Amy Peterson v. Washoe County , 438 F. App'x 633 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMY PETERSON, No. 10-16168
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00581-PMP-
RAM
v.
WASHOE COUNTY, DBA Washoe MEMORANDUM *
County District Attorney’s Office; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 13, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and HAYES, District
Judge.**
Amy Peterson appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of Washoe County on her Title VII hostile work environment and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge for the
District of Southern California, sitting by designation.
retaliation claims. The facts are known to the parties and will not be repeated here
except to the extent necessary.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the hostile work
environment claim. Peterson failed to raise a triable issue as to whether she was
subjected to conduct that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and
conditions of her employment and to create an abusive work environment. See
Kortan v. Cal. Youth Auth., 217 F.3d 1104, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2000).
The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Peterson’s
retaliation claims. Even assuming, arguendo, that Peterson’s transfer to the fourth
floor was an adverse employment action, she failed to show that she had engaged
in any protected activity that was linked causally to her transfer. See Clark Cnty.
Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 270–71 (2001) (per curiam). Although
Peterson’s termination was an adverse employment action, and she had engaged in
protected activity by filing a discrimination charge, she failed to present sufficient
evidence of a causal link between these two events. See id. at 273. Nor did
Peterson raise “specific and substantial” evidence of pretext. Munoz v. Mabus, 630
F.3d 856, 865–66 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d
1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998)).
AFFIRMED.
2