Stevens

MEMORANDUM **

Keith Stevens appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment with regard to his hostile work environment, age and race discrimination, and retaliation claims, and dismissal of his state claims. The facts of this case are known to the parties and need not be repeated here.

First, Stevens argues that the ageist and racist slurs that he encountered constituted a hostile work environment. Although we have never definitively recognized an age-related hostile work environment claim, see Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir.2003) (discussing only race and gender), even if such a claim is cognizable, Stevens failed to provide sufficient evidence to support either an age- or a race-based hostile environment claim.

As a preliminary matter, the district court did not err by limiting Stevens to his deposition testimony because his declaration was a sham affidavit. See Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that “a party cannot create an issue of fact by an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony”). Stevens’ declaration contradicted his deposition testimony in a number of ways, including changing the…