Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10160275
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Douglas Robinson v. Kiran Ahuja
No. 10160275 · Decided October 23, 2024
No. 10160275·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 23, 2024
Citation
No. 10160275
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS E. ROBINSON, No. 23-15197
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-07907-JSC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KIRAN AHUJA, Director of the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jacqueline Scott Corley, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted October 16, 2024***
Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Douglas E. Robinson appeals pro se from the district’s summary judgment
in his employment discrimination action alleging violations of Title VII and the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). Judge Corley was confirmed as a district judge during the
pendency of this case.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d
1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Robinson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was qualified for
promotion, whether similarly situated employees not of his protected class were
treated more favorably, or that the circumstances gave rise to an inference of
discrimination. See id. at 1156 (setting forth the elements of a prima facie case of
discrimination under Title VII); Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d 599, 608 (9th Cir.
2012) (setting forth the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under the
ADEA); Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 892 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir. 1990)
(“‘[S]tray’ remarks are insufficient to establish discrimination.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 23-15197
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2024 MOLLY C.
02Robinson appeals pro se from the district’s summary judgment in his employment discrimination action alleging violations of Title VII and the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by N
03** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
04Judge Corley was confirmed as a district judge during the pendency of this case.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Douglas Robinson v. Kiran Ahuja in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on October 23, 2024.
Use the citation No. 10160275 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.