Bryan SMITH, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTEX HOMES REALTY COMPANY, a Nevada Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees, 357 F. App'x 751
Opinion
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Bryan Smith appeals the grant of
summary judgment in favor of Defendant Centex Homes Realty Company in this employment-related diversity case. We review de novo the district court’s grant of
summary judgment. Dietrich v. John Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir.2008). Here we must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Id. 1. With regard to Plaintiffs sex discrimination claim, we apply the burden-shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2001).
Under that framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, before the burden shifts to the employer “to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s [termination].” McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. The record fails to establish a prima facie case for sex discrimination because similarly situated women were not treated more favorably than Plaintiff. Even if there were a prima facie case, this claim fails.
Defendant outsourced his job for economic reasons, none of which was pre-textual. 2.As to the age discrimination claim, Plaintiff must prove, “by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the challenged adverse employment action.” Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2352, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). The record falls short of that standard. There is no evidence that Plaintiffs age was a factor, much less the “but-for” cause, in his termination. AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Loading document…