Valgene Sutherland v. Red Bull Distribution , 623 F. App'x 370 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              NOV 23 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    VALGENE SUTHERLAND,                              No. 13-16724
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00718-PMP-
    CWH
    v.
    RED BULL DISTRIBUTION                            MEMORANDUM*
    COMPANY, INC.,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 18, 2015**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Valgene Sutherland appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
    in favor of his former employer, Red Bull Distribution Co., Inc. (“Red Bull”). We
    have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
    *
    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).
    The district court properly concluded that Sutherland’s wrongful termination
    and negligent supervision claims do not raise genuine issues of material fact.
    Under Nevada law, both wrongful termination and negligent supervision require
    proof of causation. See Ozawa v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 
    216 P.3d 788
    , 791 (Nev.
    2009); Allum v. Valley Bank of Nev., 
    970 P.2d 1062
    , 1066 (Nev. 1998).
    Sutherland alleges that Red Bull violated 20 U.S.C. § 1095a(a)(8) by
    terminating his employment to avoid complying with a potential administrative
    wage garnishment order. However, Sutherland concedes that none of the
    individuals involved in his termination knew about the potential garnishment.
    Rather, he relies on a theory of constructive notice. However, an alleged
    constructive notice is insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer causation.
    For the potential wage garnishment to have motivated Sutherland’s managers and
    the human resources director to terminate his employment, they must have known
    about it. Cf. Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 
    323 F.3d 1185
    , 1197
    (9th Cir. 2003); Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 
    686 F.2d 793
    , 796 (9th Cir. 1982).
    -2-
    Because it is undisputed that the decision-makers had no actual knowledge
    of the proposed garnishment, the district court properly granted summary judgment.
    AFFIRMED.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-16724

Citation Numbers: 623 F. App'x 370

Filed Date: 11/23/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023