N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TAM B LE TAYLOR ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. LOW E’ S C ORPOR

ATION, a

North C arolina C orporation, doing busine ss in W a shington, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 20-35345 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-05622-R JB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt J. B ry a

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

6, 2021 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, C LIFTON, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
JUL 8 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).Tam

ble Tay lor a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of Lowe ’ s C orporation. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd
we a ffirm in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt. Lowe ’ s is e n title d to sum m ary judgm e nt on Ta

y lor’ s c l a im s tha

t Lowe ’ s disc rim inate d a ga inst him on the ba sis of ra c e and a ge unde r Title VII of the C ivil R ights Ac t of 1964, 42 U.S.C . § 2000e -2(a )(1); the Age Disc rim inat ion in Em ploy m e nt Ac t (ADEA), 29 U.S.C . § 623(a )(1); and the W a s hington La w Aga inst Disc rim ination (W L AD), W a sh. R e v. C ode § 49.60.180(2), in te rm inating his e m p loy m e nt. Eve n a ssum ing Ta y lor e sta blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ination, Lowe ’ s proffe re d a le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory re a son for firing him : he c om

m itte d a C la ss A viola

tion of c o m

pa ny polic y . Se e C

ole man v . Quak e r Oats C o. , 232 F.3d 1271, 1281 (9th C ir. 2000). Ta y lor ha s not pointe d to

“ spe c ific and substa

ntia l” c i rc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e ra ising a

ge nuine issue of
m ate ria l fa c t tha

t this proffe re d re a son is pre te xt for disc rim ination. Brow n v . C ity of Tuc son , 336 F.3d 1181, 1188 (9th C ir. 2003) (c l e ane d up). Lowe ’ s is e n title d to sum m ary judgm e nt on Ta

y lor’ s c l a im

for wrongful disc ha rge in viola

tion of publicpolic y

(W DVPP). Se e Rosev . Ande rson Hay & Grain C o. , 358 P.3d 1139, 1143 (Wa sh. 2015). Ta y lor sta te d in his de

position tha

t he did not m ake a c o m

pla i nt to Lowe ’ s re ga

rding its fa ilure to inte rvie w him for a
2de live ry

m a na ge r position; nor did he c om pla i n tha t this fa ilure wa s due to disc rim ination on the

ba sis of ra c e or a ge . Ac c o rdingly , e v e n a ssum ing the W DVPP c la im

is not wa ive d, Ta

y lor fa ile d to ra ise a

ge n uine issue of m at e ria l fa c t that his m aking a

re port of disc rim ination wa s a signific ant fa c tor in Lowe ’ s de c ision to term i nate him
. Se e Martin v . Gonzaga Univ

. , 425 P.3d 837, 844 (W a sh. 2018). Lowe ’ s is e n title d to sum m ary judgm e nt on Ta

y lor’ s ra c e and a g e disc rim ination c la im

unde r Title VII, the ADEA, a nd the W LAD, c o nc e rning Lowe ’ s de c ision not to hire him a s a de live ry

m a n a g e r. Eve n a s sum ing Ta y lor inc l ude d this c la im

in his fe de ra l c om

pla int a nd did not waive it, Ta

y lor’ s Title VII
and ADEA c la im s a

re une xha uste d, be c a

use Ta y l or did not m e ntion the s e c la im s in his W a shington Sta

te Hum an R ights C om

m ission (W SHR C ) c om

pla int, a nd thus did not m e ntion the m

in his Equal Em

ploy m e nt Opportunity

C om m ission
c om pla i nt, Sanc h e

z v . Pac . Pow de r C

o. , 147 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th C ir. 1998), whic h wa s ne c e s sa

ry for purpose s of e xha

ustion, B .K

.B. v . Maui Polic e De

p ’t , 276 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th C ir. 2002), as ame nde d (Fe b. 20, 2002); 29 U.S.C
. § 626(d)(1)(B ); 42 U.S.C . § 2000e -5(e )(1). Any W L A D c la im

wa s untim e ly , be c a use Ta y lor file d his fe de ra l c om pla int in August 2018, m

o re tha n thre e y e ars

3a fte r Lowe ’ s fa ile d to inte rvie w him for the de live ry

m ana ge r position in July 2015. Se e W a sh. R e v . C ode § 4.16.080(2). Lowe ’ s is e n title d to sum m ary judgm e nt on Ta

y lor’ s re ta lia

tion c la im be c a use , e ve n a ssum ing Ta

y lor inc lude d this c la im

in his fe de ra l c o m

pla int, Ta y lor fa ile d to ra ise it in his W SHR C c om pla int, a nd thus fa ile d

to e xha ust it. 42 U.S.C
. § 2000e -5(e )(1); 29 U.S.C .§ 626(d)(1); Sanc he z , 147 F.3d a

t 1099. The re m a i ning c la i m s ra ise d in Ta y l or’ s ope ning brie f on a

ppe a l we re not
ra ise d to the distric t c ourt a nd re ly on e vide nc e tha

t wa s not be fore the distric t
c ourt. W e dism iss the se wa i ve d c la im s. 1 AFFIRM E D IN PART , DISM ISSE D IN PART . 2

1 W e re m i nd Ta

y lor’ s c ounse l tha

t, “ sav e in unusua l c irc um sta nc e s, we c onside r only

the distric t

c ourt re c ord on a

ppe a l .” Low ry

v . Barnhart , 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th C ir. 2003) (c le ane d up); se e also Fe d. R . App. P. 10(a). 2 Ta y lor’ s R e que st for the C ourt to Ta k e Judic ia l Notic e , Dkt. No. 19, is GR ANTED. 4