Anthony Didiana v. Parball Corporation

MEMORANDUM

Anthony DiDiana (“DiDiana”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Parball Corporation (“Parball”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

To prevail on his gender discrimination claim, DiDiana must either (1) present direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination, or (2) satisfy the burden-shifting analysis described in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). To satisfy the burden shifting framework, Di-Diana must make a prima facie case either by (1) presenting direct evidence of discrimination, or (2) presenting evidence satisfying each of four requirements described by our previous gender discrimination cases. See, e.g., Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010); Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 603 (9th Cir.2004). DiDiana does not satisfy these requirements.

DiDiana’s proffered evidence did not conclusively show an intent to discriminate on the basis of gender. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640 (9th Cir.2003) (direct evidence must prove a fact without “inference or presumption” (internal…