Jenkins v. Babbitt

Ninth Circuit

Jenkins v. Babbitt

2 F. App'x 816

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 2001

DocketNo. 99-16720

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 F. App'x 816 (Jenkins v. Babbitt) 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.

Bluebook

Jenkins v. Babbitt, 2 F. App'x 816 (9th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM²

Willard Jenkins, Sr. appeals pro se the district court’s entry of judgment for the Secretary of the Department of Interior (“Secretary”) following a bench trial in his employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (“ADEA”).³ We have jurisdiction [817]*817pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review for clear error a judge’s findings of fact in a bench trial. See FDIC v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 701 (9th Cir.1998). Because Jenkins failed to rebut the Secretary’s evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its hiring decision, the district court properly found in favor of the Secretary on the disparate treatment and age discrimination claims. See Pejic v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., 840 F.2d 667, 672-74 (9th Cir.1988). Because Jenkins failed to present evidence of a policy or pattern of discriminatory hiring, the district court did not err by rendering judgment in favor of the Secretary on the disparate impact claims. See Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 650, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989).

Jenkins’ remaining contentions lack merit. We have not considered issues raised for the first time in Jenkins’ reply brief. See Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir.1990). We grant Jenkins’ motion to include additional excerpts of record; we have considered the excerpts in concluding this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM²

Willard Jenkins, Sr. appeals pro se the district court’s entry of judgment for the Secretary of the Department of Interior (“Secretary”) following a bench trial in his employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (“ADEA”).³ We have jurisdiction [817]*817pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review for clear error a judge’s findings of fact in a bench trial. See FDIC v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 701 (9th Cir.1998). Because Jenkins failed to rebut the Secretary’s evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its hiring decision, the district court properly found in favor of the Secretary on the disparate treatment and age discrimination claims. See Pejic v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., 840 F.2d 667, 672-74 (9th Cir.1988). Because Jenkins failed to present evidence of a policy or pattern of discriminatory hiring, the district court did not err by rendering judgment in favor of the Secretary on the disparate impact claims. See Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 650, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989).

Jenkins’ remaining contentions lack merit. We have not considered issues raised for the first time in Jenkins’ reply brief. See Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir.1990). We grant Jenkins’ motion to include additional excerpts of record; we have considered the excerpts in concluding this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. App'x 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-babbitt-ca9-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack