Unpublished Disposition, 908 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 908 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1990)

Lawrence TAMALE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; Michael Bratman;Cleo Willis; Joyce Taylor; Edward Bermudez; andJennifer Wescott, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-55537.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 25, 1990.* Decided July 25, 1990.

Before WALLACE, SKOPIL and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Lawrence Tamale appeals the district court's judgment following a bench trial in this Title VII action brought by Tamale against his former employer, the University of California, and several of its employees. Tamale contends on appeal that the district court erred by finding that he was not a victim of national origin discrimination and by failing to admit certain documentary evidence at trial. He also continues to argue on appeal that the individual defendants slandered him. We affirm.

Tamale, a Ugandan national, was terminated from employment on three separate occasions by the University. The record contains ample support for the district court's conclusion that Tamale was not a victim of national origin discrimination. To the extent that Tamale established a prima facie case, the employer countered it by articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for each discharge. We agree with the district court that Tamale thereafter failed to carry his burden of showing that the articulated reasons were a pretext or untrue or unworthy of belief. See Fragante v. City and Country of Honolulu, 888 F.2d 591, 594 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1811 (1990).

Tamale contends that the district court erred by failing to allow him to introduce certain documents. It appears, however, that the documents were admitted and considered by the court. At any rate, even assuming that some of the documents were excluded, Tamale failed to show how his case was prejudiced by the alleged omissions. See Jauregui v. City of Glendale, 852 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1988) (trial court's exclusion of evidence will not be reversed absent some showing of prejudice).

The district court dismissed Tamale's claims for defamation and slander on the ground that he failed to produce any evidence to support his claim. We agree with the trial court. Tamale failed to rebut the testimony indicating that he did indeed harass employees and threaten to kidnap a coworker.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.