Nelson v. City of San Francisco

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Paul 0. Nelson appeals from the district court’s order granting the City and County of San Francisco’s (“City”) motion for summary judgment on his claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. The district court held that statistical evidence proffered by Mr. Nelson was not properly before the court because he had failed to disclose the name of his expert or submit his expert report as required by Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district also court ruled that Mr. Nelson had not presented specific and substantial evidence of pretext or intentional discrimination.

Mr. Nelson has filed a timely appeal. The district court had federal question jurisdiction under Title VII and the ADEA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

I

Mr. Nelson argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider statistical evidence in support of his opposition to the City’s motion for summary judgment. He claims that this sta *819 tistical evidence would have been sufficient to create a genuine…