Case Name: Malcolm K.H. LEE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of HAWAII, Department of Public Safety; Doe Individuals, 1-10; Doe Entities, 1-10, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-21
Citations: 454 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: No. 10-15406
Parties: Malcolm K.H. LEE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of HAWAII, Department of Public Safety; Doe Individuals, 1-10; Doe Entities, 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 454
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
Malcolm K.H. LEE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of HAWAII, Department of Public Safety; Doe Individuals, 1-10; Doe Entities, 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-15406.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 13, 2011.
Filed Oct. 21, 2011.
Venetia K. Carpenter-Asui, Esquire, Law Office of Venetia K. Carpenter-Asui, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jeffrey A. Keating, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, State of Hawaii, Department of the Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Malcolm K.H. Lee, Sr., contends that the Hawaii Department of Public Safety retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that his protected speech was a "substantial or motivating factor" in an adverse employment action taken against him. Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, to prevail on a Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show "a causal link between [his] protected activity and [an] adverse employment action" taken against him. Davis v. Team Electric Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2008). We agree with the district court that Lee presented insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his speech was a substantial or motivating factor in, or had a causal link to, any adverse employment action that may have been taken against him.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.