Unpublished Disposition, 933 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Before SCHROEDER and FARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD,** District Judge.
Kamal B. Mahdavi appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment dismissal of his action against the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000(e)-17 (1982), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 (1982). Mahdavi alleges that the EPA discriminated against him in their hiring because of his national origin and age. We affirm.
Mahdavi is Iranian and was over 45 years old at the time he applied to the EPA. He sought three positions with the EPA. As to each, the EPA has proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for hiring applicants other than Mahdavi. Two of the positions were filled by applicants who ranked higher than Mahdavi on the basis of a nondiscriminatory ranking system. One position was filled by an applicant who ranked below Mahdavi. The EPA has presented evidence that this applicant, also a minority, was hired because he had previously worked with the EPA and received outstanding recommendations.
We apply the same standard to analyze disparate treatment claims brought under Title VII and the ADEA. See Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1436 (9th Cir. 1990). To defeat summary judgment Mahdavi must present a genuine issue of material fact that the reasons proffered by the EPA for their hiring decisions are a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 1437. Pretext may be shown either directly, by persuading the court that a discriminatory motive more likely motivated the employer, or indirectly, by showing that the employer's explanation is unworthy of credence. Cotton v. City of Alameda, 812 F.2d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1987).
The EPA's initial motion for summary judgment was denied by the district court on February 5, 1990. Although the court found that the EPA had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their hiring decisions, the district court denied the motion in order to permit Mahdavi further discovery. On June 28, 1990, the court granted the EPA's second summary judgment motion because Mahdavi failed to present any evidence to support his claim.
Mahdavi has not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the EPA's reasons for not hiring him were a pretext for discrimination based on his national origin or age. Summary judgment was proper.
Mahdavi's allegations regarding appointment of counsel, in forma pauperis status, and judicial bias are meritless.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
Honorable Edward Dumbauld, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation