McKENZIE DANIELS v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster U.S. Postal Service

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
McKENZIE DANIELS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster U.S.
Postal Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-56773
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-06731-JFW-PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
McKenzie Daniels appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his action alleging claims for age discrimination in violation of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and breach of contract. We
* 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
JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Tritz v. U.S. Postal
Serv., 721 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) (subject matter jurisdiction); Vasquez v.
County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment).
We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Tritz, 721 F.3d at 1136.
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Daniels’s age
discrimination claim because Daniels failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether he was not rehired because of his age, and whether the
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for defendant’s actions was pretextual. See
Whitman v. Mineta, 541 F.3d 929, 932 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining prima facie
elements for age discrimination); see also Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d 599, 607,
609-10 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that McDonnell Douglas framework applies to
ADEA claims on summary judgment and explaining how a plaintiff can prove
pretext).
The district court incorrectly concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Daniels’s breach of contract claim. See Tritz, 721 F.3d at 1138-
39 (explaining that district courts have jurisdiction over contract claims against the
U.S. Postal Service, regardless of the amount in controversy). However, summary
judgment was proper because Daniels failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendant breached any settlement agreements. See id. at 1140

-- 2 of 3 --

(affirming dismissal of breach of contract claims based on breach of settlement
agreements on alternate ground that plaintiff’s pro se complaint failed to state a
claim that would entitle her to relief). Contrary to Daniels’s contention, the
settlement agreements do not show that he was promised a job as a mail handler.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --