PHILBERT v. MCDONOUGH (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-22No. No. 19-56396

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on all of Philbert's Title VII discrimination, retaliation, and wage discrimination claims.

Curtis Philbert appealed a summary judgment decision in his federal employment discrimination case against the Department of Veterans Affairs. The district court granted summary judgment on all of Philbert's Title VII claims, including allegations of discrimination based on national origin and sex, as well as retaliation and wage discrimination claims. Philbert failed to present evidence creating a genuine factual dispute about whether the VA's stated reasons for not promoting him or reclassifying his position were pretextual, and he did not apply for promotion or demonstrate that his position qualified for reclassification.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Philbert raised a genuine dispute of material fact regarding pretext in Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims
Whether Philbert presented sufficient evidence to support a Title VII wage discrimination claim under Equal Pay Act standards
Burden-shifting framework and pretext analysis in Title VII employment discrimination cases

Procedural posture

Philbert appealed pro se from a district court's entry of summary judgment in his Title VII employment discrimination action against the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Curtis W. Philbert appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in his employment action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dept of Fair Empt & Hous. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 642 F.3d 728, 736 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Philberts Title VII national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation claims because Philbert failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reasons for not promoting him or reclassifying his position were pretextual. See Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 658-59 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth burden-shifting framework for Title VII discrimination claim; circumstantial evidence of pretext for discrimination claim must be specific and substantial); see also Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2004) (burden-shifting framework applies to Title VII retaliation claim; circumstantial evidence of pretext for retaliation claim must be specific and substantial).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Philberts Title VII wage discrimination claim. The VA presented evidence that Philbert did not apply for a promotion and his position did not qualify for reclassification, and Philbert failed to present evidence to the contrary. See Maxwell v. City of Tucson, 803 F.2d 444, 446 (9th Cir. 1986) (“When a Title VII [plaintiff] contends that [he] has been denied equal pay for substantially equal work, ․ Equal Pay Act [(‘EPA’)] standards apply.”); see also Rizo v. Yovino, 950 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth EPAs four exceptions for wage differential, which operate as affirmative defenses).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.