Theodore W. Simpson Iii v. Computer Sciences Corporation, a Nevada corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THEODORE W. SIMPSON III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMPUTER SCIENCES
CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-55502
D.C. No.
2:15-cv-09997-ODW-AS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: CLIFTON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and RUFE,*** District Judge.
FILED
AUG 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Theodore Simpson appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Computer Sciences Corporation (“CSC”). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Simpson brought claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(“FEHA”) alleging that he was dismissed from his job as a computer technician
because he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. However, there is no dispute that
Simpson was laid off as part of a large-scale Reduction in Force (or “RIF”) and
CSC provided evidence showing that Simpson was identified as a candidate to be
laid off well before his cancer diagnosis. CSC also provided evidence that
Simpson was selected for the RIF as a result of a series of poor performance
reviews, including evidence that, in some respects, Simpson was one of the worst-
rated and least productive technicians in his facility.
We therefore affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
CSC. The district court properly concluded that Simpson could not show that CSC
dismissed him because of his cancer diagnosis and Simpson thus failed to establish
a prima facie case of discrimination. In addition, Simpson’s poor performance
reviews provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for his dismissal which
Simpson failed to rebut with evidence of pretext. Finally, Simpson’s claims that
CSC failed to accommodate his disability and failed to engage in an interactive
2

-- 2 of 3 --

process were also properly dismissed. Because CSC laid Simpson off for a
legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual reason, it had no obligation to
accommodate Simpson’s condition or undertake an interactive process to identify a
potential accommodation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
The parties shall bear their own costs for this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --