Gaines v. SBC Communications Inc.
Docket: No. 06-15542
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 17, 2008; Federal Appellate Court
William Gaines appeals a summary judgment favoring his former employer, SBC Communications, and two managerial employees regarding his claims of race and age discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reviews the summary judgment de novo, ultimately affirming the district court's decision. Gaines asserts that his termination was discriminatory based on race and age. However, the court finds no triable issue indicating that his termination was due to either factor. The evidence presented does not support that Gaines was treated less favorably than similarly situated non-African American or younger employees. The court refers to established legal standards for proving discrimination, highlighting that SBC Communications conducted a nationwide workforce reduction based on race- and age-neutral criteria, rebutting any claims of discrimination. Gaines failed to provide specific evidence suggesting the employer's reasons were a pretext for discrimination, noting that he was the only African American first-level supervisor laid off, while others were retained. Regarding the hostile work environment claim, Gaines did not present evidence of comments or actions directly related to his age or race, nor did he demonstrate that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to meet legal standards for such claims. The court emphasizes that offhand comments and isolated incidents, unless extremely serious, do not constitute discriminatory changes in employment conditions. Lastly, Gaines did not pursue his Section 1983 claim against the managerial employees in this appeal, resulting in the abandonment of that claim. Consequently, the court affirms the summary judgment in favor of SBC Communications, with the ruling not intended for publication or as precedent except as allowed under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.