Farren St. George v. Pexco, LLC

* 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FARREN ST. GEORGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PEXCO, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-36068
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03076-LRS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2012 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Farren St. George appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment in favor of his employer, Pexco, LLC, in his employment retaliation
claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
FILED
OCT 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Washington state looks to federal law when analyzing retaliation
claims. See Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003).
2
district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Manatt v. Bank of America, 339
F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
St. George alleged Pexco laid him off in retaliation for a complaint, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,
and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Wash. Rev. Code
49.60.210. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII or
WLAD,1 St. George must show that “1) he engaged in a protected activity; 2) he
suffered an adverse employment decision; and 3) there was a causal link between
the protected activity and the adverse employment decision.” Villiarimo v. Aloha
Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002).
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment because,
assuming St. George’s WLAD claim is not preempted by § 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, he did not show a causal link
between the protected activity and his layoff. To demonstrate causation, St.
George claims that the plant manager stopped talking to him shortly after he
complained and that there was only a two-month period between the complaint and
the layoff. But St. George admitted that the supervisors who knew about his

-- 2 of 3 --

3
complaint took no part in the layoff decision. And he failed to provide sufficient
evidence that the persons who made the layoff decision knew about his complaint.
Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Essential to a
causal link is evidence that the employer was aware that the plaintiff had engaged
in the protected activity.”). His assertion that the plant manager avoided him
following the complaint falls short of creating a triable issue of fact. Surrell v. Cal.
Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Conclusory statements
without factual support are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary
judgment.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --