Martin Van Hamilton, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gte Directories Corporation, a California Corporation,defendant-appellee, 132 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 1997)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, Chief Judge, Presiding.

Before SCHROEDER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE^***, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^* 

Assuming Hamilton has a prima facie case for age or handicap discrimination, GTE's downsizing is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to fire him. Hamilton's only evidence of pretext is the vague assertions in his own unadorned declaration, which mirrors the complaint. He offers no affidavits from co-workers to corroborate his charge, nor any evidence of disparate impact in the downsizing, no anything else that suggest discriminatory intent. Haimilton again points to nothing specific in his related charge about training. Hamilton's supervisors did sometimes ask how his kidneys were doing, but isolated comments expressing concern for another's health are not the "specific, substantial evidence of pretext" required to avoid summary judgment. Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

Hamilton's argument that GTE promised not to fire him without cause fails because he does not identify any evidence supporting the view that GTE intended to limit its normal managerial discretion. GTE took substantial steps to avoid such an implied contract modification through use of its employee guidebook.

AFFIRMED.