NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARRIS L. WINNS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. EXELA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 22

- 16342
D.C. No. 4:20

- cv - 06762

- YGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 2 , 2023 * * San Francisco, California Before: O ’ SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Harris L. Winns appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgmen t in favor of his former employer, Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc., on his claims under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ( “ ADEA ” ), 29 U.S.C. § 62 1 et seq

. ;

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 4 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ( “ WARN ” ) Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. ; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985 (3) ; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( “ Title VII ” ), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ; and California law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment , and may affirm on any grounds supported by the record. Arcona, Inc. v . Farmacy Beauty, LLC , 976 F.3d 1074 , 1077 (9 th Cir. 2020). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s refusal to appoint counsel, Palmer v. Valdez , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) , and its modifications to a pretrial scheduling order, Johnson v. Mammot h Recreations , Inc. , 975 F.2d 604, 6 07 (9th Cir. 1992)

. We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Winns’s race and
age - based discrimination and harassment claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act ( “ FEHA ” ), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940 et seq. , because Winns did not raise these issues in his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge and therefore failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See 29 U.S.C. § § 626 (c)

– (d) , 633(b ) (ADEA exhaustion requirement);
42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 5 (Title VII exhaustion requirement) ; Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965 ( c ) (FEHA exhaustion requirement ). The district court correctly granted summary judgment on Winns’s defamation claim because Winns failed to rai se a genuine dispute of material fact3

as to whether Exela published any false statement. See Taus v. Loftus , 151 P.3d 1185, 1209 (Cal. 2007) ( setting forth the elements of a defamation claim under California law, including the publication of a false statem ent ). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Winns’s claim for conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3) because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence of a conspiracy to investigate him. See Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp. , 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) ( setting forth the elements of a claim under § 1985 (3) , including a conspiracy for the purpose of depriving a person of equal prote ction of the laws). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Winns’s claim for retaliation in violation of Title VII and California Labor Code § 1102.5 because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to any connection betwee n an adverse employment action and his protected activities. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. , 281 F.3d 1054, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) ( explaining that a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII “by show ing that : 1) he engaged in a protected activity; 2) he suffered an adverse employment decision; and 3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision”); Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. , 503 P.3d 659, 667 (Cal. 2022) ( explaining that California law “places the burden on the plaintiff [in an action under § 1102.5] to establish .

. . that retaliation for an4

employee’s protected activities was a contributing factor in a contested employment action”). The district court cor rectly granted summary judgment on Winns’s claim for violations of the California and federal Equal Pay Acts because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether “employees of the opposite sex were paid different wages for equal work.” Freyd v. Univ. of O r. , 990 F.3d 1211, 1219

– 20 (9th Cir. 2021) ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ( explaining requirements for a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act ); see Allen v. Staples,
Inc. , 299 Cal. Rptr. 3d 779 , 783 ( Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (explaining that a prima facie case under Cal ifornia Labor Code § 1197.5(a) i ncludes a showing of “different wages to employees doing substantially similar work un der substantially similar conditions” ( quoting Hall v. Cnty. of Los Angeles , 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 732, 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) ) )

. The district court correctly granted summary judgment on Winns’s claim of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

. T here was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Winns’s race was a “but

- for” cause of any adverse employment actions. See Comcast Corp. v. Nat ’ l Ass ’ n Afr

. Am.

- Owned Media , 140 S. Ct. 1009,
101 4 (2020) ( holding that a plaintiff bringing a § 1981 c laim “bears the burden of showing that race was a but

- for cause of its injury”)

.5

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Winns’s claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to prevent a hostile work environment an d retaliation , and negligent supervision . T here was no genuine issue of material fact as to the underlying discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on which the claims rested. See DeHorney v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust &
Sav. Ass’n , 879 F.2d 459, 465 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that where a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is founded on discrimination, the plaintiff’s “failure to make a prima facie case of .

. . discrimination disposes of this claim as we ll”); Trujillo v. N. Cnty. Transit Dist. , 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 596, 601

– 02 ( Cal. Ct. App. 1998) ( affirming judgment for defendant on a claim of failure to prevent a hostile work environment where the record lacked support for the underlying allegations of disc rimination and harassment). The district court correctly granted summary judgment on Winns’s purported WARN Act claim, premised on Exela’s failure to transfer him, because the WARN Act contains no such transfer requirement. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101

– 2109. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Winns’s request for appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate “ exceptional circumstances ” for the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

. See Palmer , 56 0 F.3d at 970

.6

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Exela additional time to conduct discovery because Exela showed good cause. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16(b) (4). Further, t he district court’s order vacating the trial date and related deadlines pending its decision on the motion for summary judgment did not prejudice Winns or affect his ability to conduct discovery and submit evidence in opposition to Exela’s motion for summary judgment. The record does not support Winns’s contention s of judicial bias. See Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“ [J] udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion

. ”). Winns’s contention that the district court denied him his right to a j ury trial lacks merit. See In re Slatkin , 525 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. 2008) (“ [A] summary judgment proceeding does not deprive the losing party of its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.” ). Winns’s contention that the district court failed to give h im required notice of summary judgment lacks merit. See Jacobsen v. Filler , 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) ( rejecting required notice of summary judgment for pro se litigants
in an ordinary civil case); c f. Rand v. Rowland , 154 F.3d 952 , 960

– 61 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) ( explaining notice requirements for pro se prisoners ).7

Winn’s request to transmit physical and documentary exhibits , filed on November 22, 2022 (Dkt. No. 5), is denied as unnecessary. The items in the motion are available on the electronic district court docket or have been transmitted upon this Court’s request.
AFFIRMED.