Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0700-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andreas BLIKAS; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RESTAURANTS UNLIMITED, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-35980.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 2012.
    Filed Nov. 14, 2012.
    Glenn Solomon, Glenn Solomon, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Joanna Rosa Brody, Heidi Guettler, Jackson Lewis LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: RIPPLE, McKEOWN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andreas Blikas, Michael Borges, James Michael Fry, Greg Gates, Joseph Gonzales, and Mark Shiflett (collectively “the Chefs”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Restaurants Unlimited. The Chefs allege that they were terminated in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).

Shiflett’s claim was properly dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. He failed to comply with the filing requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1) and did not introduce any evidence establishing that he was unable to determine the source of his injury or obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim within the limitations period. See Garcia v. Brockway, 526 F.3d 456, 465 (9th Cir.2008).

Even assuming that each of the Chefs could have established a prima facie case of age discrimination, their claims fail because Restaurants Unlimited introduced evidence sufficient to demonstrate that each of the Chefs was fired for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and the Chefs failed to introduce evidence that would raise a genuine material factual question as to whether Restaurants Unlimited’s proffered reasons were pretextual. See Pottenger v. Potlatch Corp., 329 F.3d 740, 745-49 (9th Cir.2003).

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