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

D, a n individual , Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. HYATT C ORPOR

ATION, a

De la ware c orporation, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 14-56380

D.C . No. 8:13-c v-01655-JLS-JPR 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 Jose phine L. Staton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

8, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : VANASKIE, ** M UR GUIA, a nd WA TFORD, C i rc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED JUL 29 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Thom a s I. Va

na skie , Unite d Stat e s C i rc uit Judgefor the U .S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Third C irc u it, sitting by de s igna tion.Norm an Dilla rd a ppe a l s from

the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to Hy a tt C orporation on his c la im s of e m ploy m e nt disc rim ination on a c c ount of ra c e , a ge and disa bility . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, and we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt. 1. W ith re spe c t to his ra c e disc rim i nation c la im , Dilla rd ha s not m e t his burde n of produc ing spe c ific and substa ntia l e vide nc e tha

t Hy a tt’ s sta

te d re a son for te rm inating him

— his fa ilure to a de quate l y

supe rvise his subordina

te ’ s c om pa ny c re d it c ard purc ha se s—

wa s “ un true or pre te xtua l.” D e p’t of Fair Emp’t &

Hous. v . Luc e nt Te c hs., Inc . , 642 F.3d 728, 746 (9th C i r. 2011) (quoting Hanson v . Luc k y Store s, Inc . , 87 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 487, 493 (C a l . C t. App. 1999)). The sta tistic a l e vide nc e he produc e d is not suffic ie n t to de fe a t sum m ary judgm e nt, whe the r c onside re d a lone or in the c onte xt of his other e vide nc e . Se e Aragon v . Re public Silv e r State

Disposal, Inc . , 292 F.3d 654, 663–64 (9th C ir. 2002). Quite sim ply , Dilla rd did not produc e e vide nc e tha t de m o nstra

te s “ suc h we a

kne sse s, im pla usibilitie s, inc onsiste nc ie s, inc o he re nc ie s , or c ontra dic tions in the e m ploy e r’ s proffe re d le gitim a te re a sons for its a c tion tha t a re a sona ble fa c tfinde r c ould ra tiona lly find the m

unworthy o f c re de nc e . ” Luc e nt Te c hs ., 642 F.3d a t 746 (c ita tion omitte d). M ore ove r, Dilla rd ha s not produc e d a

ny e vide n c e of ra c ia l anim us on the pa

rt of the de c isionm ake r, Ke vin Ke nne dy , or proffe re d a ny 2e vide nc e tha t Ke nne dy wa s influe nc e d by the ra c ia l a n im us of a nothe r. In fa c t, Ke nne dy ha d hire d Dilla

rd a nd, just m onths be fore te rm inating him , ha d give n Dilla rd the highe st a

nnua l sa la ry inc re a se of the e ight dire c tors tha t worke d unde rne ath Ke nne dy . This give s rise to “ a strong infe re n c e . . . tha

t the re wa s no disc rim inatory

m otive .” Bradle

y v . Harc ourt, Brac e & C

o ., 104 F.3d 267, 271 (9th C ir. 1996); se e also Sc he c hne r v . K PIX-TV , 686 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th C ir. 2012); C oghlan v . Am. Se afoods C o. , 413 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th C i r. 2005). Ac c ordingly , Dilla rd ha s fa ile d to ra ise a

tria ble issue a s to whe the r Hy a tt’ s sta te d re a son for te rm ination wa s untrue or pre te xtua l. Se e Luc e nt Te c hs. , 642 F.3d a t 746. 2. For simila

r re a sons, we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

n t of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Hy a tt on Dilla

rd’ s a g e disc rim ination c la im . The only e vide nc e Dilla

rd pre se nte d to show tha

t Hy a tt’ s sta

te d re a son for te rm inat ion wa s pre t e xt for a ge disc rim ination is two re m arks m a de by Ke nne dy . Dilla

rd, howe ve r, c onc e de s tha

t the two re m arks do not “ in of the m se lve s ra ise a tria b le issue of fa c t a s to pre te xt.” (Appe lla

nt B r. a t 58–59.) Ke nne dy ’ s c om m e nts a re c la s sic “ stra

y re m ark[s] ” tha

t do not support a

n infe re nc e of a g e disc rim i nation. Se e N e sbit v . Pe psic o, Inc . , 994 F.2d 703, 705 (9th C i r. 1993).

33. W e like wise a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of Hy a tt on Dilla

rd’ s disa bility disc rim ination c la im . The de c la ra tion of Ja

ne Gue st is insuffic ie nt to infe r a patte rn and pra c t ic e of disa bility disc rim i nation be c a use it provide s only

one subje c tive , a

ne c dota l e xam

ple of a lle g e d disa

bility disc rim ination. C

ompare C oghlan , 413 F.3d a

t 1099–1100 (“ [E] ve n a

patte rn of thre e re pla c e m e nts is, under our pre c e de nt, too sm a l l a sa m ple . . . .” ), w ith J ohnson v . Unite d C

e re bral Palsy

/Spastic C hildre n’s Found. of L.A. & Ve ntura C ty s. , 93 C a l . R

p t r. 3d 198, 212–15 (C a l. C t. App. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

4