MARSHALL JOHNSON V. LOCKHEED MARTIN, No. 12-16808 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUL 31 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARSHALL JOHNSON, No. 12-16808 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-01140-LHK v. MEMORANDUM* LOCKHEED MARTIN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 22, 2014** Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Marshall Johnson appeals from the district court s summary judgment in his employment action alleging racial discrimination in violation of federal and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson s racial discrimination claims under Title VII and California s Fair Employment and Housing Act ( FEHA ) because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his layoff were pretextual. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640-42 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing elements of a discrimination claim under Title VII and explaining that circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial); see also Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 941 (9th Cir. 2007) ( California courts apply the Title VII framework to claims brought under FEHA. ). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson s claim that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy because Johnson failed to raise a triable dispute as to his racial discrimination claim. See Sanders v. Arneson Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming summary judgment on public policy claim based on anti-discrimination law where plaintiff failed to a raise triable dispute as to discrimination claim). AFFIRMED. 2 12-16808

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.