N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SC OTT JOHNSTON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C ITY OF RED B LUFF,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-15033 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-01353-C M K M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ra ig Ke llison, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 18, 2018 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. Sc ott Johnston a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t

c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt and judgm e nt a s a

m atte r of la

w in Johnston’ s a c t ion a lle g ing tha t de fe nda nts fa ile d to prom ote him

and te rm inate d his e m

ploy m e nt in viola

tion of the Age Disc rim i nation in Em

ploy m e n t Ac t (“ ADEA” ), 29 U.S.C . §§ 621 e t se q ., his due



# FIL ED M AY23 2018 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.

* * 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).proc e s s rights, a nd sta te la w. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. She lle

y v . Ge re n . 666 F.3d 599, 604 (9th C ir. 2012) (sum m ary judgm e nt), Torre

s v . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th C i r. 2008) (judgm e nt a s a

m atte r of la

w). W e m ay

a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c o rd. J ohnson v . Riv e rside

He althc are Sy

s., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm
. To the e xte nt tha

t Johnston’ s due proc e ss c la im is pre m ise d

on de fe nda

nts’ fa ilure to prom ote him , the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum m ary judgm e nt be c a use Johnston faile d to ra ise a tria ble disputea s to whe the r he wa s de prive d of any prote c t e d prope rty inte re st. Se e N une z v . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 147 F.3d 867, 873 (9th C i r. 1998) (“ Until som e one a c tua lly re c e ive s a

prom otion, or a

t le a st a binding a ssura

nc e of a forthc o m ing prom otion, he c annot c la im a prope rty inte re st in the prom otion.” ). To the e x te nt tha t the c la im is pre m ise d on de fe nda nts’ te rm ination of his em

ploy m e nt, Johnston fa

ile d to ra ise a tria ble disputea s to whe the r de fe n d ants fa ile d to c om ply with thegrie va

nc e proc e dure s e sta

b lishe d in the c olle c tive ba

rga ining a gre e m e nt or whe the r those proc e dure s we re c onstitutiona

lly ina de quate . Se eArmstrong v. Me y e r s , 964 F.2d 948, 950 (9th C ir. 1992) (“ A public e m

ploy e r m ay

m e e t its obliga

tion to provide

due proc e s s through

2grie va

nc e proc e dure s e sta

b l ishe d in a

c olle c t ive ba

rga ining a gre e m e nt, provide d, of c ourse , those proc e dure s sa tisfy due proc e ss.” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Johnston’ s ADEA c la im pre m ise d on the re duc tion in workforc e be c a use Johnston fai le d to ra ise a tria b le disputea s to whe the r his te rm ination wa s m otiva te d by a disc rim inatory purpose . Se e C

ole man v . Quak

e r Oats C o. , 232 F.3d 1271, 1282 (9th C i r. 2000) (a t sum m ary judgm e nt, “ [i] n re sponse to [de fe nda nts’ ] offe r of nondisc rim inatory re a s ons [for the a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion, thepla intiff] m ust produc e spe c ific , substa ntia l e vide nc e of pre te xt” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). Sum m a ry judgm e nt on Johnston’ s c la im a lle ging tha

t individual de fe nda

nts c onspire d to viola

te the ADEA wa s prope r be c a use the ADEA doe s not im pose individual lia

bility on e m ploy e e s. S

e e Mille r v . Max w e ll’s Int’l Inc
. , 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th C ir. 1993) (holding tha t individual de fe nda

nts c annot be he l d lia

ble for dam a ge s unde r the ADEA). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d judgm e nt a s a

m atte r of la

w on Johnston’ s re m a ining ADEA c la im be c a use Johnston faile d to providee vide nc e at tria l tha t a ge wa s the “ but-for” c a use of de fe nda

nts’ fa ilure to prom ote him
. Se e She lle y . 666 F.3d a

t 607 (“ To pre v a il on a

c la im for a ge disc rim i nation unde r the

3ADEA, a

pla intiff m

u st prove at tria l tha

t a g e wa s the ‘ but-for’ c a

use of the e m ploy e r’ s a dve rse a c tion.” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Johnston’ s ne glige nc e c la im

be c a use the C a lifornia

W orke rs’ C om

pe nsat ion sc he m e ge ne ra lly is the sole and e xc lusive re m e dy a ga inst e m

ploy e rs for injurie s a

rising during the c ourse of e m

ploy m e nt. S e e C a l . La

b. C ode § 3602(a ); Mik

losy v . Re ge nts of Univ
. of C al. , 188 P.3d 629, 645-46 (C a l. 2008) (“ To the e x te nt [a ] pla i ntiff purports to a lle ge any distinc t c a use of a c tion, not de

p e nde n t upon the viola

tion of a n e xpre ss sta tute or viola

tion of funda

m e n ta l public polic y , but ra the r dire c te d at the inte ntional , m alic ious a spe c ts of de fe nda nts’ c onduc t,” worke rs’ c om pe nsation la ws ba r the c la im

(c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). AFFIRM E D.

4