Boualem Habib v. Tote Services, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOUALEM HABIB,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TOTE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-35073
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01685-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Boualem Habib appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his employment action alleging claims under Title VII and state law. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and may affirm on any
basis supported by the record. Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1047
* 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).
FILED
OCT 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-35073
(9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
Summary judgment on Habib’s disparate treatment claims was proper
because Habib failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Habib was
pretextual. See Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155-56 (9th Cir.
2010) (setting forth burden-shifting framework for Title VII disparate treatment
claim under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)); Godwin v.
Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The prima facie case
may be based either on a presumption arising from the factors such as those set
forth in McDonnell Douglas, or by more direct evidence of discriminatory
intent.”); Blackburn v. State, 375 P.3d 1076, 1080 (Wash. 2016) (en banc)
(Washington courts look to Title VII for guidance in disparate treatment cases
under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Habib’s hostile
work environment claim under the WLAD because Habib failed to raise a triable
dispute as to whether defendant authorized, knew of, or should have known of any
harassment. See Blackburn, 375 P.3d at 1081 (elements of hostile work
environment claim under WLAD); Glasgow v. Ga.-Pac. Corp., 693 P.2d 708, 711-
12 (Wash. 1985) (en banc) (“[E]mployee must show that the employer . . .
authorized, knew, or should have known of harassment and . . . failed to take

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-35073
reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.”).
Because Habib does not challenge the district court’s determination that
Habib failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on his hostile work
environment claim under federal law, we do not consider Habib’s arguments
regarding the merits of this claim. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2
(9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider Habib’s contentions regarding retaliation because the
operative first amended complaint does not contain a retaliation claim. See
Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A]n
amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as
non-existent.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --