Narrative Opinion Summary
The case revolves around an appeal by a former employee against Intel Corporation and an individual, following a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on claims of age and disability discrimination. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other state laws. The district court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework to evaluate the circumstantial evidence presented. It concluded that the defendants provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory rationale for the adverse employment actions, specifically pointing to the employee's poor performance evaluations. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that this rationale was a pretext for discrimination. Additionally, claims of disability-based harassment and assault were dismissed, as the behavior described did not meet the legal requirements for harassment or assault under relevant laws. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, emphasizing that no genuine issues of material fact were present. This decision, not intended for publication, holds no precedential value pursuant to 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Assault under California Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant's actions met the requirements for assault, which necessitate clear intent and capability to inflict injury.
Reasoning: Glass failed to provide evidence suggesting that Kiziloglu's behavior constituted an assault under California law, which requires a clear intent and capability to inflict injury.
McDonnell Douglas Framework for Employment Discriminationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court correctly applied the McDonnell Douglas framework in evaluating circumstantial evidence of discrimination, and Intel's legitimate rationale for employment actions was not shown to be pretextual.
Reasoning: The district court properly utilized the McDonnell Douglas framework for evaluating circumstantial evidence.
Non-Precedential Appellate Court Dispositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court's decision is not intended for publication and lacks precedential value, adhering to specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The appellate court's disposition is not intended for publication and holds no precedential value, except as specified by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.
Summary Judgment in Discrimination Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the district court's summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine issues of material fact in the age and disability discrimination claims.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirms the district court’s decision, determining that there were no genuine issues of material fact related to discrimination claims.
Workplace Harassment under Disability Discriminationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the comments and behavior of the manager and colleagues did not rise to the level of legally actionable harassment.
Reasoning: Glass's claim of disability-based harassment was found to lack merit; the comments from his manager and treatment by colleagues did not meet the legal threshold for workplace harassment as established in previous case law.