Boltman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies

MEMORANDUM *** Appellant Craig Boltman (“Boltman”) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies (“State Farm”). Boltman argues there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether State Farm violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 , and as to whether State Farm retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), when State Farm fired Boltman in September of 2003. Boltman, however, failed to make even the minimal showing necessary to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because he was clearly not performing his job in a satisfactory manner. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir.1994). Even if Boltman did make such a minimal showing, State Farm articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for firing Boltman, and Boltman failed to present any evidence State Farm’s articulated reason was a pretext for discrimination. See Pottenger v. Potlatch Corp., 329 F.3d 740 (9th Cir.2003). Furthermore, Bolt-man’s Title VII claim fails because he presented no evidence that he was engaged in any activity protected under Title VII. See Wallis, 26 F.3d at 891 . AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publi *175 cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.