Miller v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

MEMORANDUM ***

John Miller appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his state-law age discrimination and breach of contract claims. We affirm.

Miller has not come forward with evidence from which it can be inferred that the internal investigation into his alleged misconduct was a pretext for discrimination. The supposed deficiencies in the investigation he posits are nothing more than disagreements with the investigation, and do not establish that it was a ruse to get rid of him on account of his age. See Stanford Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc., 72 Cal.App.4th 798, 807 , 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 459 (1999). For that same reason, the district court properly excluded as irrelevant Rhoma Young’s opinion of the investigation.

Likewise, the supposedly “different reasons” given for Miller’s discharge do not give rise to an inference of pretext. The three reasons were not different reasons at all. They were merely different ways of describing the same reason. See id. at 815 , 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 459 (“[T]he use of somewhat different language by each of the three [managers] ... [does not] take away from the consistency of the justification. It is the substance of the…