The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court's grant of summary judgment on an employee's claim that his termination constituted age and national origin discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).  The employee, who worked as an inspector for the County of Clark in Nevada, offered isolated references to him being an "old dog" and a "crazy Canadian" as direct evidence of discrimination based on age and national origin.  The trial court disagreed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that conclusion.

Absent a showing of direct evidence, the Ninth Circuit analyzed the employee's claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.  Under that test, the employee was required to show that he performed his job satisfactorily and that he was treated differently than similarly situated employees outside of his protected class.  The lower court concluded that the employee failed to raise any material issues of fact regarding both of these factors, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision.  The evidence showed that the employee received numerous performance evaluations and disciplinary write-ups in the three years preceding his termination.  While the employee claimed that his employer favored younger employees of an Asian/Pacific Islander or Filipino background, the evidence showed that in the two years preceding his termination, five of nine inspectors hired were over age forty and employees of an Asian background were written up after committing similar infractions.  As such, the court concluded, there were no genuine issues of material fact justifying trial on the ADEA and Title VII claims.  McClain v. County of Clark