Case Name: Shawn PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Personnel Department of the City of Los Angeles; Los Angeles City Fire Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-14
Citations: 171 F. App'x 54
Docket Number: No. 04-56645
Parties: Shawn PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Personnel Department of the City of Los Angeles; Los Angeles City Fire Department, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: HALL, THOMAS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 54–54

Head Matter:
Shawn PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Personnel Department of the City of Los Angeles; Los Angeles City Fire Department, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-56645.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2006.
Decided March 14, 2006.
Patrick J. Manshardt, Esq., Law Offices of Manuel S. Klausner, PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellant.
Lucien A. Schmit, III, Esq., Clifton W. Albright, Esq., Albright, Yee & Schmit, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants — Appellees.
Before: HALL, THOMAS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shawn Phillips alleges that the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) discriminated against him on the basis of race and ethnicity in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Phillips appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City in which the court found that the LAFD had no knowledge of Phillips' race and therefore could not have discriminated against Phillips on that basis. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
A plaintiff lacking direct evidence of discrimination must produce "specific and substantial" evidence showing that an adverse employment action was likely motivated by an impermissible motive, Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co., 413 F.3d 1090, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2005), or that the employer's stated reason is "unworthy of credence," Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir.1998). Phillips cannot show that the LAFD considered Phillips' race in the hiring process. He also cannot show that other applicants were preferred on the basis of their race. Thus, Phillips has faded to provide substantial and specific evidence of discrimination and the district court properly concluded that Phillips did not raise a genuine issue of material fact.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.