N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HIEU PHAM , DDS, M D,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. B OARD OF RE GENTS OF THE UNIVER SITY OF C ALIFOR NIA, San Franc isc o Sc hool of De n tistry ; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-16541 D.C . No. 3:17-c v-04194-W HO
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 W illia m Horsle y Orric k, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

y 12, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS and M ILLER , C i rc u it Judge s. Pla intiff Hie u Pham

a ppe a ls a distric t c ourt orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt for de fe nda

nts on his First Am

e ndm e n t a

nd C a lifornia

sta te la w
re ta lia tion c la im s. W e h a

ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse . 

# FIL ED
MAY19 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.W e re vie w a grant of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. De v e r e aux v . Abbe y , 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th C ir. 2001). B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thehistory of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it here . The pa rtie s a gre e tha

t the burde n-shifting fra

m e work from

Mc D o nne l l Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), a pplie s to Pha

m ’ s c la im s unde r C a lifornia He a lth & Sa fe ty

C ode § 1278.5 a

nd C a lifornia

La bor C o de § 1102.5. 1 The re is no dispute that Pha m e sta blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se unde r Mc

Donne llDouglas ba se d on the re d u c tion of his pa

rt-tim e a ppointm e nt from

50% to 40% full-tim e e q

uiva le nt (FTE) a fte r he m a de a prote c te d c o m

pla int a bout a c olle a gue . Se e W e il v . C i tize n s Te le c o m Se rv

s. C o., LLC , 922 F.3d 993, 1002 (9th C ir. 2019). Nor do the pa

rtie s dispute that De fe nda nts a rtic ulate d le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory
re a s ons for the c ha

nge : tha t Pham ’ s dutie s ha d de c re a se d suc h tha t a 50% FTE
a ppointm e nt wa s no longe r a ppropria te , tha t budge t ary

c onstra ints m otiva

te d

“ right-siz ing” throughout the de pa rtm e nt, a nd tha t Pha m ’ s re que st for a

ra ise –not

1 W e note tha

t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt ha s re c e ntly a c c e pte d c e rtific ation from

this C o urt to de te rm ine whe the r the e vide ntia ry sta nda rd in C a lifornia La bor C ode § 1102.6 displa c e s Mc Donne ll-Douglas with re spe c t to re ta lia tion c la im s unde r § 1102.5. Se e Law son v . PPG Arc hite c tural Finishe s, Inc

. , 982 F.3d 752 (9th C ir. 2020); Orde r Granting C e rtific ation, Law son v . PPG Arc hite c tural Finishe

s, Inc

. , No. S266001 (C a l . Fe b. 10, 2021). B e c a use we hold that sum m ary judgm e nt for De fe nda

n ts wa s im

prope r unde r Mc

Donne ll Douglas , and the e vide ntia

ry sta nda rd in § 1102.6 is le s s stringe nt, se e Law son , 982 F.3d a

t 759, the c e rtifie d issue is not dispositive in this c a se .his prote c te d c om p la int a bout his c olle a gue –prom

pte d the re vie w of his
a ppointm e nt. Se eid. To survivesum

m a ry judgm e nt, Pha

m wa s the re fore re quire d to produc e
e vide nc e tha

t De fe nda nts’ “ proffe re d nondisc rim i natory re a s on is m e re ly a pre te xt for [re ta lia

tion] .” Id. Evide nc e of pre te xt inc lude s “ e v ide nc e , dire c t or
c irc um s ta ntia l, ‘ that a

[re ta lia t o ry ] re a son m o re like ly

m otiva te d the e m

ploy e r’ to
m ake the c ha l l e nge d e m

ploy m e nt de c ision” or “ e vide nc e ‘ that the e m ploy e r's proffe re d e xpla

nation is unworthy

of c re de nc e .’ ” D av is v . Te am Ele c . C o. , 520 F.3d 1080, 1091 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting C ornw e ll v

. Ele c tra C

e nt. C re d it Union , 439 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th C ir. 2006)). C irc um sta n tia l e vide n c e of pre te xt, sta nding
a lone , pre c lude s sum

m ary judgm e nt for the de fe nda nt only if it is “ s pe c ific ” and

“ substa n tia l” –whic h this C ourt “ ha [s] e quate d . . . with e vide nc e suffic i e nt to ra ise
a ge n uine issue of m ate ria l fa c t unde r R u le 56(c ).” C

ornw e l l , 439 F.3d a

t 1029. C onside re d c um

ulative ly , a

nd c onstruing the

fa c ts in thelight m ost fa

vora ble to Pha m , the re we re suffic ie nt ge nuine issue s of m ate ria l fa c t a s to pre te x t to survive sum

m ary judgm e nt. Se e Raad v . Fairbank s N

. Star Borough Sch. Dist. , 323 F.3d 1185, 1194-95 (9th C ir. 2003). The re wa s e vide nc e in the re c o rd tha t Pham ’ s a ppointm e nt struc ture c ha

nge d to his de trim e nt a fte r he c om pla ine d , a nd that othe r e m ploy e e s of the de pa

rtm e nt e xpe rie nc e d ne gative tre atm e nt a fte r
c om pla i ning a b o ut fra ud a nd m ism ana ge m e nt to the i r supe rvisor. In a ddition,the re wa s a

te m pora l proximity

be twe e n Pham ’ s c om

pla int a nd his a ppointm e nt
c ha nge tha t is within the

range we hav e he ld to ra i se an infe re nc e of pre te x t. Se e Franc e v . J

ohnson , 795 F.3d 1170, 1176-77 (9th C ir. 2015), as ame nde d on re h’g (Oc t. 14, 2015). Thus, vie we d c um u lative ly in the light m ost fa

vora ble to Pha m , the re we re suffic ie nt issue s of m ate ria l fa c t to a void sum m a ry judgm e n t. Sim ila rly , sum m ary judgm e nt wa s im

prope rly grante d on Pha

m ’ s 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 First Ame n dm e nt re ta lia tion c la im unde r the te st a

rtic ulat e d in Mt. He althy C ity Sc hool Distric t Board of Educ ation v . Doy le , 429 U.S. 274 (1977). 2 Pham offe re d suffic ie nt e vide nc e t o survive sum m ary judgm e nt tha

t his prote c te d
c om pla i nt wa s a

“ substa ntia l or m otiva

ting” fa c tor for–tha

t is, a but-for c a

use of–the c ha

nge to his a

p pointm e nt te rm s. Se eK

nic k e rboc k e r v . C ity of Stock ton , 81 F.3d 907, 911 (9th C ir. 1996).

2 The distric t c ourt a

pplie d Mc Donne ll Douglas to Pha

m ’ s First Am e ndm e nt c la im . Ne ithe r party

c onte ste d the a

ppropria te ne ss of a

pply ing Mc

Donne ll Douglas in the distric t

c o urt. Pha

m c onte nds–c orre c tly , but for thefirst tim e on a ppe a l–tha t it should ha

ve inste a d a

pplie d one of the First Am e ndm e n t public e m ploy m e nt re ta lia tion te sts a

rtic ulate d in Pic k

e ring v . Board of Educ ation , 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and Mt. He althy , 429 U.S. 274

. W e e xe rc ise our disc re tion to a pply the c orre c t sta

nda rd. Se e Silv e ira v
. Apfe l , 204 F.3d 1257, 1260 n.8 (9th C ir. 2000).W e , of c ourse , do not e xpre ss a ny vie w a s to whe the r the c la im s a re ultim ate ly m e ritorious, but the

te nde re d e vide nc e and infe re nc e s a re suffic ie nt to
avoid sum

m ary judgm e nt. 3 Se e id. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

3 W e de c line to re a c h De fe nda nts’ argum e nt, ra i se d for the first tim e on a ppe a l, tha t the distric t c ourt should ha ve grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt on oneof Pham ’ s First Am e ndm e nt c la im s on theground tha t Pha m provide d no e vide nc e of a m unic ipa l polic y . Se e El Paso C ity v . Am. W . Airline s, Inc

. (In reAm. W

. Airline s, Inc .) , 217 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th C ir. 2000).