Kelvin Banks v. Ryan McCarthy
699 F. App'x 639
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Five current or former Tripler Army Medical Center employees (Banks, Bevett, Doze-Guillory, Mundy, Wang) sued under Title VII alleging discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
- Defendants: Secretary of the Department of the Army (Secretary).
- District court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, concluding plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie Title VII claims.
- Plaintiffs appealed, raising three principal challenges: treaty preemption (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination), alleged triable issues of fact on discrimination/retaliation/hostile-work-environment, and the district court’s severance of Wanda Thomas’s claims.
- Ninth Circuit reviews summary judgment de novo and severance for abuse of discretion; it affirms the district court on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination preempts Title VII | Treaty obligations create a private judicial remedy that displaces Title VII | Treaty is non–self-executing and does not preempt Title VII; Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination | Treaty does not preempt Title VII; Ninth Circuit rejects plaintiffs’ preemption argument |
| Whether triable issues of fact exist showing discrimination, retaliation, or hostile work environment under Title VII | Plaintiffs contend factual disputes exist as to adverse actions and discriminatory/retaliatory conduct at Tripler | Secretary argues plaintiffs failed to make out prima facie Title VII claims and district court correctly granted summary judgment | No triable issues; plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie cases and did not meaningfully challenge Title VII standards on appeal (argument waived) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by severing Wanda Thomas’s claims | Thomas (or plaintiffs) argue severance was improper | Secretary: severance appropriate because Thomas’s alleged conduct falls outside the common time period and she was not part of the same medical staff | Severance affirmed; district court gave germane reasons and acted within its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2010) (Title VII is the exclusive judicial remedy for federal employment discrimination)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (non–self-executing treaties do not create private causes of action enforceable in federal courts)
- First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera, 860 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Reynaga v. Roseburg Forest Prods., 847 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 2017) (standards for proving discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII)
- Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court has discretion to sever parties/claims)
- Japanese Vill., LLC v. Fed. Transit Admin., 843 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2016) (issues not raised on appeal are waived)