T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L A F E C T C A M P B E L L ; D O N A L D J. M I L L S , J R ., P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. O B A Y A S H I C O R P O R A T I O N , I N C ., a f or e i gn c orpor a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 35511 D. C. No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 1 8 1 - J LR ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J a m e s L . R obart , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B e f o r e : F A R R I S , L E A V Y , an dB Y B E E , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . L af ec tC am pb el l and D on al d J. M i l l s, Jr . , appealpro se f rom the di stri ct c ourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm e nti n the i rdi ve r s i tya c t i on a l l e gi ng e m pl oy m e nt di s c r i m i na t i on i n vi ol a t i on of the W a s hi ngt on L aw A ga i ns tD i s c r i m i na t i on



# FI LED MA R 25 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 35511 2 ( “ W L A D ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s g r an t o f

s u m m aryju d g m e n t, O l s e n v . I daho State B d. of

Me d. , 363 F .3 d9 1 6 , 9 2 2 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), an dfo r a n ab u se o f d iscr etio n th e d istrict co u rt’s o r d e rg r a n tin g ac o u n s e l’s m o tio n to w ith d r aw , L a G ra n d v. Stew a rt , 133 F . 3d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 6 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton C am pb el l ’ s r ac e di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m base d o n h i s di sc harge because C am pb el l fa i l ed t o rai se a ge nui ne i s s ue of

m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rhe w a s pe r f orm i ng s a t i s f

a c t oryw ork, o rth a t h is e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f f e r e dle g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to ryr e a s o n s f o rh is d is c h a r g e w e r e p r e te x tu a l. Se e Ch e n v . Sta te , 937 P . 2d 612, 616 ( W a s h. C t . A pp. 19 97 ) ( anal ys i s f

or di sc ri m i nat ory di sc harge und erthe W L A D ). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton C am pb el l ’ s r ac e di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m ba s e d on hi s e m pl oy e r ’ s m anne rof a s s i gni ng t a s ks a nd prov i di ng equi pm entbecause C am pb el l fa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne i ss ue of m at er i al f a c t a s to w h e th e rh e w a s tr e a te dle s s f a v o r ab lyth an s im ilar lys itu a te de m p lo y e e s . See Jo h n so n v. D ep ’t

o f So c. & H

ea l th Servs. , 9 0 7 P .2 d1 2 2 3 , 1 2 3 1 - 3 2 ( W a s h . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) ( an a ly s is f

o rd is p ar a te tr e a tm e n t u n d e rth e W L A D ) . T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n tedsu m m ary ju d g m en t o n M il ls’s construct i ve di sc harge ra ce di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m because M i l l s f ai l ed t o rai se a09- 35511 3 g en u i n e i ssu e o f m at eri al factas t o w h eth er h i s w o rk i n g co n d i t i o n s w ere “so i nt ol er abl e thata r ea sonabl e per son w ou l d h ave f el tcom pel l ed t o res i gn . . . . ” W as hi ngton v . B oe i ng C o. , 19 P . 3d 10 41 , 10 49 (W as h. C t . A pp . 20 00 ). T he di stri ctprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton M i l l s’ s r ac e d i scri m i n at i o n cl ai m b asedo n t em p o rari l y recei v i n g an i n co rrectp ay rat e b ecau se M il ls fa il ed to ra ise ag en u in e iss u e o f m ater ial fac t as to w h eth erh is em p lo ye r’s p r o f f e r e dle g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to ryr e a s o n w a s p r e te x tu a l. See J ohns on , 907 P .2 da t 1 2 3 1 - 3 2 . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n ing ra n ti n g p lain ti ff s’ co u n se l’ s m o tio n to w ith d r aw b a s e do n ac o n f lic t o f in te r e s t. Se e Kay es v . P ac . L um be rC o. , 5 1 F .3 d1 4 4 9 , 1 4 6 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in orderi ng pl ai nt i ff

s’ coun se l t o w i thd raw w here there w as a c on fl i ctof i nt er es t ). P la in tif f s ’ r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . W e d o n o t c o n s id e rp la in tif f s ’ c o n te n tio n s r a is e df

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. Se e T rav e le rs P r op. Cas . C o. of A m . v . C onoc oP hi l l i

ps C o. , 546 F . 3d 1142, 1146 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). A F F I R M E D .