Matthews v. City of Tempe
23-2976
| 9th Cir. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Dustin Matthews filed an employment lawsuit alleging discrimination, retaliation, First Amendment violations, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under both federal and state law.
- Matthews proceeded pro se in the litigation.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims.
- Matthews appealed the district court's decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The appeals court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court's rulings on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination (Title VII/Equal Prot.) | Treated less favorably than similarly situated peers | No favorable treatment of similarly situated | No genuine dispute; summary judgment upheld |
| Title VII Retaliation | Defendants' reasons for actions were pretextual | Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons given | No specific, substantial evidence of pretext |
| First Amendment Retaliation | Engaged in protected speech | Speech not protected under the First Amend. | No protected speech shown; claim dismissed |
| Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress | Suffered emotional distress and/or physical harm | Plaintiff suffered no physical/mental injury | No evidence of injury; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (sets elements for Title VII discrimination)
- Ballou v. McElvain, 29 F.4th 413 (9th Cir. 2022) (sets elements under Equal Protection Clause)
- Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003) (defines similarly situated employees/retaliation pretext standard)
- Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2003) (defines protected speech under First Amendment)
- Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554 (9th Cir. 2009) (explains summary judgment standards for notice on claims)