N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VINC E NT FR IED,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W YNN LAS VEGAS, LLC ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 20-15710 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-00689-APG-B NW
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 Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 5, 2021 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : C HR ISTEN an d B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s , a nd SILVER , ** Distric t Judge
. Vinc e nt Frie d a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to W ynn La s Ve ga s, LLC , on his c la i m s for se x disc rim ination, re ta lia tion, a nd hostile work e nvironm e nt. W e re vie w de novo. S e e Branc h Bank

i ng & Tr. C

o. v . 

# FIL ED NOV 18 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Honora

ble R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de s igna tion.D.M.S.I., LLC , 871 F.3d 751, 759 (9th C ir. 2017). W e m ust de te rm ine whe the r the re are any

ge n uine issue s of m a te ria l fa c t a nd whe the r the distric t c ourt c orre c t ly
a pplie d the re le va

n t substa ntive la w, vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to Frie d. Se e Olse n v . Idaho State Bd. of Me d

. , 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th C ir. 2004). W e m ay

a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord. Id. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of Frie d’ s c la im s for se x disc rim ination a nd re ta lia t ion pursua

nt to Title VII of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1964, 42 U.S.C . § 2000e e t se q . 1 , 2 1. The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t Frie d e sta

blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se of se x disc rim ination pursua nt to Title VII. To e sta

blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ination, a

pla intiff m

ust prove tha

t: (1) he be longs to a

c la ss of pe rsons prote c te d by Title VII; (2) he pe rform e d his job sa tisfa c torily ; (3) he suffe re d a n a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion; a

nd (4) his e m

ploy e r tre a t e d him

diffe re ntly

tha n a sim ila rly situa te d e m ploy e e who doe s not be long to the sa m e prote c te d c la ss a s him
. Se e C

ornw e l l v . Ele c tra C

e nt. C re dit Union , 439 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th C ir. 2006) (c iting Mc

Donne ll Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)).

1 The distric t c ourt a lso gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt to W

y nn on Frie d’ s c la im for hostilework e nvironm e nt. W e re ve rse tha t de c ision in a c onc urre ntly file d opinion. 2 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we re c ite only those ne c e ssa ry to de c ide this a

ppe a l. 2W e a ssum e without de c iding tha t Frie d sa tisfie d the first thre e pa

rts of the four-part te st, but hefa i ls to ra ise a ge nuine dispute of fa c t a s to the fourth pa rt.

“ [E] m ploy e e s a re sim ila rly situa te d to the pla intiff whe n the y ‘ have sim ila

r jobs
and displa

y sim ila r c onduc t.’ ” Earl v . N

ie lse n Me dia Rsc h., Inc
. , 658 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Vasque z v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th C i r. 2003)). “ The e m p loy e e s ne e d not be ide n tic a l , but m ust be sim ila

r in
m a te ria l re s pe c ts.” Id . “ M a te ria lity de pe nds on thec onte x t a nd is a que stion of fa c t tha t ‘ c annot be m e c ha

nic a l ly re solve d.’ ” Id. (quoting Haw n v . Ex e c . J e t Mgmt., Inc
. , 615 F.3d 1151, 1158 (9th C ir. 2010)). The sim i la rly situa te d inquiry is “ not a n uny ie l ding, infle xible re quire m e nt tha t re quire s ne ar one -to-one m a pping be twe e n e m

ploy e e s be c a

use one c an a lwa

y s find distinc tions in perform anc e historie s or the nat

ure of the a lle ge d

tra nsgre ssions.” Id. a t 1115 (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d) (quoting Humphrie s v . C BOC S W ., Inc
. , 474 F.3d 387, 405 (7th C i r. 2007)). The prope r c om

p ara tor to Frie d is the fe m a le sa lon a tte nda nt who, like

him , wa s fire d for he r role in se rving a lc ohol to minors— not the fe m a le m anic urists who we re not fire d . This is the c orre c t c om

pa rison be c a

use Wynn de te rm ine d in its inve stiga

tion tha t Frie d a nd the atte nda

nt kne w Frie d’ s c ustom e r wa s unde r 21 y e ars old y e t the atte nda

n t se rve d the c ustom e r c ham pa gne and Frie d did not stop
3the c ustom e r from drinking it, de spite having inte ra c te d with he r m u ltiple tim e s. In
c ontra st, Frie d did not ra ise a dispute of fa c t a

bout whe the r any

of the fe m a l e m anic urists a c tua lly

kne wthe ir c ustom e rs we re unde r 21 y e ars old. This diffe re nc e be twe e n Frie d a nd the fe m a le m anic urists is m a te ria l. Se e Vasque z , 349 F.3d at 641–42 (ruling tha t two e m p loy e e s with thesa

m e job we re not simila

rly situa te d be c a use the y “ did not e nga ge in proble m a tic c onduc t of” the sa m e

“ c o m pa ra ble se riousne ss” ). B e c a

use Frie d did not show tha t Wynn tre a te d

him diffe re ntly

tha n a sim ila rly situa te d e m ploy e e of the oppositese x, he did not
e sta blish a prim a

fa c i e c a se of se x disc rim ination. Eve n if Frie d ha d e sta

blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se of se x disc rim ination, his
se x-disc rim ination c l a im

would fa il. If a pla intiff e sta blishe s a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ination, “ [t] h e burde n of produc tion, but not pe rsua sion, the n shifts to the
e m ploy e r to a

rtic ulate som e le gitim a te , nondisc rim inatory re a son for the
c ha lle nge d a c tion.” C

huang v . Univ
. of C

al. Dav is, Bd. of Trs. , 225 F.3d 1115, 1123–24 (9th C ir. 2000). “ If the e m ploy e r doe s so, the pla intiff m ust show tha

t the
artic ulate d re a s on is pre te x tua l ‘ e ithe r dire c tly by pe rsua ding the c ourt tha

t a disc rim inatory

re a son m ore like ly

m o tiva te d the e m ploy e r or indire c tly

by showing that the e m ploy e r’ s proffe re d e xpla

nation is unworthy

of c re de n c e . ’ ” Id. a t 1124 (quoting Te

x . De p’t of C mty . Affairs v
. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981)). “In

4judging whe the r [an e m p loy e r’ s] proffe re d justific a tions [a re ] ‘ fa lse ,’ it is not im porta nt whe t he r the y we re obje c tiv e ly fa l se ” ; “ c ourts only re quire tha

t a n e m ploy e r hone stly

be lie ve d its re a sons for its a c tions, e ve n if its re a son is foolish or trivia l or e v e n ba se le ss.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc
. , 281 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th C ir. 2002) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d) (quoting J ohnson v
. N ordstrom, Inc
. , 260 F.3d 727, 733 (7th C ir. 2001)). A pla intiff m ay re ly on c irc um s ta ntia l e vide nc e to show pre te xt, but “ suc h e vide nc e m u st be both spe c ific
and substa

ntia l.” Id. at

1062. Frie d a rgue s the e v i de nc e shows tha t Wynn’ s e xp la

nation for firing him

wa s pre t e xtua l for thre e re a sons. First, Frie d a sse rts tha t Wynn’ s e xpla

nation is unworthy of c re de nc e be c a

use
— de spite surve illa

nc e foota ge showing him inte ra c ting with his c

ustom e r while she ha d

a gla ss of c h am

pa gne
— he a c tua lly

did not know his custom e r wa s se rve d c ham pa gne . B ut wha

t Frie d a c tua lly kne w is be side the point: hedid not e sta blish a dispute d fa c t a

bout whe the r W ynn hone stly be lie ve d Frie d kne w his c u stom e r wa s se rve d c h am pa gne . Se e id. at 1063. Se c ond, Frie d a sse rts the fa c t tha t othe r fe m a le m anic urists we re not fire d shows pre t e xt be c a

use t he y kne w the ir c u stom e rs ha d c ham pa gne and did not a sk if the y we re of a ge . B ut for the re a sons disc usse d a bove , the fe m a le m a

n ic urists we re not sim ila rly situa te d to Frie d, a

nd Frie d did not point to e vide nc e tha

t c ould support a
5finding tha

t Wynn hone s tly be lie ve d the fe m a le m anic urists kne w the ir c ustom e rs we re unde ra ge . La st, Frie d a sse rts tha t Wynn’ s de c ision to firehim wa s illogic a l, showing pre te xt, be c a

use he wa s the only

m anic urist who followe d Wy nn’ s polic y of a sking those

who a ppe a r unde r 30 y e ars old if the y we re of le ga l drinking age . Although W

ynn’ s de c ision might be unfa ir or illogic a l, this c irc um sta ntia l
e vide nc e is not by

itse lf “ substa

ntia l,” id. at 1062, a

nd thus doe s not show tha t W ynn’ s e xpla

nat ion for firing Frie d wa s pre te xtua l
. 2. To e s ta

blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of re ta lia

t ion, a pla intiff m

ust prove that : (1) he e nga ge d in prote c te d a c tivity ; (2) he suffe re d a m a te ria lly a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion; a

nd (3) a c a usa l re lationship e x iste d be twe e n the two. W e s te ndorf v . W

. C oast C o n trac tors of N

e v . , Inc
. , 712 F.3d 417, 422 (9th C ir. 2013) (c iting Burlington N . & Santa Fe

Ry
. C o. v . W hite , 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006)).

“ An e m ploy e e e nga g e s in prote c te d a c tivity whe n [he ] oppose s a

n e m ploy m e nt pra c tic e tha

t e ithe r viola

t e s Title VII or tha

t the e m ploy e e re a sona

bly be lie ve s viola te s tha t la w.” Id.

“ Title VII re ta lia

tion c la i m s re quire proof tha t the de sire to re t a lia

te wa s the but-for c a use of the c ha lle n ge d e m

ploy m e nt a c tion.” Univ . of Te x . Sw . Me d. C

tr. v . N assar , 570 U.S. 338, 352 (2013). “ That a n e m ploy e r’ s a c tions we re c a

use d by an e m ploy e e ’ s e nga ge m e nt in prote c te d a c tivitie s m ay be infe rre d from

‘ proxim ity

in
6tim e be twe e n the prote c te d a c tion a nd the a lle ge d ly

re ta lia t ory e m ploy m e nt de c ision.’ ” Ray

v . He nde rson , 217 F.3d 1234, 1244 (9th C ir. 2000) (quoting Yartzoff v . Thomas , 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th C ir. 1987)). “ In a ddition, the pla i ntiff m

ust m a ke som e showing suffic i e nt for a re a sona ble trie r of fa c t to infe r that the de fe n da

nt wa s a ware tha t the pla intiff ha d e n ga ge d in prote c te d a c tivity .” Raad v . Fairbank

s N . Star Borough Sc

h. Dist. , 323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th C ir. 2003). Frie d a

rgue s tha t Wynn fire d him

in re ta lia tion for him

re porting a

m a le
c ustom e r’ s se xua l a dva

nc e s a nd tha t c a usation is shown be c a

use he wa s fire d fifte e n da y s a fte r his re port. The distric t c ourt did not err by re je c ting this
argum e nt. Frie d ignore s tha t the da y a fte r he re porte d the c ustom e r’ s c onduc t, he
a llowe d a n unde ra ge c ustom e r to c onsum e a lc o hol in viola tion of W ynn’ s polic ie s. Thus, Frie d fa ile d to show there is a dispute of fa c t a

bout whe the r Wynn’ s “ de sire to re ta l iat e wa s the but-for c a use ” of his te rm inat ion. N assar , 570 U.S. a

t 352. AFFIRM E D.

7