Carl Anderson v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services

Kathleen Sebelius is substituted for her predecessor, Michael Leavitt,
*
as Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARL ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of*
Department of Health and Human
Services,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-35499
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05171-BHS
MEMORANDUM**
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010***
FILED
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-35499 2
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Carl Anderson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his action alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Age
Discrimination In Employment Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Coons v. Sec’y of the U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 383
F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Anderson’s
discrimination claims because he failed to create a triable issue as to whether his
supervisors’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions were a pretext
for discrimination. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2003)
(affirming summary judgment on Title VII claims where plaintiff did not raise a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether employer’s legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for challenged employment action was a pretext for an
impermissible motive); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1282 (9th
Cir. 2000) (explaining that to survive summary judgment on an Age
Discrimination in Employment Act claim, the plaintiff must create a triable issue
as to whether the employer’s proffered reasons for the adverse employment action
were a pretext for discrimination).

-- 2 of 3 --

09-35499 3
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Anderson’s
retaliation claim because he failed to show a causal connection between his
complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the adverse
employment decision. See Coons, 383 F.3d at 887-88.
Anderson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --