Michael Moore-White v. Fann Contracting, Inc. , 474 F. App'x 593 ( 2012 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MICHAEL RAE MOORE-WHITE, No. 10-16244
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-08077-NVW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FANN CONTRACTING, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 13, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Michael Rae Moore-White challenges the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Appellee Fann Contracting, Inc. on the basis that
there was not a legally sufficient employment relationship between Moore-White
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
and Fann. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the
district court’s ruling.
Moore-White failed to show that Fann’s interference in her employment
opportunities was significant enough to create the necessary employment
relationship for Title VII liability as an indirect employer. See Anderson v. Pac.
Mar. Ass’n, 336 F.3d 924, 930 (9th Cir. 2003) (An indirect employment
relationship may exist “where a defendant subject to Title VII interferes with an
individual’s employment opportunities with another employer.”) (citation omitted);
see also Gomez v. Alexian Bros. Hosp., 698 F.2d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 1983)
(holding that interference was sufficient to create an indirect employment
relationship where the indirect employer declined to contract with plaintiff’s direct
employer for discriminatory reasons, costing the plaintiff a position as the medical
director of an emergency room); Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v.
California, 231 F.3d 572, 578, 581-82 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (holding the same
where the indirect employer, the State of California, implemented an allegedly
discriminatory skills test that was a prerequisite for the plaintiffs to gain
employment with their direct employers, the school districts).
AFFIRMED.
2