FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 7 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEROME STRONG, Rev., No. 10-15703
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:08-cv-05209-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra Brown Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jerome Strong appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his employment action alleging race discrimination and sexual harassment in
violation of Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
*
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).
(“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Strong’s race
discrimination claim because Strong failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether he performed his job satisfactorily, similarly situated individuals
outside his protected class were treated more favorably, or that Morgan Stanley’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating him were pretextual. See id.
at 1124-25; see also Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir.
2000) (same analysis applies to Title VII and FEHA claims).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Strong’s sexual
harassment claim because Strong failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether the alleged conduct was because of his sex or was sufficiently severe
or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. See Oncale v. Sundowner
Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79-82 (1998).
Strong’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15703