district court’s judgment granting Appellee Straub Clinic and Hospital, Inc.’s (Straub) motion for summary judgment and denying Chang’s. subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment. Whitman v. Mineta, 541 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 2008). A district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Ine., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).

In his retaliation claim, Chang did not carry his burden under the first prong of the McDonnell-Douglas test to make a prima facie showing of causation. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 1994). It is possible to raise an inference of causation by showing that the decision-maker knew of the employee’s protected activity. Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir. 1982). Here, however, there is no evidence that Randy Yates, the person who fired Chang, knew that his advocacy was based on a belief that Straub was discriminating. There is therefore no basis for…