Valgene Sutherland v. Red Bull Distribution Company, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALGENE SUTHERLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RED BULL DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-16724
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00718-PMP-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Valgene Sutherland appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of his former employer, Red Bull Distribution Co., Inc. (“Red Bull”). We
have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
NOV 23 2015
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 3 --

The district court properly concluded that Sutherland’s wrongful termination
and negligent supervision claims do not raise genuine issues of material fact.
Under Nevada law, both wrongful termination and negligent supervision require
proof of causation. See Ozawa v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 216 P.3d 788, 791 (Nev.
2009); Allum v. Valley Bank of Nev., 970 P.2d 1062, 1066 (Nev. 1998).
Sutherland alleges that Red Bull violated 20 U.S.C. § 1095a(a)(8) by
terminating his employment to avoid complying with a potential administrative
wage garnishment order. However, Sutherland concedes that none of the
individuals involved in his termination knew about the potential garnishment.
Rather, he relies on a theory of constructive notice. However, an alleged
constructive notice is insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer causation.
For the potential wage garnishment to have motivated Sutherland’s managers and
the human resources director to terminate his employment, they must have known
about it. Cf. Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197
(9th Cir. 2003); Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1982).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Because it is undisputed that the decision-makers had no actual knowledge
of the proposed garnishment, the district court properly granted summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --