Guangyu Wang v. Nevada System of Higher Education

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUANGYU WANG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-15981
D.C. No.
3:18-cv-00075-MMD-CLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 17, 2022
San Francisco, California
Before: LINN,** RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Dr. Guangyu Wang appeals a judgment of the district court in favor of the
Nevada System of Higher Education (“NSHE”) in this action asserting violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Nevada law. He also challenges the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Richard Linn, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 30 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
district court’s award of costs to NSHE. We review the district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo, Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9th
Cir. 2005), and its evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, Obrey v. Johnson, 400
F.3d 691, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). We may reverse an award of costs if we find that the
award would cause “severe injustice.” See Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335
F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm the judgment in favor of NSHE but reverse
the costs award.
1. Wang argues that the district court misconstrued his operative complaint
as simply alleging five discrete acts of retaliation, as opposed to hostile work
environment or breach of contract. We disagree. A plain reading of the operative
complaint shows that Wang alleged separate claims arising from specific distinct
acts, see Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113–15 (2002), and
the record developed at summary judgment and trial contains no evidence to support
a hostile work environment claim. Wang’s operative complaint also fails to allege
breach of contract.
2. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the first
four claims of retaliation.
a. Although the court granted Wang partial summary judgment as to liability
on the first two claims, it correctly held that Wang failed to establish damages from
either retaliatory act. Because Wang did not seek nominal damages below, he has

-- 2 of 4 --

3
waived any such claim on appeal. See Fitzgerald v. Century Park, Inc., 642 F.2d
356, 359 (9th Cir. 1981).
b. The district court correctly held that undisputed evidence showed that the
prior settlement amount of $21,589.02 was paid by the State of Nevada and not from
Wang’s grant.
c. The district court also correctly held that NSHE had no duty to preserve
lab supplies purchased with university funds and that the university’s obligations
under a prior settlement agreement extended only to two equipment items unrelated
to the lab supplies, obligations that NSHE satisfied.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence relating
to the first four claims from the jury trial on the fifth claim. That evidence was not
directly related to the issue at trial, which was whether NSHE retaliated against
Wang by prohibiting his access to the lab several months after his employment was
terminated. See Sprint/United Mgmt Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 382–85
(2008) (noting that district courts have broad discretion to determine what evidence
is relevant or when relevant evidence should be excluded). In any event, Wang
suffered no prejudice from exclusion of the evidence, see Obrey, 400 F.3d at 701, as
he failed to show any damage from denial of access to the lab given that the supplies
related to his claims had already been discarded.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
4. Because of the grossly different financial positions of the parties and
Wang’s partial success in establishing two acts of retaliation, we find that awarding
costs to NSHE would cause severe injustice. The award of costs is therefore
reversed.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. Each party shall bear
its own costs on appeal.

-- 4 of 4 --