MALCOLM K.H. LEE, Sr. v. State of Hawaii, Department of Public Safety; Doe Individuals, 1-10; Doe Entities, 1-10

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MALCOLM K.H. LEE, Sr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY; DOE
INDIVIDUALS, 1-10; DOE ENTITIES,
1-10,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-15406
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00032-SOM-
KSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 13, 2011
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Malcolm K.H. Lee, Sr., contends that the Hawaii Department of Public
Safety retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment and Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a
FILED
OCT 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
plaintiff must show that his protected speech was a “substantial or motivating
factor” in an adverse employment action taken against him. Coszalter v. City of
Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Similarly, to prevail on a Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show “a causal
link between [his] protected activity and [an] adverse employment action” taken
against him. Davis v. Team Electric Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1093–94 (9th Cir. 2008).
We agree with the district court that Lee presented insufficient evidence to create a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether his speech was a substantial or
motivating factor in, or had a causal link to, any adverse employment action that
may have been taken against him.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --