Dukes v. Comparion Insurance Agency, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCUS DUKES, No. 25-1445 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01254-JAT Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* COMPARION INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, improperly identified as Liberty Mutual Auto and Home Services LLC in district court, Defendant - Appellee, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC., Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2026** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Marcus Dukes appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging hiring discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Caldrone v. Circle K Stores Inc., 156 F.4th 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2025). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dukes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not hiring Dukes was pretextual. See Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying burden- shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) to ADEA claims); Cotton v. City of Alameda, 812 F.2d 1245, 1247-48 (9th Cir. 1987) (listing the elements of a prima facie failure-to-hire claim under the ADEA).

The motion (Docket Entry No. 22) by Sarah K. Watt to withdraw as counsel is granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-1445