Sheila Gianelli v. Home Depot, Inc. , 694 F. App'x 538 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHEILA LYNN GIANELLI, No. 16-16512
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HOME DEPOT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Sheila Lynn Gianelli appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her employment action alleging violations of Title VII and the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Zetwick v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d
*
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).
436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gianelli’s sex
discrimination claims because Gianelli failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its
adverse actions were pretextual. See Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217,
1219-22 (9th Cir. 1998) (providing framework for analyzing discrimination claims
under Title VII and FEHA, setting forth elements of such claims, and noting that
circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gianelli’s hostile
work environment claims because Gianelli failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the alleged sexual harassment was sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. See Zetwick, 850 F.3d at 442
(elements of a hostile work environment claim under Title VII); Lyle v. Warner
Bros. Television Prods., 132 P.3d 211, 220 (Cal. 2006) (elements of a hostile work
environment claim under FEHA); see also Ariz. ex rel. Horne v. Geo Grp., Inc.,
816 F.3d 1189, 1206 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing examples of conduct that create a
triable dispute at summary judgment for hostile work environment claims).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gianelli’s
2 16-16512
retaliation claims because Gianelli failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its adverse actions
were pretextual. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d
1276, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001) (providing framework for analyzing retaliation claims
under Title VII and FEHA and setting forth elements of such claims).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gianelli’s motion
for reconsideration because Gianelli failed to establish grounds for such relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16512