Hastings

Hastings v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Good Law
342 F. App'x 238
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 5, 2009No. 08-16086California296 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

The parties are familiar with the facts of this case and we do not repeat them here. Jordan Hastings appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”) on his claims of retaliation in *239 violation of the First Amendment and tor-tious discharge, arguing that temporal proximity between his allegedly protected speech and his termination gives rise to an inference of causation.

Our cases indicate that we should not consider the length of time between a protected activity and an adverse employment action “without regard to its factual setting.” Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 978 (9th Cir.2003). Thus, “there is no set time within which acts necessarily support an inference of retaliation.” Id. Hastings has not offered any evidence other than timing to rebut what otherwise appears to be a termination resulting from his poor job performance and inter-personal skills. Indeed, Hastings has not even asserted that he believes that TRPA retaliated against him for his allegedly protected speech. Moreover, he points to no evidence that his informing his superiors of the licensing problems was unwelcome; TRPA…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.