N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSE M . NON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OM C AST, INC ., DB AC om c a st C a ble C om m unic ations LLC , DB A C om c a st C a b le C om m unic at ions M ana ge m e nt, LLC , DB A C om c a st C o rporation, DB A C om c a st Holdings C orporation a n d C OM C AST C AB LE C OM M UNIC ATIONS M A NAGEM ENT, LLC , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-17259 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-01845-VC
M EM O R ANDUM *

JOSE M . NON,

Pla i ntiff,
and DANIEL R

AY B AC ON, C ounse l of re c ord for pla intiff,

Appe lla nt, No. 15-17260 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-01845-VC



# F IL ED
SEP 29 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.v.

C OM C AST, INC ., DB AC om c a st C a ble C om m unic ations LLC , DB A C om c a st C a b le C om m unic at ions M ana ge m e nt, LLC , DB A C om c a st C o rporation, DB A C om c a st Holdings C orporation a n d C OM C AST C AB LE C OM M UNIC ATIONS M A NAGEM ENT, LLC , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia V inc e G. C hha

b ria , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 10, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B EA a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LYNN, ** C hie f Distric t Judge
. Jose Non a

ppe a ls the sum

m ary judgm e n t

in fa vor of C om c a st, Inc . Non
c la im s tha

t C o m c a st re p rim a

nde d a nd e ve ntua lly fire d him

be c a use of his ra c e and
nationa lity , in viola

t ion of C a lifornia ’ s Fa ir Em ploy m e n t a nd Housing Ac t (“ FEHA” ) and C a lifornia public polic y . Non’ s attorne y , Da n ie l B a c on, a

ppe a ls the
sa nc tions orde r e nte re d

a ga inst him . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 1. W e a ffirm the sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of C om c a st be c a

use Non fa ile d

* * The Honora

ble B arbara M . G. Ly

nn, C hie f Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion. 2to ra ise a

tria ble issue of fa c t tha

t he wa s pe rform i ng a c c ording to his em ploy e r’ s le gitim ate e xpe c t ations, whic h is re quire d to e sta b l ish a prim a fa c ie c a se of
e m ploy m e nt disc rim ination unde r Mc Donne ll Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792 (1973). S

e e Vasque z v . C ty . of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 640 n.5 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ Unde r

Mc Donne l l Douglas , unla

wful disc rim ination is pre sum e d if the pla i ntiff c an show tha

t ‘ (1) [he ] be longs to a

prote c te d c la ss, (2) [he ] wa s pe rform i ng a c c ording to [his] e m ploy e r’ s le gitim ate e xpe c tations, (3) [he ] suffe re d
an a d ve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion, a

nd (4) othe r e m

ploy e e s with qua lific ations sim ila r to [his] own we re tre ate d m ore favora bly .’ ” ) (quoting Godw i n v . Hunt W e sson, Inc
. , 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th C ir. 1998)). “ C a lifornia c o urts use the fam ilia

r Mc D onne ll Douglass burde n-shifting te st whe n ana ly z ing dispa

ra te tre atm e nt
c la im s unde r FEHA.” Earl v . N ie lse n Me dia Re

se arc h, Inc

. , 658 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting G uz v . Be c hte l N a t. Inc
. , 8 P.3d 1089, 1113 (C a l. 2000)). Unde r the Mc

Donne ll Douglass

burde n-shifting te st, the e m ploy e e “ be ars the initia l burde n of e s ta

blishing a prim a

fa c ie c a se of e m

p l oym e nt disc rim ination.” Id. Onc e the e m

ploy e e ha s done so, the burde n shifts to the e m ploy e r to a

rtic ulate a le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory re a son for its a c t ions. Id. If the e m ploy e r a rtic ulate s a le gitim ate re a son for its a c tions, thee m ploy e e m ust ra ise a tria

ble issue tha

t the
e m ploy e r’ s proffe re d re a son is pre te xt for unla wful disc rim ination. Id.
3Unde r the C olle c t ive B arga i ning Agre e m e nt (“ C B A” ) that gove rne d the te rm s of Non’ s e m

ploy m e n t, C o m c a st c a

n im m e d iate ly te rm i nate e m

ploy e e s who
c om m it “ se rious offe nse s .” The C B A de fine s “ se rious offe nse s” to inc l ude , inte r alia : “ W illful fa l sific ation of . . . time she e ts or othe r [C om c a st] re c ords . . . [s] le e ping during a

n e m ploy e e ’ s a c tua l work hours . . . [a nd] [c ] a re le ssne s s, inc l uding viola

tion of [C om c a st’ s] sa fe ty rule s a nd re gula tions, e nda

nge ring the
sa fe ty of one se lf or othe rs or e nda nge ring [C om c a st’ s] prope rty and e quipm e nt.” In 2012, C o m c a st re prim ande d Non twic e for “ se rious offe nse s.” In 2013, C om c a st
e ve ntua lly

te rm inate d Non for his third “ se rious offe nse ” a fte r a n a la rm e d m e m

be r of the public c a lle d C om c a st to re port tha t Non wa s a sle e p in his work truc k with its e n gine running for a

bout forty m inute s. B e c a

use Non c om

m itte d thre e “ s e rious offe nse s” in a

re lative ly short tim e spa

n— any one of whic h c ould ha

ve form e d the ba sis for his im

m e diate te rm ination unde r the C B A— h e fa ile d to ra ise a

tria ble issue of fa c t tha

t “ [he ] wa s pe rform ing a c c ording to [C om c a st’ s] le gitim ate
e xpe c tations.” Vasque

z , 349 F.3d a

t 640 n.5; Se e Diaz v . Eagle Produc e Ltd. P'ship , 521 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th C ir. 2008). 2. The distric t c ourt a c te d c ontra ry to this c ourt’ s pre c e de nt whe n it
sa nc tione d Non’ s attorne y

B a c o n without suffic ie nt notic e of the pote ntia l
sa nc tions prior to the

he aring on Non’ s m otion to e xte nd the de a d line to c om ple te
4disc ove ry . Se e Unite d State s v . Tillman , 756 F.3d 1144, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ What be ga

n a s a sta tus he aring a

bout a n e -m a il e xc h ange ove r vouc he rs ba lloone d into a

full-blown he a

ring on a ttorne y sa n c tions. . . . The que stion he re is not one of inte rpre tation of fa ir notic e ; the re a lity is tha t, c ontra ry to our pre c e de nt, the re wa s no notic e . ” ); C

olev . U.S. Dist. C

t . for Dist. of Idaho , 366 F.3d 813, 822 (9th C ir. 2004) (c iting W

e issman v . Quail Lodge

, Inc
. , 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 n.4 (9th C ir. 1999)) (“ [N] otic e re quire [s] m ore tha n tha t [the attorne y ] be aware of the
sa nc tiona ble c o n duc t , but tha

t the distric t c o urt m

ust providenotic e of the pote ntia l
sa nc tions a nd the re a sons for the sa

nc tion.” ). Although the distric t c ourt he ld a he aring on them otion to e xte n d the disc ove ry de a dline , the distric t c ourt did not provide B a c on with a

ny notic e that it would im

pose
— or e v e n c onside r— sa nc tions
at the he aring. The re fore , we re ve rse the sa nc tions orde r e nte re d a ga inst B a c on. AFFIRM E D IN PART ; RE V E RSE D IN PART . The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts a s soc iate d with this a

ppe a l
.

5