Douglas Robinson v. Kiran Ahuja

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 23, 2024
• Docket: 23-15197
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS E. ROBINSON, No. 23-15197

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-07907-JSC

v. MEMORANDUM* KIRAN AHUJA, Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jacqueline Scott Corley, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted October 16, 2024***

Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Douglas E. Robinson appeals pro se from the district’s summary judgment

in his employment discrimination action alleging violations of Title VII and the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Judge Corley was confirmed as a district judge during the pendency of this case. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d

1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Robinson

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was qualified for

promotion, whether similarly situated employees not of his protected class were

treated more favorably, or that the circumstances gave rise to an inference of

discrimination. See id. at 1156 (setting forth the elements of a prima facie case of

discrimination under Title VII); Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d 599, 608 (9th Cir.

2012) (setting forth the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under the

ADEA); Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 892 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir. 1990)

(“‘[S]tray’ remarks are insufficient to establish discrimination.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15197