Case Name: Michael Rae MOORE-WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FANN CONTRACTING, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-11
Citations: 474 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 10-16244
Parties: Michael Rae MOORE-WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FANN CONTRACTING, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HUG, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 593–593

Head Matter:
Michael Rae MOORE-WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FANN CONTRACTING, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-16244.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 13, 2012.
Filed July 11, 2012.
Willie Jordan-Curtis, The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Michael Rae Moore-White, Silver City, NM, pro se.
Michael Lehet, John Mark Ogden, Emily M. Craiger, Littler Mendelson, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: HUG, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Michael Rae Moore-White challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Fann Contracting, Inc. on the basis that there was not a legally sufficient employment relationship between Moore-White and Fann. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court's ruling.
Moore-White failed to show that Fann's interference in her employment opportunities was significant enough to create the necessary employment relationship for Title VII liability as an indirect employer. See Anderson v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n, 336 F.3d 924, 930 (9th Cir.2003) (An indirect employment relationship may exist "where a defendant subject to Title VII interferes with an individual's employment opportunities with another employer.") (citation omitted); see also Gomez v. Alexian Bros. Hosp., 698 F.2d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that interference was sufficient to create an indirect employment relationship where the indirect employer declined to contract with plaintiffs direct employer for discriminatory reasons, costing the plaintiff a position as the medical director of an emergency room); Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 578, 581-82 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (holding the same where the indirect employer, the State of California, implemented an allegedly discriminatory skills test that was a prerequisite for the plaintiffs to gain employment with their direct employers, the school districts).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.