Gregg Conitz v. Teck Alaska Incorporated
433 F. App'x 580
9th Cir.2011Background
- Teck Alaska policy gives preference to NANA shareholders when two or more equally qualified candidates seek promotion; if one candidate is a NANA shareholder, that shareholder status is used as a tie-breaker.
- Policy purports to favor shareholders rather than Alaska Natives and is not facially discriminatory.
- Conitz appeals after district court granted summary judgment for Teck and NANA on his Title VII discrimination claim.
- The court held Teck’s policy is not facially discriminatory and Conitz must prove a McDonnell Douglas prima facie case.
- Conitz failed to show a triable issue because the record evidence (aside from his self-serving statements) indicated he was not qualified for the promoted position.
- The district court denied Conitz’s discovery request, treating his injunction motion as summary judgment; the district court did not abuse its discretion.
- The court declined to address whether Teck’s policy constitutes racial discrimination because Conitz did not demonstrate how the policy affected him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Teck’s shareholder preference policy is unlawful Title VII discrimination | Conitz argues policy favors shareholders and may affect him | Policy applies equally and is not facially discriminatory | Policy not facially discriminatory; cannot proceed without prima facie proof |
| Whether Conitz satisfied the McDonnell Douglas prima facie elements | Conitz was qualified and discriminated against | Evidence shows he was not qualified; precludes discrimination finding | Conitz failed to satisfy prima facie; judgment for Teck and NANA affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying further discovery | More discovery could show qualifications and discrimination | Court properly denied additional discovery given procedural posture | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether the court should address potential racial discrimination in Teck’s policy | Policy may discriminate on race if it affects him | Need showing of impact on Conitz before ruling | Court declined to reach merits of racial discrimination claim |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (established the prima facie framework for Title VII discrimination when no direct evidence)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1985) (recognizes McDonnell Douglas framework where no direct evidence exists)
- Bonilla v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 697 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1982) (applies McDonnell Douglas test to shareholder-preference policy)
- Anthoine v. N. Cent. Counties Consortium, 605 F.3d 740 (9th Cir. 2010) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to Title VII cases)
- Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (requires corroboration; uncorroborated self-serving statements insufficient)