Hackworth

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Hackworth appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in his suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c)), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Mondero v. Salt River Project, 400 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir.2005). An employee plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of discrimination by introducing evidence that the employer treated him less favorably than others similarly situated, on account of gender or age (over 40). See id. (Title VII); Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir.2004) (ADEA). If the plaintiff *32 produces evidence that he belongs to a protected class, was qualified for the job, and suffered an adverse action while others who were not members of the protected class did not, then the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the job action. See McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103 , 1122 n. 16 (9th Cir.2004); Enlow, 389 F.3d at 812…