Chenoweth
Chenoweth v. Maui Chemical & Paper Products, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Michael D.J. Chenoweth appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judg *876 ment in his employment action alleging disparate treatment, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, retaliation, and defamation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Fair Hous. Council v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132 , 1135 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the disparate treatment claim because Chenoweth failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether the defendant’s proffered nondiscriminatory, performance-based reasons for the demotion, pay reduction, and other alleged adverse employment acts were pretextual. See Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir.1995).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the ADA claims because Chenoweth testified that he had no actual disability and failed to establish a triable issue as to whether the defendant perceived him as having a disability that substantially…