O'Quinn

MEMORANDUM *

In this civil rights action alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and FEHA, and breach of contract, Plaintiff John O’Quinn appeals the district court grant of summary judgment to defendants.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact and reverse the grant of summary judgment as to O’Quinn’s race discrimination claim. See Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.2003).

Applying the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), the district court correctly concluded that O’Quinn established a prima facie case of race discrimination. See Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441-42 (9th Cir.1995). “The burden therefore shifted to respondent to ‘produc[e] evidence that the…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

O’Quinn has not raised a triable issue on the question of pretext. When an employer has met its burden of production under the burden shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for its hiring decision, 1 the factual inquiry proceeds to a new level of specificity to prove pretext. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). The inquiry turns from the generalized factors that establish a prima facie case “to the specific proofs and rebuttals of discriminatory motivation the parties have introduced.” St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 516 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). Pretext means “pretext for discrimination.” Id.

Proof of pretext requires more than a prima facie showing of general discrimination. The plaintiff must establish, either through circumstantial or direct evidence, that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him or her. Id. at 519 . An employer’s non-discriminatory reason cannot be “proved to be ‘a pretext for discrimination’ unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was…