N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILLIE R OSE, III, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES, INC . , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-15673 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-04355-WHA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Alsup, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s . W illie R ose , III, a

ppe a ls from the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ga inst him following a

jury tria l in his Title

VII e m ploy m e nt disc rim ination suit. The jury found tha t R ose did not prove

tha t re ta lia tion for m aking a

ha ra s sm e nt a

nd 

# FIL ED AUG 15 2013 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc rim ination c om p l a int wa s a

m otiva ting fa c tor in Pla stikon Industrie s, Inc .’ s (“ Pla stikon” ) de c ision to firehim . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, and we a ffirm . B e c a use R o se did not time ly

file a post-ve rdic t m otion for judgme nt a s a m atte r of la

w or a m o tion for a

ne w tria l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 50(b), he forfe ite d his c ha lle n ge to the suffic i e nc y of the e vide nc e . Se e N itc o Holding C

orp. v . Boujik

ian , 491 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th C ir. 2007). Eve n we re we to c onstrue R ose ’ s m otion for re c onside ra tion a s a R ule 50(b) m otion a n d e x c use its untime l ine ss, his c la im would not suc c e e d on the m e rits. To m ake out a

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

tion unde r Title VII, “ an e m ploy e e m ust show that (1) he e nga ge d in a

prote c t e d a c t ivity ; (2) his e m ploy e r subje c te d him

to a n a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt 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 and the a dve rse a c tion.” Ray v . He nde rson , 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th C ir. 2000). Only

the third fa c t or is a

t issuehe re . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the jury ’ s de te rm ination tha

t R ose did not prove a suffic ie nt c a

usa l link be twe e n his c om pla int a nd his te rm ination. 1 Se e

1 W e note tha

t the Supre m e C ourt re c e ntly he ld tha t the prope r c a

usation te s t for Title VII re ta lia

tion c la im s is “but-for c a

usation,” ra the r tha

n m otiva t ing-fa c tor c a usation. Univ . of Te

x . Sw . Me d. C

tr. v . N assar , 133 S. C t. 2517, 2533 (2013). B e c a use we uphold thejury ’ s ve rdic t de te rm ining tha t R ose did not prove

a suffic i e nt c a

usa l link e ve n unde r the le sse r m otiva ting-fa c tor te st, N

assar doe s not a ffe c t our a

na ly sis.Harpe r v . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ A jury ’ s ve rdic t m ust be uphe ld if it is supporte d by substa n tia l e vide nc e , whic h is e vide nc e a de quate to support the

jury ’ s c onc lusion, e v e n if it is also possible to dra w a c ontra ry c onc lusion.”(c i tation omitte d)). Pla stikon pre se nte d e vide nc e supporting its c l a im tha t it fire d R ose sole ly

be c a use of his thre ate ning a

nd insubordina

te be havior towa

rds his supervisor a

nd tha t it did not c o nside r othe r fa c t ors, inc luding R ose ’ s disc rim ination a

n d ha ra ssm e nt c om

pla int. Evidenc e of othe r Pla stikon e m ploy e e te rm inat ions buttre sse d this c la im . The e v ide nc e wa s a de quat e to support thejury ’ s c o nc lusion. AFFIRM E D.