Ritesh Tandon v. Gn Audio USA, Inc.

facts necessary to decide the appeal. 2 F.3d 1114, 1128, 1131 n.8 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying the framework to a FEHA

retaliation claim); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792,

802–04 (1973). That framework provides: (1) Tandon bears the burden of

establishing a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation; (2) if he does so,

GN must provide a legitimate nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reason for its

actions; and (3) if GN meets its burden, Tandon must raise a triable issue that GN’s

proffered reason is pretext for unlawful discrimination and retaliation. See Earl,

658 F.3d at 1112. But the “ultimate burden of persuasion remains with [Tandon].”

See id.

We assume that Tandon established a prima facie case of discrimination and

retaliation pursuant to FEHA. Tandon does not dispute that GN provided

legitimate nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reasons for terminating his

employment. Tandon instead argues on appeal that GN’s articulated reasons were

pretextual. To show pretext, Tandon must offer “‘specific’ and ‘substantial’”

supporting evidence. See Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th

Cir. 1998) (quoting Bradley v.…