Aleksandar Lazukic v. Desert Palace, Incorporated, Dba Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino

51 F.3d 280 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Aleksandar LAZUKIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DESERT PALACE, INCORPORATED, dba Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-15510. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 21, 1995. * Decided April 4, 1995. Before: SNEED, POOLE, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Aleksandar Lazukic appeals pro se a jury verdict in favor of Caesars Palace in his claim alleging age and gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1962, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a)(1) ("Title VII") and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 623 (a)(1) ("ADEA"). 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 * Discrimination Claim 4 Lazukic appears to contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict that Caesars Palace did not discriminate against him on the basis of his gender and age. 5 To establish…