Kimberley Bradley v. Ariz. Dept of Econ. Security ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIMBERLEY ANN BRADLEY, No. 18-16511
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00349-DJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee,
v.
KELLY SERVICES, INC.,
Third-party-defendant-
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Kimberley Ann Bradley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her employment action alleging violations of Title VII and the Equal
Pay Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bradley’s claims
alleging a discriminatory pay differential because Bradley failed to establish a
prima facie case of discrimination. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281
F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth prima facie case of discrimination
under Title VII); Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1073-74 (9th Cir.
1999) (setting forth prima facie case for an Equal Pay Act violation; plaintiff must
show that the jobs in question are substantially equal).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bradley’s
retaliation claims because Bradley failed to demonstrate a causal link between her
protected activity and the adverse employment decision. See Villiarimo, 281 F.3d
at 1064 (setting forth prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII); Lambert v.
Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1002-03, 1008 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth prima facie
case of retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)).
We reject as without merit Bradley’s contentions that the district judge
demonstrated partiality for defendants.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
2 18-16511
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Bradley’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 30) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-16511