Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the plaintiff challenged the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Arizona State University, concerning allegations of race and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The appellate court, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, conducted a de novo review and upheld the lower court's decision. The court determined that the plaintiff's discrimination claim failed as he did not rebut the university's evidence showing non-selection for a tenure track position was based on a lack of requisite expertise. Furthermore, the retaliation claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of protected activity or causation. The plaintiff also waived additional claims under the Equal Pay Act and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by not presenting them in the district court. Motions to strike parts of the plaintiff's reply brief and to supplement the record were denied, as the appellate review was confined to the original summary judgment record. The court's decision is affirmed, with the ruling marked non-precedential, except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Motion to Strike and Supplementation of Recordsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the motion to strike and the request to supplement the record, as the review was limited to materials available at the time of the summary judgment.
Reasoning: The defendant's motion to strike parts of Okonkwo’s untimely reply brief was denied as unnecessary, along with other related motions. Okonkwo’s request to supplement the record was also denied, with the court noting that its review is confined to the record at the time of summary judgment.
Retaliation under Title VIIsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation due to lack of evidence of protected activity or a causal link between the complaint and adverse employment action.
Reasoning: Regarding the retaliation claim, the court found no evidence in Okonkwo's April 24, 2000 letter to President Coor that indicated he engaged in any protected activity, thus failing to establish a prima facie case.
Summary Judgment under Title VIIsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the university on the basis that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the university's justification for not hiring him.
Reasoning: Summary judgment on Okonkwo’s discrimination claim was appropriate because he did not counter the evidence that he was denied a tenure track position due to insufficient expertise in the required areas listed in the job announcement.
Waiver of Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff waived certain claims because they were not raised at the district court level, thus forfeiting the right to have these claims reviewed on appeal.
Reasoning: Okonkwo waived his claims under the Equal Pay Act and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because these were not raised in the district court.