Chris Cowart v. Lac Metro ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 22 2017
                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    
    CHRIS CYRIL COWART,                             No. 16-56109
    
                    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:14-cv-08092-MWF-
                                                    PJW
     v.
    
    LAC METRO,                                      MEMORANDUM*
    
                    Defendant-Appellee.
    
                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Central District of California
                     Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
    
                              Submitted December 18, 2017**
    
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
          Chris Cyril Cowart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    
    following a jury trial in his employment action alleging federal and state claims.
    
    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions
    
    for summary judgment. Ford v. City of Yakima, 
    706 F.3d 1188
    , 1192 (9th Cir.
    
    
    
          *
                 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).
    2013). We affirm.
    
          The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cowart’s
    
    fraudulent concealment of documents claim because Cowart failed to raise a
    
    genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant intended to conceal
    
    documents for the purpose of denying worker’s compensation. See Cal. Ins. Code
    
    § 1871.4(a)(1) (unlawful to make any knowingly false or fraudulent material
    
    statement or material representation for the purpose of obtaining or denying
    
    worker’s compensation).
    
          The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cowart’s
    
    retaliation claim because Cowart failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
    
    as to whether a causal link existed between any protected activity and defendant’s
    
    adverse actions. See Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 
    116 P.3d 1123
    , 1130 (Cal.
    
    2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim under the California Fair
    
    Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)).
    
          The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cowart’s
    
    harassment claim under FEHA because Cowart failed to raise a genuine dispute of
    
    material fact as to whether the conduct was severe or sufficiently pervasive enough
    
    to alter the conditions of his employment. See Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Sys.,
    
    Inc., 
    980 P.2d 846
    , 851-52 (Cal. 1999) (setting forth requirements of harassment
    
    claim under FEHA).
    
    
                                              2                                      16-56109
          We do not consider Cowart’s contentions regarding the jury instructions and
    
    special verdict form because Cowart failed to raise these issues before the district
    
    court. See Bird v. Lewis & Clark Coll., 
    303 F.3d 1015
    , 1022-23 (9th Cir. 2002)
    
    (failure to object to jury instructions waives issue on appeal); Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v.
    
    Deckers Outdoor Corp., 
    259 F.3d 1101
    , 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (failure to challenge
    
    jury verdict form waives issue on appeal).
    
          We do not consider Cowart’s contentions regarding disability discrimination
    
    under FEHA because Cowart failed to allege this claim in his operative complaint.
    
    See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (court does not
    
    consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal).
    
          Cowart’s requests set forth in the opening and reply briefs are denied.
    
          AFFIRMED.
    
    
    
    
                                               3                                    16-56109