Opinion ID: 696141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: National Origin Claim1

Text: 10 Title VII requires an employer to maintain a workplace atmosphere free of national origin harassment. The EEOC defines such harassment as ethnic slurs or other verbal and physical abuse relating to an employee's national origin when such conduct has the purpose or the effect of (1) creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment, (2) unreasonably interfering with the employee's work performance, or (3) otherwise adversely affecting an employee's employment opportunities. See 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1606.8(b). 11 To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, the plaintiff has the burden of providing evidence which gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). [P]urely conclusory allegations of alleged discrimination, with no concrete, relevant particulars, will not bar summary judgment. Forsberg v. Pacific Northwest Bell Tel. Co., 840 F.2d 1409, 1419 (9th Cir. 1988). 2 12 As an initial matter, we observe that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the individual employees of the PIA. See Miller v. Maxwell's Intern, Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1049 (1994) (Title VII claim may be brought only against employer, not against individual employees). 13 Turning to the merits of Najera's discrimination claim, Najera alleged that he had been subject to employment discrimination because of his national origin. Najera, however, failed to present any evidence that the PIA or its employees took any actions against him based on his Mexican origin. Indeed, his own deposition refutes this allegation. Accordingly, the district court properly found that Najera had failed to present a prima facie case of discrimination based on national origin. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254; see also Forsberg, 840 F.2d at 1419.