Samuel Johnson, III v. Chevron Corporation
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff-Appellant Samuel Bernard Johnson, III appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment dismissal and order awarding costs in his employment action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , Title VII, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and the Americans, with Disabilities Act (ADA). As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s claims of race discrimination, retaliation, unfair treatment, and failure to train. “In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show (1) that he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably.” Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir.2003); see also Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir.2000) (same analysis applies to Title VII and FEHA claims). Johnson failed to raise a genuine…