Lyla L. Thomas, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Allied Signal, Inc.; Garrett Fluid Systems, Inc.,defendants-appellees, 77 F.3d 490 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Lyla L. Thomas appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in her action alleging retaliation and discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a); and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. Thomas also appeals the district court's denial of her motion to appoint counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Thomas contends that the district court erred by granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on her claims of age, sex, and race discrimination. This contention lacks merit.

"Incidents of discrimination not included in an EEOC charge may not be considered by a federal court unless the new claims are 'like or reasonably related to the allegations contained in the EEOC charge.' " Green v. Los Angeles County Superintendent of Sch., 883 F.2d 1472, 1475-76 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the only claim properly before the district court was Thomas's claim that she had been "laid off from [her] position as a grinder specialist in the Tool and Cutting department" because of her sex and her age. See id.

" [I]n a case in which it is alleged that a [reduction-in-force] was carried out in a discriminatory fashion, the plaintiff may establish her prima facie case by demonstrating: (1) that she belongs to a protected class; (2) that she was discharged from a job for which she was qualified; and (3) that others not in her protected class were treated more favorably." Washington v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1434 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

Here, Thomas failed to submit evidence to support the third prong of a prima facie case. The record indicates that all of the employees in Thomas's employment classification were laid off. The other two employees in Thomas's classification were male; one of the employees was older than Thomas and one was younger.¹ 

Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for defendants. See id.² 

Thomas contends that the district court erred by denying her motion for appointment of counsel.³  This contention lacks merit.

The law of the case doctrine requires that the decision of an appellate court "be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same case." Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 880 F.2d 149, 157 (9th Cir. 1989). In a prior appeal, this court affirmed the district court's denial of Thomas's motion for appointment of counsel. See Thomas v. Garrett Fluid Systems, Inc., No. 93-16590 (9th Cir. May 16, 1994) (unpublished memorandum disposition). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Thomas's motion for appointment of counsel. See Eichman, 880 F.2d at 157.

AFFIRMED.