Pugel

MEMORANDUM *

Daniel Pugel filed suit in state court alleging that his former employer, Morgan *685 Stanley, violated: (1) California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12900-12996, by discharging Pugel and approximately 1,000 other financial advisors in an age-discriminatory manner; (2) section 201 of California’s Labor Code, Cal. Lab. Code § 201 , by failing to pay Pugel his earned commission immediately upon discharge; and (3) section 17200 of California’s Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 , by virtue of having violated the aforementioned state statutes. On appeal, Pugel challenges the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to Morgan Stanley.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995). Employing that standard, we affirm the district court in part and reverse the district court in part.

1. The district court properly granted Morgan Stanley summary judgment with respect to Pugel’s age discrimination claim under FEHA. While Pugel advanced both a disparate impact and disparate treatment theory of liability, he failed to…