
    Marshall JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lockheed MARTIN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-16808.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 31, 2014.
    Horace Wade Green, Esquire, Green & Humbert, San Francisco, CA, Peter N. Lamberto, Esquire, Lamberto & Kreger, LLP, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael William Foster, Erin Winters, Foster Employment Law, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marshall Johnson appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging racial discrimination in violation of federal and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s racial discrimination claims under Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his layoff were pretextual. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640-42 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2003) (discussing elements of a discrimination claim under Title VII and explaining that circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial); see also Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 941 (9th Cir.2007) (“California courts apply the Title VII framework to claims brought under FEHA.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy because Johnson failed to raise a triable dispute as to his racial discrimination claim. See Sanders v. Ameson Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming summary judgment on public policy claim based on anti-discrimination law where plaintiff failed to a raise triable dispute as to discrimination claim).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     