Opinion
No. 04-17504.
Submitted November 14, 2006.
Filed February 27, 2007.
Fania E. Davis, Esq., Moore Moore, Howard Moore, Jr., Esq., Oakland, CA, Darryl Parker, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jonathan D. Martin, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-1727-S1.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Even if Murillo's evidence was sufficient to meet his prima facie burden under McDonnell Douglas, the University established that the reasons it denied Murillo's tenure application — its well-documented concerns over his poor teaching evaluations and its reservations about the weight and quality of his academic work, and the resulting insufficient ratings under the CBA — were legitimate and non-discriminatory.
Nor did Murillo submit evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact as to pre-text.