N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL J. SC ALZI, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY OF NOR T H LAS VEGAS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15450 D.C . No. 2:08-c v-01399-M M DVC F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 13, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W . FLETC HER , a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l Sc a lz i a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to the C ity of North La s Ve ga s in this la wsuit brought pursua

nt to Title VII of the C ivil R ights Ac t of 1964. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Re v ie wing the 

# FIL ED
MAR 18 2015 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).distric t c o urt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo, G uatay C hristian Fe llow

ship
v . C nty . of San Die

go , 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th C i r. 2011), we a ffirm
. Sc a lz i first a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt to the C i ty

on his Title

VII ge nde r disc rim ination c l a im . W e disa gre e . Although Sc a lz i m a de out a prima fac iec a se of ge n de r disc rim inat ion, the C ity artic ulate d le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory re a sons for not promoting him and the n te rm i nating him . Sc a lz i ha s not introduc e d e vide nc e suffic ie nt to “ ra ise a ge nuine issue of
m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the [C ity ’ s] proffe re d nondisc rim inatory re a son[s] [are ]
m e re ly a pre te x t for disc rim ination.” Domingue z-C u rry v . N e v ada Transp. De

p’t , 424 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th C ir. 2005). To the c ontra ry , Sc a lz i’ s e vide nc e c o nfirm s the C ity ’ s a c c ount: it shows tha t the c ity m ana ge r hire d

Joy c e Lira , not Sc a lz i, be c a use he be lie ve d

she sha re d his prioritie s for the c i ty , a nd tha t Lira fire d Sc a lz i be c a use he re pe ate d ly

c ha l le nge d those prioritie s, som e tim e s in ina ppropria t e
way s. The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t no re a sona

ble jury c ould find tha t Sc a lz i wa s the vic tim of ge nde r disc rim inat ion. Sc a lz i a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt to the C i ty

on his c la i m

tha t the C ity ha s viola

te d se c t ion 281.645 of the

R e vise d Stat ute s of Ne va d a , whic h re q uire s loc a litie s to e sta

blish proc e dure s for ha

ndling whistleblowe r c la i m s . Aga in, we disa gre e . The distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t 2se c t ion 281.645 doe s not provide for a priva te right of a c tion to c ha lle nge a c ity ’ s fa ilure to e sta

blish the se proc e dure s. Se e Baldonado v . W y nn Las Ve

gas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96, 101 (Ne v . 2008). The sta te sta tute “ foc us[e s] on the [e ntity ] re gula te d,” the C ity , “ ra the r tha

n the individuals prote c te d .” Ale x ande r v . Sandov al , 532 U.S. 275, 289 (2001). It reve a l s no inte n t to c re ate a priva te right of a c tion. AFFIRM E D.

3