Ninth Circuit upholds dismissal of a job applicant's Title VII retaliation claim, finding he lacked…
Hale v. State of Nevada
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
Ninth Circuit upholds dismissal of a job applicant's Title VII retaliation claim, finding he lacked the required library experience regardless of his prior lawsuit.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the College of Southern Nevada in a Title VII retaliation case brought by Dr. Melvin Hale. Dr. Hale claimed CSN refused to hire him as an eLearning Librarian because he had previously sued a different employer under Title VII, but the court found he failed to show he was even qualified for the job. Because the evidence showed he lacked substantial, professional library experience required by the posting, he could not establish a basic retaliation claim.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects job applicants who bring Title VII retaliation claims in the Ninth Circuit, particularly those who must show they were qualified for a position before a court will consider whether retaliation was the true reason for rejection. It also affects employers in the circuit defending against such claims at the summary judgment stage.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Dr. Melvin Hale applied for an eLearning Librarian position at the College of Southern Nevada. After not being hired, he filed a complaint with the EEOC and then sued CSN, claiming it rejected him in retaliation for a prior Title VII lawsuit he had brought against his previous employer, Emporia State University. The district court granted summary judgment to CSN without holding oral argument, and Dr. Hale appealed on two grounds: that the denial of oral argument was an abuse of discretion, and that the district court was wrong to conclude he failed to establish a basic retaliation case. On the oral argument issue, the Ninth Circuit held that denying oral argument is not reversible error unless the party can show actual prejudice, meaning they lacked an adequate opportunity to present evidence and legal arguments in writing. Dr. Hale argued that oral argument would have let him highlight certain evidence not included in his written filings, but the court noted he never argued that he lacked the opportunity to include that evidence in his written opposition. Without a showing of prejudice, there was no reversible error. On the retaliation claim, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, which requires a plaintiff to first establish a basic prima facie case. In a failure-to-hire retaliation context, the plaintiff must show he engaged in protected activity, that he did not get the job, and that the reason he did not get the job was because of that protected activity. The court focused on whether Dr. Hale could show he was qualified for the position, since that is a necessary foundation for the causal link. The job posting listed experience working in a library setting as a required qualification. Dr. Hale pointed to over 1,000 hours teaching library science as an assistant professor, but that work ended more than five years before his application. His only direct library work experience was a one-year undergraduate internship in the 1970s. The court found it implausible that this background satisfied a clear requirement for library experience, calling neither the dated teaching role nor the decades-old internship substantial or professional experience working in a library. Because the evidence indicated Dr. Hale was not hired due to lack of qualifications rather than retaliation, he could not establish a prima facie case, and summary judgment was appropriate. The panel was unanimous and the disposition is marked not for publication, meaning it does not set binding precedent beyond the specific rules permitting its citation.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELVIN HALE, No. 24-5133 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:22-cv-01321-CDS-EJY v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. Board of Regents for the Nevada System of Higher Education on behalf of The College of Southern Nevada, a State of Nevada entity; COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, Defendants - Appellees, and NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Cristina D. Silva, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 9, 2026** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Dr. Melvin Hale applied for a position as an eLearning Librarian at the College of Southern Nevada (“CSN”). When CSN informed him that he was not hired, Dr. Hale filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Dr. Hale filed suit against CSN. Dr. Hale alleged that CSN violated Title VII by denying his application in retaliation for his prior Title VII suit against Emporia State University, his previous employer. CSN moved for summary judgment and requested oral argument on its motion. Dr. Hale opposed the motion but did not request oral argument. The district court granted CSN’s motion for summary judgment without hearing oral argument. Dr. Hale appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying oral argument and that it erred in concluding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 1. A “district court’s failure to grant an oral hearing on a motion for summary judgment does not constitute reversible error in the absence of prejudice.” Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Fernhoff v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 803 F.2d 979, 983 (9th Cir. 1986)). And 2 24-5133 “there is no prejudice” when the party seeking oral argument had “an adequate opportunity to provide the trial court with evidence and a memorandum of law.” Id. (quoting Lake at Las Vegas Invs. Grp., Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991)). Dr. Hale argues oral argument was warranted because “several relevant pieces of evidence in the record, while not included in the opposition brief or the separate statement of disputed facts, could have been highlighted for the first time during oral argument.” But he nowhere argues on appeal that he did not have “an adequate opportunity” to discuss any of this evidence in his opposition brief or statement of disputed facts. Thus, he has not shown the required prejudice, and so we cannot find that the district court’s denial of oral argument constituted reversible error. Partridge, 141 F.3d at 926. 2. We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, and “[v]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, we consider whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law.” Vericool World, LLC v. Igloo Prods. Corp., 175 F.4th 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 2026). Title VII retaliation claims are subject to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)). At step one of the burden-shifting framework, Dr. Hale bore the burden to introduce evidence establishing a prima facie claim of discrimination. 3 24-5133 Id. When Title VII “retaliation claims aris[e] in the failure-to-hire context . . . the plaintiff meets h[is] prima facie burden by showing that 1) []he engaged in protected activities, 2) the position was eliminated as to h[im], and 3) the position was eliminated as to h[im] because of the protected activities.” Ruggles v. Cal. Polytechnic State Univ., 797 F.2d 782, 786 (9th Cir. 1986). A position is “eliminated as to” a plaintiff if the employer “clos[es] . . . the position or . . . hir[es] . . . someone else.” Id. And a plaintiff meets his burden of showing a position was eliminated because of the protected activities only upon “showing that but for h[is]” protected activity the “position would not have been closed,” i.e., he did not get the job because of his protected activities. Id. at 786–87. A “failure to allege ‘specific facts’ sufficient to establish the existence of a prima facie case renders a grant of summary judgment appropriate.” Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1987). Even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to him, Dr. Hale has not shown that he did not get the job at CSN because of his prior lawsuit against Emporia. Namely, Dr. Hale has not introduced sufficient evidence to show that he was qualified for the position. The job posting listed “[e]xperience working in a library setting” as a “Required Qualification[].” Dr. Hale claims that he has the requisite experience because he has performed “over 1,000 hours of teaching library science as an Assistant Professor.” But that two-year teaching experience 4 24-5133 ended more than five years prior to Dr. Hale’s application. His only experience working as a librarian—as opposed to working as an assistant library science professor—was for one year during his undergraduate studies in the 1970s as an intern. Accordingly, CSN argues, and the district court concluded, that Dr. Hale did not show that he had “recent, substantial, and professional reference library experience.” Dr. Hale responds that those particular adjectives did not appear in the job description. Construing the evidence and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to Dr. Hale, he is correct that the job description did not require reference library experience, and it is not at all clear that the eLearning Librarian job was primarily a reference librarian position. But it is implausible that an explicit requirement of “[e]xperience working in a library” is not a requirement of substantial and professional experience working in a library. Dr. Hale introduced no evidence to show that his two-year, 1000-hour stint as an assistant professor teaching future librarians five years before his application to CSN amounted to substantial, professional experience working in a library. Nor was his one-year college internship working in a library five decades ago substantial, professional experience working in a library. Because the evidence shows that Dr. Hale was 5 24-5133 not hired for the job because of his lack of qualifications, he cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation. AFFIRMED. 6
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.