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

B UR Y, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C & H SUGAR

C OM PANY, INC ., a De la ware c o rporation a

n d AM ER IC AN SUGAR REFINING, INC ., a

De l aware c orporation, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17835 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-01969-SI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Susa n Illston, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 13, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s and B ENITEZ, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED APR 21 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Gle nn Le athe rbury a p p e a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in favor of his e m

ploy e r, C & H Suga

r C om pa ny , Inc . a nd its pa re nt c om pa ny Am e ric an Suga

r R e fining, Inc ., on his c la im s of fa ilure to pa y ove rtim e in viola

tion of C a lifornia

La b or C ode § 510, a

nd for viola

tions of theC a lifornia

Fa i r Em ploy m e nt a nd Housing Ac t (“ FEHA” ), C a lifornia Gove rnm e nt C ode § 12940 e t se q. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t Le athe rbury wa s e xe m

pt from C a lifornia ’ s ove rtim e wa g e re quire m e nts. Se e C a l. La bor C ode §§ 510, 515. First, the sugge stions of supervisors (suc h a s Le athe rbury ) we re give n “ pa rtic ula r we ight” i n m a

king de c isions to hire , fire , prom ote , a nd c ha nge the sta

t us of e m ploy e e s. Se e In re Unite d Parc e l Se rv . W age& Hour C

ase s , 118 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 834, 842 (C t. App. 2010). Se c ond, supe rvisors c ustom arily and re gula

rly e x e rc ise d the i r disc re tion a

nd inde p e nde nt judgm e nt. Le athe rbury ha d the a uthority to disc ipline union e m

ploy e e s a nd to de te rm ine whe n som e one would work ove rtim e . He a lso a ddre sse d c o m

pla i nts a nd c onc e rns ra ise d by

union e m p loy e e s. The se de c isions a

nd c hoic e s we re “ m a tte rs of signific anc e ” tha t a ffe c te d num e rous e m ploy e e s with re spe c t

to C & H’ s busine ss. Id . at 851-52. La stly , supe rvisors like Le a the rbury “ prim arily

e nga ge d in dutie s tha

t m e e t the te st of the e xe m ption.” Id
. a t 842. Le a the rbury

de fine s m

uc h of his dutie s (suc h a s ke e p ing tra c k of

2subordina

te s’ tim e and spot c he c king a nd e xam ining thework of subordina te s) a s

“ c l e ric a l.” De spite Le a the rbury ’ s c la ssific ation of his dutie s, m uc h of tha t work inc l ude s work done by e xe m pt e m ploy e e s. S

e e id . at 845-46; s e e also 2 9 C .F.R . § 541.703 (2008). 2. Assum ing tha

t Le a the rbury

e sta blishe d his prim a

fa c i e c a se of disa

bility disc rim ination, C & H a de q uat e ly re butte d the re sulting pre sum ption of disc rim ination by

showing tha

t it te rm i nate d Le at

he rbury for le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory

re a sons. Le a the rbury

ha s not ide ntifie d pre te xt suffic ie nt to c re ate a tria b le issue of fa c t m a te ria l to C & H ’ s m otiva tion in te rm inating him
. Le a the rbury “ m

ust de m onstra

te suc h we akne sse s, im

pla usibilitie s, inc o nsiste nc i e s, inc ohe re nc i e s, or c ontra dic tions in the e m ploy e r’ s proffe re d le gitim ate re a sons for its a c tion tha t a re a sona ble fa c tfinde r c o uld

ra tiona lly

find the m unworthy

of c re de nc e . . . .” Mc

Raev . De p’t of C orr. &Re hab. , 48 C a l. R

p tr. 3d 313, 321 (C t. App. 2006) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Le at he rbury c ha lle nge d C & H’ s thre e proffe re d re a s ons for te rm ination— (1) pe rform ing union work, (2) inte rfe ring with union ne gotia tions, a nd (3) poor pe rform anc e in his ne w position a s a pa c king supe rvisor. Howe ve r, Le at he rbury ’ s c ha lle nge s at be st show that C & H’ s “ d e c ision wa s wrong, m ista ke n, or unwise .” Id . A wrong, m ista ke n, or unwise de c ision is not e nough to e sta

blish pre te xt. Id. 33. The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t Le athe rbury fa ile d to e sta blish a c la im

of ra c e disc rim ination a

n d re ta lia tion. Le athe rbury did not e sta blish a prim a

fa c i e c a se of ra c e disc rim ination or re ta lia tion. Thee m

ploy e e who wa s the sourc e of the a lle ge d disc rim ination a nd re t a lia t ion wa s te rm inate d prior to Le athe rbury ’ s tra nsfe r to Pa c king Supe rvisor a n d the re a fte r his te rm ination from C & H. The re is no c a

usa l c onne c tion be twe e n the a l le ge d disc rim inat ory c onduc t a nd his te rm inat ion. Furthe rm o re , e ve n if Le athe rbury e sta blishe d a prim a fa c i e c a se , his c la i m s would fa il, be c a use Le athe rbury

c annot e sta

blish tha t his te rm ination wa s pre te xtua l for a ny ty pe of disc rim ination. 4. The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t C & H did not fa il to a c c om m odate Le athe rbury ’ s disa bility or e n ga ge in the inte ra c tive proc e ss. At be st, C & H wa s on notic e of Le a the rbury ’ s disa bility two da y s prior to his te rm ination. Howe v e r, Le a the rbury did not provide C & H a list of re s tric tions or re que s t a n a c c om m odation. Se eK

ing v . Unite d Parc e l Se rv ., Inc
. , 60 C a l. R ptr. 3d 359, 374 (C t. App. 2007). In fa c t, the m e dic a l doc tor at C & H re le a s e d Le athe rbury to work without a

ny re stric tions. B a se d on this e vide nc e , Le athe rbury fa ile d to pre s e nt a n issue of m at e ria l fa c t tha

t C & H fa ile d to a c c om

m o date his disa

bility prior to his term ination.

45. B e c a

use Le a the rbury fa ile d to ra ise tria ble issue s of fa c t with re spe c t to his FEHA c la im s, his wrongful te rm ination c la im

m ust a lso fa il. AFFIRM E D.

5