N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT B R IAN GR

AHAM , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. THE M IR

AGE C ASINO-HOTEL, a Ne va da c orpora tion; e t a l .,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-16920 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01949-M M D-NJK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 4, 2017 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a n d R OSENTHAL, *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
DEC 07 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).

* * * The Honora

ble Le e H. R ose ntha l, C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Te x a s, sitting by de signa tion.B rian Gra ham a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e n t dism issing his c la i m

tha t his form e r e m

ploy e r, the M ira ge -C a sino Hote l in La s Ve ga s, fire d him

in re ta lia tion for filing a

disc rim ination c ha

rge . The c ourt rule d that re t a lia t ion wa s not the but-for c a use of Graham ’ s te rm ination. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. R e vie wing the grant of sum m a ry judgm e nt de
nov o , Fulle r v . Idaho De

p’t of C orr. , 865 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th C ir. 2017), we
a ffirm
. Gra ham wa s the M ira ge ’ s Fa c i litie s M a na ge r; he re p orte d to M a tt Swa nha rt, Dire c t or of Fa c ilitie s, who in turn re porte d to Anthony

W illia m s , the Vic e Pre side nt of Fa c i litie s , a

nd Tre vor Sc he rre r, the Pre side nt a nd C hie f Exe c utive Offic e r. Sc he rre r fire d Gra ham in Se pte m

be r 2014. Shortly

a fte r Swa nha

rt be c a m e Graham ’ s supe rvisor, Swa nha rt re c e i ve d

c om pla i nts a bout Gra ham ’ s job pe rform a nc e . A fte r wa

rning Gra ha m tha t his pe rform a nc e ne e de d im prove m e nt,
a nd se e ing none , Swanha rt a nd W illia m s pla c e d Gra

ham on a pe rform a nc e im prove m e nt pla

n in Ja nua ry 2014 a nd wa

rne d him tha t fa i ling to a c hie ve a nd
m a inta in im

prove m e n t

c ould re sult in dism

issa l. In Fe brua

ry 2014, Gra ham

took a four-we e k m e dic a l le a ve of a bse nc e . In M a rc h 2014, during his le a ve , Graham file d a C ha rge of Disc rim i na tion with the Ne va d a Equa l R ights C om

m ission,

2a lle ging tha

t W illia m s ha d disc rim inate d a ga inst him ba s e d on his ra c e (C a

uc a sia n)
a nd his a ge (47). W illia

m s is Afric a n-Am e ric a n . W he n Gra

ham re turne d to work in la

te M a rc h, he wa s told tha t the pe rform a nc e im p rove m e nt pla

n would sta

rt a ne w. Two da

y s la te r, the C om

m ission gave the M ira ge notic e of the C ha rge of Disc rim ination. Se ve ra l m onths la te r, Gra ham ’ s supe rvisors told Sc he rre r tha t Gra ham wa s not im

proving a nd tha t he
wa s not going to suc c e ssfully c om ple t e the pe rform a nc e im

prove m e nt pla

n. B e c a use of the se c onc e rns, Sc h e rre r m e t with thee ngine e rs whom Gra ham supe rvise d. The e ngine e rs told Sc he rre r that Gra ham showe d som e im

prove m e nt but tha t he wa s not the be s t m a n a ge r a nd m ight not be the be st pe rson for the position. Subse que ntly , Sc h e rre r m e t with Gra ham ’ s supe rvisors a

n d c onc lude d that firing Gra

ham wa s the o n ly

via ble option. Sc h e rre r te rm inate d Gra ham ’ s
e m ploy m e nt on Se p te m

be r 2, 2014, m ore tha

n five m onths a fte r the M i ra ge le a rne d of Graham ’ s disc rim ination c ha rge . W e a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha t Gra ham ’ s c la im s a

re “ he a vy on insinua tion a nd light on e vide nc e .” “ Title VII re ta lia tion c la im s re q

uire proof tha

t the d e sire to re ta lia

t e wa s the but-for c a

use of the c ha lle nge d e m

ploy m e nt a c tion.” Univ . of Te

x . Sw . Me d. C

tr. v . N assar , 133 S. C t. 2517, 2528 (2013). The re c ord is

3de void of e vide nc e supporting a n infe re nc e tha

t the disc rim ination c ha

rge wa s the but-for c a use of e i the r the pe rform a nc e im prove m e nt pla

n or the te rm i na tion. AFFIRM E D.

4