Pankov

*773 MEMORANDUM **

Nick Pankov appeals pro se the jury verdict for defendant on his national origin and age discrimination claims under Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, (“Title VII”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a)(1) (“ADEA”), and the district court’s ruling for defendant on his discrimination claims under Oregon state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a jury’s verdict for substantial evidence, Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839 , 856 (9th Cir.1999), and review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error, and conclusions of law de novo, Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 889 F.2d 869, 873 (9th Cir. 1989). 1 We affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the jury’s determinations that national origin and age were not motivating factors in defendant’s decision not to promote Pankov. Evidence presented at trial showed that Pankov was not qualified for the Operator IV position because he was not proficient in “BPCS” and did not have five years of experience with the defendant.

Substantial evidence also supports the jury’s findings that national origin and age were not…