Jose Felix v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the Eastern**
District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE FELIX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BAXTER HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-56287
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-06459-JHN-CW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 11, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, Senior
District Judge.**
Jose Felix appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of his employer, Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Felix sued Baxter for
FILED
APR 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, and unlawful retaliation under
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Felix argues that Baxter failed to accommodate his religion by requiring him
to work a Sunday shift, that the failure to accommodate was religious
discrimination, and that Baxter retaliated against him after he filed complaints with
the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. We disagree.
It is undisputed that Baxter offered Felix a non-Sunday position in a
different group that was equal in pay and title. As a matter of law, the offer to
transfer was a reasonable accommodation. See Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers,
911 F.2d 233, 241 (9th Cir. 1990). The allegation that Baxter failed to engage in
the interactive process is not supported by the facts. The district court correctly
granted summary judgment on Felix’s failure to accommodate and religious
discrimination claims.
Felix also failed to provide substantial evidence that Baxter’s performance
reviews were pretextual or based on retaliatory animus. Temporal proximity is
insufficient to satisfy the substantial evidence standard for retaliation claims after
the defendant has come forward with evidence of a legitimate, nonretaliatory
reason for the adverse action. See Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Int’l., 60 Cal.

-- 2 of 3 --

Rptr. 3d 45, 54 (Ct. App. 2007). The district court therefore did not err in granting
summary judgment on Felix’s retaliation claim.
Plaintiff argues that the district court failed to address his evidentiary
objections “individually and with due consideration.” We find no fault with the
form or substance of the district court’s evidentiary rulings.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --