Tempesta

*701 MEMORANDUM **

Michael J. Tempesta appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment on his claims of retaliation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with contract against Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”), Sheila Jones and Timothy Jones. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tempesta’s claims of improper retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 , and the Arizona Civil Rights Act, Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 41-1461-1466, §§ 41-1481-1485. All of these related claims must be examined under the Supreme Court’s three-step burden-shifting analysis articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Under this approach, Tempesta must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 802 . If he succeeds, the burden then shifts to Motorola to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged…