N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OB ER T R . NOR T ON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. PHC -ELKO, INC ., a ge nt of Northe a ste rn Ne va da R e giona l Hospita l,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-17021 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00169-R C J-W G C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD, C LIFTON, a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. R obe rt Norton a

p pe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gra nting sum m a ry judgm e nt in fa vor of PHC -ELKO, Inc ., on Norton’ s Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t (ADA), 42 U.S.C . §§ 12112, 12203, Age Disc rim ination in Em

ploy m e nt Ac t (ADEA), 29 

# FIL ED
D EC 21 2016 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).U.S.C . § 626 e t s e q . , bre a c h of c ontra c t, a nd bre a c h of the im

p lie d c ove n ant of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling c la im s. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt. Norton did not
e sta blish a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t tha t his form e r e m

ploy e r’ s proffe re d
re a s on for firing him

— that he im prope rly sha ve d tim e off of his e m

p loy e e s’ tim e
re c o rds— wa s pre t e xt. Norton a lso did not e sta b l ish a ny ge nuine issue a s to his sta tus a s a n at-will e m

ploy e e . The pa rtie s a gre e tha

t the burde n shifting fra

m e work a nnounc e d in Mc D onne ll Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), a pplie s to both Norton’ s ADA a n d ADEA c la im s. Unde r the Mc D onne ll Douglas fra m e work, onc e the pla i ntiff e sta

blishe s a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim inat ion, the burde n shifts “ to the
e m ploy e r to a

rtic ulate som e le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory re a son” for the a dve rse
e m ploy m e nt a c tion. 411 U.S. a

t 802. If thee m

ploy e r artic ulate s a le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory

re a son for the a c tion, theburde n shifts ba c k to the pla intiff to
e sta blish tha t the sta te d re a son for the a dve rse a c tion “ wa s in fa c t pre te xt.” Id. at 804. Norton’ s ADA re ta lia tion a nd disc rim ination c la im s fa il be c a use he c annot show tha t the Hospita l’ s proffe re d re a son for firing him wa s pre te xt. As e v ide nc e of pre te xt Norton c ite s the following: thre e sta te m e nts m a de by

Ge ne M i lle r, the
2Hospita l’ s C hie f Exe c utive Offic e r, tha t did not e xplic itly

re fe re n c e Norton’ s a ge or disa bility ; purporte d c om

pa ra tor e vide nc e ; the fa c t tha t he wa s ne v e r c o n fronte d with spe c ific tim e c ard e dits or there sults of the inve s tiga tion; Norton’ s a s se rtion that two Hospital e m

ploy e e s ove rstat e d the ir c a se whe n the y de c la re d unde r oath that “Norton a dm itte d tha

t he ha d be e n sha

v ing his e m

p loy e e s’ tim e and tha

t he ha d done so without the ir knowle dge or pe rm i ssion,” t hat he be lie ve d he wa s following c om

p any polic y and the issue of Norton’ s tim e c ard e diting ha d be e n
suc c e ssfully

a ddre sse d with theHospita l ’ s Hum a n R e sourc e s Dire c tor; a

nd tha t othe r dire c tors we re c ounse l e d not to do tim e c ard e dits a

nym ore . Norton’ s e vide nc e doe s not c re ate a ge nuine issue of m at e ria l fa c t tha t the Hospita l’ s proffe re d re a son for firing him wa s pre t e xt. Norton c ite d two sta te m e nts from

M ille r without providing the c onte xt or the c onte nt of the
c onve rsations tha

t prom pte d the m . The fina l sta

te m e nt— that M i lle r told Norton the H ospita l did not wa

nt pe ople like Norton a

round— wa s sa id in thec onte xt of M ille r be ing fire d

for what the Hospita l be lie ve d to be unla wful tim e sha

v ing. Norton’ s c om

pa ra tor e vide nc e is a lso not pe rsua sive . The one e m p loy e e Norton ide ntifie d by

nam e who e nga ge d in the sa m e tim e e diting a s Norton wa s his subordina te . She wa s not simila

rly situa te d to Norton a

nd not a va l id c om

pa ra tor. Se e Vasque

z v . C t y . of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ Em ploy e e s
3in supe rvisory positions a re ge n e ra lly

de e m e d not to be sim ila

rly situa te d to lowe r le ve l e m ploy e e s.” ). The “ othe r dire c tors” who e n ga ge d in tim e c ard e diting did so in wa y s tha t we re substa

ntia lly diffe re nt from Norton, both in fre q u e nc y an d re a son for e d iting. The Hospita l a ppropria te l y found tha

t the i r e diting did not c onstitute
m isc o nduc t. The se e m

ploy e e s we re ne ithe r sim ila rly situa t e d nor va lid
c om pa ra tors. Se e Vasque

z , 349 F.3d a

t 641 (holding em

ploy e e s we re not simila

rly situa te d whe n the y

“ did not e nga ge in proble m atic c o n duc t of c om pa ra ble
se riousne ss” ). Eve n

a ssum i ng tha

t the be havior of the othe r dire c tors wa s
m isc o nduc t, we “ distinguish[] m isc onduc t by one e m ploy e e from

m i sc onduc t by
anothe r e m

ploy e e on the ba s is of whe the r it prom pte d c om pla ints or c onste rnation by othe r e m ploy e e s.” Haw n v . Ex e c . J e t Mgmt., Inc
. , 615 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th C ir. 2010). C om

pla ints we re lodge d a ga inst only Norton. Norton’ s othe r e vide nc e is prim arily

c o m prise d of c onc lusory

and se lf-se rving a lle gations tha t a re insuffic ie nt to survive

sum m ary judgm e nt. Se e F.T.C

. v . Publ’g C

le aring House

, Inc
. , 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th C ir. 1997). Norton’ s pe rsona l be lie f a s to the proprie ty of his a c tions doe s not c re ate a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t. Se e C ornw e l l v . Ele c tra C

e n t. C r e dit Union , 439 F.3d 1018, 1028–29 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). Fina lly , tha

t a fte r his te rm ination othe r dire c tors we re c o unse le d not to e dit tim e re c ords, a

n d tha t the Hospita l pa i d Die ta

ry De pa rtm e nt e m

ploy e e s for the
4sha

v e d tim e , support theHospita l’ s proffe re d re a son for firing Norton. Norton did not c re ate a

ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to pre te xt. The distric t c ourt a l so prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e n t on Norton’ s ADEA disc rim ination c la i m be c a u se Norton simila

rly did not c re ate a ge nuine issue a s to pre t e xt. Norton re lie d prim arily on the sa m e e vide nc e to e sta

blish pre t e xt for his ADEA c la i m s a s he did for the ADA c l a im . For the re a sons sta te d
a bove , tha t e vide nc e doe s not de fe at sum m ary judgm e nt. He a lso a s se rts tha t

“ [o] the rs in Norton’ s a ge bra c ke t we re tre ate d poorly .” Howe ve r, Norton doe s not provide the a ge s of the se “ othe rs,” nor doe s he give spe c i fic e vide nc e of how the y
we re “ t re ate d poorly .” The se unc orroborate d, se lf-se rving, c o nc lusory sta te m e nts do not c re ate a

ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to pre te xt. Se eN igro v . Se ars, Roe buc k & C o. , 784 F.3d 495, 497 (9th C ir. 2015). Thedistric t c ourt the re fore prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt to PHC -ELKO, Inc
. Fina lly , Norton a

rgue s tha t the Hospita l bre a c he d his e m p loy m e nt c ontra c t
and viola te d the im plie d c ove na

nt of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling. Norton a rgue s that his original offe r le tte r, the Em ploy e e Han dbook, a

nd the Hospita l’ s use of the Handbook in his disc

ha rge de c ision, c re ate a

ge nuine disputeof m at e ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he ha d a

n e m ploy m e nt c ontra c t with the Hospita l. Norton’ s a rgum e nt fa ils. First, the

disc la im e r in his offe r le tte r, “ [n] e ithe r this le tte r or any othe r
5doc um e nt, nor a ny of our pre vious or la

t e r c o nve rsations, a

re inte nde d to be an
e m ploy m e nt c ontra c t e xpre sse d or im plie d,” re fe rs to doc um e nts a nd disc ussions that m a y oc c ur in the future , a fte r he ha s a c c e pte d e m ploy m e nt. The Supre m e C ourt of Ne va da

ha s he ld tha

t sim i la r la ngua ge re pre se nts a

t-will la ngua ge . Se e Martin v . Se ars, Roe buc k & C o. , 899 P.2d 551, 554–55 (Ne v. 1995). Se c ond, the polic ie s a nd c la use s outline d in the Em

ploy e e Ha

ndbook do not inc l ude prom issory la ngua ge tha

t c re at e d a

n im p l ie d e m ploy m e nt c ontra c t. Se e

, e .g. , D’Ange lo v

. Gardne r , 819 P.2d 206, 210–11 (Ne v. 1991). Fina lly , the Ha

ndbook c onta ins a disc la im e r re inforc ing tha t e m ploy e e s a re at-will a

nd the Ha ndbook doe s not c re ate
an im plie d e m p loy m e nt c ontra c t. B e c a

use the re is a

disc l a im e r and no
c ontra dic ting promissory

la n gua ge , the Ha

ndbook doe s not c re at e an im plie d
c ontra c t or othe rwise a lte r Norton’ s at-will e m ploy m e nt sta tus. Se e Sw . Gas C

orp.
v . Vargas , 901 P.2d 693, 698 (Nev. 1995). AFFIRM E D.

6