Chase Hayes v. Nassco , 695 F. App'x 312 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHASE HAYES, No. 17-55396
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00004-BEN-
WVG
v.
NASSCO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Chase Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action
alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hayes’s Title VII and ADA claims
related to his layoff because such claims are barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (Title VII complainant must file EEOC
charge no later than 180 days, or authorized state or local agency charge no later
than 300 days, after alleged unlawful practice occurred); Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t of
Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 823 & n.11 (9th Cir. 2001) (same statute of limitations
for ADA claims).
The district court properly dismissed Hayes’s Title VII and ADA claims
related to NASSCO’s rejection of his employment applications because Hayes
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was treated less favorably than
others outside of his protected class, or that he was disabled or perceived as
disabled within the meaning of the ADA at the time he applied for these positions.
See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth prima facie
case of discrimination under Title VII); Braunling v. Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc., 220 F.3d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth prima facie case of
employment discrimination under ADA).
2 17-55396
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-55396