Conitz

MEMORANDUM *

Gregg Conitz (“Conitz”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Teck Cominico Alaska, Incorporated *513 (“Teck”) and NANA Regional Corporation (“NANA”). Conitz contends Teek’s employment preference for NANA shareholders is an unlawful racial preference in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , and the Alaska Human Rights Act. Teck cross-appeals the district court’s award of attorney fees. The parties are familiar with the facts; we will not recount them here.

Conitz failed to show he was qualified for the positions he sought, and in the absence of any evidence of direct discriminatory intent, has failed to establish a pri-ma facie case of discrimination under a disparate treatment theory. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Brown v. Wood, 575 P.2d 760, 770 (Alaska 1978). Nor has Conitz shown the requisite statistical evidence necessary to support a prima facie disparate impact claim. Stout v. Potter, 276 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir.2002); Miller v. Safeway, 102 P.3d 282, 291 (Alaska 2004). Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to…