Ken Riddle v. David Washington

MEMORANDUM

Riddle appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Appellees Washington and the City of Las Vegas. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Applying de novo review, Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 930 (9th Cir.2007), and construing the evidence in favor of Riddle as the nonmoving party, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), we reverse and remand.

Riddle, a Caucasian, alleges that he was terminated because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. The analytic framework used in Title VII cases also applies to Riddle’s purposeful discrimination claims under sections 1981 and 1983. Metoyer, 504 F.3d at 930 . Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race [or] color....” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). This section prohibits discrimination against Caucasians as well as minorities. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 , 129 S.Ct. 2658, 2673 , 174 L.Ed.2d…