Whether the Ninth Circuit properly applied summary judgment standards in rejecting an employee's prima facie case of age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act based on statistical evidence and circumstantial evidence of pretext in a reduction-in-force termination

No question identified. : | indeed will need the extra time to attempt to find an attorney who is admitted in the Supreme Court and will take my case. If | am unable to find representation, | will proceed IN PRO SE. For the reason/s set forth above, | respectfully request that my request for a extension of time for 60 days to prepare and submit my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. Respectfully, Phillip Frazier DATED: February 24, 20 /s/ Phillip Frazier _, etl Pie (2 of 4) Case: 23-55508, 12/10/2024, ID: 12916728, DktEntry: 11-1, Page 1 of 3 FILED ‘A NOT FOR PUBLICATION BEG aensa UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS .MOLLY C, DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PHILLIP FRAZIER, No. 23-55508 D.C. No. v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a MEMORANDUM" Delaware corporation; MOANA JEREMIA, an individual; DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 10, 2024°* San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Phillip Frazier appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his age discrimination action under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ° 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). (3 of 4) Case: 23-55508, 12/10/2024, ID: 12916728, DktEntry: 11-1, Page 2 of 3 and related claims against his former employer, American Airlines (American). See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a). Frazier claimed that American used its June 2020 COVID-19 Reduction in Force as pretext to terminate Frazier's employment because of his age. Reviewing de novo,’ we affirm. The district court did not err in granting American’s motion for summary judgment on Frazier’s age discrimination claim. See Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113 (2000). Frazier’s prima facie case for age discrimination fails because he did not create a triable issue of fact regarding whether he was terminated because of his age. See id. To support his age discrimination claim, Frazier cited his own opinion and slatistics about the employees who were terminated alongside him in American’s COVID-19 Reduction of Force, but neither is availing. See Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield W., Inc., 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 459, 472 (Ct. App. 1999); see also Martin v. Bd. of Trs. of Cal. State Univ., 315 Cal. Rptr. 3d 117, 135 (Ct. App. 2023). Frazier's age discrimination claim fails for the additional reason that American presented legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for Frazier's termination that Frazier failed to show were pretextual. See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc., 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d. 240, 247 (Ct. App. 2005); see also Guz, 8 P.3d at 1114. We reject Frazier’s belated attempts to supplement the record and ' Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495, 497 (9th Cir. 2015). 2 23-55508 (4 of 4) Case: 23-55508, 12/10/2024, ID: 12916728, DktEntry: 11-1, Page 3 of 3 raise new issues in support of his age discrimination claim on appeal. See Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The district court also correctly entered summary judgment for American on Frazier's claims for failure to prevent discrimination in violation of California Government Code § 12940(k) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Both claims are predicated on a showing of discrimination, which Frazier did not make. See Scotch v. Art Inst. of Cal.-Orange Cnty. Inc., 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d. 338, 367 (Ct. App. 2009); Commodore Home Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal. 3d 211, 213, 220 (1982); see also Stevenson v. Superior Ct., 941 P.2d 1157, 1162-63 (1997). Finally, we decline to reinstate Frazier's disability discrimination claims’ that he conceded should