Menchu v. Multnomah County Health Department

Holding: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff on his employment discrimination and retaliation claims due to a failure to raise genuine disputes of material fact and lack of standing for third-party claims.
Standard: de novo review; burden shifting framework for discrimination and retaliation claims
Vote: The panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument.
Practical effect: The decision reinforces the requirement for plaintiffs to raise specific claims before summary judgment and clarifies that individuals cannot assert Title VI claims on behalf of third parties in employment contexts.

Menchu v. Multnomah County Health Department

May 13, 2026 ·24-5902 ·Unpublished · By Aisha Johnson

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in an employment discrimination case brought by a pro se plaintiff. The appellate panel held that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding adverse employment actions or standing to sue on behalf of third parties.

Background

Jerry Alexander Menchu appealed pro se from a district court’s summary judgment in his employment action. He alleged violations of Title VI, Title VII, Section 1981, and Oregon state law against the Multnomah County Health Department.

The court’s reasoning

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Menchu failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the defendant took adverse employment actions based on race or national origin rather than nondiscriminatory reasons. This failure applied to claims under Title VII, Section 1981, and state law. Regarding retaliation claims, the court found the same lack of genuine dispute. On the Title VI claim, the court noted Menchu failed to show discrimination and could not bring a claim on behalf of patients in the defendant’s clinics. Finally, the court declined to consider a Section 1985 claim because it was raised for the first time in the opposition to summary judgment without leave to amend.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the requirement for plaintiffs to raise specific claims before summary judgment and clarifies that individuals cannot assert Title VI claims on behalf of third parties in employment contexts.