Terrance Walker v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRANCE WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
and CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15138
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00556-RCJ-VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 15, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,** District
Judge.
Terrance Walker was terminated as a Direct Sales Representative at Charter
Communications, Inc. following a series of incidents during which Charter claims
FILED
OCT 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Walker behaved unprofessionally. Walker sued Charter under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., and analogous Nevada
law1, alleging race discrimination and retaliation. Charter successfully moved for
summary judgment on all of Walker’s claims.2 Walker appealed. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse the grant of summary judgment on
the race discrimination claims but affirm on the retaliation claims, and remand for
further proceedings.
The conflicting accounts about whether Walker actually engaged in the
unprofessional conduct alleged by Charter create a genuine issue of material fact
whether Charter discriminated against Walker on the basis of his race. Summary
judgment is therefore inappropriate on these claims.
As for Walker’s retaliation claim, his only “protected activities” under Title VII
were his complaints of race discrimination to the Nevada Equal Rights Commission
(“NERC”) and to Charter, via its internal EthicsPoint reporting system. See Raad v.
Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir. 2003). His oral
complaint to his supervisor was not protected because it did not identify a
1 NEV. REV. STAT. § 613.330, 613.340.
2 See Walker v. Charter Commc’ns, No. 3:15-cv-00556-RCJ-VPC, 2017 WL
5957208 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2017).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

discriminatory practice. See EEOC v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720 F.2d 1008, 1013
(9th Cir. 1983).
And, most – if not all – of the relevant decision-makers recommended or
approved Walker’s termination before they learned of his complaint to the NERC.
Accordingly, Walker cannot establish a causal link between his protected activities
and Charter’s termination, a necessary element of a prima facie case. See Cohen v.
Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED; each party
to bear its own costs on appeal.
3

-- 3 of 3 --