N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R ANDALL G. HUC K, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. KONE, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-15082 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-01845-R S 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 R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding 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 . R anda ll Huc k a

ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s dism issa l of his e m ploy m e nt disc rim ination c la im s pursua n t to de fe nda

n t Kone , Inc . ’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt. W e hav e jurisdic tion a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED AUG 26 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).A pla intiff bringing a disc rim ination c l a im

unde r C a lifornia

Fa ir Em ploy m e nt a nd Housing Ac t (“ FEHA” ), C a l. Gov. C ode § 12940 e t se q. , FEHA m ust show in gene ra l te rm s: (1) disa bility ; (2) the a

bility to pe rform

job dutie s; a

nd (3) disc rim inat ion. Ze inali v . Ray the on C o . , 636 F.3d 544, 552 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion omitte d). The pa

rtie s do not dispute

on a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s finding that Huc k wa s disa b le d unde r FEHA a

nd tha t he c ould ha

ve c ontinue d to fulfill his job dutie s. The y

dispute only

whe the r Huc k provide d

suffic ie nt e v ide nc e tha

t he wa s fire d be c a

use of his disa

b ility . Huc k wa s te rm inate d shortly a fte r going on m e d i c a l le ave for his c arpa l tunne l sy n drom e . This c irc um sta

n c e e sta blishe s a prim a fa c i e c a se of disc rim ination, whic h Kone re b utte d with e vide nc e tha t Huc k wa s te rm inat e d be c a use he trave le d to Ha

wa ii on a tic ke t pa id for by

Kone in c ontra

ve ntion of a spe c ific dire c tive from his supe rvisor a n d c ha rge d a dditiona l pe rsona l trave l e xpe nse s to his c om

pa ny c re dit c ard in viola

tion of c om

pa ny polic y . C o ntra

ry to Huc k’ s a rgum e nt on a

ppe a l, he c ould only

re but this showing a

t sum m a ry judgm e nt with spe c ific and substa ntia l e vide nc e tha

t the proffe re d

re a son wa s pre t e xtua l. Law le r v . Montblanc N . Am., LLC , 704 F.3d 1235, 1244 (9th C ir. 2013). Huc k did not me e t this burden. His only e vide nc e of disc rim ination wa s

2the t e m

pora l proxim ity

of his te rm ination to his m e dic a l le ave , whic h is insuffic ie nt to provepre te xt. Se e id. Huc k’ s re t a lia

tion c la im fa ils be c a

use he e n g a ge d in no prote c te d a c tivity prior to his term ination. R e que sting le ave is not a prote c t e d a c tivity

unde r FEHA, and Huc k’ s re que st wa s in a ny e ve nt gra nte d . Se e Yanow itz v . L'Ore a l USA, Inc . , 36 C a l. 4th 1028, 1046-47 (2005) (e m ploy e e m ust prote st or c om

pla in a bout disc rim inatory

c o nduc t to ha

ve via b le re ta lia tion c la i m ). Although Huc k did filea disc rim ination c om

p l a int with the

EEOC , he did so a fte r he wa s te rm inat e d, so tha t a c t c ould not ha

ve c a use d the re ta lia

tion. The re is no e v i de nc e of fa ilure to a c c om m odate or to e nga ge in the inte ra c tive proc e ss. Kone a c c om m odate d Huc k by

purc ha sing dic tation softwa re and a llowe d Huc k to ta

ke te m pora ry m e dic a l le ave a s dire c te d by his doc t or. Se e W ilson v . C nty . of Orange , 169 C a l. App. 4th 1185, 1195 (2009) (An “ e m ploy e r c annot be he l d lia

ble for fa iling to enga ge in inte ra c t ive proc e ss whe n the e m ploy e e wa s in fa c t offe re d a re a sona ble a c c om

m odation” ) (c ita

tion omitte d). Huc k a lso brings a h a

ra ssm e nt c l a im

ba se d on his a l le gations tha t his supe rvisor sc re am e d

an d c urse d at him

be c a use Huc k ha d m isse d

a m e e ting during his le av e and tha

t the supe rvisor wa s a

ngry tha t Huc k would miss a

nothe r m e e ting during le ave . The se two inc ide nts a re not the “ se v e re or pe rva sive ” be havior 3re quire d for a FEHA ha

ra ssm e nt c l a im . Aguilar v . Av is Re nt A C ar Sy s., Inc ., 21 C a l. 4th 121, 130-31 (1999) (“ [H] ara ssm e nt c annot be oc c a siona l, isola t e d, [or] spora d ic ,” but m

ust be a “ c onc e rte d patte rn” tha

t “ w ould ha

ve se riously

a ffe c te d the p sy c hologic a l we ll-be ing of a re a sona ble e m ploy e e ” ) (c ita

tion omitte d ). Fina lly , the re is no e vide nc e of the “ e xtre m e ” c onduc t ne c e ssa ry to sustain a c la im for inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss, a nd no e v ide nc e of e m otiona l distre s s. Se e Hughe

s v . Pair , 46 C a l.4th 1035, 1050-51 (2009). AFFIRM E D.

4