Clarence E. Benson v. Carlton Company

91 F.3d 150 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Clarence E. BENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARLTON COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-35512. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 12, 1996. * Decided July 29, 1996. 1 Before: FERGUSON and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges, and KING, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Clarence E. Benson appeals from the district court's grant of Carlton Company's motion for summary judgment. 1 Benson brought this action claiming that his discharge from employment was the result of age discrimination by Carlton. 4 The trial court found that Benson established a prima facie case. In granting Carlton's motion for summary judgment, the court also found that Benson failed to "counter Carlton's expressed legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for the decision to terminate him with the requisite specific, substantial, evidence of pretext." 5 The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Warren v.…