Chandrakant Chandra Shinde v. Coffman Engineers, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHANDRAKANT CHANDRA SHINDE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COFFMAN ENGINEERS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-55903
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01816-PA-MAN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Chandrakant Chandra Shinde appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his diversity action alleging, among other claims,
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and national origin in violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and wrongful termination
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 3 --

in violation of public policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Deppe v. United Airlines, 217 F.3d 1262, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000),
and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shinde’s
discrimination claims under the FEHA because, even assuming that Shinde
established a prima facie case of discrimination, he failed to raise genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether defendant’s non-discriminatory reason for firing him
was pretextual. See Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113-14, 1118-19
(Cal. 2000) (setting forth burden-shifting framework for analyzing claims of
discrimination based on a theory of disparate treatment under the FEHA; noting
that summary judgment for the employer is appropriate where, given the strength
of the employer’s legitimate reasons, any countervailing circumstantial evidence is
too weak to raise a rational inference that discrimination occurred).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shinde’s wrongful
termination claim, which was premised on the alleged violation of the anti-
discrimination policy embodied in the FEHA, for the same reasons as his FEHA
claims. See Holmes v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 172, 177 n.8 (Ct.
App. 1993) (setting forth elements of a claim for wrongful termination in violation
of public policy under California law); see also Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
12-55903 2

-- 2 of 3 --

876 P.2d 1022, 1032-33 (Cal. 1994) (discussing “the violation of public policy”
element of a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy).
Defendant’s request for summary dismissal of the appeal due to Shinde’s
failure to comply with briefing deadlines, set forth in its answering brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
12-55903 3

-- 3 of 3 --