Pushpinder Walia v. John Potter , 594 F. App'x 400 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PUSHPINDER WALIA, No. 13-35144
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01188-JLR
v.
MEMORANDUM**
MEGAN J. BRENNAN,* Postmaster
General; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015***
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Pushpinder Walia appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in her employment action alleging violations of Title VII. We have jurisdiction
*
Megan J. Brennan has been substituted for her predecessor, John E.
Potter, as Postmaster General under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615
F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walia’s race and
national origin discrimination claims because Walia failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for their actions were pretextual. See id. at 1155-56, 1158 (providing
framework for analyzing a discrimination claim under Title VII and noting that
evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walia’s hostile
work environment claims because Walia failed to raise a triable dispute as to
whether she was subjected to conduct that was motivated by her race or national
origin, or for engaging in a protected activity, and also failed to raise a triable issue
as to whether defendants’ conduct altered the conditions of her employment and
created an abusive work environment. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349
F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of a race-based hostile work environment
claim); Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2000) (requirements
for retaliatory harassment under Title VII).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walia’s retaliation
claim because Walia failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendants’
2 13-35144
legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for terminating her probationary employment
were pretextual. See Ray, 217 F.3d at 1240 (elements of a retaliation claim under
Title VII); Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir.
2004) (circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-35144