James Bolla v. David McClain

MEMORANDUM

Appellant James Bolla brought this action against his former employer, the University of Hawaii at Manoa (“University”), alleging, inter alia, retaliation in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (a) (“Title IX”). Bolla challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the University on his retaliation claim due to Bol-la’s failure to show that the University’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for firing him were pretextual. The facts are known to the parties and we do not recite them here.

We generally look to Title VII standards to resolve claims brought under Title IX. See, e.g., Oona, R.-S. v. McCaffrey, 143 F.3d 473, 476-77 (9th Cir.1998) (applying Title VII standards to Title IX hostile environment claim). In order for a plaintiff to prevail on a Title IX retaliation claim, he must first make out a prima facie case of discrimination, which requires him to show that (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he subsequently suffered an adverse employment decision; and (3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island, Air,…