N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NESTOR C . DOM INGO, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M EGAN J. B RENNAN, Postm a ste r Ge ne ra l Pa c ific Are a

Unite d State s Posta l Se rvic e , Age n c y , * De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-17341 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05333-C RB 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 C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 20, 2016 *** B e fore : C ANB Y, TASHIM A, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ne stor C . Dom ingo a

p pe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary 

# FIL ED JAN 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* M e ga

n J. B re nna

n ha s be e n substitute d for he r pre de c e ssor, Pa tric k R . Dona h oe , a s Postm a ste r Ge ne ra l unde r Fe d. R . App. P. 43(c )(2). ** 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 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).judgm e nt in his em ploy m e nt a c tion a lle g ing viola tions of Title VII. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, a nd m a y a ffirm on a

ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Enlow v . Sale m-K

e ize r Ye l low

C ab C o. , 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm in pa rt, va c ate in pa

rt, a nd re m and. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r on Dom ingo’ s dispa rate tre atm e nt c l a im be c a use Dom ingo fa ile d

to ra ise a ge nuine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he wa s subje c t to a

n a dve rse e m

p l oym e nt a c tion, or whe t

he r sim i la rly situa te d individuals outside his prote c te d c l a ss we re tre ate d m ore favora b ly . Se e Dav is v . Te am Ele c . C

o. , 520 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th C ir. 2008) (se tting forth e le m e nts of prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ination unde r Title VII, and e xpla ining tha t a n a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion is one

tha t m ate ria lly

a ffe c ts the c om

pe nsation, te rm s, c onditions, or privile ge s of e m ploy m e nt). Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r on Dom ingo’ s re ta lia tion c la im be c a use Dom ingo fa ile d

to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m at e ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he suffe re d a m ate ria lly

a dve rse a c tion, or whe the r the re wa s a c a usa l re l ationship betwe e n his Equa l Em ploy m e nt Opportunity

c om pla ints a nd a ny suc h a dve rse a c tions. Se e W e s te ndorf v . W

. C oast C o n trac tors of N

e v . , Inc . , 712 F.3d 417, 422 (9th C ir. 2013) (se tting forth e le m e nts of a prim a fa c ie c a s e of re ta lia

t ion unde r Title VII, and e xpla ining tha

t the pla intiff m

ust show tha

t prote c t e d c onduc t wa s a but-for 1 3 - 1 7 3 4 1 2c a

use of the a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion); se e also Raad v . Fairbank s N . Star Borough Sc h. Dist. , 323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th C ir. 2003) (de fe n da nt’ s knowle dge of prote c te d a c tivity

is ne c e s sa

ry for c a usation). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Domingo’ s hostile work e nvironm e nt c la i m

be c a use Dom ingo fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the a lle ge d c onduc t a lte re d the c onditions of his e m ploy m e nt or c re ate d a

n a busive work e nvironm e nt. Se e Vasque z v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9th C ir. 2004) (se tting forth e le m e nts of a prim a fa c i e c a se of hostilework e nvironm e nt unde r Title VII); se e also Surre ll v . C al. W ate r Se r v . C o. , 518 F.3d 1097, 1108-09 (9th C ir. 2008) (a pla intiff c annot e sta blish a prim a

fa c i e c a se whe re he pre se nts no e vide nc e tha t c om m e nts we re ba se d on prote c te d

c ha ra c te ristic s); Mc Gine

st v . GTE Se rv . C

orp. , 360 F.3d 1103, 1113 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ Sim ply c a using a n e m ploy e e offe n se ba se d on a n isola te d c om m e nt is not suffic ie nt to c re ate a c tiona ble ha ra s sm e nt unde r Title VII.” ). B e c a use the distric t c ourt re stric te d Dom ingo’ s a c tion to c la im s ba se d on e ve nts from

M arc h 9, 2006 through M arc h 31, 2006, wedo not c onside r the distric t c ourt’ s c o nc lusions or the pa rtie s’ c onte ntions re ga

rding whe the r Dom i ngo wa s disc rim inate d or re ta lia

te d a ga inst in 2007 or 2008. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

c onside ring route inspe c tion 1 3 - 1 7 3 4 1 3form s be c a

use the form s we re a

uthe ntic ate d by

witne ss Pe te B re e la

nd. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 901(a), (b)(1) (providing tha t one wa y to a uthe ntic ate e vide nc e is te stim ony that an ite m is wha t it is c la im e d to be ); S

e a-Land Se rv ., Inc . v . Loze n Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 813 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w). The distric t c ourt ha d the a uthority to a ward c osts a

nd did not a

b u se its disc re tion by

doing so. Se e Russian Rive r W ate rshe d Prot. C

omm. v . C

ity of Santa Rosa , 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th C ir. 1998) (se tting forth sta nda rds of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t the pre sum

ption in fa

vor of a warding c osts to the

pre va iling pa

rty

“ m ay only be ove rc om e by

pointing to som

e im proprie t y on the pa

rt of the pre v a i ling pa

rty tha t would justify a

de nia l of c o sts” ). Howe ve r, the distric t c ourt awarde d a

tota l of $10,015.85, but a ppe lle e ha s c onc e de d tha

t c e rta i n fe e s in the am ount of $60.00 should not ha ve be e n inc lude d in theaward. The re fore , we va c ate the award and re m and for furthe r c onside ration. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). Dom ingo’ s “ M otion to Re vie w R e late d C a s e 15-15907 B e fore De c iding C a se 13-17341,”file d on July 23, 2015, is denie d.

1 3 - 1 7 3 4 1

4The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

1 3 - 1 7 3 4 1 5