Renardo Robertson v. Ccsww

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RENARDO D. ROBERTSON; DONNA No. 21-35545 ROBERTSON, individually and their marital community, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01618-RSM

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

MEMORANDUM*

v.

CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF WESTERN WASHINGTON, a Washington public benefit corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 19, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Renardo D. Robertson and Donna Robertson appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their employment action alleging federal and state

*

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).

law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) because plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reasons for its adverse actions were pretextual. See Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1105-08 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applicable to Title VII and § 1981 claims for discrimination and retaliation); Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., 430 P.3d 229, 234-39 (Wash. 2018) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework to retaliation claims under WLAD); Mikkelsen v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Kittitas County, 404 P.3d 464, 470 (Wash. 2017) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework to discrimination claims under WLAD).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy because plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the layoff was caused by the public-policy-linked conduct. See Piel v. City of Fed. Way, 306 P.3d 879, 881 (Wash. 2013) (elements of a wrongful discharge claim under Washington law).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

2 21-35545

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 21-35545