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

GUYTON, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NOVO NOR

D ISK A/S, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-55080 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00009-M M M -AGR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M argare t M
. M orrow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d August 8, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, KOZINSKI, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Guyton a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to Novo Nordisk in his dive

rsity s uit for e m

ploy m e nt disc rim i nation a

nd re ta lia t ion unde r C a lifornia ’ s Fa ir Em

p l oym e nt a

nd Housing Ac t. His suit a rise s out of thre e a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tions: one

de nia l of a

prom otion a

nd two de nia ls of tra

nsfe rs. W e 

# FIL ED AUG 17 2017 M O LLYC. 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.a ffirm

the distric t c o urt’ s orde r be c a use Guyt on ha s fa i le d to e sta b l ish a tria b le issue of fa c t a s to pre te xt on a ny of his c l a im s. W he re , a s he re , the pla intiff m ake s out a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ination
and the e m

ploy e r offe rs a

le gitim a te

—

nondisc rim inatory

and
nonre t a lia tory

— re a son for the e m

ploy m e nt de c ision, theque s tion a t sum m ary judgm e nt is whe the r the pla intiff ha s pre se nte d suffic ie nt fa c ts to ra ise a tria ble issue of fa c t a s to the e m

ploy e r’ s proffe re d re a son be ing a m e re pre t e xt for disc rim inatory

or re ta lia tory tre a tm e nt. C

huang v . Univ . of C

al. Bd. of Truste e

s , 225 F.3d 1115, 1126 (9th C ir. 2000). A pla intiff c an show pre t e xt e i the r dire c tly or, a s Guy

t on atte m pts to do here , indire c tly , “ by

showing tha

t the e m ploy e r’ s proffe re d e xpla

nat ion is ‘ unworthy

of
c re d e nc e ’ be c a

use it is interna lly

inc onsiste n t or othe rwise not be lie v a ble .” Id. at 1127. R a ising a

tria ble issue of pre te x t using indire c t e vide nc e re quire s “ ‘ spe c ific ’
and ‘ substa

ntia l’ fa c ts,” but “ [t] hat sta n da rd is ‘ te m pe re d’ by our obse rva t ion tha t a pla i ntiff’ s burde n to ra ise a tria ble issue of pre te xt is ‘ ha

rdly an one rous one .’ ” Earl
v . N ie lse n Me dia Re

se a rc h, Inc
. , 658 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th C i r. 2011) (quoting N oy e s v . K e lly Se rv s. , 488 F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th C ir. 2007)). Guy ton offe rs a va rie ty of argum e n ts for why the re is a tria ble issue of fa c t a s to pre t e xt for e a c h of the c ha lle nge d e m

ploy m e n t a c tions. All of his a

rgum e nts fa il.
21. W e first c onside r the prom otion Guy ton a pplie d for a

nd did not re c e ive
. Guyton a rgue s tha t pre te x t c ould be found ba s e d on a n a lle ge d sta

te m e nt by a supe rvisor tha

t she inte rfe re d with theprom otion proc e ss. Howe ve r, tha t sta te m e n t doe s not te nd to show tha t the e m ploy e r’ s e xpla

nat ion— t hat Guy ton did not
re c e ive the prom otion be c a use of c onc e rns a

b out his skills a

n d the qua lity

of his inte rvie w— is “ unworthy

of c re de nc e . ” C

h uang , 225 F.3d a

t 1127. 2. W e ne xt turn to the

first re que ste d tra

nsfe r, in De c e m

be r 2012. Ac c ording to Novo Nordisk, the

tra nsfe r re que st wa s de nie d be c a use Guyt on wa s subje c t to a disc iplina ry Ac tion Pla

n at the tim e . Guyton a c knowle dge s tha t the tra nsfe r re que st
wa s de nie d be c a

use of the Ac tion Pla

n, but a rgue s tha t he wa s pla c e d on the Ac tion Plan for disc rim i natory

or re ta lia tory re a sons a s e vide nc e d by

the fa c t tha

t he wa s pre v iously

not disc ipline d for his pa st nonc om plia nc e with thesa

m e rule s. He a lso points to a

positive pe rform anc e re vie w se ve ra l m onths e arlie r. C ontra ry to Guyton’ s c la im s, the im

ple m e ntation of theAc tion Pla n wa s c onsiste nt with progre ssive disc ipline a s Guy t on’ s nonc om

plia nc e c ontinue d a

nd worse ne d, a

nd thus Guy ton’ s a s se rtions do not ra

ise a ge nuine issue of fa c t a s to pre te xt. Guyton a l so a

rgue s tha t the Ac tion Pla

n wa s pre te x tua l be c a

use othe r e m ploy e e s who viola

te d polic ie s we re not disc ipline d. Howe ve r, the only e xam ple s Guyton is a

ble to ide ntify

involve e ithe r isola

te d inc ide nts or viola

tions of la w or 3form a l c om

pa ny polic y tha t m ay have a c tua lly

he lpe d the c om

pa ny . None involve d
re pe a te d viola

tions of thesa

m e polic y notwithsta

nding c ounse l ing. The re fore , Guyton ha s fa ile d to show tha t individuals who e nga ge d in “ sim ila r c onduc t” and
we re sim i la

rly pe rsiste nt in tha

t c onduc t we re tre ate d diffe re ntly
. Se e Vasque z v . C nty . of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th C ir. 2003). The a lle ge d dispa ra te disc ipline the re fore doe s not ra i se a tria ble issue of fa c t a s to pre te xt. 3. Fina lly , we c onside r the se c ond re que s te d tra nsfe r, in M arc h 2013. Ac c ording to Novo Nordisk, this tra nsfe r re que st wa s de nie d be c a use Guyton wa s on or a bout to bepla c e d on a

disc iplina

ry Pe rform anc e Im

prove m e nt Pla

n. Guy ton
argue s tha

t the e xpla

nation is pre te xtua l be c a

use he wa s not on the

pla n until M ay 2013. Howe ve r, while Guyton c la im e d tha t he re que ste d the transfe r in M arc h 2013, he a c knowle dge d tha t the disc ussion a

bout the Pla

n tha t re sulte d in the de nia l of the transfe r did not oc c ur until M ay 2013, a fte r Guyton’ s c o m plia nc e with logging re quire m e nts a ga in de te riorate d. The re fore , a ny fa c tua l disputea

bout whe n the tra

nsfe r wa s re que ste d doe s not ra ise a tria ble issue of fa c t re ga

rding the
re a s ons for the subse que nt de nia l of the tra nsfe r. Guyton a lso a

rgue s tha t the Pla n wa s pre te xtua l ba s e d on the e v ide nc e disc usse d a bove with re spe c t

to the Ac tion Plan ; those argum e nts fa i l for the sa m e re a sons.

4Ac c ordingly , Guyton fa i le d to pre se nt suffic ie nt e v ide nc e of pre te xt to ra ise

a tria ble issue of fa c t a s to a

ny of the dispute d e m

ploy m e nt a c tions. AFFIRM E D.

5