Price

Dissenting.

I concur in the determination that Price’s case for race discrimination could *903 not survive summary judgment. I cannot agree that there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could find retaliation in the one-week suspension for what amounted to a clear violation of a McDonald’s labor policy of which Price was well aware.

Thus, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.

MEMORANDUM *

I. Race Discrimination

Both the federal courts and California courts follow the framework announced in *901 McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), for establishing an employment discrimination case. See Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2002); Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352 , 8 P.3d 1089, 1113 (2000). Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case. Then the defendant must produce a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Finally, the plaintiff must rebut the defendant’s proffered reason by demonstrating that it was pretextual.

In holding that Price had not presented a triable issue at the prima facie case stage, the district court applied an excessively rigorous standard. See Aragon, 292 F.3d at 660 ; Lam v. Univ. of Hawaii 40 F.3d 1551 , 1564 (9th Cir.1994). All Price must do at the prima facie case stage to establish a genuine factual issue is present some evidence that he was qualified. He has satisfied that requirement by showing that he was a store manager with extensive experience at…