N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FR ANK C HEATHAM , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ITY OF PHOENIX,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-15785 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00641-SPL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste ve n Pa ul Loga n , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 11, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M AHAN, ** Distric t Judge
. Fra nk C he a tha

m , a form e r De puty

C hie f for the C ity

of Phoe nix Fire De pa rtm e nt, sue d the C ity

for unla wful re ta lia

tion unde r Title VII. The distric t



# FIL ED OCT 18 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ja m e s C . M aha

n, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ne va d a , sitting by de signa tion.c ourt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt for the C ity . For the re a sons sta te d be l ow, we a ffirm
. 1 In M arc h 2009, C he a tha

m be c am e De puty

C hie f of South Shift C om m and, whic h wa s loc a te d ne ar the Station One fire sta tion. B e twe e n

Nove m be r and De c e m b e r 2009, C he a tha

m re porte d to his supervisor m ultipleinc i de nts involving
se xua l ly e xplic it c onduc t in a

n d a round Sta tion One , inc luding: (1) a ja r found in Sta t ion One displa

y ing two c artoon dra

w ings of m a l e ge nita lia ; (2) a na c h o c he e se
m a c hine with a

sim ila r dra wing in theStation One kitc he n; (3) a t-shirt with a sim ila r drawing a

t a gym sha re d be twe e n South Shift C om m and a n d Station One ; (4) an ide ntic a l t-shirt be ing worn in a c o m m on a re a ; a nd (5) a n e nve lope de live re d to C he a tha

m ’ s offic e c onta ining two pie c e s of pa sta re se m bling m a le and fe m a le ge nita lia . In M arc h 2010, a bout four m o nths a fte r the la s t of the se inc ide nts, C he a tha m wa s inform e d tha

t he wa s be i ng re a ssigne d to De puty C hie f of Sa fe ty . C he a tha m file d this suit, c la im ing tha t his re a ssignm e nt wa s unla w ful re ta lia

tion for his opposition to a

hostilework e nvironm e nt unde r Title VII.

“ To m ake out a

prim a fa c ie c a se of re ta lia

tion [unde r Title VII] , a

n e m ploy e e
m ust show tha

t (1) he e nga ge d in a

prote c te d a c tivity ; (2) his e m

ploy e r subje c te d

1 W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Our re vie w of the distric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt is de novo. Se e Little v . W inde rme re Re loc a tion, Inc
. , 301 F.3d 958, 966 (9th C ir. 2002). 2him

to a n a dve rse e m

ploy m e n t a c tion; a nd (3) a c a usa l link e xists be twe e n the prote c te d a c tivity an d the a dve rse a c tion.” Ray v . He nde rson , 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th C ir. 2000). If the pla intiff e sta blishe s a prim a fa c ie c a se , “ the burde n shifts to the d e fe nda

nt to a rtic ulate a le gitim a te nondisc rim inatory re a s on for its de c ision.” Id. Onc e the de fe n d ant a rtic ulate s suc h a

re a son, the pla intiff “be ars the ultim a te burde n of de m onstra

ting tha t the re a son wa s m e re ly

a pre t e xt for a

disc rim inatory
m otive
. ” Id. In this c a se , C he a tha m c annot e sta

blish e ithe r the first or third
e le m e nts of a prim a

fa c ie c a se
—

that is, he c annot de m onstra te e ithe r tha

t he
e nga ge d in prote c te d a c tivity or tha t a c a usa l link e xists be twe e n his a c tivity and his re a ssignm e n t. W ith re spe c t to prote c te d

a c tivity , a

pla intiff c l a im ing re ta lia

tion m ust de m onstra

te “ a re a s onable

be lie f tha t the e m ploy e r ha s e nga ge d in a

n unla wful
e m ploy m e nt pra c tic e . ” F

re itag v . Ay e rs , 468 F.3d 528, 541 (9th C ir. 2006) (quota tion m arks om itte d). Whe re , a s he re , the pla intiff c onte nds he oppose d a hostile work e nvironm e nt, he m ust de m onstra

te a re a sona b le be lie f that the
e m ploy e r e nga ge d in disc rim inatory c onduc t tha

t “ wa s both obje c tive l y and subje c tive ly

offe nsive ” and “ wa s suffic i e ntly se ve re or pe rva s ive to . . . c re a te an a busive working e nvironm e nt.” Se e Daw s on v . Ente k

Int’l , 630 F.3d 928, 937–38 (9th C ir. 2011). The re is no e vide n c e tha t a ny one a t Sta

t ion One found the c onduc t
3a t issue subje c tive l y offe nsive , a

nd C he at ham him se lf a dm its tha

t, though he

found the c onduc t “ i na

ppropria te ,” he did not find it ha

ra s sing. 2 On this re c ord, C he a tha m c annot de m onstra

te a re a sona ble be lie f that the re wa s a hostile work
e nvironm e nt a

t Station One and, thus, c annot show prote c te d a c tivity
. C

f. C lark C ty . Sc h. Dist. v . Bre e de n , 532 U.S. 268, 271 (2001) (pla intiff’ s re ta l iation c la im fa ile d be c a

u se the inc ide nt she re porte d wa s “ a t worst a

n isola te d inc i de n[t] tha

t
c annot re m ote l y be c o nside re d e xtre m e ly se rious” and she “ c onc e de d tha t it did not bothe r or upse t he r” (quota tion m arks om itte d))
. In any e ve nt, C he a tha

m ’ s re ta l iation c la i m

inde pe nde ntly

fa ils be c a

use he ha s not de m onstra

te d c a usation. TheC ity

did not re a ssign C he a tha m until
a pproxim a te l y

four m onths a fte r the la st inc ide nt he re porte d, a nd he wa s one of sixte e n individuals re a ssigne d on the sa m e da y . He offe rs no e vide nc e that his supe riors disa

p prove d of his re ports. To the c ontra ry , the re c ord re fle c ts tha

t, following C he a tha

m ’ s re ports, the C ity

re m ove d the c artoon dra

wings from

Station One and tha

t no sim ila r inc ide nts oc c urre d a fte r De c e m be r 2009. C he a tha

m ha s not offe re d suffic ie nt e v ide n c e to pe rm i t a re a s ona ble trie r of fa c t to find tha t, but

2 Aside from

C he a tha m , the only

othe r e m ploy e e who wa s purporte dly offe nde d wa s C o urtne y

Je nkins, the m a le Fire C a p ta in who re trie ve d the ja r with the d rawings on it from

Stat ion One . Vie wing the re c ord in the light m ost fa vora ble to C he a tha

m , the re is still no sugge stion Je n kins subje c tive ly found tha

t the j ar c re a te d a

n a busive e nvironm e nt. 4for any

a lle ge dly prote c te d a c tivity , the C ity would not ha ve re a s signe d him . His
c la im fa ils for this re a son a s we ll. Se e Univ . of Te x . Sw
. Me d. C

tr. v . N assar , 133 S. C t. 2517, 2534 (2013) (“ [A] pla intiff m aking a re t a lia tion c la im . . . m ust
e sta blish tha t his or he r prote c te d a c tivity wa s a but-for c a

u se of the a lle ge d
a dve rse a c t ion by

the e m ploy e r.” ). W e the re fore AFFIRM the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt.

5