Narrative Opinion Summary
Tommie G. Patterson appeals the district court's summary judgment in his Title VII discrimination case, claiming discrimination based on race and sex, as well as mail tampering by the defendants. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reviews the case de novo. The district court's summary judgment is affirmed, as it determined that Patterson was classified as an "independent contractor" rather than an "employee" of Regal Entertainment. Title VII protections apply only to employees, not independent contractors. Patterson's claims of bias against the district court are unsupported by the record, and his allegations regarding mail tampering are also found to lack merit. The decision is affirmed and is not designated for publication or as precedent according to 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Claims of Judicial Biassubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Patterson's claims of bias against the district court were unsupported by the record.
Reasoning: Patterson's claims of bias against the district court are unsupported by the record.
Merit of Ancillary Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that Patterson's allegations regarding mail tampering lacked merit and did not affect the outcome of the case.
Reasoning: His allegations regarding mail tampering are also found to lack merit.
Publication and Precedential Value of Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not designated for publication or as precedent in accordance with circuit rules.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed and is not designated for publication or as precedent according to 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Review of District Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews the district court's decision de novo, meaning it considers the case from the beginning without deferring to the lower court's findings.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reviews the case de novo.
Title VII Protections and Employment Classificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Title VII protections do not extend to independent contractors and only apply to employees. In this case, Patterson was classified as an independent contractor, thus not entitled to Title VII protections.
Reasoning: The district court's summary judgment is affirmed, as it determined that Patterson was classified as an 'independent contractor' rather than an 'employee' of Regal Entertainment. Title VII protections apply only to employees, not independent contractors.