From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lagronio v. Gates

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 29, 2008
317 F. App'x 613 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-15562.

Argued and Submitted June 19, 2008.

Filed August 29, 2008.

Venetia K. Carpenter-Asui, V.K. Carpenter-Asui, LC, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas A. Helper, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Samuel P. King, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-00724-SPK.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.


Darin Lagronio challenges the district court's dismissal of his Title VII retaliation action against the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). We affirm.

Lagronio claims that AAFES issued him a 14-day suspension order in retaliation for Lagronio's filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Because Lagronio failed to show a causal link between filing the EEOC complaint and the 14-day suspension order, he failed to raise a triable issue of material fact that AAFES's actions were retaliatory in violation of Title VII. See Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007). Lagronio's theory that Neddo issued the suspension order in retaliation for Lagronio's EEOC complaint is not supported by the record, because there is no evidence that Neddo was responsible for issuing the suspension order. Nor does Lagronio argue that Neddo's retaliatory animus can be imputed to the actual decisionmaker. See Poland v. Chertoff 494 F.3d 1174, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, no inference of causation arises due to the proximity of the EEOC filing and the issuance of the suspension order because more than a year passed between these two events. See Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1035 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792, 802 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, Lagronio has also failed to raise a triable issue of material fact that AAFES's reasons for issuing the suspension order (Lagronio's insubordination and inappropriate comments) were pretextual. Lagronio adduced no evidence that his conduct was not punishable under AAFES policy or that a 14-day suspension was unusually long in context. Although Lagronio argues his conduct during his interaction with Vinson and Cretzinger did not warrant a 14-day suspension, the suspension order itself indicates the suspension was based on Lagronio's conduct the day after that incident.

Because Lagronio does not develop his arguments with respect to the other claims dis missed by the district court, we deem those claims to be abandoned. See United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 1089 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2007); see also FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Lagronio v. Gates

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 29, 2008
317 F. App'x 613 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Lagronio v. Gates

Case Details

Full title:Darin D. LAGRONIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert M. GATES , Secretary…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 29, 2008

Citations

317 F. App'x 613 (9th Cir. 2008)