Susanna Montante v. Anthony Foxx , 653 F. App'x 507 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUSANNA MONTANTE, No. 14-55340
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:13-cv-00384-GAF-PJW
v.
ANTHONY FOXX, Secretary of MEMORANDUM*
Transportation (Federal Aviation
Administration),
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Susanna Montante appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her employment action alleging retaliation and related constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
*
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).
Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome Estates, 116 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 1997), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee
on Montante’s Title VII retaliation claim because Montante failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s asserted non-retaliatory
reason for not rehiring her in 2007 was pretextual. See Ray v. Henderson, 217
F.3d 1234, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim
under Title VII); see also Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856, 865 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[The] plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of showing defendant’s stated reasons to
be merely pretextual, once defendant has given legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds
for its actions.”).
The district court properly dismissed Montante’s claim that she was forced
to retire in 2004 in violation of the First Amendment because the Civil Service
Reform Act is the sole remedy for constitutional claims arising from federal
employment. See David v. United States, 820 F.2d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 1987)
(holding the CSRA offered sufficient “meaningful remedies” to preclude a federal
employee from pursuing a First Amendment claim).
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-55340