Fahl

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Robert Fahl brought an action against his employer, the United States Navy, for age and race discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming that his employment as an interior designer was terminated based on such impermissible motives. Applying the burden-shifting analysis developed by the case law under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), the District Court granted summary judgment for the Navy on each of Fahl’s claims. Because Fahl failed to meet his evidentiary burdens under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, we affirm.

With regard to the discrimination claims, Fahl was able to establish a prima facie case of age and race discrimination, which carries only a minimal evidentiary burden, Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1994), through evidence of several incidents involving derogatory remarks. In response, the Navy had the burden of rebutting the presumption of discrimination by articulating a legitimate explanation for the employment decision. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 801 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 . The Navy put forth…