N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TOM M Y B ODEN, AKA Sha ne B ode n, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NUTR IEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC ., FKA C rop Produc tion Se rvic e s, Inc .,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 21-35100 D.C . No. 4:18-c v-00266-JM M
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho Jam e s M a xwe ll M oody , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 17, 2021 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d LEE, C irc uit Judge s , a

nd KENNELLY, * * Distric t Judge
. Tom

m y B ode n (B o de n) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Nutrie n AG Solutions, Inc . (Nutrie n). B ode n a lle ge d tha t 

# FIL ED DEC 17 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 a t 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 Honora

ble M a tthe w F. Ke nne lly , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.Nutrie n te rm inate d him from his position a s a

n a gric ultura l sa le s re pre se ntative due to his disa

bility and a ge in viola

tion of the Am e ric a

n s with Disa

bilitie s Ac t (ADA)
and the Age Disc rim ination in Em ploy m e nt Ac t (ADEA). B o de n c onte nds tha t the distric t c o urt e rre d in gra

nting sum m ary judgm e nt on his ADA c la im be c a use he
ra ise d a m a te ria l fa c tua l disputetha t he wa s disa

ble d a nd wa s te rm inat e d on
a c c ount of his disa

bility
. B o de n furthe r a sse rts tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Nutrie n on his ADEA c la im be c a use he pre s e nte d dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim inat ory anim us. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on B o de n’ s ADA
c la im be c a use B ode n fa ile d to ra ise a m a te ria l fa c tua l disputetha t he wa s disa

ble d or tha t Nutrie n wa s a

w are of any

disa bility whe n he wa s te rm i nate d. B o de n ’ s
m e dic a l re c ords indic a te d tha t B ode n wa s c le are d to work without re s tric tions, a nd B ode n a c knowle dge d in his de position tha

t he wa s c a

pa ble of working without
re stric tions. S

e e G arc ia v . Salv ation Army , 918 F.3d 997, 1010 (9th C ir. 2019) (e xpla ining tha

t “ [a ] doc tor’ s re le a se to work without re stric t ions supports a finding tha

t a pe rson no longe r suffe rs from a disa bility ” ) (c ita

tions a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). Additional ly , B ode n fa ile d to ra i se a m a te ria l fa c tua l dispute tha

t Nutrie n wa s a

w are of B ode n’ s purporte d disa b ility , or ba se d B ode n’ s te rm ination on a

pe rc e ive d

disa bility
. Se e Lope

z v . Pac . Maritime Ass’n , 657 F.3d
2762, 765 (9th C ir. 2011), as ame nde d (re c ogniz ing tha

t “ [i] f the e m

p loy e r we re truly una w are tha t a disa bility e xiste d, it would be

im possiblefor [its e m

ploy m e nt] de c ision to ha

ve be e n ba se d, e ve n in pa

rt, on the e m

ploy e e ’ s disa

bility ” ) (c ita

tion
and a lte ra tions omitte d). Howe v e r, the distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Nutrie n on B ode n’ s ADEA c la i m . W e have he l d tha t “ [d] ire c t e vide nc e , in the
c onte xt of a

n ADEA c la i m , is de fine d a s e v ide nc e of c onduc t

or sta te m e nts by pe rsons involve d in the de c ision-m aking proc e ss tha t m ay be vie w e d a s dire c tly
re fle c t ing the a lle ge d disc rim inatory a ttitude suffic ie nt to pe rm i t the f ac t finde r to infe r that tha

t attitude wa s m ore like ly tha n not a m otiva ting fa c tor in the
e m ploy e r’ s de c ision.” Enlow v . Sale m-K

e ize r Ye llow

C ab C o., Inc
. , 389 F.3d 802, 812 (9th C i r. 2004), as ame nde d (c ita tion, a l te ra tion, a

nd inte rna l quota

t ion m arks
om i tte d) (e m

pha sis in the origina l). B ode n pre se nte d dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim inatory anim us ba se d on the de positions of two form

e r c ustom e rs. One c ustom e r re lat e d tha t, whe n he spoke to the m ana ge r who te rm inat e d B ode n, 1 the m ana ge r c onve y e d tha t Nutrie n ha d “ a

1 The Nutrie n m ana ge r who c onve rse d with the c ustom e rs m a d e the de c ision to term i nate B ode n. Due to dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim i natory anim us, we are unpe rsua de d by

Nutrie n’ s a sse rtions tha

t sum m ary judgm e nt wa s wa

rra nte d on B ode n’ s ADEA c la im

ba se d on the sa

m e -a c tor infe re nc e . Se e C oghlan v

. Am. (c ontinue d...) 3ne w guy , he ’ s y ounge r, he ’ s e duc a te d. And . . . they ne e d[e d ] som e one ne w a nd
som e one e d

uc ate d. And [B ode n wa s] too old.”Anothe r c u s tom e r re c ounte d tha t, whe n he spoke to the m ana ge r a bout B ode n’ s te rm ination, he re sponde d tha t Nutrie n ha d found “ som e body y ounge r an d e a ge r.” In light of this dire c t e v i de nc e of disc rim inatory anim us, the distric t c ourt
a lso e rre d in a p ply ing the burde n-shifting fra m e work a rtic ulate d in Mc

D onne ll Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Se e Enlow , 389 F.3d a t 812 (e xpla ining tha

t “ [w] h e n a

pla intiff a lle ge s dispa

ra t e tre a tm e nt ba se d on dire c t
e vide nc e in a

n ADEA c la i m , we do not a pply the burde n -shifting a

na ly sis se t forth in Mc Donne ll Douglas ” ). R a the r, we de te rm ine whe the r the pla intiff ra ise d a
m a te ria l fa c tua l disputetha t his a ge wa s “ a

m otiva ting fa c tor” in his te rm ination in light of the

dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim inat ory anim us. Id. The dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim inatory

an im us towa rd B ode n m e t this sta

nda rd. 2

1 (...c ontinue d) Se afoods C

o. LLC ., 413 F.3d 1090, 1096 & n.10 (9th C ir. 2005) (re c o gniz ing in a c aselac k ing “any dire c t e v i de nc e of . . . disc riminatory inte nt”tha

t “ whe n the a lle ge dly disc rim inatory

a c tor is som e one who ha s pre v iously se le c te d the pla intiff for fa vora ble tre atm e n t , tha

t is ve ry strong e vide nc e tha

t the a c tor holds no disc rim inatory

an im us, a nd the pla intiff m

ust pre se nt c o rre spondingly stronge r e vide nc e of bia s in orde r to pre v a il” ) (e m pha s is a d de d).

2 B e c a use B ode n ra ise d a

m a te ria l fa c tua l disputepre c luding sum m ary judgm e nt ba se d on dire c t e vide nc e , we ne e d not a nd do not a ddre ss B ode n’ s a ppe a l (c ontinue d...) 4AFFIRM E D in par t and RE V E RSE D in par t.

2 (...c ontinue d) of the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of Nutrie n’ s m otion to strike portions of the de c la ra tions subm

itte d by B ode n a nd Isa a c W a lke r. 5