FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN R. SMITH, No. 12-15012
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01313-RCJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 13, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and DEARIE,*** Senior District
Judge.
Plaintiff Kevin Smith appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
to defendant United Parcel Services, Inc. (“UPS”). We review de novo and may
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, Senior United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
affirm on any ground supported by the record. Petroliam Nasional Berhad v.
GoDaddy.com, Inc., 737 F.3d 546, 549 (9th Cir. 2013). Upon review, we affirm
for the reasons set forth below.
In Nevada, an employer has a general duty to use reasonable care to ensure
that an employee is properly trained and supervised in the performance of his or
her position. Vinci v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 984 P.2d 750, 751 (Nev. 1999); Hall
v. SSF, Inc., 930 P.2d 94, 99 (Nev. 1996). As to supervision, Smith's deposition
testimony shows that his supervisors at UPS took reasonable and proportionate
steps to address his complaints about other employees. As to training, UPS put
forward evidence that it promulgated anti-harassment policies to its employees and
trained its supervisors regarding harassment, and there is nothing in the record to
suggest that the training or policies were deficient. Even drawing all reasonable
inferences in Smith’s favor, the record will not support the conclusion that UPS
breached its duty of care. Summary judgment was proper because Smith failed to
raise a triable issue of fact. Celotex Corp. V. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
AFFIRMED.
2