Gantenbein v. Union Pacific Railroad
This text of 44 F. App'x 851 (Gantenbein v. Union Pacific Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Larry A. Gantenbein appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging wrongful termination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants because Gantenbein was no longer qualified to continue work as an attorney for Union Pacific after the Idaho State Bar recommended his suspension from the practice of law. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (Title VII); Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems Co., 292 F.3d 1038, 1041-43 (9th Cir.2002) (ADA); Wallis, 26 F.3d at 891 (ADEA).
Gantenbein’s motions to correct and augment the record are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
44 F. App'x 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gantenbein-v-union-pacific-railroad-ca9-2002.