Michael Kim v. The Boeing Company

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Kim appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant-Appellee The Boeing Company’s motion for summary judgment in a whistle-blower action brought under § 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. Because the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Tides v. Boeing Co., 644 F.3d 809, 813 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

SOX whistleblower claims are governed by a burden-shifting procedure under which a plaintiff is first required to make out a prima facie case of retaliatory discrimination. Then, “if the plaintiff meets this burden, the employer assumes the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse employment action in the absence of the plaintiffs protected activity.” Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir.2009). Because Boeing presented clear and convincing evidence of its belief that Kim had been insubordinate and was subject to discharge on…