Barrett

MEMORANDUM ***

Harry C. Barrett appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of California’s Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) in his employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

Barrett contends that he presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding retaliatory motive. We disagree. Even assuming Barrett made a prima facie showing of retaliation, Caltrans produced evidence of its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Barrett’s discipline and discharge, his unsatisfactory work performance. Barrett disputes Caltrans’s reason and the factual circumstances upon which it is based, stating, for example, that he did not falsify his time cards — he simply relied on his own wristwatch — and he was only unable to finish his work on time because his employer “failed to provide [him] with the proper equipment.”

Barrett’s argument is beside the point. Although a Title VII plaintiff may show pretext by putting into question whether the employer…