Marinello v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
Marinello v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Rosario Marinello appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Learned v. City of Bellevue, 860 F.2d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Marinello failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he engaged in protected activity, and whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision not to hire Marinello as a correctional counsel- or were a pretext for retaliation. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Learned, 860 F.2d at 932 (underlying discrimination must be reasonably perceived as prohibited by Title VII to constitute protected activity).
*584 Marinello’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.