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

E W . SIM PSON III, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OM PUTER

SC IENC ES C ORPOR ATION, a

Ne va da c orporat ion, De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 17-55502 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-09997-ODW -AS
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 Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 10, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R U FE, * ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED AUG 20 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble C ynthia

M . R ufe , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Pe nnsy lva n ia , sitting by

de signa tion.The odore Sim p son a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to C om

pute r Sc ie nc e s C orporation (“ C SC ” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. Sim pson brought c la im s unde r the Fa ir Em ploy m e nt a nd Housing Ac t (“ FEHA” ) a lle g ing tha

t he wa s dismisse d from

his job a s a

c om pute r te c hnic ia

n be c a use he wa s dia g n ose d with prosta te c anc e r. Howe ve r, the re is no dispute tha t Sim pson wa s la id off a s pa

rt of a la rge -sc a le R e duc tion in Forc e (or “ R IF” ) a nd C SC provide d e vide nc e showing tha t Sim p son wa s ide ntifie d a s a c andida te to be la id off we l l be fore his c anc e r dia gnosis. C SC a lso provide d e v ide nc e tha t Sim pson wa s se l e c te d for the R IF a s a re sult of a se rie s of poor pe rform anc e
re vie ws, inc l uding e vide nc e tha t, in som e re spe c ts, Sim

pson wa s one of the worstrate d a nd le a st produc tive te c hnic ia ns in his fa c ility
. W e the re fore a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt to C SC . The distric t c ourt prope rly c o nc lude d tha

t Sim pson c ould not show tha

t C SC dism isse d him

be c a u se of his c anc e r dia gnosis a nd Sim pson thus fai le d to e sta

blish
a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ination. In a ddition, Sim pson’ s poor pe rform anc e
re vie ws provide d a

le gitim ate , non-disc rim inatory ba sis for his dism

i ssa l whic h Sim pson fa ile d to re but with e vide nc e of pre te x t. Fina lly , Sim pson’ s c la im s tha

t C SC fa i le d to a c c om

m odat e his disa

bility and fa ile d to e nga ge in a

n inte ra c tive
2proc e s s we re a lso prope rly dism isse d. B e c a

use C SC la i d Sim

pson off for a le gitim ate , non-disc rim inatory , a nd non-pre te x tua l re a son, it ha d no obliga tion to
a c c om m odate Sim

pson’ s c ondition or unde

rtake an inte ra c tive proc e ss to ide ntify a pote ntia l a c c om

m odation. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the judgm e nt of the distric t
c ourt. The pa

rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts for this a p pe a l. AFFIRM E D
.

3