N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TER R Y LEM LEY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. GR AHAM C O UNTY, e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17115 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-00338-TUC -JGZ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Je nnife r G. Zipps, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 9, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SM ITH, C hie f Distric t Judge . ** Pla intiff Te rry

Le m le y a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to de fe nda

nts Gra ham C o unty , e t al. on Le m le y ’ s c la im s of na tiona l 

# FIL ED D EC 24 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble W illia m E. Sm ith, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of R hode Isla nd, sitting by

de signa tion.origin disc rim i nation a n d re ta lia tion, both of which he brought pursua nt to Title VII of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1964, 42 U.S.C . § 2000e , e t se q . W e a ffirm . The fa c ts of this c a se are known to the pa rtie s. W e do not repe at the m . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd re vie w the distric t

c ourt’ s gra

n t of sum m ary judgm e nt denov o . Pav oni v . C hry sle r Grp., LLC, 789 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2015). 1 The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt on Le m le y ’ s na tiona l origin disc rim i nation c l a im . Le m le y did not e x ha

ust his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a s to his 2001 failure to prom ote c la im . Se e N at’l R.R. Passen ge r C

orp. v . Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 114 (2002) (“ Disc re t e a c ts suc h

a s . . . fa ilure to prom ote . . . , or re fusa l to hire are e a sy to ide ntify ” and thus ha ve the i r own 300 da

y de a dline s for bringing a

n a dm i n istra

tive c ha rge .). And for the re m a inde r of his a l le gations, Le m le y e ithe r doe s not a lle ge a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tions or fa ils to rebut the C ounty ’ s le gitim a te non-disc rim inatory re a sons for the a lle ge d

e m ploy m e n t a c tion. Se e Aragon v . Re

p u blicSilv e r State

Disposal, Inc . , 292 F.3d 654, 658 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth Mc

Donne ll Douglasfra m e work).

1 Le m le y note s tha

t the distric t c ourt a

pplie d an inc orre c t loc a l rule in de e m ing nineof the C o unty ’ s fa c t s undispute d. The C ourt ne e d not c onside r the m e rits of Le m le y

and the C ounty ’ s re spe c tive argum e nts on this point. Eve n c onstruing the nine fa c ts a t issue in Le m le y ’ s favor, his c la im s still fail.

2Le m le y trie s to sa

ve his disc rim ination c la i m by arguing tha

t the distric t c ourt should ha

ve a p plie d som e othe r ana lytic a l fram e w o rk to it. Le m l e y , howe v e r, doe s not a

rtic ulate the fra m e work tha t the distric t c ourt should ha ve a pplie d. Nor doe s Le m le y pre se nt dire c t or c irc um sta ntia l e vide nc e “ that a disc rim inatory

re a son m ore like ly

tha n not” m otiva

te d the e m

ploy e r’ s c onduc t, e vide nc e tha

t would a llow Le m le y ’ s c la i m to proc e e d unde r e xisting alte rnative s to the M c Donne ll Douglas ana lytic a l fram e work. Mc Gine st v . GTE Se rv . C

orp. , 360 F.3d 1103, 1122 (9th C ir. 2004). The distric t c ourt a l so did not err in gra nting sum m a ry judgm e nt on Le m le y ’ s re ta lia

t ion c la im . The distric t c ourt wa s right to que stion whe the r som e of Le m le y ’ s a l le ge d c om

pla i nts a c tua lly

c onstitute d prote c te d a c tivitie s. B ut, re ga rdle s s, Le m le y ’ s re ta lia

t ion c la im fa ils on other grounds. First, many of the a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tions on whic h his c la im re sts do not c onstitute a d ve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tions a

t a ll. Se e Burlington N

. & Santa Fe

Ry . C o. v . W hite , 548 U.S. 53, 77 (2006) (a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tions for purpose s of re ta l iation a re only those a c tions tha

t “ we ll m ight ha

ve dissua d e d a

re a sona ble worke r from m aking or supporting a

c ha rge of disc rim ination” ) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d ). For those a c t ions tha t c ould be c onside re d “ a d v e rse ,” Le m le y fa ile d to ra ise ge nuine dispute s a s to the c onne c tion be twe e n his prote c t e d a c tivity 3and the a lle ge dly a dve rse a c tions, and a s to whe the r the C o unty ’ s re a sons for its a c tions we re pre t e xt for re t a lia tion. Se e Univ . of Te

x . Sw . Me d. C

t r. v . N assar , 133 S. C t. 2517, 2534 (2013)(“ [A] pla intiff m aking a re ta lia tion c la im unde r [Title VII] m ust e s ta blish tha t his or he r prote c te d a c tivity wa s a but-for c a

u se of the a lle ge d a dve rse a c t ion by

the e m ploy e r.” ). AFFIRM E D .

4