Afshin Tiraie v. Gavilan Joint Community College District

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AFSHIN TIRAIE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GAVILAN JOINT COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-17140

D.C. No. 5:18-cv-06727-SVK

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan G. Van Keulen, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
**

Submitted September 8, 2020
***

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Afshin Tiraie appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his employment action alleging violations of Title VII and the Age Discrimination

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

SEP 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-17140
in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th
Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tiraie’s
discrimination claims concerning all other teachers except Michael Grace because
Tiraie failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Wallis v. J.R.
Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1994) (burden-shifting framework
applies to discrimination claims under Title VII and the ADEA).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tiraie’s
discrimination claims concerning Michael Grace because Tiraie failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons for defendant’s decision to hire Michael Grace over Tiraie were
pretextual. See id. (circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and
substantial).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tiraie’s retaliation
claims because Tiraie failed to demonstrate a causal link between his protected
activity and the adverse employment decision. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air,
Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth prima facie case of
retaliation under Title VII).
We reject as unsupported by the record Tiraie’s contention that defendant

3 19-17140
failed to produce all documents. We reject as meritless Tiraie’s contention that the
magistrate judge committed errors.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.