Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Clark County on Rajah’s claims of age and race discrimination, retaliation, and related claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that Rajah was not qualified for the specialized deputy director positions, failed to show pretext or a causal connection supporting retaliation, and could not sustain his § 1983 claims without proving intentional employment discrimination. The disposition is unpublished and nonprecedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper on Rajah's ADEA age-discrimination claim concerning his nonselection for deputy director positions.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on Rajah's Title VII race-discrimination claim concerning his nonselection for deputy director positions.
- Whether Rajah established a causal link between protected activity and the elimination of his position sufficient to support a retaliation claim.
- Whether Rajah's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims could proceed when he failed to establish intentional employment discrimination under Title VII.
Holdings
- Rajah's age-discrimination claim failed because the individuals promoted to the deputy director positions were also members of his protected age group.
- Summary judgment was proper on Rajah's race-discrimination claim because the County provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the nonselection and Rajah did not show that reason was pretextual.
- Rajah failed to establish retaliation because he could not show the required causal link between his protected activity and the planned elimination of his position.
- Rajah could not prevail on § 1983 claims based on the same conduct because he failed to establish intentional employment discrimination under Title VII.
Key quotations
“For Rajah to establish a prima facie case on his Title VII and ADEA claims, he must show that (1) he is within a protected group; (2) he applied for and was qualified for the position for which the employer sought applicants; (3) despite his qualifications he was rejected; and (4) after his rejection the employer selected a non-protected individual to perform the task.” (at 9)
“Although the elimination of Rajah’s position would qualify as an adverse employment action (termination) following a protected activity (filing a complaint), the essential causal link between these events is lacking here” (at 10)
“A nearly 18-month lapse between protected activity and an adverse employment action is simply too long, by itself, to give rise to an inference of causation.” (at 10)
Factual background
Rajah, an employee of Clark County, was not selected for deputy director positions created during a 2003 departmental reorganization. The positions were technically oriented and required engineering-related skills that Rajah did not possess, while the individuals selected had those skills. Rajah was also included among more than twenty employees whose positions were slated for elimination during a countywide realignment after he had filed a complaint, but the affected employees represented diverse backgrounds, ages, and pay grades.
Procedural history
Rajah brought multiple employment-related claims against Clark County. The district court granted summary judgment for the County on the remaining federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over certain state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Rajah appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.