Bencivenga

MEMORANDUM ***

Pietro D. Bencivenga appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor *118 of defendants in his employment discrimination action alleging violations of Title VII. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, Vasquez v. County of L.A., 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2003), and the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 , 883 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Bencivenga did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because he demonstrated neither adverse employment action nor disparate treatment in the fact that, after being hired, he was required to provide medical documentation regarding his skin condition. See Kortan v. California Youth Authority, 217 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir.2000).

The district court also properly concluded that Bencivenga failed to establish that he was terminated based on gender, as he failed the required Spanish course in officer training, a condition of continued employment. See id. (requiring a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination…