
    Steven CABASA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Department of Environmental Services; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16597
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 16, 2018  Honolulu, Hawaii
    Filed February 21, 2018
    
      Charles Harry Brower, Esquire, Attorney, Charles H. Brower, AAL, ALC, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Curtis Edwin Sherwood, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Nicolette Winter, Corporation Counsel, City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steven Cabasa appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental Services (the City) on his claim that the City retaliated against him for protected conduct in violation of the Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Act (HWPA), Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-62. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

It is undisputed that a candidate for the Wastewater Pumping Operations Supervisor position must receive at least a 70% score on the promotional examination to be considered for the position and that Caba-sa received a 57.5% score on the examination. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the City would not have promoted Cabasa “regardless of the protected activity.” Crosby v. State Dep’t of Budget & Fin., 76 Haw. 332, 342, 876 P.2d 1300 (1994) (quoting NLRB v. Howard Elec. Co., 873 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 1989)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     