Narrative Opinion Summary
Sunil and Peter Santoro appeal the district court's summary judgment favoring George S. May International Company, Inc. (GSM) regarding Sunil's discrimination claim and Peter's constructive discharge claim. Sunil established a prima facie case of discrimination; however, GSM provided a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the disparate treatment, and Sunil did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact concerning pretext, referencing Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co. Peter also failed to present a material question of fact regarding constructive discharge or wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, citing Thompson v. Tracor Flight Systems, Inc. and Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, Scripps LLP. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that this disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Constructive Discharge and Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Peter Santoro was unable to present a material question of fact regarding his claim of constructive discharge or wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
Reasoning: Peter also failed to present a material question of fact regarding constructive discharge or wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, citing Thompson v. Tracor Flight Systems, Inc. and Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, Scripps LLP.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that this disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Prima Facie Case of Discriminationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Sunil Santoro established a prima facie case of discrimination against George S. May International Company, Inc. (GSM), but failed to demonstrate pretext after GSM provided a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the disparate treatment.
Reasoning: Sunil established a prima facie case of discrimination; however, GSM provided a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the disparate treatment, and Sunil did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact concerning pretext, referencing Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.