Marshall Johnson v. Lockheed Martin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARSHALL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-16808
D.C. No. 5:11-cv-01140-LHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Marshall Johnson appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in his
employment action alleging racial discrimination in violation of federal and state
law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hawn v.
Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 31 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s racial
discrimination claims under Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and
Housing Act (“FEHA”) because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for
his layoff were pretextual. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634,
640-42 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing elements of a discrimination claim under
Title VII and explaining that circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific
and substantial); see also Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 941 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“California courts apply the Title VII framework to claims brought under
FEHA.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s claim
that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy because Johnson
failed to raise a triable dispute as to his racial discrimination claim. See Sanders v.
Arneson Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming summary
judgment on public policy claim based on anti-discrimination law where plaintiff
failed to a raise triable dispute as to discrimination claim).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-16808

-- 2 of 2 --