## Facts

- Retired Major League Baseball (MLB) players who played fewer than four years between 1947 and 1979 did not vest in MLB pension and medical benefits under then-existing eligibility rules.
- After 1981, MLB reduced vesting thresholds (medical benefits to one day; pension to 43 days) but did not apply those changes retroactively to pre-1980 retirees.
- MLB created a special medical and supplemental income program for former Negro League players, a group historically excluded from MLB employment by race before integration.
- A putative class action was brought largely by Caucasian former MLB players with short MLB service, alleging racial discrimination because they were excluded from the Negro League program.
- Plaintiffs also alleged MLB subjected them to a dangerous regimen of cortisone shots and other drugs without informed consent, constituting battery.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the commissioner of MLB and all MLB clubs on both the Title VII and battery claims.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs established a prima facie Title VII disparate-treatment claim by showing they were similarly situated to Negro League benefit recipients but treated differently because of race.
2. If a prima facie case existed, whether defendants showed a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the Negro League program and whether plaintiffs produced evidence of pretext.
3. Whether plaintiffs produced evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment on a state-law battery claim based on allegedly nonconsensual drug injections or treatments.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on both claims.
- Plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of race discrimination under Title VII because they were not similarly situated to former Negro League players.
- Alternatively, defendants established a legitimate, non-discriminatory remedial reason for providing benefits to former Negro League players, and plaintiffs failed to show pretext.
- Plaintiffs failed to offer evidence sufficient to create a triable issue that defendants committed battery.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII disparate-treatment plaintiff must identify appropriate comparators and show the favored group is similarly situated in relevant respects, apart from the protected characteristic.
- A remedial, historically grounded benefit program directed at individuals previously excluded from employment opportunities may constitute a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason under the McDonnell Douglas framework.
- At summary judgment, a plaintiff must produce specific, admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute on each essential element; generalized allegations about unfairness or industry practices are insufficient.
- Battery requires evidence of an intentional harmful or offensive touching without consent attributable to the defendant under applicable agency or responsibility principles.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that short-tenure former MLB players could not use Title VII to demand inclusion in a remedial benefits program for former Negro League players because the groups were not similarly situated, and it also upheld dismissal of the battery claim for lack of evidence tying defendants to nonconsensual medical touching.


Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2006)