The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-15184•Eddie D. Wilson v. REPUBLIC SILVER STATE DISPOSAL, INC., DBA Republic Services of Southern Nevada
13-15184Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 4, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDIE D. WILSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REPUBLIC SILVER STATE DISPOSAL,
INC., DBA Republic Services of Southern
Nevada,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-15184
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01156-KJD-
VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Eddie D. Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234,
FILED
DEC 04 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
1239 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilson failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was a causal link
between his alleged protected activity and defendant’s decision to not rehire him.
See Westendorf v. W. Coast Contractors of Nev., Inc., 712 F.3d 417, 422 (9th Cir.
2013) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case of retaliation and stating that the
plaintiff must show that protected conduct was a but-for cause of the adverse
employment action); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough, 323 F.3d 1185, 1197-98
(9th Cir. 2003) (decision makers’ knowledge of protected activity necessary for
causation).
We reject Wilson’s contentions regarding the district court’s exclusion of
evidence.
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-15184 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.