JOHN HOWARD, GARY FRASER, and GLENROY SCHAD v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., AKA Ryder System, Inc., AKA Ryder Transportation Services

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN HOWARD, GARY FRASER, and
GLENROY SCHAD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., AKA
Ryder System, Inc., AKA Ryder
Transportation Services,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15530
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01473-HRH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
H. Russel Holland, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 14, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and GARBIS, Senior
District Judge. **
FILED
MAR 06 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

John Howard, Gary Fraser, and Glenroy Schad (collectively, Plaintiffs)
appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of their former
employer, Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (Ryder). They allege that their termination
violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and that Ryder humiliated
them by broadcasting their terminations on its closed-circuit television system.
1. Plaintiffs failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding whether
Ryder’s stated reason for their terminations was a pretext for discrimination. See
Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1113-14 (9th Cir. 2011)
(requiring the production of “specific and substantial” circumstantial evidence to
raise a material issue of fact regarding pretext).
2. The district court acted within its discretion when it excluded
Plaintiffs’ expert’s report from consideration. The expert’s report addressed
matters within the common knowledge of the average layperson, and thus, would
not be helpful to the trier of fact. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Ward v. Westland
Plastics, Inc., 651 F.2d 1266, 1271 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The question whether gender
was the basis of differential treatment is not so technical as to require the aid of an
expert to enlighten the jury or court.…”).
3. The district court did not err by granting summary judgment to Ryder
on Plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because Ryder’s
2

-- 2 of 3 --

alleged conduct in broadcasting Plaintiffs’ terminations on closed-circuit television
monitors was not sufficiently “extreme and outrageous” as to constitute intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 888 P.2d 1375,
1386-87 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --