MCKENZIE DANIELS V. MEGAN BRENNAN, No. 17-56773 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT McKENZIE DANIELS, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-56773 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-06731-JFW-PJW v. MEMORANDUM* MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster U.S. Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. McKenzie Daniels appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging claims for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and breach of contract. We * 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). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Tritz v. U.S. Postal Serv., 721 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) (subject matter jurisdiction); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Tritz, 721 F.3d at 1136. We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Daniels’s age discrimination claim because Daniels failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was not rehired because of his age, and whether the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for defendant’s actions was pretextual. See Whitman v. Mineta, 541 F.3d 929, 932 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining prima facie elements for age discrimination); see also Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d 599, 607, 609-10 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that McDonnell Douglas framework applies to ADEA claims on summary judgment and explaining how a plaintiff can prove pretext). The district court incorrectly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Daniels’s breach of contract claim. See Tritz, 721 F.3d at 113839 (explaining that district courts have jurisdiction over contract claims against the U.S. Postal Service, regardless of the amount in controversy). However, summary judgment was proper because Daniels failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant breached any settlement agreements. See id. at 1140 (affirming dismissal of breach of contract claims based on breach of settlement agreements on alternate ground that plaintiff’s pro se complaint failed to state a claim that would entitle her to relief). Contrary to Daniels’s contention, the settlement agreements do not show that he was promised a job as a mail handler. AFFIRMED.
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.
