Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Valgene SUTHERLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RED BULL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-16724.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
    Kirk Kennedy, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Deanna C. Brinkerhoff, Esquire, Krystal Joy Gallagher, Esquire, Holland & Hart LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Anthony Lucas Hall, Esquire, Holland & Hart LLP, Reno, NV, Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Valgene Sutherland appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Red Bull Distribution Co., Inc. (“Red Bull”). We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Sutherland’s wrongful termination and negligent supervision claims do not raise genuine issues of material fact. Under Nevada law, both wrongful termination and negligent supervision require proof of causation. See Ozawa v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 125 Nev. 556, 216 P.3d 788, 791 (2009); Allum v. Valley Bank of Nev., 114 Nev. 1313, 970 P.2d 1062, 1066 (1998).

Sutherland alleges that Red Bull violated 20 U.S.C. § 1095a(a)(8) by terminating his employment to avoid complying with a potential administrative wage garnishment order. However, Sutherland concedes that none of the individuals involved in his termination knew about the potential garnishment. Rather, he relies on a theory of constructive notice. However, an alleged constructive notice is insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer causation. For the potential wage garnishment to have motivated Sutherland’s managers and the human resources director to terminate his employment, they must have known about it. Cf. Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir.2003); Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir.1982).

Because it is undisputed that the decision-makers had no actual knowledge of the proposed garnishment, the district court properly granted summary judgment.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.