Staniek

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Staniek appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Sacramento-Yolo Port Authority (“Port”) and Captain Janie Rankins on his federal and state claims of age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful constructive discharge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

The facts are well known to the parties and we do not recite them here. Staniek asserts that the district court erred in excluding statements and pattern and practice evidence from 1995 and 1996 offered to show discriminatory and retaliatory animus and motive. The court did not abuse its discretion by not admitting these remote acts as background evidence of purported bias. See Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1111 (9th Cir.2002).

Staniek has not established any discriminatory basis for the alleged adverse job actions. Staniek failed to present direct or circumstantial evidence that age or disability was a motivating factor. See Pottenger v. Potlatch Corp., 329 F.3d 740, 745 (9th Cir.2003) (age); Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir.1996) (disability); see also Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838, 855 (9th Cir.2002) (en…