Case ID: f-appx_182/html/0737-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John MUSSACK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, State of Hawaii, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 04-15971.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 14, 2006.
    Decided June 29, 2006.
    Earle A. Partington, Esq., Partington & Foley, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Deirdre Marie-Iha, Elton K Suzuki, Esq., James E. Halvorson, Esq., Kathryn-Jean Taniguchi, Esq., Office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and HALL, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Hawaii Department of Education. Mussack’s retaliation claim fails because he did not present sufficient evidence to show that the Department’s proffered reason for his termination was pretext. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061-62 (9th Cir.2002). Mussack’s interference claim similarly fails because he did not present sufficient evidence to support it. Regardless of which framework is used to analyze his interference claim, Mussack simply did not present evidence that the Department interfered with his rights. See Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1193 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.