SERGIO LAPARRA V. ELAINE DUKE, No. 17-56278 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 17 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO LAPARRA, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-56278 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-09356-GW-DTB v. MEMORANDUM* ELAINE C. DUKE, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Sergio Laparra appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment discrimination action alleging violations of Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003), and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Laparra’s Title VII claims because Laparra failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant treated similarly situated employees more favorably. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff fails to make out a prima facie case by not having evidence of similarly situated individuals); Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 641 (“[I]ndividuals are similarly situated when they have similar jobs and display similar conduct.”). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Laparra’s disability discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act because Laparra failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant discriminated against him because of his alleged disability. See Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act). We reject as without merit Laparra’s arguments regarding discovery. AFFIRMED. 2 17-56278
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.
