Sands v. Kroger Co.
This text of 316 F. App'x 660 (Sands v. Kroger Co.) 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
Former attorney Henry William Sands appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of The Kroger Co. in his action alleging race and age discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 269 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sands failed to produce specific and substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether The Kroger Co.’s proffered reasons for not hiring him as an Information Systems Technologist were pretextual. See id. at 270 (the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of persuading the court that the stated reasons why he was not hired were false and the true reason was unlawful discrimination).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
316 F. App'x 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sands-v-kroger-co-ca9-2009.