FRANK CARDERELLA V. JANET NAPOLITANO, No. 10-56637 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANK JOSEPH CARDERELLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-56637 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-08299-R-MAN v. MEMORANDUM* JANET NAPOLITANO, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 7, 2012** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-Appellant Frank Joseph Carderella ( Carderella ) appeals the grant of summary judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Central * 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). District of California in favor of Defendant-Appellee Janet Napolitano ( Napolitano ), the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.1 Carderella, a white, Catholic male of Italian ancestry, alleges that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service ( INS ) discriminated against him on the basis of his race or national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 et seq. ( Title VII ), when it did not select him in 1996 to fill a vacant Detention Enforcement Officer position ( DEO ).2 The district court held that Carderella failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination and declined to draw an adverse inference from the spoliation of the records. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The district court did not err in finding that Carderella failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination. Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252 53 (1981). Carderella acknowledges that he has no information regarding the race or national origin of the individuals ultimately selected for the vacant DEO positions. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 1 The functions of the INS were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 471, 116 Stat. 2135, 2205. 2 The parties are familiar with the facts so we do not repeat them here. 2 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973) (holding that to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII, an individual must show, inter alia, that the position remained open and the employer sought other similarly qualified individuals outside his protected class). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to draw an adverse inference of discrimination against Napolitano as a sanction for the spoliation of the documents. Medical Lab. Mgt. Consultants v. Am. Broadcasting Cos. Inc., 306 F.3d 806, 823 24 (9th Cir. 2002). The record suggests the employee files may have been lost or destroyed pursuant to the INS s internal twoyear retention policy and therefore were not destroyed in bad faith or in anticipation of litigation, which commenced over a decade after Carderella filed his initial employment discrimination claim with the EEO. See e.g., United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1001 (9th Cir. 2002); Akiona v. United States, 938 F.2d 158, 161 (9th Cir. 1991). Regardless, Carderella s reliance on the spoliated evidence alone would be insufficient to prove a prima facie case of employment discrimination. See Medical Lab. Mgt. Consultants, 306 F.3d at 825 ( When a party has produced no evidence or utterly inadequate evidence in support of a given claim, the destruction of evidence, standing alone, is not enough 3 to allow the party to survive summary judgment on that claim. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Finally, Carderella s request for judicial notice of portions of Rafael Roldan s deposition is denied. Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED. 4
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.
