Clinton St. Classis Brown, II v. Dck Worldwide, LLC
703 F. App'x 551
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Clinton C. St. Classis Brown II, proceeding pro se, sued his employer asserting federal Title VII and Hawaii state-law claims (race/color discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistleblowing) following his termination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; Brown appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Brown alleged discriminatory treatment, use of racial slurs by others, harassment, retaliation for protected activity, and wrongful termination as a whistleblower.
- Defendants moved for and obtained pretrial orders limiting witness contact and a protective order; Brown challenged those orders as prejudicial.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and the discovery/protective-order rulings for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race/color discrimination | Brown says he was discriminated against and not meeting employer expectations was pretext | Employer says Brown failed to show he met expectations or that similarly situated non‑protected employees were treated better | Affirmed: Brown failed to raise a genuine dispute on performance or disparate treatment |
| Title VII harassment | Brown contends he was subject to harassing conduct (including racial slurs) | Employer says it was unaware of the alleged harassment before termination | Affirmed: No triable issue because employer lacked prior knowledge |
| Retaliation (Title VII & Hawaii law) | Brown asserts he engaged in protected activity and was terminated in retaliation | Employer contends Brown did not engage in protected activity before termination | Affirmed: No triable issue that Brown engaged in protected activity |
| Hawaii whistleblowing statute | Brown claims his actions were protected whistleblowing | Employer argues Brown’s conduct was not protected under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378‑62 during the relevant period | Affirmed: No triable issue that Brown engaged in protected whistleblowing |
| Discovery / protective orders | Brown claims the orders prejudiced his ability to litigate | Defendants maintain orders were appropriate and not prejudicial | Affirmed: District court did not abuse discretion; Brown showed no substantial prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment in employment cases)
- Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements of Title VII discrimination and retaliation prima facie cases)
- McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (statements by non‑decisionmakers insufficient alone to show discrimination)
- Swenson v. Potter, 271 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2001) (employer not liable for misconduct it did not know about)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing discovery denials and prejudice requirement)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate rule: issues not raised and argued in opening brief are not considered)
- Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 32 P.3d 52 (Haw. 2001) (Hawaii adoption of McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting for race discrimination)
- Lales v. Wholesale Motors Co., 328 P.3d 341 (Haw. 2014) (elements of retaliation claims under Hawaii law)