Iacob v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
703 F. App'x 550
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Filip C. Iacob, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s summary judgment against him in an employment suit asserting federal Title VII (racial discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment) and Nevada state-law claims (negligent hiring/supervision/retention; intentional infliction of emotional distress).
- The Ninth Circuit exercised appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
- The district court concluded Iacob failed to show that his employer’s stated, legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons were pretextual, and therefore granted summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims.
- The court held Iacob’s hostile-work-environment claim failed because the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive under Title VII standards.
- The Nevada negligent hiring/supervision/retention claims were dismissed because the employer was shielded by discretionary immunity under Nevada law; the IIED claim failed because the conduct was not extreme/outrageous nor did Iacob show severe emotional distress.
- The panel did not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised in Iacob’s opening brief and affirmed the district court’s judgment; the opinion is unpublished per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination & Retaliation under Title VII | Iacob alleged racial discrimination and retaliation by employer | Employer offered legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions | Affirmed — Iacob failed to raise a genuine dispute that employer's reasons were pretextual |
| Hostile Work Environment (Title VII) | Workplace conduct created a hostile environment | Employer argued alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive enough | Affirmed — conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive |
| Negligent Hiring/Supervision/Retention (Nevada law) | Employer negligently hired/supervised/retained employees who caused harm | Employer asserted discretionary immunity under Nevada law | Affirmed — employer immune under Nevada discretionary-immunity doctrine |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Nevada law) | Employer engaged in extreme/outrageous conduct causing severe distress | Employer denied conduct met extreme/outrageous threshold and severe distress element | Affirmed — Iacob failed to show extreme/outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of de novo review cited)
- Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (prima facie and pretext standards for discrimination and retaliation claims)
- Manatt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 339 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements for hostile work environment claim)
- Vickers v. United States, 228 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2000) (hiring, training, and supervision decisions typically involve policy judgments insulated by discretionary immunity)
- Martinez v. Maruszczak, 168 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2007) (Nevada discretionary-immunity framework and adoption of federal test)
- Nelson v. City of Las Vegas, 665 P.2d 1141 (Nev. 1983) (elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Nevada law)
- Apeceche v. White Pine County, 615 P.2d 975 (Nev. 1980) (Nevada discrimination statute analyzed under federal anti-discrimination law)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (court will not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised in opening brief)