Guinn

Guinn v. San Bernardino County

Good Law
43 F. App'x 136
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 30, 2002No. 01-56861; D.C. No. CV-00-05793-RSWLCalifornia317 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Harold M. Guinn appeals pro se the district court’s partial dismissal and partial summary judgment for defendants in his employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) , and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claim against Guinn’s supervisor, Steven Harrison, because civil liability under Title VII is limited to the employer. See Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir.1993). The district court also properly dismissed Guinn’s state law contractual claims because the terms and conditions of public employment are governed by statute and not contract. See Hill v. City of Long Beach, 33 Cal.App.4th 1684, 1690 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 125 (Cal.Ct.App. 1995) (holding that a public employee is not entitled to contract remedies against his employer).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Guinn’s discriminatory failure to promote claim because Guinn failed to present any evidence that he was not promoted because of his race or age. See Tex. Dep’t of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-54 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.