Bonazza v. MUFG Bank, Ltd.

Background

Michael Alan Bonazza brought an employment-discrimination case against MUFG Bank, Ltd. The court identified his viable claims as race- and sex-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bonazza alleged that MUFG offered him only a temporary position because he was a white man, while many permanent employees were women and non-white.

Bonazza had previously worked for MUFG Union Bank, N.A., MUFG’s predecessor, from 2013 to 2017. In 2022, he applied for and accepted a temporary Financial Reporting Project Specialist position. The offer stated that the position would last from June 13, 2022, to October 13, 2023, subject to a possible extension by mutual agreement. Bonazza resigned after about three months to move back to Hawaii with his girlfriend. He did not apply for a permanent position and was not aware of one for which he could apply.

The court also stated that Bonazza’s theory had changed during the case between disparate treatment, disparate impact, and a possible contract theory. The court found that no breach-of-contract claim was pending because the operative complaint did not assert one. It also noted that Bonazza conceded there was nothing wrong with the contract.

The Motions

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. MUFG argued that Bonazza could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under either a disparate-treatment or disparate-impact theory. MUFG also argued that no contract theory supported recovering additional compensation for the work Bonazza performed.

Bonazza did not oppose MUFG’s motion. In his own motion, he argued that he was entitled to judgment on his disparate-treatment claim. He submitted, among other materials, LinkedIn pages for eight people who appeared to be women and/or non-white, employment records, communications, his temporary-position offer letter, articles about gender inequality, and a list of purported MUFG employee demographics. MUFG objected to the evidence as unauthenticated and argued that the motion lacked admissible evidence and legal authority.

Court’s Analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court applied this standard to Bonazza’s Title VII claims.

For disparate treatment, the court concluded that Bonazza identified no legally cognizable adverse employment action. An adverse employment action is one that materially affects compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The court found that Bonazza cited no authority establishing that hiring someone for a temporary position is an adverse employment action under Title VII, and the court found no such authority itself.

To the extent Bonazza claimed MUFG failed to hire him for a permanent position, the court found that he did not establish a prima facie case. He did not allege or provide evidence that Union Bank was hiring for a permanent position, and he acknowledged that he neither knew of such a position nor applied for one.

The court also rejected the disparate-impact theory. Construing Bonazza’s claim liberally, the court considered whether he was alleging a neutral policy or practice of hiring white men for temporary positions while reserving permanent positions for women and non-white people. The court found no evidence that such a policy or practice existed. Bonazza was unaware of any white man who applied for a permanent position and was rejected, and he provided no information about the race or gender of people who applied for temporary and permanent positions or the results of those applications. The LinkedIn pages and employee list also lacked reliable statistical context and therefore did not support an inference of disparate-impact discrimination.

Disposition

The court held that Bonazza had not made a prima facie case under either the disparate-treatment or disparate-impact theory. It granted Defendant’s summary-judgment motion, denied Bonazza’s summary-judgment motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of MUFG, and ordered the case closed.