FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 12 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAHMAN REZAIPOUR, No. 14-56180
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05005-MWF-
VBK
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, County of MEMORANDUM*
Los Angeles Department of Mental Health,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 6, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: VANASKIE,*** MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
*
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
Bahman Rezaipour appeals from the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to the County of Los Angeles on his employment discrimination claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court
judgment.
1. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the
county on Rezaipour’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Rezaipour has not met
his burden of raising a triable issue as to whether his “protected speech was a
substantial or motivating factor” in the county’s decision to fire him. Dahlia v.
Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (quoting Eng v. Cooley,
552 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009)). Nearly two years elapsed between when the
Department of Justice’s report became public and when the county first notified
Rezaipour of its intent to fire him. During that time, multiple female employees
made sexual harassment complaints against Rezaipour, and those complaints were
substantiated by investigators in two county departments. The county further
determined that Rezaipour had misused computer resources and been
insubordinate. Rezaipour has failed to raise a triable issue as to whether those
allegations were false and pretextual. See Anthoine v. N. Cent. Ctys. Consortium,
605 F.3d 740, 750 (9th Cir. 2010).
2
2. For similar reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for the county on Rezaipour’s California whistleblower claim. To
establish a prima facie case of retaliation under California Labor Code Section
1102.5(b), a plaintiff must show that a “causal link” exists between his or her
protected activity and the adverse employment action. Soukup v. Law Offices of
Herbert Hafif, 139 P.3d 30, 48 (Cal. 2006). Rezaipour’s whistleblower claim fails
for the same reason that his First Amendment retaliation claim fails: he has not
raised a triable issue as to whether a causal link exists between his disclosures to
the Department of Justice and the county’s decision to fire him. Even if Rezaipour
could make out a prima facie case, he has not raised a triable issue as to whether
the non-discriminatory reasons given by the county for his termination were
pretextual. See Patten v. Grant Joint Union High Sch. Dist., 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 113,
117 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
AFFIRMED
3