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

KELVIN B ANKS; DAVID B E VETT,
“ Fly ing with Ea gle s” ; M AR C E AU DOZEGUILLOR

Y; TAM ANEE M UNDY; C HINY W ANG,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. R YAN D. M C C AR THY, Ac ting Se c re ta ry , De p artm e nt of the Arm y , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . Nos. 14-16670 14-16868 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-00798-LEK-KSC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii Le slie E . Koba

y a shi, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 14, 2017 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
OCT 18 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd WATTER S, *** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla nts Ke lvin B anks (B anks), Da vid “ Fly ing W ith Ea g le s” B e ve tt (B e ve tt), M arc e a

u Doz e -Guillory

(Doz e ), Tam ane e M undy (M undy ), and C hiny W ang (W ang) (Appe l la

nts)— c urre nt or form e r e m ploy e e s of the Triple r Arm y M e d ic a l C e nte r (Triple r) in Honolulu, Ha wa ii— c h a lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s de c isions gra

nting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the Se c re ta

ry of the De p artm e nt of the Arm

y (Se c re ta ry ) in the ir a c tions a l le ging disc rim ination, re ta l iation, a nd hostile work e nvironm e nt unde r Title VII of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1964, 42 U.S.C . § 2000e

–16 (Title VII). On a ppe a l, Appe lla

n ts c onte nd tha

t (1) the Inte rna tiona l C onve ntion on the Elim ination of All Form s of R a c ia l Disc rim ination, e n te re d into forc e Ja nua ry 4, 1969, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (Tre a ty ), pre e m pte d Title VII; (2) the re we re tria ble issue s of fa c t a s to whe t

he r Appe lla

nts e ndure d disc rim i nation, re ta l iation, a nd/or a hostile work e nvironm e nt a t Triple r; a nd (3) the distric t c ourt e rre d in se v e ring W anda Thom a s ’ s c la im s. W e re vie w sum m a ry judgm e nt rulings de nov o . Se e First Re sort, Inc . v . He rre ra , 860 F.3d 1263, 1271 (9th C ir. 2017). W e re v ie w

* * * The Honora

ble Susa n P. W a tte rs, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M onta

na , sitting by

de signa tion. 2de c isions re ga rding se ve ranc e for a

buse of disc re tion. S

e e C oughlin v . Roge rs , 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th C ir. 1997). 1. The provisions of the Tre a t y do not pre e m

pt Title VII. Se e Munoz v

. Mabus , 630 F.3d 856, 863 (9th C ir. 2010) (re c o gniz ing tha t Title VII “ provide s the
e xc lusive judic ia l re m e dy for c la im s of disc rim i nation in fe d e ra l e m ploy m e nt” ) (c ita tion a nd e m pha sis om i tte d); se e also Sosa v . Alv a re z-Mac hain , 542 U.S. 692, 735 (2004) (obse rving tha t n o n-se lf-e xe c uting tre a tie s “ d[o] not [] c re a te obliga tions e nforc e a

ble in the fe de ra l c ourts” ); 140 C ong. R e c . S7634-02, S7634, 1994 W L 282789 (1994) (“ [P] rovisions of the [Tre a ty ] are not se lf-e xe c uting.” ). 2. No tria

ble issue s of fa c t

e xiste d a s to whe the r Appe lla nts e ndure d disc rim ination, re ta lia

tion, a nd/or a hostile work e nvironm e nt a t Triple r. The distric t c o urt c orre c tly de t e rm ine d tha t none of the Appe lla

nts e sta blishe d a prima fac i e c a se . Se e Re

y naga v . Rose burg Fore

st Prods. , 847 F.3d 678, 686-87, 690-91, 693 (9th C i r. 2017) (disc ussing thesta nda rds for proving disc rim ination,
re ta lia tion, a n d a hostile work e nvironm e nt unde r Title VII). On a ppe a l, none of the Appe lla nts a ddre s s the Title VII sta nda rds, or ra ise an
argum e nt a s to how the

distric t c ourt e rre d

in a pply ing TitleVII. Ac c ordingly , a ny
argum e nt c ha lle nging thedistric t c o urt’ s de te rm inat ion tha t Appe lla nts fa ile d to
m a ke a prima fac ie c a se unde r Title VII is wa i ve d. S e e J apane se Vill., LLC

v . Fe d.
3Transit Admin. , 843 F.3d 445, 455 (9th C ir. 2016).

3. The distric t c ourt a rtic ulate d ge rm ane re a sons for se v e ring W anda Thom a s’ s c la im s . Se e C

oughlin , 130 F.3d a

t 1351 (re c ogniz ing the distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to se ve r a

pa rty ); se ealso Fe d. R . C iv. P. 21. 1 As the distric t c ourt note d, the date s of the a lle ge d c onduc t c onc e rning Thom a s’ s c la im fe ll outside

the

“ tim e pe riod c o m

m on to the othe r Pla intiffs” and she wa s not pa rt of the m e dic a l sta ff. AFFIRM E D.

1 R ule 21 provide s in pe rtine nt pa rt: On m otion o r on its own, the c ourt m ay a t any tim e , on ju s t t er m s, a dd or drop a pa rty . The c ourt m ay

a lso se ve r any

c la im a g a inst a pa rty
. 4