Kim D. Baker v. City of Phoenix

83 F.3d 426 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Kim D. BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-15184. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 10, 1996. * Decided April 12, 1996. Before: HALL, THOMPSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Kim D. Baker appeals pro se the district court's judgment at trial in favor of the city of Phoenix ("City") rejecting his retaliatory discharge claim filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-3(a) ("Title VII"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 3 We review the district court's conclusion that Baker failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge de novo, and its underlying findings of fact for clear error. See Sisson v. Helms, 751 F.2d 991, 994 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 846 (1985). To establish a prima facie case, Baker must show that (1) he engaged in activity protected under Title VII, (2) his employer…