Sharer v. Oregon

Ninth Circuit

Sharer v. Oregon

333 F. App'x 218

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 21, 2009

DocketNo. 08-35396

StatusPublished

This text of 333 F. App'x 218 (Sharer v. Oregon) 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

Sharer v. Oregon, 333 F. App'x 218 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

Steven Humber appeals the district court’s order granting defendants judgment on the pleadings on Humber’s claim of retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We treat defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings “as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.” County Sanitation Dist. of L.A. v. Inland Container Carp., 803 F.2d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir.1986). The record makes clear that defendants terminated Humber for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, including his keeping an unlicensed pistol in his office and his severe neglect of his caseload responsibilities. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir.2002). The Chief Judge of the Oregon Court of Appeals concluded there had been considerable “slippage” in Humber’s work performance. The court’s staff likewise reported a “pattern of neglect” in Hum-ber’s cases, and Humber’s supervisors received numerous complaints from his clients. Nothing in the record demonstrates that defendants have ever tolerated a pattern of poor work performance as egregious as Humber’s, or were aware his firearm was unlicensed.

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

MEMORANDUM

*

Steven Humber appeals the district court’s order granting defendants judgment on the pleadings on Humber’s claim of retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We treat defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings “as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.” County Sanitation Dist. of L.A. v. Inland Container Carp., 803 F.2d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir.1986). The record makes clear that defendants terminated Humber for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, including his keeping an unlicensed pistol in his office and his severe neglect of his caseload responsibilities. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir.2002). The Chief Judge of the Oregon Court of Appeals concluded there had been considerable “slippage” in Humber’s work performance. The court’s staff likewise reported a “pattern of neglect” in Hum-ber’s cases, and Humber’s supervisors received numerous complaints from his clients. Nothing in the record demonstrates that defendants have ever tolerated a pattern of poor work performance as egregious as Humber’s, or were aware his firearm was unlicensed.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 F. App'x 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharer-v-oregon-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack