Glass

MEMORANDUM ***

Kevin Glass, an engineer, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his action against Intel Corporation and Kursad Kiziloglu under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and other California law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court concluded correctly that there were no triable issues of material fact as to age or disability discrimination. Glass presented insufficient direct evidence of age and disability discrimination to raise a triable issue of fact. The district court also correctly applied the McDonnell Douglas test to his claims based on circumstantial evidence. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir.2008). Intel proffered a legitimate reason *256 for its actions, based on Glass’s numerous negative performance evaluations, and Glass failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Intel’s proffered reason for its actions was pretextual. See Aragon v. Republic Silver…