NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BOUALEM HABIB, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

TOTE SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-35073 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01685-RSL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 23, 2017**

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. 

Boualem Habib appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment 

in his employment action alleging claims under Title VII and state law. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and may affirm on any 

basis supported by the record. Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 

 

* 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

OCT 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35073 

(9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

Summary judgment on Habib’s disparate treatment claims was proper 

because Habib failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Habib was 

pretextual. See Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 

2010) (setting forth burden-shifting framework for Title VII disparate treatment 

claim under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)); Godwin v. 

Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The prima facie case 

may be based either on a presumption arising from the factors such as those set 

forth in McDonnell Douglas, or by more direct evidence of discriminatory 

intent.”); Blackburn v. State, 375 P.3d 1076, 1080 (Wash. 2016) (en banc) 

(Washington courts look to Title VII for guidance in disparate treatment cases 

under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Habib’s hostile 

work environment claim under the WLAD because Habib failed to raise a triable 

dispute as to whether defendant authorized, knew of, or should have known of any 

harassment. See Blackburn, 375 P.3d at 1081 (elements of hostile work 

environment claim under WLAD); Glasgow v. Ga.-Pac. Corp., 693 P.2d 708, 711-

12 (Wash. 1985) (en banc) (“[E]mployee must show that the employer . . . 

authorized, knew, or should have known of harassment and . . . failed to take 
3 17-35073 

reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.”).

Because Habib does not challenge the district court’s determination that 

Habib failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on his hostile work 

environment claim under federal law, we do not consider Habib’s arguments 

regarding the merits of this claim. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 

(9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider Habib’s contentions regarding retaliation because the 

operative first amended complaint does not contain a retaliation claim. See 

Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A]n 

amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as 

non-existent.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.