Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Chenoweth v. Maui Chemical & Paper Products, Inc.
Citation: 357 F. App'x 875Docket: No. 08-17058
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 13, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Michael D.J. Chenoweth appeals the district court's summary judgment in his employment discrimination case, alleging disparate treatment, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, retaliation, and defamation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reviews the case de novo, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision. The district court correctly granted summary judgment on the disparate treatment claim, as Chenoweth did not present a triable issue regarding the defendant's legitimate, performance-based reasons for his demotion and other adverse actions. For the ADA claims, Chenoweth testified he had no actual disability and failed to demonstrate that he was perceived as having a disability that significantly restricted major life activities. On the hostile work environment claim, the court found that Chenoweth did not raise a triable issue regarding whether the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive work environment. The court cited that mere teasing and isolated incidents do not meet the threshold for this claim. Consequently, his constructive discharge claim also failed due to the lack of evidence supporting a hostile work environment. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment on the defamation and retaliation claims, noting that Chenoweth's allegations were merely conclusory and lacked factual support necessary to withstand a summary judgment motion. Chenoweth's other arguments were deemed unpersuasive, and his pending motions were denied. The court's decision is affirmed and is not published as precedent except as stipulated by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.