Huff

MEMORANDUM **

Charles E. Huff, Jr. appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of his former employer, adidas America, Inc. (“Adidas”), in his Title VII action alleging that Adidas discriminated against him because of his race, maintained a hostile work environment, retaliated against him when he claimed that his termination was racially motivated, defamed him, wrongfully terminated him, and breached an employment contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court did not err when it granted summary judgment on Huffs disparate treatment claim because Huff failed to show that he performed his job satisfactorily and therefore failed to make a prima facie case. See St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). Even if Huff had made a prima facie case, Adidas articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision and Huff failed to demonstrate that Adidas’ proffered reason was pretextual. See Wallis, 26 F.3d at 889 . Similarly, Huffs disparate impact claim failed because he did…