N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C HER I SER LIN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. ALEXANDER

DAW SON SC HOOL, LLC , e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15937 D.C . 2:12-c v-01431-JC M -NJK

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

7, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s a nd ANELLO, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED JUL 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36 -3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble M ic ha e l M . Ane l lo, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion .Pla intiff-Appe lla nt C he ri Se rlin a

ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s gra

n t of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s (c olle c t ive l y , “ Dawson” ) on the following c la im s: (1) disa bility disc rim ination pursua

nt to theAm e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t

(ADA), 42 U.S.C . §§ 12101 e t se q. , a nd Ne va da R e vise d Statute (NR S) § 613.330; (2) re ligious discrim ination a n d hostilework e nv ironm e nt ba se d on re ligion pursua

nt to 42 U.S.C . §§ 2000e e t. se q . (Title VII) and NR S § 613.330; (3) re ta l iation pursua

n t to Title VII and NR S § 613.340; a nd (4) a ge disc rim ination unde r the Age Disc rim ination a nd Em ploy m e nt Ac t (ADEA), 29 U.S.C . § 621, e t se q . an d NR S § 613.330. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt in Da

wson’ s favor on Se rlin’ s c la im

of disa bility disc rim ination be c a

use Se rlin ha s fa ile d to e sta blish a suffic ie nt c a

usa l c onne c tion be twe e n Da wson’ s de c ision not to re

n e w he r te a c hing c ontra c t a

nd he r disa

bility . Dark

v . C u rry C ounty , 451 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th C ir. 2006). First, Se rlin ha s not shown tha t the ultim ate de c ision m a k e r–he r e m ploy e r–c onte m

plate d he r disa

bility whe n de c i ding not to rene w he r c ontra c t. Se c ond, insofa

r a s Se rlin’ s the ory

of lia b ility is tha t he r c oworke rs’ frustration with fre que ntly

having to ove rse e he r c la ssroom due to he r disa

bility m ay be im pute d to he r e m ploy e r, suc h a

c a usa l c ha in is too a

tte nuate d unde r this C ourt’ s pre c e de nts. 2C

ompare e .g. , Humphre

y v . Me m’l Hosps. Ass’n , 239 F.3d 1128, 1139-40 (9th C ir. 2001); K imbro v . Atlantic

Ric hfie ld C

o . , 889 F.2d 869, 874-75 (9th C ir. 1989). Eve n a ssum ing Se rlin e sta blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a s e , Da

wson offe re d le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory re a sons for c hoosing not to re ne w Se rlin’ s c ontra c t, and Se rlin fa ile d to sa

tisfy the burde n of de m o nstra

ting tha t those re a sons we re pre t e xtua l. Se e Mc

Donne ll Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973); Sne ad v . Me tro. Prop. &

C as. Ins. C o. , 237 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th C i r. 2001) (a pply ing the Mc

D onne ll Douglasfra m e work to ADA disc rim ination c a se s). W e a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt in Da

wson’ s favor on Se rlin’ s disa

bility disc rim inat ion c la im . 2. R e ga rding Se rlin’ s re ligious discrim inat ion c la im , Se rlin ha s fa i le d to de m onstra

te tha t he r re ligion (Judaism ) wa s a “ m otiva t ing fa c t or” in Da

wson’ s de c ision not to re

ne w he r c ontra c t. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 2000e -2(m ). Se rlin’ s ba re a sse rtion tha

t Da wson de c line d to re ne w othe r Je wish te a c he rs’ c ontra c ts fa ils to ra ise the infe re nc e tha

t Da wson c hose not to re ne w Se rlin’ s c ontra c t ba se d on he r re ligion, pa

rtic ula rly whe re Da

w son ha s c ite d to ne utra l re a sons for the de c ision, and whe re Se rlin’ s proffe re d c o m pa rison doe s not “ show a

sta rk patte rn of disc rim ination une xpla ina b le on [nondisc rim inat ory grounds] ” or a c c ount for 3nondisc rim inatory va ria b l e s, a s she ha s provide d no inform ation a s to the othe r te a c he rs’ qua litie s or Da

w son’ s re a sons for de c lining to ren e w the ir c ontra c ts. Se e C ole man v . Quak

e r Oats C o . , 232 F.3d 1271, 1283 (9th C i r. 2000). W e a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in Da

wson’ s fav or on Se rlin’ s re ligious disc rim ination c la im . Furthe r, Se rlin ha s fa ile d to show tha t a c oworke r’ s pa

tte rn of re fe rring to Se rlin’ s hom e town of Skokie , Illinois a s the “ ba ge l be lt” c re at e d a hostilework e nvironm e nt. Se rlin’ s c oworke r’ s c om m e nts only oc c urre d no m ore tha n te n tim e s in a two y e ar pe riod a

nd we re not of a

phy sic a l ly

thre ate n ing or humilia

t ing na ture . The distric t c ourt wa s c orre c t in finding tha t no ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould find suc h c om m e n ts suffic ie ntly

se ve re , pe rva s ive , or obje c tive ly offe nsive to give rise to a c la im unde r Title VII. Se e C

l ark C ty . Sc h . Dist. v . Bre e de n , 532 U.S. 268, 270-71 (2001); Me ritor Sav . Bank , FSB v . Vinson , 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986) (noting tha t a

“ m e re utte ranc e of an e thnic or ra c ia l e pithe t whic h e n ge nde rs offe nsive fe e lings in an e m ploy e e ” is insuffic ie n t to viola te Title VII). W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t in Da

wson’ s favor on Se rlin’ s hostilework e nvironm e nt c l a im . 3. R e ga rding Se rlin’ s re ta lia

tion c la im , Se rlin ha s not de m onstra t e d tha t the 4inform a l c om pla int she m a d e re ga

rding a c oworke r’ s c om

m e nts a bout he r wa s a but-for c a use of Da wson’ s de c ision not to re

n e w Se rlin’ s c ontra c t . Se e Univ . of Te x . Sw . Me d. C

tr. v . N assar , 133 S. C t. 2517, 2533 (2013) (holding tha t a pla intiff m ust show tra ditiona l “ but-for” c a usation to suc c e e d on a

re t a lia tion c la im ). Howe ve r, the m e re fa c t

tha t Se rlin m a de he r c om

pla i nt thre e m onths prior to Dawson’ s de c i sion not to rene w he r c o ntra c t is insuffic i e nt e v ide nc e of c a usation in this c a se . Se e Villiarmo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc . , 281 F.3d 1054, 1065 (9th C ir. 2002). Se rlin ha s not provide d a ny othe r e vide n c e tha

t Da wson re l ie d on he r c om pla i nt in de c iding not to rene w he r c ontra c t. Furthe r, e ve n a s sum ing Se rlin ha s e sta blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se of re ta lia

tion, Da wson ha s a

rtic ulate d le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory

re a sons for the a dve rse a c tion, a nd Se rlin fa ils to provide

any e vide nc e tha

t Da wson’ s re a sons we re pre te xtua l. W e a ffirm the distric t

c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t in Da

wson’ s favor on Se rlin’ s re ta lia tion c la im . 4. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t in Dawson’ s favor on Se rlin’ s c l a im of a ge disc rim ination. Se rlin ha s not produc e d suffic i e nt e vide nc e of pre te xt to re but Da wson’ s proffe re d, le gitim ate and ne utra l re a s ons for its de c ision not to re ne w Se rlin’ s c ontra c t . As indire c t e vide n c e of pre t e xt, Se rlin points to the fa c t tha t thre e othe r te a c h e rs whose c ontra c ts we re not re ne we d we re ove r the a ge o f forty . Howe ve r, he r statistic a l e vide n c e doe s not 5suffic e to “ show a sta rk patte rn of disc rim ination une xpla ina ble on [nondisc rim i natory

grounds] , ” nor doe s it a c c ount for nondisc rim inatory va ria ble s. Se e C ole m an , 232 F.3d a

t 1283. For e xam

ple , Se rlin ha s not provide d Da wson’ s re a s ons for the othe r te a c he rs’ te rm inations. Furthe r, the de c ision m ake rs’ sta te m e nts tha

t the y de sire d c re ative and

“ dy nam ic ” te a c he rs who ha

ve an “ e ne rgiz e d

wa y of te a c hing” and who will inte grate te c hnology

into le ssons a

re “ at be st we ak

c irc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e of disc rim inatory

an im us” ba se d on a ge . Se e N

e s bit v . Pe psic o , Inc . , 994 F.2d 703, 705 (9th C i r. 1993) (finding a supe rvisor’ s c o m

m e n t “ [we ] don’ t ne c e ssa rily like gre y ha ir” to be insuffic ie nt to show discrim inatory an im us whe re the c om

m e nt

“ wa s utte re d in a

n am biva le nt m anne r and wa s not tie d dire c tly to [the pla intiff’ s ] te rm ination” ). W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in Dawson’ s favor on Se rlin’ s a g e disc rim ination c la im . For the fore going re a sons, Se rlin fa i ls to ra i se a tria ble issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to a ny of he r c la im s tha

t a re the subje c t of this a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D .

6