Opinion ID: 786872
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Inference of Disparate Treatment

Text: 33 The evidence we have already described supports an inference of disparate treatment. Additionally, there is evidence in the record of ethnically biased remarks from a person in... a position of authority, which is sufficient to allege the connection necessary ... to survive summary judgment. Mustafa v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1180 (9th Cir.1998). 34 In September 2000, Peterson pretended not to understand and mocked Fonseca's accent. 3 This derision is particularly relevant because it was within a month of two incidents of disparate treatment: on September 22, 2000, Peterson saw the zucchini accident and suspended Fonseca, and on October 8, 2000, Peterson passed over Fonseca for an overtime opportunity in favor of a white employee, then refused to pay Fonseca even though he had immediately arranged to compensate the two white employees who came to him with the exact same complaint one week earlier. 35 Rhodes' comment about Fonseca's accent is similarly related to the allegedly discriminatory treatment of Fonseca. Rhodes disparaged Fonseca's accent in June or July of 2000. Earlier that year, on April 20, 2000, Rhodes was most likely the supervisor who skipped Fonseca on the seniority list and gave overtime to a white employee instead. Rhodes skipped Fonseca again on October 11, 2000. The inference in favor of Fonseca is that Rhodes' discriminatory comment was related to his decisions to deny Fonseca overtime opportunities. 36 Fonseca repeatedly was denied overtime opportunities and timely compensation in violation of the CBA while whites were not, and he was disciplined for an accident while whites who caused similar accidents were not. Taking into consideration the evidence of animus and drawing inferences in Fonseca's favor, we hold that this is more than sufficient to establish a prima facie case. See Cordova v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 124 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir.1997) (The requisite degree of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case for Title VII ... on summary judgment is minimal and does not even need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.) (quoting Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1994)). 37