Maxwell v. City & County of San Francisco

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANASTASIA MAXWELL, No. 09-15720
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:07-cv-05598-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 14, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge and
MARTINEZ, District Judge.**
Plaintiff has not shown that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
defendant has offered for any actions it took against her are a pretext for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
page 2
discrimination. See, e.g., Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1105–07
(9th Cir. 2008); Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 269–71 (9th Cir.
1996). Nor has plaintiff shown that defendant took an adverse action against her
because she engaged in protected activity. See, e.g., Surrell, 518 F.3d at 1107–08.
And, none of the conduct plaintiff alleges occurred was sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive work
environment. See, e.g., Manatt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 339 F.3d 792, 798, 800–01
(9th Cir. 2003); Kortan v. Cal. Youth Auth., 217 F.3d 1104, 1110–11 (9th Cir.
2000).
AFFIRMED.