Case ID: f-appx_496/html/0754-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Farren ST. GEORGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEXCO, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-36068.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 12, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 24, 2012.
    Robert Morrill Boggs, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert M. Boggs, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Barry Alan Johnsrud, Catharine M. Morisset, Jackson Lewis LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: TASHIMA, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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 set?., 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, 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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Washington state looks to federal law when analyzing retaliation claims. See Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.2003).