Case Name: Joao CORNELIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALFA WASSERMAN DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, also named as Alfa Wasserman, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-03
Citations: 582 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 12-16829
Parties: Joao CORNELIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALFA WASSERMAN DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, also named as Alfa Wasserman, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 717–718

Head Matter:
Joao CORNELIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALFA WASSERMAN DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, also named as Alfa Wasserman, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-16829.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 25, 2014.
Filed July 3, 2014.
Joao Cornelio, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Stephanie M. Cerasano, Stephen B. Coleman, Jackson Lewis LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joao Cornelio appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his Title VII action alleging wrongful termination on the basis of his race, color, and national origin. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Cornelio failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant treated similarly situated employees outside of Cornelio's protected class more favorably than him. See id. at 1156, 1158-61 (setting forth elements of prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII based on circumstantial evidence); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir.2003) (employee who held the same level position as plaintiff was not similarly situated to plaintiff where the employee did not engage in problematic conduct "of comparable seriousness").
Moreover, even if Cornelio had established a prima facie case of discrimination, Cornelio failed to carry his burden of raising a triable dispute as to whether defendant's legitimate reasons for firing him were a pretext. See Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 258, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (defendant rebuts presumption of prima facie discrimination with any admissible evidence of a valid reason for the adverse employment decision, which plaintiff can only overcome by proving that it lacks factual basis and is a pretext); Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 642 (plaintiff must submit "specific" and "substantial" evidence of pretext).
Cornelio's contentions regarding alleged harassment during his employment, and alleged threats during the course of this litigation, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.