N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAM ES EAGLE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. B ILL ALEXANDER AUTOM OTIVE C ENTER , INC . , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16879 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01148-JAT 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 Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 19, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M ELLOY, * * IKUTA, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Jam e s Ea g l e a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s e ntry of sum m ary judgm e nt a ga inst his Age Disc rim i n ation in Em ploy m e nt Ac t (ADEA) c l a im . Se e 29 U.S.C . § 623(a ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 

# F IL ED NOV 30 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble M ic ha e l J. M e lloy , Se nior C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Eighth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Eve n if Ea gle m a de out a prim a fa c ie c a se of a ge disc rim ination, he fa ile d to pre s e nt e v ide nc e suffic ie nt to e sta blish a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t on the issue of pre te xt. B e c a

use B ill Ale xa

nde r Autom otive C e nte r (“ A le xa n de r Toy ota ” ) artic ulate d le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory re a sons for firing Eagle , it wa s Ea gle ’ s burde n to show tha

t those re a sons we re pre te xtua l . Se e Potte nge r v . Potlatc h C orp. , 329 F.3d 740, 745–46 (9th C ir. 2003). Ea gle ’ s e vide n c e that y ounge r sa le spe rsons we re re ta i ne d doe s not e sta blish pre te xt, be c a

use sa le s m ana ge r T.R . Snow, the e m

ploy e e m o st simila

rly situa te d to Ea g le , wa s a lso fire d de spite be ing only 33 y e ars old. Se e Earl v . N ie lse n Me d

ia Re se arc h , Inc . , 658 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th C ir. 2011). Furthe rm ore , Ale xa n de r Toy ota ’ s e xpla

n ations for firing Eagle are not inc re dible sim

ply be c a use the y e volve d ove r tim e . The de a le rship’ s e xpla nations we re c om

p atible with e a c h othe r, se e N idds v . Sc hindle r Ele v ator C orp. , 113 F.3d 912, 918 (9th C ir. 1996), a nd Ale xa nde r Toy ota ’ s c la im

tha t Ea gle wa s pa rtia lly re sponsiblefor the de a le rship’ s poor c ustom e r se rvic e sc ore s wa s c re d ible d ue to Ea gle ’ s sta

tus a s a de fa c t o m ana ge r. Though Ea gle pre se nte d e vide nc e tha t his c oworke rs m a de a ge ist re m arks, he fa ile d to provide spe c ific and substa n t ia l e vide n c e tha

t those re m arks we re m a de , ove rhe ard, or e ndorse d by the supe rvisor who te rm inate d his e m ploy m e nt. Se e Monde ro v . Salt Riv e r Proje c t , 400 F.3d 1207, 1213 (9th C ir. 2005); Potte nge r , 2329 F.3d a

t 746–47. Sim

ila rly , Ea gle ’ s a sse rtion tha

t form e r supe rvisor R

y an Hanc oc k wa s a

de c i sionm a

ke r la c ke d supporting evide nc e , m e aning tha t a ra tiona l jury c ould not so find. B e c a

use Ea gle pre se nte d only

va gue and a

m biguous e vide nc e ty ing the disc rim inatory re m a rks to the de c ision to discha rge him , the distric t c o urt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Ale xa

n d e r Toy ota . Se e FTC

v . Publ’g C

le aring House

, Inc . , 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th C ir. 1997) (“ A c onc lusory , se lf-se rving a ffidavit, la c king de ta i le d fa c ts a nd a ny supporting e vide nc e , is insuffic ie nt to c re at e a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t.” ); Ritte r v . Hughe

s Airc raft C

o. , 58 F.3d 454, 457 (9th C ir. 1995). AFFIRM E D.

3