Eric Bright v. Mercer Advisors Incorporated

MEMORANDUM

Eric W. Bright appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment discrimination action alleging violations of Title VII and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bright’s retaliation claims because Bright failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he engaged in a protected activity. See Rand v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir.2003) (describing the elements of a pri-ma facie retaliation claim under Title VII, including that the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity); Jurado v. Eleven-Fifty Corp., 813 F.2d 1406, 1411-12 (9th Cir.1987) (plaintiff failed to show that he engaged in protected activity where his complaint to his employer did not indicate a concern about discrimination).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bright’s racial discrimination claim because Bright failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether similarly situated individuals outside his protected class…