NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLIFFORD THOMAS, No. 18-16640
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00121-RLP
v. MEMORANDUM* THOMAS W. HARKER, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Richard L. Puglisi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 8, 2021** Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Clifford Thomas appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to the Secretary of the Navy (the “Navy”)1 on Thomas’s Title VII
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 At the time of the district court’s order, Richard V. Spencer was Secretary of the Navy and named defendant in this case. discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and, reviewing de novo, Bravo v. City of
Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.
1. We apply the burden-shifting analysis in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), when considering Thomas’s claim of disparate
treatment and retaliation under Title VII. See Freyd v. Univ. of Or., 990 F.3d
1211, 1228 (9th Cir. 2021) (disparate treatment); Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350
F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003) (retaliation). Under this framework, the plaintiff
must first make a prima facie claim of discrimination or retaliation. McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. Next, the defendant must articulate a “legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason” for their action. Id. Finally, the plaintiff must show
that the defendant’s proffered reason was pretextual. Id. at 804.
Thomas argues that his $300 performance award in 2014; his temporary
reassignment to the Office of the Product Line Coordinator; his subsequent
reassignment to the Wastewater Treatment Plant; his non-selection for two
supervisory positions; and the Navy’s failure to provide him with boiler inspector
training were discriminatory and retaliatory.
The district court correctly concluded that Thomas failed to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination or retaliation as to his $300 performance award
because he was not similarly situated to those who received a $500 award. See
2 Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 2004) (among other
things, to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show
that “similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more
favorably, or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give
rise to an inference of discrimination”). Thomas presented no evidence that he and
the other employees “display[ed] similar conduct.” Vasquez v. County of Los
Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003). He also failed to point to any facts
showing a causal link between his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) activity and the performance award. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26
F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 1994) (a prima facie case of retaliation requires showing,
among other things, that “a causal link exists between the protected activity and the
adverse employment action”).
As to the remaining alleged adverse employment actions, we agree with the
district court that, even assuming Thomas made a prima facie case of
discrimination or retaliation, the Navy articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for each action, and Thomas failed to show that the Navy’s proffered reason
was pretextual.
The Navy explained that it first reassigned Thomas to the Office of the
Product Line Coordinator to “create a safe environment” and provide “a cooling
off period” after nine of Thomas’s supervisees complained that he was creating a
3 hostile work environment. After an investigation substantiated many of the
complaints, the Navy determined that Thomas could not return to his supervisory
role. It then assigned Thomas to the Wastewater Treatment Plant because the Plant
was shorthanded, and Thomas had experience maintaining and repairing boilers.
Thomas failed to show that the Navy’s explanation for either reassignment
was pretextual. Even if the investigative report was unreliable and the accusations
against him were false, there is no indication that the Navy did not honestly believe
reassignment was warranted given the accusations and report. See Villiarimo v.
Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In judging whether
[the] proffered justifications were ‘false,’ it is not important whether they
were objectively false . . . . Rather, courts ‘only require that an employer honestly
believed its reason for its actions, even if its reason is “foolish or trivial or even
baseless.”’” (quoting Johnson v. Nordstrom, Inc., 260 F.3d 727, 733 (7th Cir.
2001))). And even though better treatment of similarly situated employees is
“probative of pretext,” Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 641, Thomas failed to establish that
the two white supervisors subject to investigation contemporaneously with Thomas
were similarly situated. There is no evidence that the other supervisors’ conduct
was similar to his and, to the contrary, it appears that the other supervisors were
accused of mismanagement and fraud, not of creating a hostile work environment.
Thomas’s other arguments—that the Navy failed to promptly inform him of the
4 complaints against him; that a Navy attorney told him command “was actively
seeking his removal”; that the Navy gave inconsistent explanations for his
reassignment; and that his supervisees failed to follow union grievance policy—do
not show that the Navy’s explanation was “unworthy of credence” or that unlawful
discrimination more likely motivated the Navy. Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis,
Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Godwin v. Hunt Wesson,
Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 1998)).
Thomas also failed to demonstrate that the Navy assigned him to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant without taking his medical conditions into account.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLIFFORD THOMAS, No. 18-16640
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00121-RLP
v. MEMORANDUM* THOMAS W. HARKER, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Richard L. Puglisi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 8, 2021** Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Clifford Thomas appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to the Secretary of the Navy (the “Navy”)1 on Thomas’s Title VII
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 At the time of the district court’s order, Richard V. Spencer was Secretary of the Navy and named defendant in this case. discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and, reviewing de novo, Bravo v. City of
Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.
1. We apply the burden-shifting analysis in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), when considering Thomas’s claim of disparate
treatment and retaliation under Title VII. See Freyd v. Univ. of Or., 990 F.3d
1211, 1228 (9th Cir. 2021) (disparate treatment); Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350
F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003) (retaliation). Under this framework, the plaintiff
must first make a prima facie claim of discrimination or retaliation. McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. Next, the defendant must articulate a “legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason” for their action. Id. Finally, the plaintiff must show
that the defendant’s proffered reason was pretextual. Id. at 804.
Thomas argues that his $300 performance award in 2014; his temporary
reassignment to the Office of the Product Line Coordinator; his subsequent
reassignment to the Wastewater Treatment Plant; his non-selection for two
supervisory positions; and the Navy’s failure to provide him with boiler inspector
training were discriminatory and retaliatory.
The district court correctly concluded that Thomas failed to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination or retaliation as to his $300 performance award
because he was not similarly situated to those who received a $500 award. See
2 Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 2004) (among other
things, to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show
that “similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more
favorably, or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give
rise to an inference of discrimination”). Thomas presented no evidence that he and
the other employees “display[ed] similar conduct.” Vasquez v. County of Los
Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003). He also failed to point to any facts
showing a causal link between his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) activity and the performance award. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26
F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 1994) (a prima facie case of retaliation requires showing,
among other things, that “a causal link exists between the protected activity and the
adverse employment action”).
As to the remaining alleged adverse employment actions, we agree with the
district court that, even assuming Thomas made a prima facie case of
discrimination or retaliation, the Navy articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for each action, and Thomas failed to show that the Navy’s proffered reason
was pretextual.
The Navy explained that it first reassigned Thomas to the Office of the
Product Line Coordinator to “create a safe environment” and provide “a cooling
off period” after nine of Thomas’s supervisees complained that he was creating a
3 hostile work environment. After an investigation substantiated many of the
complaints, the Navy determined that Thomas could not return to his supervisory
role. It then assigned Thomas to the Wastewater Treatment Plant because the Plant
was shorthanded, and Thomas had experience maintaining and repairing boilers.
Thomas failed to show that the Navy’s explanation for either reassignment
was pretextual. Even if the investigative report was unreliable and the accusations
against him were false, there is no indication that the Navy did not honestly believe
reassignment was warranted given the accusations and report. See Villiarimo v.
Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In judging whether
[the] proffered justifications were ‘false,’ it is not important whether they
were objectively false . . . . Rather, courts ‘only require that an employer honestly
believed its reason for its actions, even if its reason is “foolish or trivial or even
baseless.”’” (quoting Johnson v. Nordstrom, Inc., 260 F.3d 727, 733 (7th Cir.
2001))). And even though better treatment of similarly situated employees is
“probative of pretext,” Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 641, Thomas failed to establish that
the two white supervisors subject to investigation contemporaneously with Thomas
were similarly situated. There is no evidence that the other supervisors’ conduct
was similar to his and, to the contrary, it appears that the other supervisors were
accused of mismanagement and fraud, not of creating a hostile work environment.
Thomas’s other arguments—that the Navy failed to promptly inform him of the
4 complaints against him; that a Navy attorney told him command “was actively
seeking his removal”; that the Navy gave inconsistent explanations for his
reassignment; and that his supervisees failed to follow union grievance policy—do
not show that the Navy’s explanation was “unworthy of credence” or that unlawful
discrimination more likely motivated the Navy. Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis,
Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Godwin v. Hunt Wesson,
Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 1998)).
Thomas also failed to demonstrate that the Navy assigned him to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant without taking his medical conditions into account.
Thomas’s medical examinations each found him physically qualified to work at the
Plant. Even assuming Thomas was not medically qualified, as he asserts, there is
no evidence the Navy did not honestly believe he was qualified based on his
examination results. See Villiarimo, 281 F.3d at 1063.
Thomas likewise failed to show that the Navy’s proffered reasons for
choosing not to hire him for two positions were pretextual. The selecting panels
recommended others for the positions based on a resume review and, in one case,
an interview, and Thomas conceded that he had no evidence that anyone involved
in the hiring decisions had retaliatory or discriminatory intent.
We also agree with the district court that Thomas failed to show that the
Navy’s proffered reason for failing to provide him with boiler inspector training
5 was pretextual. The Navy asserted that it did not provide this training because
Thomas never requested it, and, on one occasion, declined the opportunity for
training.2
We therefore affirm summary judgment as to each of Thomas’s
discrimination and retaliation claims.
2. To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff
must show “(1) the defendants subjected [him] to verbal or physical conduct based
on [his protected characteristic]; (2) the conduct was unwelcome; and (3) the
conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his]
employment and create an abusive working environment.” Surrell v. Cal. Water
Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2008).
Thomas presented no evidence that the Navy failed to take remedial action
against his co-workers based on his EEOC activity or that his three co-workers
asked him about his reassignment based on that same activity. He also failed to
2 Thomas filed a declaration with his memorandum in opposition to summary judgment asserting that he “did make a training request,” which contradicts his prior deposition testimony that he “never asked anybody to go to boiler supervisor school.” A self-serving declaration contradicting earlier deposition testimony does not create a genuine dispute of fact. Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 419 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact to survive summary judgment by contradicting his earlier version of the facts.”). But even assuming that the Navy denied a request for training, there is still no evidence from which a jury could determine that the Navy was motivated by discrimination or retaliation.
6 show that the fact that his supervisor mentioned his EEOC activity was sufficiently
severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. He therefore failed to
prove a prima facie hostile work environment claim. See id. And because Thomas
failed to establish the Navy’s discriminatory or retaliatory intent, he also failed to
establish that the Navy’s actions were based on his protected characteristics as
necessary to state a prima facie hostile work environment claim.
AFFIRMED.