David Wheeler v. Mgm Resorts International , 538 F. App'x 772 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID WHEELER, No. 12-16842
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02046-PMP-RJJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 13, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
David Wheeler challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
MGM Resorts International (“MGM”). Because the parties are familiar with the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
facts and history of the case, we need not recount it here. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Wheeler claims that during the time that he worked at Luxor Hotel and
Casino, he was subjected to harassment, a hostile work environment, and
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e. The district court properly awarded summary judgment to MGM because
it never employed Wheeler, and Wheeler is entitled to Title VII’s protections only
if he is an employee of the defendant. Murray v. Principal Fin. Grp., Inc., 613
F.3d 943, 944 (9th Cir. 2010). Wheeler was employed by Ramparts, Inc. d/b/a
Luxor Hotel and Casino. Though it is true that MGM Resorts International is the
parent corporation to Mandalay Resort Group, and Mandalay Resort Group is the
parent corporation to Ramparts, Inc., “[i]n the absence of special circumstances, a
parent corporation is not liable for the Title VII violations of its wholly owned
subsidiary.” Watson v. Gulf & W. Indus., 650 F.2d 990, 993 (9th Cir. 1981). Here
there are no special circumstances to justify piercing the corporate veil.
AFFIRMED.
2