RICKEY REED V. CITY OF CULVER CITY, ET AL, No. 22-56099 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICKEY B. REED, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-56099 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-10526-JAK-RAO v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF CULVER CITY, Defendant-Appellee, and MEGHAN SAHLI WELLS; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 12, 2023** Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges Rickey B. Reed appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment * 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). for Culver City in his federal and state law employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Freyd v. Univ. of Or., 990 F.3d 1211, 1219 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Reed failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was qualified for the position, or whether the proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for failing to hire Reed was pretextual. See Freyd, 990 F.3d at 1228 (discussing burdenshifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)); Merrick v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 867 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir. 2017) (analyzing state claims of discrimination under same framework as federal claims); Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc., 184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 774, 781, 783 (Ct. App. 2015) (explaining that an actionable claim for failure to prevent discrimination requires an actionable claim of discrimination). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 22-56099

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.