Anthony Robinson v. County of San Joaquin, 693 F. App'x 653

Anthony W. Robinson, proceeding pro se, sued the County of San Joaquin under Title VII for race discrimination and retaliation arising from a 2009 unsatisfactory performance review and a subsequent layoff.
The district court granted summary judgment for the County on both claims; Robinson appealed. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews summary judgment de novo.
The County defended the layoff as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reduction in force and defended the performance review as based on performance expectations.
Robinson alleged the 2009 review and layoff were adverse actions motivated by retaliation and racial discrimination, and pointed to disputed facts about communicated expectations and comparators.
Robinson failed to timely object below to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive orders (motion to compel and appointment of counsel), so those issues were forfeited on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Robinson proved retaliation linked to the 2009 review or layoff	Robinson contends his protected activity caused the adverse actions	County asserts no causal link and legitimate reasons for review and layoff	Affirmed: Robinson failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact on causation for retaliation
Whether the layoff was discriminatory	Robinson argues layoff was pretext for race discrimination	County argues layoff was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory RIF	Affirmed: Robinson did not raise genuine dispute that County’s reasons for layoff were pretextual
Whether the 2009 unsatisfactory performance review was an adverse employment action for discrimination purposes	Robinson argues the undeserved review was discriminatory and supports a discrimination claim	County argues review was based on legitimate performance expectations	Vacated-in-part and remanded: triable issues exist on prima facie case and pretext for the 2009 review
Whether Robinson may appeal magistrate judge rulings on privilege and counsel appointment	Robinson contends the magistrate erred and those issues should be considered	County notes Robinson failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge	Not considered: issues forfeited for lack of timely objections to magistrate judge’s orders

Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1987) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment and retaliation prima facie elements)
Vasquez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2004) (framework for Title VII discrimination analysis)
Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2000) (undeserved performance ratings can be adverse employment actions)
Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 1996) (forfeiture of appellate review for failure to timely object to magistrate nondispositive orders)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues not raised distinctly in opening brief are not considered on appeal)